Might is botched the same way as in PoE1

[Verde]

Bc Might has never ever been linked to magical damage? Or healing?!

 

Your opinion vs. my opinion so yes it's in the eye of the beholder.

[draego]

Bc Might has never ever been linked to magical damage? Or healing?!

 

This doesnt make since. There is only two Pillars games and both had Might this way. So where is this might has never been used coming from. I think you are trying to back rationalize the choices D&D made for instance and say well that is the correct or best way to do it. Neither way is correct. it just a game mechanic that each game choose to make. To me the reasons for doing it this way were clear to allow more roleplaying builds as opposed to dnd where if fighter you must have strength or if wizard you must have intelligence. And that was a more important goal than anyones imagined how is this done in real life. And i think as a game mechanic it worked and provided more roplaying options than dnd and therefore to me  is a better system. All appeals to real life stuff in this thread to me are irrelevant. This is a fantasy game and can make up any rules it wants. Its no less intuitive than wisdom supporting divine magic or intelligence supporting arcane magic in dnd. Those are not based on real life either since its also a fantasy game. 

 

I do agree they could have done the checks better like with athletics like others have mentioned but i would not change the whole system for that. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by draego

[thelee]

All appeals to real life stuff in this thread to me are irrelevant.

 

I agree. I think appeals to "realism" are ridiculous when it comes to game abstractions; these aren't life simulations we're trying to go for here. Whenever I see a "realism" argument it's almost always an ad-hoc rationalization of something someone likes or dislikes. So long as you aren't completely subverting basic definitions and concepts of reality (like having an "intelligence" stat that in actuality influences how much surface gravity there is in the world, except gravity is a repellant force instead of an attractive force, and also it only works at dusk... actually i would play that game), any game meets its necessary realism bar. The only thing that matters after that is: does it make for a fertile design space?

Edited February 13, 2019 by thelee

[xzar_monty]

 

All appeals to real life stuff in this thread to me are irrelevant.

 

I agree. I think appeals to "realism" are ridiculous when it comes to game abstractions; these aren't life simulations we're trying to go for here. Whenever I see a "realism" argument it's almost always an ad-hoc rationalization of something someone likes or dislikes. So long as you aren't completely subverting basic definitions and concepts of reality (like having an "intelligence" stat that in actuality influences how much surface gravity there is in the world, except gravity is a repellant force instead of an attractive force, and also it only works at dusk... actually i would play that game), any game meets its necessary realism bar. The only thing that matters after that is: does it make for a fertile design space?

 

 

This is a rather complicated question, and I suppose we can only draw lines and make distinctions upon a one-case-at-a-time basis; i.e. we cannot make any general rules. You're pretty much on the right track in what you write. Funnily enough, in June 1958, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote in a letter how important it was for his fantasy world that "leagues are leagues, days are days, and weather is weather". So the realism principle, so to speak, is often crucial to our ability to suspend disbelief.

 

Two examples where these games failed, in my view -- but I've come to accept both of these and only find them mildly annoying. Something I definitely wouldn't have done like that but I'm not losing my enjoyment over:

1) In PoE, you can carry absolutely everything else you come across and you'll never be even slightly burdened, but you can only carry 2 or 4 sets of camping supplies. This sucks.

2) In Deadfire, no matter how peacefully (i.e. dealing no material damage at all) you capture a ship, it just blinks out of existence. This also sucks.

[Boeroer]

What?! Genius and best?! Please. It's mediocre and one of the most unintuitive.

Please name CRPGs that have better ones and try to explain objectively why you think they are better. I'm not saying there aren't - I just don't know any that I would call genius or best.

 

PoE and Deadfire did a pretty good job when it comes to impact and balance of attributes.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Boeroer

[Jayd]

It's important to have a sober view on the realism vs. mechanics thing in gaming. I think people are too quick to accept an absolute ideology (departures from realism are always a failure/realism does not matter whatsoever) where the truth is both more complex and more straightforward: realism is good when it enhances the experience and bad where it hinders it. Sometimes it can do both at once and people will disagree on how pleasing the balance is. This is the case with Might.

 

Doing away with a good stat system because you don't have a realistic name for the omni-damage/healing stat would hinder the experience.

 

The flavour of the omni-damage/healing stat compromising a popular role-playing archetype also hinders the experience.

 

This is a genuine tension, and you can't really be "wrong" about how you feel about it. You can, however, be unreasonable.

[Boeroer]

Realism does not apply to things that can't be real and are completely made up. Like how magic, souls, cipher powers work for example.

