Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio

[Rostere]

The mechanic is a reputation system. I LIKE reputation systems. However, they should not be the only mode of determining your speech choices. A rep system used in TANDEM with a skill system would be far more effective.

 

For example, lets say a game has 3 dialogue skills - sweet talk, mean talk and sly talk (for simplicity's sake). Lets use that in TANDEM with a rep system. There are 2 factions - A and B. So, you go and slaughter 2 groups of Faction A mercs. That gives you a bonus to your mean talk skill with them but the other two skills take a hit. Its easier to intimidate them but trying to reason with them is much harder now. Also, you have a bonus to all dialogue skill/choices in Faction B since they dislike Faction A. In this way, character development and game choice can both impact dialogue choice.

 

By just saying, ok, you have made these choices with this faction, therefore you have these dialogue choices - you are making the supposition that the character COULD use mean talk, sweet talk or sly talk if he was in good with said faction. Maybe Faction A LOVES you but you are a blithering idiot and should have no idea how to sweet talk them. Etc, etc, etc..

I find this idea appealing...

[Doppelschwert]

I disagree with this because stamina and health do not exist independantly. Any damage taken will affect both stamina and health at the same time. It doesnt matter if you are regerating stamina, whether by equipment, abilities, running in circles, etc..., because you are not regenerating health. You can be at full stamina and still die to a single blow if your health is low. If you didnt start losing health until your stamina was at zero than I would agree but the system as stated doesnt work like that and to me, this system seems like more micromanagement.

 

I get that, and I'm in favor of the possibility of your stamina having to drop a certain point before health is affected. And I understand what you mean about the "when you have low health" situation. But, as far as your ability to die is concerned, that's no different from being injured in a different game, in an area you cannot rest, and having run out of potions. The "health" bar in this system is still basically a limiter on how much of your stamina bar (in this case, about 400%) you can lose and replace before having to go out of your way to be able to do it some more.

 

Again, I do advocate the "health only drops below a certain stamina threshold" system and I think the ability to alter the ratio would be a good addition, as well. Not to mention the fact that the ratio might need to be tweaked as it stands, regardless of whether or not it can be changed in-game by anything the player does.

 

I just don't think the system itself is shattering any worlds here. It's just a different way of getting to that "Agh, I've actually got to go get some more supplies" point, and I'd agree that it does encourage the player to think about what they're doing in combat, instead of simply having everyone "ATTACK, ALL THE THINGS!". I also don't think we're looking at the final system details, here. I'm confident they'll figure it all out before launch.

 

I agree with lephys here, as he points out in this and his previous post what I've been hinting at before:

The stamina system is the old hitpoint system you already know while the health system is just a means to make you rest after some time but with the benefit of full healing inbetween fights, as stamina recovers. In the end, you have a more or less simple formula whether you want to rest before a fight or not:

If your health is below 25% of your maximal stamina, you may want to rest, as that means your character can die before he is knocked out, so its not that much of micromanagement being added, especially if the information is presented as bars.

Lets say you loose about half of your stamina on average in every battle as you're good prepared, so thats a total of 6 battles you can do before you have to rest and if you're daring, you can do more battle on a risk. That doesn't sound overly punishing. (You'd have to factor in some stamina healing during battles through clerics and the likes as well, but that will only change some numbers). Furthermore, if there are rests spot every 5 battles or so, health is not handicapping you at all while at the same time giving you a natural reason to rest some time and renew your abilities (which opens up interesting possibilites to set up encounters, as they can be better matched to your progress).

At the same time, this system equals melee classes and magic classes, as everyone has a reason to rest after some time.

 

So the real argument is about whether players should be forced to rest after some time or not.

 

However, I think as proposed before by others, that this system would benefit from the ability to influence the health damage by either being immune to it above a certain stamina threshold and by manipulating the ratio through various means, although I think this should be kept simplistic - imho, those things should be restricted to class abilities with low overall effect, spells with temporary effect and rare equipment which is not easily available. Its still a solid system without those things, but it has no tactical decisions involved then either. Its only logical that you would exchange health damage for stamina in a boss fight as that means you can longer fight without being knocked out while its beneficial to take more stamina damage in exchange for health during normal fights, so that you can last longer overall.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[Shevek]

Thanks Rostere.

 

I do not want to seem overly negative. Overall, I like alot of what I hear from the Obsidian devs. Sawyer has a real good handle on combat mechanics and his design there, I think, seems spot on. The two health pool thing is inspired. Similarly, art design is very very good. Everything looks both plausible and fantastical. It takes some skill to do that.

