Attribute theory

[curryinahurry]

 

@ Sensuki

 

You need to go back a few pages to where Lephys described his character concept that wasn't currently possible in the current system.

No thanks.

 

It is pointless.

 

I am not really interested in player expectations as TBH most players have garbage expectations and desires. I would rather focus on the design goals themselves.

• No dump stats
• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses

The only other thing to consider about attributes other than combat stats is dialogue and scripted interaction attribute checks.

 

I'm thinking of creating a new thread as I do not like the direction this one has taken.

 

This was the last setup I was working on. I do not believe it is possible to have a very good attribute system if the three secondary defenses are given to all six attributes as is like spreading butter across too much bread.

 

Might - Damage, Healing, Stamina Regen

Perception - Accuracy, Criticals

Endurance - Stamina, Inventory Size

Vitality - Fortitude, Health, Effect Reduction

Dexterity - Reflex, Action Speed

Resolve - Willpower, Durations/AoE Size

 

 

You do understand that design goals are based on player expectations, right?

 

What you started this thread with was an attempt to model POE's attribute system based on known information.  After Josh Sawyer's comments, we have a pretty good understanding of what attributes are , what they effect, how secondary attributes are derived, and what they represent.  Based on that information, what is left?  Either to critique the system and propose incremental changes that might be possible or to offer alternatives; which in all likelihood have no chance of being possible.  

 

Several people on this thread have engaged in a discussion of incremental changes.  If you want to propose an alternative system,. that's great, have at it.  But it has no chance of being implemented.  Obsidian is likely too far down the path to consider such things.  That is why they have been so tight about the information thus far...they didn't want a design by committee approach or half informed whining (which makes sense, especially considering your own view of player opinions).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses
• No dump stats

 

I hate to say it but these design goals seem to point to characters who are not very distinctive, hopefully one can still make characters with definite strengths and weaknesses.

 

This easily can lead to characters who are distinctive. It will be possible(using Josh's system from back in this thread) to dump resolve in favor of Intellect to create a high-damage character. The hypothetical character will be very good at dishing out lasting status effects, but will be able to damage targets much more, an thus have an advantage in such situations.

 

I much prefer these design goals to the attribute systems of computerized D&D, as in the BG series, a Fighter could dump Wisdom and Charisma with no real penalties(as someone else could be used as the party spokesman and Fighters suck at identifying items) making a high Wisdom or Charisma Fighter blatantly inferior than the High Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution Fighter to the point of practically useless. I have no problems with certain classes being better suited to certain builds, but classes should have more builds be be viable than the small handful that were in BG.

[Nonek]

I certainly hope so Mr Parker and I believe Mr Sawyer is a fine designer who will make the system eminently playable, I simply fear that all characters will have to adhere to mediocre stats or be forced into unintuitive stat choices. But these are small doubts and of little moment.

[Sabotin]

Btw, how much do you expect base stats to matter even? Small bonus, defining bonus, flat, scaling, linear, diminishing, increasing, etc?

[Sensuki]

words

It is not my job to care about what you guys like. The fair majority of discussion AFTER sawyer revealed the current attributes was QQ about the lack of simulationism. That is a discussion I am not interested in, I didn't really read any post that was very constructive and every other attribute lineup was less balanced than his and didn't provide any new ideas.

 

I don't think the system is perfect and my posts & threads are aimed at providing some constructive feedback. Well guess what - as I previously stated I don't think talking about PE attributes with any sort of simulationism in mind has any point whatsoever because that's now how Josh thinks about them.

 

The only other "feedback" I get from reading the last 10 or so pages of this thread is "QQ Intellect governs damage" and "QQ attributes aren't simulationist".

 

End of discussion.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Silent Winter]

The only other "feedback" I get from reading the last 10 or so pages of this thread is "QQ Intellect governs damage" and "QQ attributes aren't simulationist".

 

End of discussion.