 

It helps if parts of the game that originate in the real world (sword fights for example) are kept somewhat realistic. Because you as a player can immediately grasp how basic things might work.

 

But to argue with realism when it comes to the rules of magic or soulcraft is nonsense.

 

I mean... Chanters take lingering essence and form it into summons with the help of their songs. And while they sing their song they can totally cast a spell from a Grimoire. THey must have Mongolian Throat Singing. Say hello to my friend realism who just jumped out of the window... Nobody complained about that far-fetched explanation. And that's fine - because it's just some cool fantasy mechanic that sombody made up while she/he was brainstorming ideas for a computer game.

 

Some things like INT influencing Carnage AoE might seem weird. But Carnage is weird itself. It gets explained with soul stuff again because physically/realistically it doesn't make any sense in the first place.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Boeroer

[Verde]

 

Bc Might has never ever been linked to magical damage? Or healing?!

This doesnt make since. There is only two Pillars games and both had Might this way. So where is this might has never been used coming from. I think you are trying to back rationalize the choices D&D made for instance and say well that is the correct or best way to do it. Neither way is correct. it just a game mechanic that each game choose to make. To me the reasons for doing it this way were clear to allow more roleplaying builds as opposed to dnd where if fighter you must have strength or if wizard you must have intelligence. And that was a more important goal than anyones imagined how is this done in real life. And i think as a game mechanic it worked and provided more roplaying options than dnd and therefore to me is a better system. All appeals to real life stuff in this thread to me are irrelevant. This is a fantasy game and can make up any rules it wants. Its no less intuitive than wisdom supporting divine magic or intelligence supporting arcane magic in dnd. Those are not based on real life either since its also a fantasy game.

 

I do agree they could have done the checks better like with athletics like others have mentioned but i would not change the whole system for that.

I'm comparing to other RPGs. Can you name one other RPG where Might or Strength dictates spell damage and healing? Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[Jayd]

Realism does not apply to things that can't be real and are completely made up. Like how magic, souls, cipher powers work for example.

 

It helps if parts of the game that originate in the real world (sword fights for example) are kept somewhat realistic. Because you as a player can immediately grasp how basic things might work.

 

But to argue with realism when it comes to the rules of magic or soulcraft is nonsense.

 

I mean... Chanters take lingering essence and form it into summons with the help of their songs. And while they sing their song they can totally cast a spell from a Grimoire. THey must have Mongolian Throat Singing. Say hello to my friend realism who just jumped out of the window... Nobody complained about that far-fetched explanation. And that's fine - because it's just some cool fantasy mechanic that sombody made up while she/he was brainstorming ideas for a computer game.

 

Some things like INT influencing Carnage AoE might seem weird. But Carnage is weird itself. It gets explained with soul stuff again because physically/reslistically it doesn't make any sense in the first place.

But you just applied realism to something made up. Magical chants and functional grimoires are not real, but it is not hard to figure out what limitations they would have in reality if they were. Most of what we call realism in storytelling is simply consistency - because we can imagine all sorts of things to be real, but we cannot imagine logical contradictions to be.  We take the world that is explained to us in fantasy and imagine that it is real. Inconsistencies actually prevent us from doing so and are therefore a legitimate problem to the integrity of an experience that revolves around pretending we are acting in another world.

 

Going back to what I posted earlier, it's ok to violate this consistency (i.e. realism) when that helps the experience (e.g. nonsensical inventory spaces, chanting and reciting spells at the same time). But violating it can also interfere with people's ability play in the imaginary world earnestly.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Jayd

[Verde]

It's a fallacy to use the term objectively bc as humans we are subjective. Esp in something like this. How can you objectively say one system is better? Its opinions.

 

Also bending real life realism to semantics is also a fallacy. There are expectations in a game, even a fantasy one - I hit you with a weapon it does damage. I have brute strength it does more damage. Yet that same strength somehow dictates my spell damage and healing? Then why are there no Might checks for spells in adventure mode, only physical checks? Why MUST you be a brute strength caster if you want to increase your damage? It's confusing.

 

Lastly I like Dark Souls stat system the best but that's not a cRPG so will go with old DnD systems. I can't objectively tell you why one is better than the other just which one I prefer. Now one could prob argue how Sawyers systems arent genius but I dont care to spend all day on here

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

Can you name one other RPG where Might or Strength dictates spell damage and healing?