 

However, we haven't heard very much good stuff coming on the non-combat skill front. Personally, I was very excited about the possibilites here when I heard Tim Cain was focusing on this aspect of design. What they did at Troika with Bloodlines, for example, was epic. The rep system, when it was originally revealed seemed interesting and Cain, when he listed some of the skill types he was considering, mentioned speech skills. Now, what the heck happened? Divorcing character customization from speech and relagating speech skills to a "dustbin" just does not seem to be moving the cRPG forward. In many ways, this "anyone can do whatever" approach does not seem to jive very well with the notion of Project Eternity as a cRPG for the avid cRPG gamer. Moreover, the relevance of the speech system now seems highly suspect. It seems that in an effort to "balance" things, speech sounds like it is just a bit more than fluff text.

 

The essense of what a RPG is boils down to the customization of the character. You must be able to define what your character can and can't do. The more you can define the parameters by which your character functions or fails to do so, then the more robust the RPG system is. I want to define how my character interacts with those around him in a set way. I would like to define his eloquence, his gruffness, and his cunning (or complete lack thereof). This should not simply be defined by actions. It should be defined by numbers which dictates what my character can or can't do. I should actively select a set parameter that defines my success or failure in interpersonal interactions in the same way I select parameters for combat interactions. In this way, I can play an cunning fighter, a gruff wizard, an eloquent rogue, etc etc.

 

I would ask the devs to reconsider this. I recall that in the design for the Black Hound, for example, both the player and the NPCs were slated to have speech skills. Levelling both would be key in order to maintain party harmony.

 

Here is a lil something from the Black Hound wiki:

 

While the CNPC could never be used as the speaker character, it would be important to level up the CNPC's speech skills as the would, from time to time, interject in conversations or offer their opinions. The player needs to level up the CNPC's speech skills simply because if they don't, his whole party could get into a scrimmage with each other and some CNPC's could die in the process trying to contain the problem.

CNPC's would display behaviors like:

· Wild

· Hateful

· Idealistic

· Sentimental

· Unprofessional

· Loyal

 

When I heard this game was coming out, I was partly hoping they would continue to push the envelope here and move the genre forward with regard to speech skills. Now they are just tossing them in a dustbin? Damn, what happened?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Shevek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Divorcing character customization from speech and relagating speech skills to a "dustbin" just does not seem to be moving the cRPG forward. In many ways, this "anyone can do whatever" approach does not seem to jive very well with the notion of Project Eternity as a cRPG for the avid cRPG gamer. Moreover, the relevance of the speech system now seems highly suspect. It seems that in an effort to "balance" things, speech sounds like it is just a bit more than fluff text.

 

 

Speech options will be defined by your character's attributes, reputation, race, background etc. instead of having a skill sink which actually does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. I liked Alpha Protocol's speech system which encouraged you to analyze your opponent and actually think about what you'll say, instead of mashing the insta-win button marked [speech]. Similarly, while I bought the persuasion implant in Deus Ex Human Revolution, about halfway through the game I've found out it was a lot more rewarding to "win" the most important conversations by using my skill as a player rather than by pressing a button. Without the implant, these were the most intensive moments in the whole game; using it only reduced the tension, and took away from the experience.

 

So, my point is, having no speech skill but different options dependent on a multitude of factors actually encourages roleplay and immersion a lot more.

Edited December 9, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Michael_Galt]

You need to read what was actually written, not read between the lines. Sawyer said that it would still be affected by stats, but that he would rather there not be a "speech" skill. So that still means if you have a very low intelligence or wisdom or charisma, your speech options will suffer accordingly (or vice versa). If all 3 of these are high, that automatically means more speech options. But speech options aren't ONLY limited to being influenced by those "stats", but also your others (strength, dexterity, constitution, what have you). So if you are a really strong character, you will automatically get more "intimidate" options, as you are physically imposing. If you have a high dexterity, perhaps you can make some keen observation to a dancer or juggler or something like that, about how they are doing something, because you can figure it out, since you are also very dextrous. So you would still be limited to the strengths/weaknesses of your character design, the difference would be that you wouldn't have a specific skill that you would be able to use to address that.

 

I personally feel there needs to be a speech skill, that basically just amplifies the success probability of those pre-existing options and perhaps slightly embellishes them. So maybe having "mastery" in your speech ability gives the the equivalent of +2 to INT, CHR, and WIS for the purposes of speaking options. If those qualities are already maxed, it just makes it that much more likely those speech attempts will succeed (or maybe impossible for them to fail). Maybe being an "expert" gives the equivalent of +1 to them, with a smaller increase in you chance of success. If you did it this way, it would still have a significant impact, but not be an "insta-win". I believe this is what Arcanum, Torment, and F:NV did (or something very similar).

