Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain

[czinczar]

What is the challenge of using non-combat skills ? We all know what the challenge of a fight is, but I don't want those non-combat skills to be easy to use, one click capabilities. Maybe we can imagine some kind of mini-game for stealing, a mini-puzzle game, like the lockpicking interface in some other games ?

Please, not mini-games. If the skill of my character is high enough to deal with specific problem, then it's all that is needed. I assume my character is skillful enough to overcome any obstacles and can just open that damn lock or pickpocket that fat trader. Minigames are annoying, because in the end it's the skill of a player that matters and not the skill of character he created. It's perfectly fine to have skills working as "one-click", because it'll mean the PC is experienced enough to solve imposed problem and it should be entertaining and rewarding without the need of minigames.

Well, the stats of the character can easily be made essential to the mechanics of the minigame. And also, obsidian wants to separate the combat skills from the non-combat skills, so how do you imagine that you will gain enough XP in for example the pickpocket skill ? By one click actions ? It's boring, and there is no fun, no challenge. Anyway, the minigame what just an idea, but there has to be some kind of challenge, otherwise it's useless.

[czinczar]

What is the challenge of using non-combat skills ? We all know what the challenge of a fight is, but I don't want those non-combat skills to be easy to use, one click capabilities. Maybe we can imagine some kind of mini-game for stealing, a mini-puzzle game, like the lockpicking interface in some other games ?

 

If you fail to convince someone to not attack you. You get attacked. If you fail to pick a lock you might make a sound that attracts residents. If you fail to make a healing potion it might be poisonous and you wasted the materials. If you fail to disenchant a magic trap, it explodes.

 

I.e. you better succeed or you'll get ****ed over.

 

Yes, but that is just one click trial&error actions, where is the fun, the challenge ? And there is always the "load quicksave button".

[The Dark One Avoozl]

Yes, but that is just one click trial&error actions, where is the fun, the challenge ? And there is always the "load quicksave button".

 

?????????????

 

And battle isn't that? You try one tactic. It fails. Load quicksave. See? I can overgeneralize too.

[Dermi]

how do you imagine that you will gain enough XP in for example the pickpocket skill ?

I'm not imagining it yet, as we don't know specifics of how XP system will work :] So far Tim Cain has just said that they want to reward people for solving the problem and not for just killing things. Also, XP add to common pool, so I can use XP gained through other means to raise the pickpocket skill.

 

By one click actions ? It's boring, and there is no fun, no challenge.

Challenge is in attempt, not in process. It's challenging to try defuse trap and not knowing if my disarming traps skill is high enough to do the job, or will it blow in my face. I don't see a need for additional activities during disarming, it's just dragging the process.

[Rostere]

Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.

 

Ugh. This will remove everything that made games such as Fallout and Arcanum fun. If I want to make the game hard for myself and tag Speech, Barter and Gambling I should be able to do so. While I understand that this division is exactly in line with D&D (especially 4th ed. D&D), it is kind of limiting to your roleplaying options. My suggestion is that you limit tihe amount of point that you can put into combat skills and allow the players who want to go crazy on other stuff to do so.

[czinczar]

Yes, but that is just one click trial&error actions, where is the fun, the challenge ? And there is always the "load quicksave button".

 

?????????????

 

And battle isn't that? You try one tactic. It fails. Load quicksave. See? I can overgeneralize too.

Well, not really. There is fun and challenge in tactical combat, there is none in one click actions. And I have often reloaded a quicksave after a victorious tough battle, just because I wanted to master that particular battle and to be victorious without a scratch.

[czinczar]

how do you imagine that you will gain enough XP in for example the pickpocket skill ?

I'm not imagining it yet, as we don't know specifics of how XP system will work :] So far Tim Cain has just said that they want to reward people for solving the problem and not for just killing things. Also, XP add to common pool, so I can use XP gained through other means to raise the pickpocket skill.

Xp gained through other one click actions ?

[The Dark One Avoozl]

Yes, but that is just one click trial&error actions, where is the fun, the challenge ? And there is always the "load quicksave button".

 

?????????????

 

And battle isn't that? You try one tactic. It fails. Load quicksave. See? I can overgeneralize too.

Well, not really. There is fun and challenge in tactical combat, there is none in one click actions. And I have often reloaded a quicksave after a victorious tough battle, just because I wanted to master that particular battle and to be victorious without a scratch.

 

And I have fun trying to see what different dialogue options lead to while I despise combat in general. So I find myself reloading those dialogue points to try out different options. I also like testing out different material components when mixing potions when it's possible to do without recipies. I like sneaking through a guys house hoping that I'm silent enough so that I can search through everything and steal him blind. I like the non-certainity if my lockpick is high enough to get me through the next door or if I make a sound that will attract guards.

[Dermi]

Xp gained through other one click actions ?

Yes, but not only. Why is it so important to have series of click activities instead of one click activity? If the outcome ultimately depends on my ability to click instead of my character's skill, what's the point in having this skill whatsoever?

[wanderon]

A problem I have with previous games is where you only really need one companion to use each skill. If one of the first companions you run into will have a really high diplomacy score, there really is no reason for the PC to put any skillpoints on that skill. I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe make it so that other modifiers might sometimes reduce that companions score, (meeting someone who is racist against his race, other alignment or similar) making the PCs score useful.

 

Perhaps some of these will be skills that only the player character can initiate - for instance it may be that a companion may be able to pick a lock but perhaps not negotiate for the group -

 

In other words it may be that traveling companions are not going to be able to just stand in for the player character using their skill set instead of his in every situation thus not allowing the player to arbitrarily choose any companion to more or less be the player character of the moment.

