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

[Malekith]

[...] while making a party-based Diablo.

 

 

Not even close. A more correct comparison would be something like a slower paced Warcraft 3 where you control a party of six heroes. A mix of IE and RTSs  if you like.

[JFSOCC]

6 pages and no response?

sadface.

[Ffordesoon]

 

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

 

The difference is that PE was sold to us as a successor to Infinity Engine games, four of which used AD&D 2E and the other using 3E. If not a D&D style system, what else is an "IE-like" game about? Would you say the only thing Obsidian meant by "IE-like" is isometric perspective? That's it? They namedropped BG, PST and IWD and yet the only influence this game seems to be taking from those games is completely cosmetic?

 

If I knew OE was going to run in the completely opposite direction the second the KS ended, and make decision after decision which did nothing but distance themselves from making a computer ruleset which emulated D&D, instead of a system which draws it's gameplay influences from MMOs, MOBAs and RTSs, if I knew that now I would have never contributed. I find it completely dishonest that OE are just going about developing a game which from all updates about it's mechanics will play nothing like BG or IWD (it's not even round-based where each character as a "turn" of six-seconds FFS!), they are just keeping the cosmetic trappings of IE while making a party-based Diablo.

 

It's a bit different say from InXile making Wasteland 2 and using THE EXACT SAME ruleset which tweaks in order to be loyal to the fans.

cRPG fans who act as though everything beyond the character creation screen in cRPGs is "cosmetic" and therefore meaningless always baffle me.

 

That's not even an insult. I literally just do not get it. It's like putting down a novel because you don't like the font, to me. The meaningful part of a creative work is the content, not the form that content takes.

 

(And I'm sure there's someone angrily typing "MARSHALL MCLUHAN, MOTHERF***ER!" at me right now, to which I would say, "Yeah, but you see my point, surely?" )

Edited July 22, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Another point worth considering: due to the limitations inherent in making a cRPG, there is only a finite amount of reactivity the developers can cram into the final product. So, any meaningful choice you can make at character creation takes away from the amount of meaningful choices you encounter during the game. Ergo, a "simulationist" attribute system would either end up working exactly as a gamist one would (no reactivity besides the combat modifiers you get), or would literally limit your freedom during the game. I much prefer to make the important choices during the game, as opposed to doing so before it would even begin.

[Lephys]

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

 

-snip-

 

-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.

There's one giant fallacy in your post, Valorian:

 

-This thread is literally about an element of the game that has just been mentioned by devs, and we are definitely lacking in details, regardless of our various IQ ratings. In other words, your stats actually don't matter in determining whether or not we've been supplied with details about this barely-announced system.

[okkoko]

 

And I don't know about you guys I find dnd more  unrealistic and ridiculous then a anime like dragon ball z. Halfings slaying a dragon lol, never...

But its totally realistic if its an Orlan, amirite?

 

not the mention a dragon is not the most powerful thing slay d by a hafling as i remember a hafling a special one in a dragon lance book killed a GOD! backstabbing the GOD in his foot

with something that lookt like a butter-knife lol

Edited July 23, 2013 by okkoko

[Jarmo]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9059
 

Left: Sawyer before Q&A. Right: Sawyer after Q&A.

 

Maybe not after the Q&A, definitely after reading the whole ensuing discussion.

Anyhoo, I think I'm done discussing until there's some actual new info.

I mean, you can analyze a sentence 10 pages no problem, but after that it goes a bit stale...

[anubite]

I want to envision how a system of unified stats would work.

 

If they are going unified, then they're taking this soul **** pretty literally.

 

"" = ditto marks

 

Strength of Soul = raises damage with spells and attacks

Swiftness "" = raises attack and cast speed (and movement speed?)

Heart "" = raises resistances to physical and magical damage (includes dodge? dunno where the game stands on avoidance)

Endurance "" = raises life

Empathy "" = raises mana/energy/resources

Passion "" = critical strike chance of spells and attacks

Acuity "" = accuracy of spells and attacks

 

Let's compare a Wizard to a Rogue, who have the same stats.

 

Let's say they both have: High Strength of Soul, high heart of soul, high empathy of soul, and high swiftness of soul, low everything else

The rogue can attack hard, has a high life pool, has a high resource pool, and attacks quickly. He has low chance to hit and crit, low resistances so attacks that hit him hit hard.

The mage can hit hard with spells, has a high life pool, has a high resource pool, and casts quickly. He has a low chance to hit and crit with spells, low resistances to attacks hit him hard.