 

I think his intent is to keep it from being like either Dragon Age or Mass Effect, where you picked "intimidate" or "inspire" (or whatever they were called). I wish that their level system had 2 tiers: combat and non-combat. Depending on your class, you would get more in one or the other. If you picked a straight fighter, you wouldn't get as many points for the non-combat skills. If you went with a mage/cipher, you would get far more. As a mage, you could still have a few combat skills, but not enough to stand toe-to-toe with a fighter. As a fighter, you might be a good gambler, or speaker, or trader, or __, but you wouldn't really have any other abilities that weren't combat oriented (or you would have a variety, that aren't very refined). You keep the class system, but give a little more flexibility to character development.

[Shevek]

Speech options will be defined by your character's attributes, reputation, race, background etc. instead of having a skill sink which actually does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. I liked Alpha Protocol's speech system which encouraged you to analyze your opponent and actually think about what you'll say, instead of mashing the insta-win button marked [speech]. Similarly, while I bought the persuasion implant in Deus Ex Human Revolution, about halfway through the game I've found out it was a lot more rewarding to "win" the most important conversations by using my skill as a player rather than by pressing a button. Without the implant, these were the most intensive moments in the whole game; using it only reduced the tension, and took away from the experience.

 

So, my point is, having no speech skill but different options dependent on a multitude of factors actually encourages roleplay and immersion a lot more.

 

Your skill as a player is all fine and dandy but it should always be limited by character skill. This is what makes a RPG. Personally, I found it VERY satisfying to use speech as an "I win" button in Fallout 1 and 2. Most people who played it did. If they wanna make it a more involved speech puzzle, thats great, just don't divorce it from character advancement.

 

You need to read what was actually written, not read between the lines. Sawyer said that it would still be affected by stats, but that he would rather there not be a "speech" skill. So that still means if you have a very low intelligence or wisdom or charisma, your speech options will suffer accordingly (or vice versa). If all 3 of these are high, that automatically means more speech options. But speech options aren't ONLY limited to being influenced by those "stats", but also your others (strength, dexterity, constitution, what have you). So if you are a really strong character, you will automatically get more "intimidate" options, as you are physically imposing. If you have a high dexterity, perhaps you can make some keen observation to a dancer or juggler or something like that, about how they are doing something, because you can figure it out, since you are also very dextrous. So you would still be limited to the strengths/weaknesses of your character design, the difference would be that you wouldn't have a specific skill that you would be able to use to address that.

 

Stats are OK. Stats + skill is even better. What if there were no weapon proficiency or feats or skill or whatever? Combat performance was only dictated by stats. That would suck in my estimation. It would be a threadbare character customization system. This is what happens to the speech side when you remove speech skills.

 

I think his intent is to keep it from being like either Dragon Age or Mass Effect, where you picked "intimidate" or "inspire" (or whatever they were called). I wish that their level system had 2 tiers: combat and non-combat. Depending on your class, you would get more in one or the other. If you picked a straight fighter, you wouldn't get as many points for the non-combat skills. If you went with a mage/cipher, you would get far more. As a mage, you could still have a few combat skills, but not enough to stand toe-to-toe with a fighter. As a fighter, you might be a good gambler, or speaker, or trader, or __, but you wouldn't really have any other abilities that weren't combat oriented (or you would have a variety, that aren't very refined). You keep the class system, but give a little more flexibility to character development.

 

They have already stated that combat and noncombat advancement pools will be separated. As such, speech skills would not be a sink as you describe the term.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Shevek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

They have already stated that combat and noncombat advancement pools will be separated. As such, speech skills would not be a sink as you describe the term.

 

Actually, it would be. Since you cannot meaningfully influence your companions' speech skill (even if you could raise it, and there were some moments when they would use it, you could never fully trust them to use it as you would), you must pick it up yourself. Any other noncombat skill (well, crafting, survival, trapfinding etc. most likely, lore not so much) has the same effect whether you or one of your companions have it.

Edited December 9, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hormalakh]

The point is that as a skill, speech basically makes Charisma unimportant. Yes, there are ways of making it important, but Charisma and other MAIN ATTRIBUTES lose significance as certain skills encroach on the territory of these attributes. This is why we have min/max characters.

[Shevek]

Actually, it would be. Since you cannot meaningfully influence your companions' speech skill (even if you could raise it, and there were some moments when they would use it, you could never fully trust them to use it as you would), you must pick it up yourself. Any other noncombat skill (well, crafting, survival, trapfinding etc. most likely, lore not so much) has the same effect whether you or one of your companions have it.

