Josh Sawyer reveals some information about Project Eternity's attribute scores

[butterfly]

 

Rather dubious, would like clarification.

 

Edit: That said it's still early days and I wouldn't wish to rush the gentlemen into an early reveal.

Well said. At first blush it appears that Obsidian is attempting to accommodate the outermost tips of the character generation Bell Curve by decoupling character statistics from reality. I fully support the idea of making all the character statistics important in some manner, but this appears to be tossing verisimilitude right out the window as stronger fighters should do more damage in melee than an asthmatic wizard whose most physically demanding activity of a typical day is affixing his wax seal to a letter.

 

One ring to rule them all worked for Tolkien, but one variable to govern the efficacy of flails and fireballs? Hmmm...

 

 

Decoupled from reality? If want wants to on can as easily blow holes in the verisimilitude of D&D stats of any edition. Their reality is merely a story packaging up a set of mechanics and we don't even know the story surrounding P:E's mechanics. The only thing we have is a glimpse of the mechanics and it's intent.

[Lephys]

It makes zero sense that a character can wield a two-handed longsword effectively in battle or be able to accurately aim a longbow, without any training at all using those weapons, purely based on their physical attributes.

If you look at he DnD system, even, this is how it worked already. It was just different stats, then. You abstractly got a +3 to-hit with a two-handed longsword if you had 16 Strength. But, you ALSO inherently got a detriment to your to-hit chance with a weapon if you weren't trained with it. So, you still kind of sucked with a two-handed longsword if you weren't proficient with two-handed longswords.

 

That's kind of how it works in life. Someone can't master juggling until they practice it for a while (various amounts of time for various people). But, someone with awesome coordination can potentially get that much better at juggling than someone else with crappy coordination. So, it's like your DEX designates your ceiling for juggling, and then your actual skill/proficiency in juggling climbs up to that ceiling, if you develop it enough. It might even climb faster, or start slightly higher (you're more likely to be able to inherently juggle 3 apples on the first try, if you have EXCELLENT dexterity, than someone who has 5 Dexterity). You might still suck at juggling, but you're better than the other person, right off the bat.

 

That's how I see this.

 

They're two separate factors: stats and skill. Stats affect your relative effectiveness, while skill (talents and such) affects your absolute effectiveness. So, a seasoned soldier with only 10 Power (Strength: whatever it's going to be called) is going to be much more effective with a sword than a nublet with 20 Power who just picked up a sword. However, that nublet's going to be better with that sword than the seasoned soldier was back when HE was a nublet, and he's going to develop his effective delivery of power via a sword faster than the seasoned soldier did, and he's going to ultimately (if given enough time and development) become much more effectively powerful with that sword than the seasoned soldier, once he HIMSELF has become seasoned.

[Sensuki]

Hopefully these are soft coded

[Ffordesoon]

I think it sounds lovely. "Gamey" or not, I've always said that there should be no "correct" options on the character creation screen. Some people say that reduces the number of potential builds, and they're not wrong, but if the builds aren't viable (for "viable," read: can get to the end of the main quest and see an ending), there's no point putting them in the game in the first place.

 

That said, I do hope there will be serious advantages and disadvantages to every build. But that desn't necessarily have to be reinforced solely through attributes. In fact, that's a pretty annoying way to do it, IMHO, because there's often a discrepancy between the effect attributes say they have on gameplay and the effects they actually have.

 

Say I'm a player who knows nothing about D&D except that there are probably some dungeons and at least a few dragons in it. If a game is a pure dungeon crawler with the traditional D&D attributes, and I put a bunch of points in CHA, shame on me, right? No. Because the inclusion of CHA as a statistic in a pure dungeon crawler makes no damn sense unless the scenario the game designers have prepared allows me to be a charismatic MF so often that they'd have to include it. That's what I, as a player, am thinking at the character creation screen.

 

And then I get into the game, and it's really f**king hard from the opening on. Now, some players would have a problem with that, but I don't, necessarily. Just because I know nothing about D&D doesn't mean I can't reasonably assume picking CHA as my main attribute is going to make the combat harder for me. Let's say I manage to cheese my way through the game, slowly but surely, until I reach the end credits. It might be a fun game, but I'm disappointed, because there was maybe one token CHA check that didn't really affect anything.

 

(Side note: Yes, I'm aware that fits my definition of a "viable" build, but it's on the borderline, and the point of this example is not about the viability of my build, but the dishonestly of including an attribute that might as well not exist in the game.)

 

Sure, you could argue that the developers might have had their hands tied by WotC, or that it's tradition to have CHA in D&D games, or that I could have roleplayed the charismatic character in my head rather than waiting for a mechanical acknowledgement of my choice, blah blah you all know the standard arguments blah. I should not need to know any of that stuff. What I know is that I wanted to play a charismatic character, that the game acted like I could, and that that implicit promise was ultimately a lie.

 

Much better to, say, create a list of disadvantages the player can take in exchange for more attribute points, or force the player to take a disadvantage for every advantage she takes, or whatever. That creates an interesting choice that isn't dishonest.