 

Attributes don't define characters then, but rather, the items they wear and the skills they take as a class, must define them. I guess a system like this could work, but I don't think it's an elegant solution to the "dump stat" problem - stats simply need to be viable for all classes.

 

If stats work differently with all classes, then it's just a cluster **** if any of the items add to your attributes, because you have to do a lot of mental calculation every time an item with +2 strength, +2 stamina drops (Oh ****, so that adds 7 life to my warrior and 3 damage to my rogue, but it adds 10 max armor weight and +20 mana to my mage... is that better than a +1 strength, +1 stamina, +1 wisdom ring?). You'll constantly be referring to what does what to each class. The main problem here is that itemization is hard to get right, though they could sidestep the issue by seldom having items raise attributes, which might not be the case.

 

It also doesn't help us in a non-combat sense. How do the attributes effect your ability to persuade and lockpick if they're unified? There will still be dump stats as a result of that, right? If rogues are most adept at lock picking through their classes skills, then players will feel like they're inclined to dump points into that to make a viable rogue, since it would be ineffecient to make a warrior with high lockpick?

 

I dunno, maybe it is fruitless to analysze it and try to poke holes in the idea with more details. We need the full picture to decide much of anything. I'm just making vague guesses, I haven't been following the development of the systems close enough and the information is just too scattered.

 

What I like about how D&D/BG does it, is that attributes represent a physical definition of my character. He/She is strong, wise and stupid. He's good with a mace and healing spells, but doesn't understand magic or how to carry a conversation and persuade others. A soul-based system has the potential of letting players make characters rapidly shift from being physical rogues to magical mages without any attribute adjustment, just some gear and a few spell scrolls. It's like, that character is not immutable, that the choices made at character generation are flimsy and less meaningful. If magic is good at a certain part of the game and not in another, it would be easy to exploit such a system. Or at least, possibly.

 

I'd almost prefer a World of Darkness approach to this - you have a small number of core combat attributes. Strength, agility and stamina, and you have very limited points there. The rest of your points are spent on skills/mental/social aspects of your character. It's more appealing to me than a unified stat system, which possibly dillutes the impact of player choice? It certainly reduces what it means to "define" a character.

 

It's a challenge to come up with a good system, but you simply need to offer players incentives to create unique characters. A mage with max strength should produce a potentially viable character, maybe there's some crazy heavy staff at the end of the game that's amazing - it can't be used by flimsy frail wizards. Maybe there's a talking sword that won't be wielded by some idiotic warrior. That kind of thing, is what I'd really love, I think.

Edited July 23, 2013 by anubite

[Infinitron]

6 pages and no response?

sadface.

 

Well, there's this: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/483854030943058867

 

[Micamo]

I think the problem is that, for a lot of folks, "I want to roleplay a dumb brute fighter" means "I want a stat called 'intelligence' that's really low and a stat called 'strength' that's really high."

 

I don't think these people quite understand what "roleplaying" actually means.

[Chrononaut]

I think the problem is that, for a lot of folks, "I want to roleplay a dumb brute fighter" means "I want a stat called 'intelligence' that's really low and a stat called 'strength' that's really high."

 

I don't think these people quite understand what "roleplaying" actually means.

I don't think you understand what roleplaying is. And no it's not "a game where you play a role". I'm a strong believer in traditional cRPGs which require up-front planning in chargen, and then the gameplay is about reinforcing or playing the role you created in chargen, the role of character progression in-game not being to change the role of your character but to reinforce it, you roll a dumb brute, you play like a dumb brute, you pick up thief, the thief does thief-ly stuff. Especially in a party-based cRPG I personally believe "role-playing" is about every party member having a role, and the team having to work together each one having their role; their strengths and weaknesses. If you make an intelligent and smart character, that means sacrificing his ability in combat strength, stuff like that.

 

Character progression in my opinion should not be the place to change your character, if you didn't end up liking the character you rolled the quit the game and try something else until you find a character type that works with the play-style you wanted. That's the traditional idea of a cRPG, try something and if it doesn't work try something else. Sawyer's weird idea is basically an unrealistic silly concept that characters can swap roles in-game be masters of all trades, and classes are just static buffs and don't restrict anything.