Just one? EZ: in Diablo 3, your class has a main stat, and that stat dictates everything you try to do with your abilities, whether that's intelligence, strength, or dexterity; barbarians and crusaders are tied to strength for everything. I'll throw in Dragon Age Inquisition for free, since it does something similar by tying classes to a main stat (warrior-types are bound to strength). I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't know how a mystical hammer or ancient summons or a beam of pure holy light would be literally dependent on your raw physical strength, it's a pure game mechanical convenience. And PoE/Deadfire is more flexible because then you're not bound to a class-specific mainstat that dictates damage (and PoE/Deadfire actually tries to provide an in-game explanation for this interaction with might, though it might not always be consistent in dialogue checks).

 

Also, "it hasn't been done elsewhere" isn't a good enough argument (otherwise you would literally never be able to do anything novel). If anything, more systems should do what poe/deadfire does, because it really opens up character builds.

 

also lolololol:

Lastly I like Dark Souls stat system the best

 

isn't this a game where intellect literally can influence weapon damage? Speaking of uncommon RPG interactions... but I guess introspection/consistency about one's own likes vs dislikes is not a big thing, huh?

Edited February 13, 2019 by thelee

[Verde]

Yet Strength only determines weapon dmg, healing, and spell dmg on two classes in D3, in Deadfire it's all classes. That's why it doesn't make sense.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

Yet Strength only determines weapon dmg, healing, and spell dmg on two classes in D3, in Deadfire it's all classes. That's why it doesn't make sense.

 

erm, actually i would say Deadfire it makes way more sense. From the logic you're using, I don't see why a monk (who literally punches demons to death) in D3 should have no reliance on strength whatsoever, or why their agility allows them to mystically create sigils on the ground that grants massive protection, but their intellect gives them zilcho. in contrast to deadfire, both D3 and DA:I have the flaw that their mainstat-ing system creates a lot of dead stats (before D3 revamped with loot 2.0 this was intentional so players would be forced to auction house and grind a lot for gear that actually worked for their class; god have mercy on your soul if you were a wizard who got an ultra-rare unique but it rolled with +strength on it instead of +intelligence).

Edited February 13, 2019 by thelee

[xzar_monty]

Btw, when it comes to might and realism, what I think rather seriously sucks is that might affects firearm damage (unless I'm very mistaken, for which I expect to be told off if that's the case). I mean, there's no universe where that's logical.

[Verde]

We will just have to agree to disagree. But your examples are relevant and I appreciate them. I played through all installments of DA and quite liked their stat system but kinda put the franchise out of my memory.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

Btw, when it comes to might and realism, what I think rather seriously sucks is that might affects firearm damage (unless I'm very mistaken, for which I expect to be told off if that's the case). I mean, there's no universe where that's logical.

 

this is just me spitballing (since i don't buy into realism arguments), but higher physical strength lets you deal with kickback and heavy weights. have like a 100-lb weakling fire a shotgun a few times, and then have like a 200-lb marine try the same thing. i think the marine will do a much better job at making sure the shotgun delivers.

Edited February 13, 2019 by thelee

[Verde]

Btw, when it comes to might and realism, what I think rather seriously sucks is that might affects firearm damage (unless I'm very mistaken, for which I expect to be told off if that's the case). I mean, there's no universe where that's logical.

Need Str to hold those primative, powerful guns I speak in jest but may be onto something.

 

Dark Souls did it the best honestly. Intuitive and amazing for number crunches. However that's an ARPG but I assume we are talking about combat here.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[Boeroer]

It's of course not 'logical' that guns do more damage because you have a bigger biceps or a stronger soul or whatever.

 

It's just so that making too many exceptions totally dissolves an otherwise solid ruleset. You start to add an exception for Carnage's AoE size - because "why INT"? Then you add one for reloading weapons. Then you make MIG have an effect on the attack speed of two handed weapon because it makes sense. And DEX + PER increase damage of Rapiers because that makes more sense... and suddenly your solid system is a puddle of mud.

 

I can live with some abstractions. And if the designers bother to explain them with special "soulcraft" - even better.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Boeroer

[Verde]

 

Can you name one other RPG where Might or Strength dictates spell damage and healing?

Just one? EZ: in Diablo 3, your class has a main stat, and that stat dictates everything you try to do with your abilities, whether that's intelligence, strength, or dexterity; barbarians and crusaders are tied to strength for everything. I'll throw in Dragon Age Inquisition for free, since it does something similar by tying classes to a main stat (warrior-types are bound to strength). I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't know how a mystical hammer or ancient summons or a beam of pure holy light would be literally dependent on your raw physical strength, it's a pure game mechanical convenience. And PoE/Deadfire is more flexible because then you're not bound to a class-specific mainstat that dictates damage (and PoE/Deadfire actually tries to provide an in-game explanation for this interaction with might, though it might not always be consistent in dialogue checks).