 

Speech skills, when they do not pull from the combat pool, are not a sink but a character development choice. The aforementioned Black Hound that JE worked on came up with a brilliant solution to make speech desirable to both you and your companions. The key here is not so much with a speech skill but its implementation. You would not judge it a mandatory sink if other noncombat skills were equally attractive. That is NOT the fault of speech skills. That is the result of poor game balance. The trick is to have SEVERAL speech skills, SEVERAL sneaking skills, SEVERAL crafting skills and having the player pick and choose what to excell in. All choices should be equally desirable. This way the player does not feel "forced" to pick one.

 

 

The point is that as a skill, speech basically makes Charisma unimportant. Yes, there are ways of making it important, but Charisma and other MAIN ATTRIBUTES lose significance as certain skills encroach on the territory of these attributes. This is why we have min/max characters.

 

The notion that skills encroach on stats is just silly. If thats the case, there should only be stats for everything. No feats, no proficiency, no nothing. Just stats. That is bad design.

 

Two additional points to this.

1. Stats function as more than simply the success or failure of skill related tasks. They can dictate minimum wearing requirements, saves, carry weight and the like. In other words their "territory" is much much wider than the "territory" of skills.

2. Stat bonuses do not need to flat. They can give flat+%based skill bonuses or they can open up speech related feats (ala-Fallout). There are many creative solutions to this that have already been explored.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Shevek

[AwesomeOcelot]

The point is that as a skill, speech basically makes Charisma unimportant. Yes, there are ways of making it important, but Charisma and other MAIN ATTRIBUTES lose significance as certain skills encroach on the territory of these attributes. This is why we have min/max characters.

 

Not if they're handled in a way that they both contribute to the same function but also separate functions. Yeah, abilities lose significance when there are skills that contribute to the same function, but they make sense in terms of role playing, and why is it better for abilities to have more significance? Also just because something is less significant doesn't mean it has to be unimportant, skill caps could make skills less or more significant than abilities.

 

Min-maxing will happen with or without skills, skills aren't why we have min/max characters. The only reason why there would be a problem is if skills were badly balanced, but abilities were not, but that's not a problem with skills in principle.

[Hormalakh]

I was talking about the speech skill, specifically, and the charisma attribute, specifically. I do not think Sawyer was talking about skills "in priniciple."

 

Also remember that role-playing only for role-playing's sake is not the approach that many players take in computer games. And I don't think that they're wrong.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

I was talking about the speech skill, specifically, and the charisma attribute, specifically. I do not think Sawyer was talking about skills "in priniciple."

 

Also remember that role-playing only for role-playing's sake is not the approach that many players take in computer games. And I don't think that they're wrong.

 

Allow me to address your two points below

 

1.Your issue then is with the Charisma stat, not the speech skill? I see you have an "evolving" argument. Ok then.

 

The Charisma attritbute is one that is often poorly implemented in non-diplomatic situations. As a result, it can be a "dump stat." However, this is not always the case. I found BOTH the Charisma stat and the Speech skill to be important in Fallout. Thanks to Charisma-based party member limits and perk requirements, I never neglected the Charisma stat when making a Diplo character. I am not saying that implementation is the only one but games have existed where Charisma stats and speech skills have existed in harmony.

 

Pardon me a smidge - I am going to speculate just a bit here. They have focused on assuring that combat and noncombat advancement is separate. Because of this, It would seem strange for them to include a stat that would have no value in combat. If anything, I would assume all stats would be of equal value inside and outside of combat. Whatever stat they put in place of Charisma ("Drive," "Will," "Presence," etc etc) will most likely have both combat and noncmbat bonuses. As a result, you must not project your fears of the implementation of Charisma in past DnD titles to how it will function here. Until we know more about stats, we cannot presume to believe that the stat would become worthless should a speech skill or a set of speech skills be implemented.

 

2. I do not entirely understand your second point. Still, I will try to break it down and deal with it. If I misrepresent your position, please clarify.

 

You make two suppositions:

Your first supposition: Speech skills are roleplaying for roleplaying's sake.

Your second supposition: They are not implementing things for roleplaying's sake.

 

I disagree with both suppositions. Lemme deal with the second supposition first. They ARE implementing for "roleplaying for roleplaying's sake." If not, this would simply be making an IWD clone. Though they have listed that as an influence, it is not their sole influence. Hence, they are including low-int routes and advanced party dynamics.