Sorry, just not true - though some of the discussion has been to that end, there have also been suggestions re: renaming attributes to be more intuitive.  Not based on simulationism but based on player expectation and assumption.  Most of us in this thread will realise what 'Intellect' and 'Strength' do now - but PE will also be sold to others who aren't here, and we want them to enjoy it so it's successful

Suggestions to  move strenght and intellect to 'skills' are also based on being able to use in-combat mechanics and out-of-combat mechanics intuitively without forcing one attribute onto another.

 

Let me ask you this: If damage was governed by the Resolve attribute (or to take an extreme and artificial example, the 'height' attribute) - wouldn't you suggest renaming it?

[Sensuki]

Sorry, just not true - though some of the discussion has been to that end, there have also been suggestions re: renaming attributes to be more intuitive.

You are correct, but that is not really something that I have to pay attention to as I find it pretty easy to make a more intuitively named system than the current one. A lot of the attempts also provide worse mechanics and balance along with the inclusion of stufff that will never happen - such as splitting accuracy across two attributes in ranged and melee etc.

 

Damage isn't governed by the resolve attribute, and in my attempts I changed it to Might.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Kveldulf]

Btw, how much do you expect base stats to matter even? Small bonus, defining bonus, flat, scaling, linear, diminishing, increasing, etc?

 

Defining values should always be the case, from level 1 to X. Most systems I've played seem to have an underwhelming definition between one score to another.

 

I remember early D&D having nice percentile caveats regarding a stat that hits 18, and the difference between 18 to 19 was dramatic. I'm not advocating this incorporation of the percentile qualifiers, neccessarily, but I am advocating the idea that attributes should have the same exponential stairstep, with incremental bonuses from skills or gear filling in - between each value.

[Silent Winter]

Damage ..... in my attempts I changed it to Might.

 

I agree that this would be better - and it was one of the questions posed by Josh before: If Strength were renamed to 'might' would you expect it to govern damage? Most people said 'yes'. [Edit: I see you also mentioned this on the last page].  But then the further question: would you expect it to cover all damage, even from bows and guns - to this I answered 'no'.

I don't mind having all damage under one attribute, but naming it 'strength' or even 'might' wouldn't mesh with certain weapons (though 'might' is still better than 'strength' for this as magical might is included).

I get why the devs have gone for Intellect, it makes enough sense to me.  I just think renaming would have it make sense for more people.  But I'm repeating myself a lot now so I guess I've nothing constructive to add here.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Silent Winter

[Silent Winter]

 

 

• Dumping a stat is harmful to every build
• Every attribute must be useful for every character (class)
• Attributes must be reasonably balanced
• It should be hard to make a bad character
• No Attribute shall govern multiple defenses
• No dump stats

 

I hate to say it but these design goals seem to point to characters who are not very distinctive, hopefully one can still make characters with definite strengths and weaknesses.

This easily can lead to characters who are distinctive. It will be possible(using Josh's system from back in this thread) to dump resolve in favor of Intellect to create a high-damage character. The hypothetical character will be very good at dishing out lasting status effects, but will be able to damage targets much more, an thus have an advantage in such situations.

 

I much prefer these design goals to the attribute systems of computerized D&D, as in the BG series, a Fighter could dump Wisdom and Charisma with no real penalties(as someone else could be used as the party spokesman and Fighters suck at identifying items) making a high Wisdom or Charisma Fighter blatantly inferior than the High Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution Fighter to the point of practically useless. I have no problems with certain classes being better suited to certain builds, but classes should have more builds be be viable than the small handful that were in BG.

I agree.  To quote Josh from the pcworld interview (bolded emphasis mine): http://www.pcworld.com/article/2071423/deep-dive-with-pillars-of-eternity-project-lead-josh-sawyer-the-full-interview.html

a good way of saying this is if you want to make a character that totally fits the archetype of the character you conceive, like let’s say you say, “I want to make a character who’s a wizard and that character has a high intellect”—in our game it’s intellect, not intelligence. Or if you say “I want to make a rogue,” and the rogue has a high dexterity. Those are great characters! They work great. They might not work exactly how you think they’re going to work, but they’re good characters. You make a fighter with a high strength—also a good character. Doesn’t exactly work the way you think it might, but it’s a good character.