 

Also, "it hasn't been done elsewhere" isn't a good enough argument (otherwise you would literally never be able to do anything novel). If anything, more systems should do what poe/deadfire does, because it really opens up character builds.

 

also lolololol:

Lastly I like Dark Souls stat system the best

 

isn't this a game where intellect literally can influence weapon damage? Speaking of uncommon RPG interactions... but I guess introspection/consistency about one's own likes vs dislikes is not a big thing, huh?

 

You know it's funny, I initially read this when it didn't have the quip up, and thought I did a good job of "objectively" replying, and yet you felt the need to add the petty quip. When someone posts something you agree with, you're all hunky dory Dr. Thelee. But when someone doesn't, you flip out on them every so progressively. Take a chill pill, I'm not attacking your character or values, I just have a different opinion than you on Deadfire attributes.

 

Seeing as you never played Dark Souls based on your reply -  Intelligence affects Sorcery spells AND weapons with magic damage scaling, converted or innate. It allows Sorcerers to convert any normal weapon into a magic weapon, or utilize unique weapons which have either split of full magic scaling, including of the best weapons in the game, the Moonlight Greatsword. Dark Souls is also much more explicit in weapon scaling, where weapons can scale with Str, Dex, Int, or Faith on a scale of S (best) to D (worst).  It has the most intuitive stat system I've experienced.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

Seeing as you never played Dark Souls based on your reply 1) you have no argument to stand on 2) Intelligence affects Sorcery spells AND weapons coverted to magic damage. It allows Sorcerers to convert any normal weapon into a magic weapon, or utilize one of the best weapons in the game, the Moonlight Greatsword. Dark Souls is also much more explicit in weapon scaling, where weapons can scale with Str, Dex, Int, or Faith. 

 

you realize this is all rationalization, right? it completely undermines you argument of "hasn't been done elsewhere" (which is a bad argument anyway). intellect scaling on weapon damage (regardless of the in-game justification, which e.g. poe/deadfire provides a lot of for might) is a relatively uncommon mechanic (similarly, faith, which in most RPGs I've played that has some sort of analogue is a spell-scaling effect exclusively). I don't have a problem with it, but it is pretty conspicuously self-undermining your argument.

 

i also don't see how a game can be more more explicit than "this one stat will always increase damage from anywhere"...

Edited February 13, 2019 by thelee

[Verde]

You're just too blinded by your love of Deadfire that you will try to curve any argument to come back "Deadfire does it best".

 

I remember reading a review of PoE 1 and in one of the first paragraphs, the reviewer says that he had to re-roll again bc he didn't realize Might affected spell damage instead of Int. Yes, he's just one reviewer, but that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not intuitive. And you clearly disagree, but to act like Deadfire has a brilliant stat system is just ludicrous.

[xzar_monty]

Boeroer: Yep. I can also live with the lack of logic in the firearms / might question. Things would quite quickly deteriorate into chaos if everything was taken into account.

 

Btw, back in the day, late 80s / early 90s, there was a game called Dungeon Master where you could gain levels in fighter, ninja, priest and wizard. What was great about this system was that you didn't see your XP points and you were never explicitly told what kind of actions gave you points in what. The game was a great success, and I think the concept was superb. If somebody implemented that kind of thing these days, it might work much better because there are so many more possibilities with today's computers.

 

The thing I loved the most about this was that it made you concentrate on the game, rather than its mechanics, because you didn't see the mechanics. I know there are players who'd hate this, but I thought it was superb.

[Verde]

Boeroer: Yep. I can also live with the lack of logic in the firearms / might question. Things would quite quickly deteriorate into chaos if everything was taken into account.

 

Btw, back in the day, late 80s / early 90s, there was a game called Dungeon Master where you could gain levels in fighter, ninja, priest and wizard. What was great about this system was that you didn't see your XP points and you were never explicitly told what kind of actions gave you points in what. The game was a great success, and I think the concept was superb. If somebody implemented that kind of thing these days, it might work much better because there are so many more possibilities with today's computers.

 

The thing I loved the most about this was that it made you concentrate on the game, rather than its mechanics, because you didn't see the mechanics. I know there are players who'd hate this, but I thought it was superb.

 

Have you played with the Wael challenge? It might go a bit overboard but it's up the same alley.

[xzar_monty]

You're just too blinded by your love of Deadfire that you will try to curve any argument to come back "Deadfire does it best".

 

He's not doing that, though. You're getting personal and unpleasant again. It's not appreciated.

[xzar_monty]

Yeah, I noticed the Wael challenge but haven't tried it. Might [sic!] do one day.