 

Now for your first supposition. You are approaching speech as "roleplaying for roleplaying's sake." I disagree. Speech is a valid play style. Much like crafting, sneaking, combat, etc, Speech should exist as a while to allow a player's character to deal with certain challenges. This is how it has generally been implemented. It could be used to circumvent or lower the difficulty of an encounter. It could open up options, allow you to gain more companions, lower prices, etc. These are tangible benefits - not roleplaying for roleplaying's sake.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Shevek

[rjshae]

Okay, so if PE, say, ends up not having a general speech skill, what about a more tactical communication skill: the artful lie? That seems like a type of conversation option where you can't avoid having a binary branch; either the listener will believe the lie or they will not. Is that just based on a Charisma check? Or does the smooth speaker have an opportunity to employ their highly refined bluffing ability? Likewise, can an attentive person learn to sense when somebody is lying (like an experienced interrogator)?

 

The nice thing about the lie skill (for a RPG) is that the listener doesn't have to make it immediately clear they perceived a lie or not; it can continue for several branches, making it unclear whether the skill check was successful or not. The listener in turn may lie to cover up their perception of the untruth, while turning the situation to their advantage.

[Hormalakh]

There is one way I see the charisma and speech skill working and it utilizes both attributes and skills. This kind of goes along the lines of what you're saying rjshae, so...

 

There was an idea a while back about "rude Charisma" and "non-rude Charisma" dialogue. Basically, the skill check might allow you to "by-pass" a dialogue puzzle, but the outcome is also dependent on your Charisma.

 

An example would be that you convince the sheriff to let you out of prison and this is done with a speech skill check. But then, because your charisma is low, the sheriff thinks you're a lousy guy and lets you go because you convinced him (like a lawyer would). but that doesn't mean that the sheriff would be nice with you going forward. Instead imagine a character with high charisma and a high speech skill. This player is also able to pass the skill check, but because you played it like you and the sheriff are buddies, the sheriff doesn't hate you (you act all buddy-buddy with the cop). There are other skill-checks you could use, like the lockpick when the sheriff isn't there, bend the bars, etc. But this speech skill method still makes Charisma an important attribute to have, while still utilizing skill checks.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Hormalakh

[AwesomeOcelot]

I was talking about the speech skill, specifically, and the charisma attribute, specifically. I do not think Sawyer was talking about skills "in priniciple."

 

Also remember that role-playing only for role-playing's sake is not the approach that many players take in computer games. And I don't think that they're wrong.

 

I didn't suggest Sawyer was talking about skills in principle. Your comment however, relates to all skills, even if you were talking about the speech skill specifically. Why should attributes be more significant? Also, again, having skill caps could easily change the significance balance anyway. Not everybody likes to role play, fair enough, but that doesn't mean a game should only cater to one type of player.

[Hormalakh]

-snip-

 

I don't have an issue, I was trying to clarify the points that I believe Josh was making. I was also responding to AwesomeOcelot. You should read more about what Josh thinks about attributes. I can't be bothered to look for them now. Check out Something Awesome forums too. He further expands on it.

 

I think he makes valid points.

 

@AOcelot

 

I don't think it relates to all skills. It could relate to all skills, but usually it doesn't. In Fallout 1, having small guns skills doesn't mean you don't need strength or agility or anything else. Usually this occurs with Charisma, because charisma and speech are somehow connected. Usually charisma have two uses: dialogue and how many party members you can have. Otherwise, it's a worthless stat to have. Sure you can play a "role-playing character" with high charisma, but usually most people consider those "gimmicky characters." Or you have classes forced to have high charisma (paladins) which also need strength endurance and everything else. They are fighting an uphill battle where every stat matters, while a wizard can do with a dump Charisma.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Shevek]

I don't have an issue, I was trying to clarify the points that I believe Josh was making. I was also responding to AwesomeOcelot. You should read more about what Josh thinks about attributes. I can't be bothered to look for them now. Check out Something Awesome forums too. He further expands on it.

 

I think he makes valid points.

 

Well, if you can't effectively verbalize what exactly you agree with, how can you expect people to put stock in what you are saying?

[Hormalakh]

I don't have an issue, I was trying to clarify the points that I believe Josh was making. I was also responding to AwesomeOcelot. You should read more about what Josh thinks about attributes. I can't be bothered to look for them now. Check out Something Awesome forums too. He further expands on it.

 

I think he makes valid points.

 

Well, if you can't effectively verbalize what exactly you agree with, how can you expect people to put stock in what you are saying?