[Lephys]

Another example: The Monk Wounds example.

 

You give a Monk high damage resistance (IF there's a stat for that, just for example), and you're going to have a slower time building up Wounds. Doesn't mean the Monk's bad. Not-taking damage is a good thing, and there will certainly be flexibility in how you develop your Wounds/what degree to which you rely on them. But, that inherently makes damage resistance for a Monk different than damage resistance for any other class (not even counting the other classes' mechanics' relationship to damage resistance).

 

Or, if you give a Monk oodles of Constitution (or whatever the health/stamina-boosting stat is, if there is one), then his high HP (while always inherently better than low HP) will provide a different beneficial relationship with his Wounds than it would with, say, a Wizard's abilities/class specifics.

[AGX-17]

General feel I'm sensing in community reactions:

 

 

 

Personally, I always prefer to actually wait for substantive information before freaking out.

Edited July 20, 2013 by AGX-17

[rjshae]

It's what we do... it's who we are...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Personally, I always prefer to actually wait for substantive information before freaking out.

I prefer to rage as soon as possible, so I can put my hipster glasses and say I was doing it before it was cool.

[Sacred_Path]

Personally, I always prefer to actually wait for substantive information before freaking out.

Are you a wizard?

[teknoman2]

well think of it this way. we have an attribute called power. this indicates the strength of a warrior and consequently the damage he does with a weapon. the same stat on a wizard however, indicates how much "mana" he can squeeze into his fireball to make it explode more like a grenade and less like a molotov. for a priest it affects how well the healing spells work. it is not a stat that indicates a specific physical or mental ability of the character but his potential to maximize the effects of his skills or attacks

then we have an attribute called perception. it indicates the accuracy of ranged attacks, the ability to do criticals with all weapons, maybe ups the deflection of a melee fighter and allows the fireball to explode in a way that avoids friendly fire

so the way i see it, each attribute will have different meaning depending on the class and will not be tied to something specific like strength or intelligence

 

of course these are examples... i dont know how and what they will implement, but this is what it sounds like

Edited July 20, 2013 by teknoman2

[Sensuki]

Personally, I always prefer to actually wait for substantive information before freaking out.

This is substantial information. It means instead of D&D-FixT or SPECIAL-FixT we're getting Guild Wars/jMMO style stats. This is not what I thought I would get when I payed for this game.

[teknoman2]

 

Personally, I always prefer to actually wait for substantive information before freaking out.

This is substantial information. It means instead of D&D-FixT or SPECIAL-FixT we're getting Guild Wars/jMMO style stats. This is not what I thought I would get when I payed for this game.

 

the main problem about expectations on this game is that everyone pledged with DnD 2.5 based IE games in mind. most here never took a moment to consider that the "new rule system" they said they will implement will not be a DnD ripoff. for me that is a good thing, considering how much blasphemy i spew every time i play a DnD based game because of he dice rolls. the less a game rule system leaves to chance the better

[Valorian]

It's always amusing how some people rush in to explain that they need to learn and hear MOAR before making any judgements (God forbid I'm wrong about detail 4d! Need a disclaimer!). Which is ok. Some people need everything explained in details before they understand what is it about.

 

Other people can, using logic and their cognitive capacity, connect the dots and understand the concept. Then, they can make the judgement before the game comes out and help the developers not make horrible mistakes.

 

 

[Ffordesoon]

It's always amusing how some people rush in to explain that they need to learn and hear MOAR before making any judgements (God forbid I'm wrong about detail 4d! Need a disclaimer!). Which is ok. Some people need everything explained in details before they understand what is it about.

 

Other people can, using logic and their cognitive capacity, connect the dots and understand the concept. Then, they can make the judgement before the game comes out and help the developers not make horrible mistakes.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

That may seriously be the craziest thing you have ever posted. Slow clap.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[jethro]

The year is 1875. A farmer gets told there are new horse-less vehicles coming out. The farmer is enraged and yells: City-dwelling idiots, I 'm too old to pull the cart myself!

 

<rant>Some of you invent a system out of a single fact and draw conclusions from that. That is as reliable a method as any the spanish inquisiton had in their arsenal. And they found a lot of witches.

 

Really, a call for more information would be the sensible thing I would expect from an intelligent person of the 21th century. Instead we show traits of lynch-mobs, alternate between doomsayers and fanboys with no middle ground. Is this how the new kickstarter model for game creation with user involvment will work? It will soon die out.</rant>

[Valorian]

There are a few giant fallacies in your post, jethro.

 

-Sawyer's abominable attribute system is in no way comparable to what vehicles without horses mean to humankind.

 

-We're not going to burn Sawyer on a stick (so your comparisons with the Spanish Inquisition are simply idiotic).

 

-This is what forums are for; discussions. People discuss elements of the game, shock and horror!, that haven't even been mentioned by devs.

 If you don't have anything to say about a subject (because you think you lack details, don't understand the subject, etc.), just stay out of the topic instead of wasting thread space with useless disclaimers.

[Ffordesoon]

@Jethro:

 

Well said.