 

I think PE's system is shaping up to be flexible yes, but not in a good way. I think it looks linear and discourages replayability. A self-reinforcing character system is interesting because it means characters are forced to play to their strengths to survive, it's also cool because at any time you can just reroll a new character and start a new game with a completely different character which the world and content interacts completely different with because of their different stats.

 

I think PE's system is downright being designed for casual gamers who are amongst those who normally rage-quit D&D computer games and then blame the gameplay system instead of themselves if they make a crappy character (a fighter with low STR, derp) or they don't plan their character at generation.

[Infinitron]

There are other ways of designing an RPG besides making it a game which is basically based around choosing to be the dumb guy who can fight good vs the smart non-combat guy.

 

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad design, but for ****'s sake, not every RPG in existence needs to be a reskin of Fallout. There are other sorts of choices we can make, other aspects of roleplaying we can explore. It's not all about "combat vs non-combat".

 

 

I think PE's system is shaping up to be flexible yes, but not in a good way. I think it looks linear and discourages replayability. A self-reinforcing character system is interesting because it means characters are forced to play to their strengths to survive, it's also cool because at any time you can just reroll a new character and start a new game with a completely different character which the world and content interacts completely different with because of their different stats.

 

I think PE's system is downright being designed for casual gamers who are amongst those who normally rage-quit D&D computer games and then blame the gameplay system instead of themselves if they make a crappy character (a fighter with low STR, derp) or they don't plan their character at generation.

 

 

A hardcore gamer isn't the guy who restarts the game ten times to create the perfect munchkin build. A hardcore gamer is the guy who ironmans the game with the first character he rolls up. A well-designed game should cater to the latter at least as much as to the former.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Infinitron

[Fearabbit]

I don't think these people quite understand what "roleplaying" actually means.

 

I hate it when this statement appears. Dude, there are like 10 different definitions. Take your pick, but don't judge others for choosing a different one.

 

 

I've explained why I want STR and INT attributes before. It has to do with the role attributes should be playing in an RPG. However Sawyer's reply that was posted by Infinitron up there sounds very promising. If I can create a character where you can see at a first glance that he's a "dumb brute" or some other archetype, then that's all I wanted and I'm excited about this new system.

[Chrononaut]

 

There are other ways of designing an RPG besides making it a game which is basically based around choosing to be the dumb guy who can fight good vs the smart non-combat guy.

 

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad design, but for ****'s sake, not every RPG in existence needs to be a reskin of Fallout. There are other sorts of choices we can make, other aspects of roleplaying we can explore. It's not all about "combat vs non-combat".

 

 

I think PE's system is shaping up to be flexible yes, but not in a good way. I think it looks linear and discourages replayability. A self-reinforcing character system is interesting because it means characters are forced to play to their strengths to survive, it's also cool because at any time you can just reroll a new character and start a new game with a completely different character which the world and content interacts completely different with because of their different stats.

 

I think PE's system is downright being designed for casual gamers who are amongst those who normally rage-quit D&D computer games and then blame the gameplay system instead of themselves if they make a crappy character (a fighter with low STR, derp) or they don't plan their character at generation.

 

 

A hardcore gamer isn't the guy who restarts the game ten times to create the perfect munchkin build. A hardcore gamer is the guy who ironmans the game with the first character he rolls up. A well-designed game should cater to the latter at least as much as to the former.

 

Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Chrononaut

[Infinitron]

Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing.

 

 

 

It's being designed as a game where failure comes from failing to master the game's content rather than its systems. You don't lose a battle because you picked the wrong stats to improve. You lose a battle because you didn't use the right tactics and abilities.

 

It's a different paradigm than the "system mastery" school of RPGs.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Infinitron

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system.

 

 

Yes, this sounds wonderful exactly as long as you're in a phase of your life when you can afford dumping hours into familiarizing yourself with the system instead of playing the mother****ing game. For anybody else who doesn't have nearly unlimited free time, it's a lot less attractive.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system.

 

 

Yes, this sounds wonderful exactly as long as you're in a phase of your life when you can afford dumping hours into familiarizing yourself with the system instead of playing the mother****ing game. For anybody else who doesn't have nearly unlimited free time, it's a lot less attractive.

 

 

While I agree with you that older you are, less time you have. If you dont have time dont force others same logics. You can always play some fast game of CS or any other mainstream friendly game. BUT its single player game and you can learn it as long as you want and I think complexity add 'fun' for people who like to think, Its same like if you say that:

 

Noone playing chess these days, its too coplex just stick to checkers.

[Chrononaut]

 

 

 

Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system.