If you play against type. If you’re like, “I want to make a muscle-wizard. It has a high strength and a high con”—that’s also a very good character. If you want to make a fighter with a high intelligence and a high resolve, that’s also a good character.

Might not be the most optimal character, but it’s not a bad character.

So I like the design goals - sounds like we can have a good mix of characters and not just have to stick with doing things the obvious way.

[Sensuki]

But then the further question: would you expect it to cover all damage, even from bows and guns

Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description. That one, and resolve are the two best attributes at the moment. The others all need work.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Silent Winter]

 

But then the further question: would you expect it to cover all damage, even from bows and guns

Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description. That one, and resolve are the two best attributes at the moment. The others all need work.

 

Sure (and 'magical-might' makes easy sense with the word), and that could work to - do you then forsee that gunpowder is merely an ingredient of the gun's power - your soul would accelerate the ball?(and bow's power doesn't just come from the bending of the limbs).  Or do you mean that your soul's might would give you better aim?

[i just ask as I think the logic behind 'intellect' is that you know / have skill to hit where it hurts]

Edited December 28, 2013 by Silent Winter

[Sensuki]

Dude. That is exactly the kind of pointless discussion I am talking about. I am not trying to justify it, rather give suspension of disbelief.

[Kveldulf]

 

But then the further question: would you expect it to cover all damage, even from bows and guns

Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description. That one, and resolve are the two best attributes at the moment. The others all need work.

 

 

I would wager that 'Strength' will scale similiar to intelect in this crude example (if both example characters are melee centric):

 

More attacks of oppurtunity (intellect - melee)

More damage if struck (Strength - melee)

Between the two, damage over time equates to about the same (generally)

 

Regarding spells/ranged I could see them using items/spell/skills with attribute modifiers not scaled the same way as strength.

 

Also, I think physical muscle should be exclusive (and reserved only) somewhere in one stat (imho). To tie all or most damage together so broadly under Might sounds too simplistic - trivializing.

 

A strong guy vs an inteligent guy should be distinguished, not inclusive because of effective DOT.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Kveldulf

[Silent Winter]

Dude. That is exactly the kind of pointless discussion I am talking about. I am not trying to justify it, rather give suspension of disbelief.

Suspension of disbelief comes from internal consistency - you like soft-magic systems rather than hard-magic systems? fair enough, I've liked both in their places.

I don't consider it pointless discussion though - if they said bananas do more damage than swords in the PE world, you could accept that, those are pretty fearsome bananas, but most people would find it jarring.

You don't give suspension of disbelief by calling it 'might' rather than 'intellect' - both of those are equally valid from that point of view.  They just throw up alternate questions.

If you don't want to have a discussion of 'how things work' in the PE world then don't.  (When you said "Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description." I thought you were referring to having a description that made internal sense - ie, you were justifying it in the context.  My bad if I misunderstood)

[Sensuki]

No. There is no point talking about that stuff regarding PE's attribute system - nothing of the sort is being taken into consideration by design and it seems that there are LOTS of people that find it very hard to disassociate themselves from a simulationist discussion regarding PE's attributes. I was once like that but over time I now see there is little point. Kveldulf also seems to be suffering from the same problem.

 

The accuracy system is unified, bonus damage is unified. The only discussion worth having should be how to place those combat stats together and how to balance them across the attributes.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

No. There is no point talking about that stuff regarding PE's attribute system - nothing of the sort is being taken into consideration by design and it seems that there are LOTS of people that find it very hard to disassociate themselves from a simulationist discussion regarding PE's attributes. I was once like that but over time I now see there is little point. Kveldulf also seems to be suffering from the same problem.

 

The accuracy system is unified, bonus damage is unified. The only discussion worth having should be how to place those combat stats together and how to balance them across the attributes

 

You're missing the point of what Silent Winter, Myself and others have been promoting.  We get that Obsidian is developing a gamist system.  But within that system, there has to be a correlation between what the system is attempting to model and what the what the name value is of that label.  Its semiotics 101; there has to be a relationship between signifier and signed.  In fact, that seems to be the logic behind why you moved damage bonus in your system re-vamp over to might, but that is not why Josh Sawyer created that example, and Silent Winter is pointing that out in his post.