 

However, you should be aware that this is the nature of online fandom in all its various guises. Every new tidbit of information the creators deign to share with the fans is the apocalypse until it isn't. The best way to manage the cacophony is to wait for it to die down, then collate the useful bits of data from all the noise. Because none of these people will care about this by the time PE comes out, but they will care if it sucks.

[Infinitron]

@Jethro:

 

Well said.

 

However, you should be aware that this is the nature of online fandom in all its various guises. Every new tidbit of information the creators deign to share with the fans is the apocalypse until it isn't. The best way to manage the cacophony is to wait for it to die down, then collate the useful bits of data from all the noise. Because none of these people will care about this by the time PE comes out, but they will care if it sucks.

 

The funny thing is that even if the attribute system does end up being too simplistic, even that won't matter. That's not what will make or break this game, because nobody played these games to be able to play "Attribute Manager 2000". In Baldur's Gate, you set your attributes ONCE at chargen and never thought about them again. They simply weren't very important to the core experience.

 

In the end, the game will be judged by the quality of its content - the story, the setting, the dialogue, and the tactical combat encounters. Nobody's going to boot up the game for the first time, see the weird attributes and scream "OBSIDIAN!!! THIS GAME SUUUUUUUUUCKS!" and throw it in the garbage. All this raging over individual mechanics and systems is a huge, huge waste of time and effort.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Infinitron

[Oner]

*shrugs* Guild Wars 2 did something similar to what Josh described, and it worked there, so I'm fine with it.

 

I think people are yet again just too attached to the Way of the DnD to accept change.

It also seems to me that people think attributes are more what they actually are. As Infinitron said, you distributed some points around depending on how you wanted to spec your character and that's it. Can anyone name me RPGs outside of Quest for Glory and Fallout 2 where your attributes actually mattered outside of in-combat stat bonuses?

Your character was buff, what did it matter? High intelligence?

 

I'm okay with Obsidian dropping the act of pretending strength is anything else than 'melee damage bonus'.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Obsidian's titles and Troika's titles made a fairly good use of attributes, in gameplay and in dialogue, so IMO it would be a shame to see that tradition ignored.

 

Besides, while in D&D, and especially the AD&D 2 videogames, attributes weren't the core of the experience, there was a clear effort in later editions to make them more meaningful, so I was hoping Josh would pursue that while avoiding some of the early designs' pitfalls.

 

Simulation isn't a huge concern of mine, because D&D's attributes were barely simulationist anyway (plenty of systems that strive to be more simulationist than D&D use completely different attribute systems). Seeing attributes that tie to the setting in some way would be nice, but if they won't, eh, okay, no big deal.

 

To conclude this assortment of random thoughts, IMO choosing between a marginal bonus to damage or accuracy isn't an interesting choice, and certainly not enough to deserve its own system.

 

Hoping my points are proven wrong obviously, and yeah, I'm not privy to the full design of the ability system.

[Sacred_Path]

The funny thing is that even if the attribute system does end up being too simplistic, even that won't matter. That's not what will make or break this game, because nobody played these games to be able to play "Attribute Manager 2000". In Baldur's Gate, you set your attributes ONCE at chargen and never thought about them again. They simply weren't very important to the core experience.

Eh, in BG1, a high dexterity basically won you the game.

 

All mechanics become more important as you play around with different options/ difficulties or on subsequent playthroughs. I don't want an unsatisfactory attribute system to ruin my longterm enjoyment of the game.

[Micamo]

I don't have a good enough picture of the mechanics side of this yet, but the story/setting/fluff justification is easy enough if you zoom out and go a bit more abstract. It could be that the damage stat doesn't represent any specific, tangible training method or ability, but instead represents a character's motivation to develop an aggressive fighting style. That aggressive style could then manifest itself in spells that do more damage or the ability to better find weaknesses in armor with a sword.

In A Wicked Age runs with a similar idea for its character stats. Instead of Strength, Dexterity, etc. it uses the following:

 

Covertly

Directly

For myself

For others

With Love

With Violence

 

You assign dice to each of these stats. When your character does something, pick 2 of your stats that apply, then roll their dice.

 

As usual with Baker's games the mechanical implementation leaves much to be desired, but the concept is solid. I'd be down with it if P:E took this route.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Micamo

[Morgulon the Wise]

I LIKE simple attributes like this, if the interpretation of them won't be too shallow.

 

But it will be just fine

 

or awesome.

[Iucounu]

And with such a mental or soulbased set of attributes, how you're going to distinguish the attackingpower of, say an ogre vs a kobold? You'd still expect the ogre to have a higher damage output, because of his superiour body mass and muscle strenght. And if you implement these attributes for such creatures, you'd expect your pcs to have such attributes as well. Or are these attributes so insignificant to your pc, that they don't play a role at all? Doesn't sound very convincing. 

Or perhaps soulpower is the measure of strength for every creature there is, and muscles and body mass aren't important for nobody. That on the other hand, would just feel alien. 

[Gorgon]

So a bit like Torchlight. The downside is that for nerds complexity is GOOD, even if it's mostly for its own sake.