I can verbalize what I agree with, but I don't feel like answering your long posts right now, honestly. Maybe later I'll sit and look at what you said. I just wrote a long post in a new thread and that honestly took a lot out of me. I need to get off the forums for a while. That's the main reason

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't think it relates to all skills. It could relate to all skills, but usually it doesn't. In Fallout 1, having small guns skills doesn't mean you don't need strength or agility or anything else. Usually this occurs with Charisma, because charisma and speech are somehow connected. Usually charisma have two uses: dialogue and how many party members you can have. Otherwise, it's a worthless stat to have. Sure you can play a "role-playing character" with high charisma, but usually most people consider those "gimmicky characters." Or you have classes forced to have high charisma (paladins) which also need strength endurance and everything else. They are fighting an uphill battle where every stat matters, while a wizard

 

I think the equivalents are STR and unarmed, or PER and small fire arms, I don't see why you have a problem with the speech skill in particular. And your complaints are more to do with balancing and the focus of the game. I liked that Fallout wasn't balanced, that Charisma characters were not as easy to play, it made sense in a role playing context, you can call them "gimmicky" but I think they're interesting, yeah min-maxing power gamers aren't going to care, but then that's the beauty of Fallout, they didn't have to, and there was still a wealth of different ways for them to play the game.

 

Of course this problem could be solved by adding more depth to the speech skill/charisma attribute. For one, split it, why does speech only get one skill when you have small arms, big guns, and energy weapons, obviously Eternity can have as many skills dedicated to what it wants. Secondly, have speech skills effect other parts of the gameplay way more, have different quests dependent on them, different faction reputations only accessible through them, companions only accessible through them and ways to settle differences between companions. Thirdly, not just a "win" button but different success and failure states dependent on them, and a requirement that you have to choose dialogue options even if you have them, and the choices have advantages and disadvantages, real choices with consequences that are compatible with power gamers and role players.

Edited December 9, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Gyor]

My biggest problem with "Speech" skills is that they don't really make sense. How does one learn to be persuasive or intimidating? Using attributes in conversation always made more sense to me.

 

I'm also happy about the Health/Stamina split, if for no other reason than it reminds me of Megaversal.

 

I also appreciate that mages in PE will not be protected by multiple layers of protection that need to be striped in a specific order or else the mage is invincible and wipes out the entire party. not only did it all but require you to take a mage, it was extremely boring and got old fast.

 

There's a whole industry devoted to teaching people exactly how to gain skill in persuasion its called PickUp, Sales, Politics, and the Psychology of Influence.

 

Conversation go along patterns of communication, practice and experimentation can discover the likest reaction to ones actions and practice can build confidence. Also "inner game" aka ones internal thinking and effect external communication through body language and tone.

 

Here's how I'd handle attributes.

 

Charisma- Body Language and Ton, low Charisma you don't look people in the eyes, you slouch, whisper meekly, and lean in projecting subsevance, high Charisma you stand tall, look people in the eye, and talk proudly, plus your instincts for connecting with people is strong. To me Charisma=Confidence and Certainty and that allow can influence the uncertain.

 

Intellence- You know just what to say, your witty, remember cool facts, and project expertise. Combine with Charisma for perfect comic timing.

 

Wisdom- Observation, you look, listen, and pay attention. You influence people through pacing and leading, aka you mirror thier actions in a sublty way for a while till repore is created and then start to lead by making small changes to your body language and tone watch as they adapt them too. Also you can use your observations to making shaping compliments that encourage behavioral changes you like, although you need only pretext the desired attribute need not be there.

 

Strength: Raw physical sex appeal, trim fit, impressive, but muscles and displaying ones strength and can be intimidating too, especially when used to imply a threat of violence.

 

Dexterity- Good with your hands, a nice hand shake, pat on the shoulders, back rub, and so on.

 

Endurence-Perfect for long conversations amoung other things.

 

 

[Gatt]

So on the one hand, we don't need to heal between fights in the traditional sense (which reduces a reason to restspam), but on the other hand, we're enforced to rest every couple of fights (which was avoidable if you used potions in the old IE games). I think those are the things josh wants to accomplish with this system and that is reasonable, but I'm still not sure if I like it that way.

Above a certain (fairly low) level, potions were not going to get your front-line characters back up to peak condition unless you were dumping gallons of potions down their throats. Whether it was due to loss of hit points or loss of per-rest/daily abilities, parties eventually had to rest in IE games. Pre-3E, clerics (or druids) had to devote a lot of their spell slots to healing. Some of those healing spells were used in combat, but often they were used between combat -- in essence trading the loss of one resource for another, but still accelerating the diminution of party resources. It also practically demanded the presence of a dedicated healer for extended exploration.

 

I'm a bit confused about why this is a problem. It's a arch-type, the Healer. Once you remove that job from that character, all you end up with is a Mage without a spellbook that can use a weapon. You remove the entire identity from the class in order to solve something that really isn't an issue.