 

 

Yes, this sounds wonderful exactly as long as you're in a phase of your life when you can afford dumping hours into familiarizing yourself with the system instead of playing the mother****ing game. For anybody else who doesn't have nearly unlimited free time, it's a lot less attractive.

 

Wow. I guess saying "U Mad?" Would be appropriate here. No really, I've never heard the "LOL ive got better things to be doin with mai time LOL nerd I have only a limited time to play gaymes so please design games for me to play em casually", no really completely unique, never heard it before. You might want to throw in something like "I have a girlfriend" to spice it up though.

 

Also, saying that it's "just a game" is quite immature.

 

Perhaps instead of asking developers to downscale a game to the lowest common denominator (ie those who only have time to play games casually), instead try and upscale yourself to the game.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Chrononaut

[Chrononaut]

 

Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing.

 

 

 

It's being designed as a game where failure comes from failing to master the game's content rather than its systems. You don't lose a battle because you picked the wrong stats to improve. You lose a battle because you didn't use the right tactics and abilities.

 

It's a different paradigm than the "system mastery" school of RPGs.

 

It sounds more like "player skill trumps character skill" to me, ie the antithesis of a cRPG.

[Elerond]

Chess has very simple set of rules, but that don't make it to be game that is easy to master, with great number of valid strategies and moves.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

Yes, this sounds wonderful exactly as long as you're in a phase of your life when you can afford dumping hours into familiarizing yourself with the system instead of playing the mother****ing game. For anybody else who doesn't have nearly unlimited free time, it's a lot less attractive.

 

Wow. I guess saying "U Mad?" Would be appropriate here. No really, I've never heard the "LOL ive got better things to be doin with mai time LOL nerd I have only a limited time to play gaymes so please design games for me to play em casually", no really completely unique, never heard it before. You might want to throw in something like "I have a girlfriend" to spice it up though.

 

Also, saying that it's "just a game" is quite immature.

 

Perhaps instead of asking developers to downscale a game to the lowest common denominator (ie those who only have time to play games casually), instead try and upscale yourself to the game.

 

 

I was saying "since I have a limited amount of free time, I'd prefer to learn the workings of the game while actually playing it, as opposed to doing an undefined amount of 'test runs' during which I get to experience nothing meaningful from a roleplaying perspective". Way to misconstrue my point.

 

Where did I say "it's just a game"? Are you even literate? (And besides, how would that be in any way "immature"?)

 

Yes, of course, "upscaling yourself to a game" is the noblest of all full-time occupations one can dream of. Best use of my time.

 

(Shouldn't the majority of the people who played the IE games of old be around 30 now, by the way?)

Edited July 23, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Iucounu]

 

Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing.

 

 

 

It's being designed as a game where failure comes from failing to master the game's content rather than its systems. You don't lose a battle because you picked the wrong stats to improve. You lose a battle because you didn't use the right tactics and abilities.

 

It's a different paradigm than the "system mastery" school of RPGs.

 

Has Obsidian stated this somewhere? I don't think just because there supposedly are no dump-stats, you can derive that it's impossible to make very bad builds in P:E. 

[Chilloutman]

I still think that there are no dumb stats, only dump players

[Tale]

Has Obsidian stated this somewhere? I don't think just because there supposedly are no dump-stats, you can derive that it's impossible to make very bad builds in P:E.

I think the Forumspring post by Sawyer goes towards that way.

Previously posted by Infinitron.

 

Now, it may still be possible to make very bad builds. But the intent seems to be for those being the exception. With valid concepts that are typically crappy characters, such as the intelligent weak fighter being viable.

[Infinitron]

It sounds more like "player skill trumps character skill" to me, ie the antithesis of a cRPG.

 

 

 

OK, you want the ultimate character skill game? You can play a game where the combat is just a stat check with no player input whatsoever. If your stats are high enough, you automatically win. Does that sound fun to you?

 

RPGs with tactical combat certainly do require player skill. The player skill is in giving the characters the correct high level orders, the character skill is in how well they obey those orders.

 

 

 

Now, it may still be possible to make very bad builds. But the intent seems to be for those being the exception. With valid concepts that are typically crappy characters, such as the intelligent weak fighter being viable.

 

 

You'll have bad builds for specific encounters, rather than universally bad builds. "This type of character isn't good against this enemy. So I'd better use somebody else for this fight."

Edited July 23, 2013 by Infinitron