 

Obviously I have no clue whether or not this is what is intended but I suspect it's a possibility.

 

In any event I am very pleased to hear that non-combat skills are going to rank right up there with combat skills overall.

[dan107]

The real question here will be what non-combat abilities you have to trade off against each other. It's all fine to say you want to kill, charm or intimidate when you want to but if everyone can do everything simply by choosing x,y and z then what re-playability will you get except through choosing a melee, ranged or magic character?

 

 

Umm.. How about the actual decisions that you get to make on the spot? When actually confronted with a situation, you don't get to choose X, Y, and Z, you choose X, Y or Z. You can't charm and kill someone at the same time, you just have those options available to you at the moment, not only once at character creation. Then if you want to try something different in another playthrough, you just pick a different option when it comes up.

 

Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.

 

Ugh. This will remove everything that made games such as Fallout and Arcanum fun. If I want to make the game hard for myself and tag Speech, Barter and Gambling I should be able to do so. While I understand that this division is exactly in line with D&D (especially 4th ed. D&D), it is kind of limiting to your roleplaying options. My suggestion is that you limit tihe amount of point that you can put into combat skills and allow the players who want to go crazy on other stuff to do so.

 

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

Edited September 23, 2012 by dan107

[Rostere]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

[cepukon]

It would be a nice touch to get varying amounts of exp for reading into lore or discovering relics etc.

Dragon Age did this well, you were rewarded for exploring and finding old monuments and reading plaques and books. The experience given wasn't a whole lot, but its nice to be rewarded for playing and exploring the game thoroughly.

[dan107]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

[Rostere]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

[Merin]

Great update. Obsidian seems to doing everything right, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[dan107]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

 

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

[Rostere]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

 

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

Because other characters of a comparable level will have the same amount of auxiliary skills, (and challenges appropriate for this level will require them) of course! I think you've missed the point. An auxiliary class is a class which excels in non- combat skills. This means, that such a class is better prepared for non- combat challenges than other characters of the corresponding level. Capisce?

[Olauron Mor-Galad]

Very good update. I have only one concern, the seperation of combat and non-combat skills will limit the range of available characters.

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

This character will have combat skill no matter what which is not always desired.

[Valorian]

I agree there should be some kind of trade-off.

 

Edited to add: If the advancement of those skills is limited by attributes.. that's fine.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Valorian

[tbotus]

I would really love to see non-combat abilities that seek out trouble.

 

Example:

 

A character could be a gallant knight, looking to stop bandits and increase their chances of meeting them on the road. This could possibly lead to higher notoriety in towns etc.

 

or

 

A character may want to seek out demons or whatever the equivalent is in Project Eternity (not sure if other planes are involved, but maybe that?) and the non-combat skills allow for deeper exploration of these areas to seek out a fight.

 

Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Merin]

I also think people should look at how different Fallout is from Arcanum is from Icewind Dale is from Vampire: The Maquerade - Bloodlines... there are different ways to do things.

 

If you are a fan of most / all those systems, have a littel faith in Obsidian to be designing something cool that will be fun.

[BronzeSphere]

Regarding lockpicking:

 

I feel a lot of games rely on a lockpicking system way too much as a way to put cheap hurdles in the player's way.

 

For PE, I would want it to be a restricted skill. Only characters with high DEX (or whatever stat is the closest to dexterity) should have access to it. In real life, if I'm not very good at doing precision work with my hands, I wouldn't be able to lockpick, period. I also feel that lockpicking skill progression should rely on experience as much as skill points. That is, you begin being only able to lockpick easy locks, and if you try a medium or difficult lock, you have a high chance of permanently locking yourself out of the chest (except if you find the key). You gain more and more experience, then you become able to lock medium locks quite safely. At the end, when you're very good at it, the chance of breaking a difficult lock could be reduced to 25%, so that there is always a risk.

 

Anyway, just some ideas.

 

Also, regarding mining:

 

I don't think it should be in the game, or if it is, it should be really carefully implanted. If my character is a warrior or a mage, he likely hasn't spent years in mines extracting minerals and ores, and that's what it takes to be able to mine something out of the ground. Plus, extracting is just the first step in the long chain that leads to having objects forged, so I feel like mining should be left to miners of the world of PE, not to adventurers who have so many other skills to hone. I don't think not having mining will restrict our experience of the game (but I guess that depends on the crafting system, in part).

[mars84]

Hi,

 

I'd just like to say that if you are going to include something like mining, please make it more exciting that swinging a pick.

 

Something like goblin or dwarven explosives would be cooler where you can rig explosive to a section of rock and then blow it up in order to obtain ore. This obviously also opens up the possibility of opening up new routes and sections in underground dungeons, you could even use it to damage enemies like Batman AA's explosive gel.

 

Oh and of course the noise from the explosion will attract patrols, but maybe that is a good thing if you have some traps waiting for them.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[dan107]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

 

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

Because other characters of a comparable level will have the same amount of auxiliary skills, (and challenges appropriate for this level will require them) of course! I think you've missed the point. An auxiliary class is a class which excels in non- combat skills. This means, that such a class is better prepared for non- combat challenges than other characters of the corresponding level. Capisce?

 

I'm sure that if you're so inclined, there will be a way to gimp your characters combat abilities to the point where they will be pretty bad at combat. What abilities other people's characters have shouldn't matter. It's a single player game.