 

In 3E, the system ameliorated the necessity of loading up on healing spells by allowing good (and some neutral) clerics to spontaneously convert prepared spells into cure wounds spells of similar level. 4E took this a step further and implemented healing surges, which gave ALL characters much greater flexibility in healing themselves between combats, but gave them limited ability to do so within combat -- unless assisted by another character (e.g. a cleric casting healing word as a minor action). A party without a healer has a certain disadvantage within combat, but is nowhere near as disadvantaged between combats (compared to 2nd Ed. or 3E/3.5).

 

Again, I'm *really* confused as to why this is a problem. If some group is foolish enough to wander off into the hostile wastes with the intention of getting into alot of fights, and didn't think to bring someone who can heal with them, they deserve to die. Strategically, this is an extremely foolish mistake.

 

Further, all this does is encourage min-maxing behavior (Powergaming), by removing a necessary role from the party roster to replace it with even more offense. Making it a strictly better choice to not take a healer if you don't require them to heal, in favor of taking even more offense.

 

Put simply, this whole line of thought means that the best strategic decision for any party, or even any army, is to never hire healers, just warriors, because there's now no need for healers.

 

The Stamina/Health system is intended to accomplish a similar goal, but Health is still intended to be a resource that progressively dwindles down and encourages the player to rest. In PE, my belief is that this system will make that progression less chaotic and dependent on the presence of certain items/classes than it is in pre-4E D&D.

 

This system encourages power gaming, it makes the healer class redundant, makes them a "Mage who is really bad at being a Mage" compare to a real mage. Further, it really doesn't make sense to excise the healer. Who is going to go on a long journey with a certainty of being injured, without taking someone who is trained in treating injuries?

 

Further, exploring this line of thought to it's conclusion means that every class should have the abilities of every other class, so that no class is necessary. In short, every class should have melee combat skills, every class should have magic skills, because we shouldn't have a dependence on classes.

 

Finally, it reduces choice in character creation,. It effectively turns the game into Fighter/Rogue/Mage, removing an entire silo of character archtype. Removing variety is never good, especially when the removal just facilitates powergaming.

[Tamerlane]

My biggest problem with "Speech" skills is that they don't really make sense. How does one learn to be persuasive or intimidating? Using attributes in conversation always made more sense to me.

 

I'm also happy about the Health/Stamina split, if for no other reason than it reminds me of Megaversal.

 

I also appreciate that mages in PE will not be protected by multiple layers of protection that need to be striped in a specific order or else the mage is invincible and wipes out the entire party. not only did it all but require you to take a mage, it was extremely boring and got old fast.

 

There's a whole industry devoted to teaching people exactly how to gain skill in persuasion its called PickUp, Sales, Politics, and the Psychology of Influence.

 

Conversation go along patterns of communication, practice and experimentation can discover the likest reaction to ones actions and practice can build confidence. Also "inner game" aka ones internal thinking and effect external communication through body language and tone.

 

Here's how I'd handle attributes.

 

Charisma- Body Language and Ton, low Charisma you don't look people in the eyes, you slouch, whisper meekly, and lean in projecting subsevance, high Charisma you stand tall, look people in the eye, and talk proudly, plus your instincts for connecting with people is strong. To me Charisma=Confidence and Certainty and that allow can influence the uncertain.

 

Intellence- You know just what to say, your witty, remember cool facts, and project expertise. Combine with Charisma for perfect comic timing.

 

Wisdom- Observation, you look, listen, and pay attention. You influence people through pacing and leading, aka you mirror thier actions in a sublty way for a while till repore is created and then start to lead by making small changes to your body language and tone watch as they adapt them too. Also you can use your observations to making shaping compliments that encourage behavioral changes you like, although you need only pretext the desired attribute need not be there.

 

Strength: Raw physical sex appeal, trim fit, impressive, but muscles and displaying ones strength and can be intimidating too, especially when used to imply a threat of violence.

 

Dexterity- Good with your hands, a nice hand shake, pat on the shoulders, back rub, and so on.

 

Endurence-Perfect for long conversations amoung other things.

... or we can say that trying to force very broad physical and mental attributes into specific traits is silly. Unless you think Of Mice and Men's Lennie is the scariest thing around, VtM's Nosferatu are sex gods, and the average nerd always knows what to say, is witty, and projects expertise.

 

That said, the idea of a high-constitution character giving Castro-esque speeches amuses me.

[Malekith]

So on the one hand, we don't need to heal between fights in the traditional sense (which reduces a reason to restspam), but on the other hand, we're enforced to rest every couple of fights (which was avoidable if you used potions in the old IE games). I think those are the things josh wants to accomplish with this system and that is reasonable, but I'm still not sure if I like it that way.

Above a certain (fairly low) level, potions were not going to get your front-line characters back up to peak condition unless you were dumping gallons of potions down their throats. Whether it was due to loss of hit points or loss of per-rest/daily abilities, parties eventually had to rest in IE games. Pre-3E, clerics (or druids) had to devote a lot of their spell slots to healing. Some of those healing spells were used in combat, but often they were used between combat -- in essence trading the loss of one resource for another, but still accelerating the diminution of party resources. It also practically demanded the presence of a dedicated healer for extended exploration.

 

I'm a bit confused about why this is a problem. It's a arch-type, the Healer. Once you remove that job from that character, all you end up with is a Mage without a spellbook that can use a weapon. You remove the entire identity from the class in order to solve something that really isn't an issue.

 

In 3E, the system ameliorated the necessity of loading up on healing spells by allowing good (and some neutral) clerics to spontaneously convert prepared spells into cure wounds spells of similar level. 4E took this a step further and implemented healing surges, which gave ALL characters much greater flexibility in healing themselves between combats, but gave them limited ability to do so within combat -- unless assisted by another character (e.g. a cleric casting healing word as a minor action). A party without a healer has a certain disadvantage within combat, but is nowhere near as disadvantaged between combats (compared to 2nd Ed. or 3E/3.5).

 

Again, I'm *really* confused as to why this is a problem. If some group is foolish enough to wander off into the hostile wastes with the intention of getting into alot of fights, and didn't think to bring someone who can heal with them, they deserve to die. Strategically, this is an extremely foolish mistake.

 

Further, all this does is encourage min-maxing behavior (Powergaming), by removing a necessary role from the party roster to replace it with even more offense. Making it a strictly better choice to not take a healer if you don't require them to heal, in favor of taking even more offense.

 

Put simply, this whole line of thought means that the best strategic decision for any party, or even any army, is to never hire healers, just warriors, because there's now no need for healers.

 

The Stamina/Health system is intended to accomplish a similar goal, but Health is still intended to be a resource that progressively dwindles down and encourages the player to rest. In PE, my belief is that this system will make that progression less chaotic and dependent on the presence of certain items/classes than it is in pre-4E D&D.

 

This system encourages power gaming, it makes the healer class redundant, makes them a "Mage who is really bad at being a Mage" compare to a real mage. Further, it really doesn't make sense to excise the healer. Who is going to go on a long journey with a certainty of being injured, without taking someone who is trained in treating injuries?

 

Further, exploring this line of thought to it's conclusion means that every class should have the abilities of every other class, so that no class is necessary. In short, every class should have melee combat skills, every class should have magic skills, because we shouldn't have a dependence on classes.

 

Finally, it reduces choice in character creation,. It effectively turns the game into Fighter/Rogue/Mage, removing an entire silo of character archtype. Removing variety is never good, especially when the removal just facilitates powergaming.

There is nothing wrong with the healer archetype.But the world of P:E has no magical healing.This is a fact.NO healing spells,no potions,no resurrection.The priest has nothing to do with a mage or a healer.This dual system makes this viable. Imagine if you had the classic hit point system.With absolutelly no means to heal the game would be way more punishing and you would be forced to rest after every battle.The devs don't want this.This dual system is more flexible and i imagine it will be constracted in such a way as to don't force you to rest all the time

[Gyor]

Correction it has no magically hitpoint healing, but it does have stamina healing. So the healer archtype can be mentained.

 

It does mean abilities that prevent or dampen damage in the first place are even more premium, maybe more then healers are. Think of it as preventive medicine.

 

Also notice they choose to call the class Priest

and not cleric which I think speaks volumes about the classes focus is less healing and more expressing thier faith in the form of magic representive of thier God's nature.

 

Also other classes will get some stamina healing ability as will.

 

Also its hard to gage rate of needed rests without knowing average hitpoints and average monster damage.

 

If Character have 20hp and 80 stamina and the average damage is is 4hp and 16sp per attack and a character gets hit on average 2 times a battle then that character will have to rest after 4 fights.

 

Now if HP and SP has more partity say 80hp and 80sp then rests won't be needed as often. At the same rate of damage you'll last 10 fights. We have the current ratio of sp to hp, but nothing to compare it too.

[Dream]

There is nothing wrong with the healer archetype.But the world of P:E has no magical healing.This is a fact.NO healing spells,no potions,no resurrection.The priest has nothing to do with a mage or a healer.This dual system makes this viable. Imagine if you had the classic hit point system.With absolutelly no means to heal the game would be way more punishing and you would be forced to rest after every battle.The devs don't want this.This dual system is more flexible and i imagine it will be constracted in such a way as to don't force you to rest all the time

 

So they didn't want a healer archetype and to facilitate this they came up with a world where there's no healing, and now the reason to have no healer archetype is that there is no healing in this world? Oh, good.