 

So if might/power/strength doesn't serve the correct purpose based on Obsidian's design attempt and Intellect is counter-intuitive,  what is the solution?  The solution that has been mostly discussed over the last several pages, is to remove intellect and strength from the attribute column, replace them with words that more accurately describe intent. and move them potentially to a skills slot where they can be used to bolster attributes and give a level of familiarity/ role-playing value to players.

 

As an design fix, it works within what Obsidian is trying to develop and doesn't require any major re-tooling of the system other than extra balancing due to the expansion of the skill pool.  Any other solution would require major re-design and is thus likely impractical/impossible at this stage.

Edited December 28, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Sensuki]

No I understand your point completely. What I am saying to you is that that issue is insignificant when compared to the other ones.

 

The issues lie in the distribution of the combat stats themselves, not the names of the attributes. The names do not ****ing matter. You could call them something completely abstract - Eagle, Wushi, Hawk, Mung-Fo-To-Bing, Rhubarb and CrabApple and they would be no worse off than they were before.

 

TBH I'd like to see what your answers are to my questionnaire.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Kveldulf]

 

No. There is no point talking about that stuff regarding PE's attribute system - nothing of the sort is being taken into consideration by design and it seems that there are LOTS of people that find it very hard to disassociate themselves from a simulationist discussion regarding PE's attributes. I was once like that but over time I now see there is little point. Kveldulf also seems to be suffering from the same problem.

 

The accuracy system is unified, bonus damage is unified. The only discussion worth having should be how to place those combat stats together and how to balance them across the attributes

 

You're missing the point of what Silent Winter, Myself and others have been promoting.  We get that Obsidian is developing a gamist system.  But within that system, there has to be a correlation between what the system is attempting to model and what the what the name value is of that label.  Its semiotics 101; there has to be a relationship between signifier and signed.  In fact, that seems to be the logic behind why you moved damage bonus in your system re-vamp over to might, but that is not why Josh Sawyer created that example, and Silent Winter is pointing that out in his post.

 

So if might/power/strength doesn't serve the correct purpose based on Obsidian's design attempt and Intellect is counter-intuitive,  what is the solution?  The solution that has been mostly discussed over the last several pages, is to remove intellect and strength from the attribute column, replace them with words that more accurately describe intent. and move them potentially to a skills slot where they can be used to bolster attributes and give a level of familiarity/ role-playing value to players.

 

As an design fix, it works within what Obsidian is trying to develop and doesn't require any major re-tooling of the system other than extra balancing due to the expansion of the skill pool.  Any other solution would require major re-design and is thus likely impractical/impossible at this stage.

 

 

Hmmm, I just went back a bit in the post.... guess I got confused on what was being done with strength.....

 

So intelligence is going to be the only damage attribute, while strength will magnify stats (+inventory space)?

 

I apologize for my blundering.... 'sigh'

Edited December 28, 2013 by Kveldulf

[PrimeJunta]

Actually, Sensuki, I disagree. The names do matter.

 

Think of the reason we have the attributes in in the first place. They're not necessary for getting the mechanics to work, or for character, class, or gameplay differentiation. All of that could be done more smoothly through classes, skills, perks, and talents. They're there to support character concepts. They define what kind of character you want to be. "Herbert is smart but clumsy, strong but a little fragile, stubborn and not easily swayed, and annoys people a lot." Oh, OK, INT 16, DEX 8, STR 16, CON 9, WIS 14, CHA 8.

 

I.e., the attribute names are extremely important IMO, and it's also important that they describe some identifiable and relatable aspect of the character being built. This is a tough equation to balance if you also want to avoid obvious dump or pump stats. And it does mean you'll have to find some rationalization to connect whatever mechanical effects each of them has to whatever characteristic they're supposedly describing.

 

This isn't simulationism. It's about role-playing. This is naturally a much bigger deal in tabletop gaming, but I suspect it's a big part of why many of us are drawn to the genre on computers as well.

[Sensuki]

I am a power gamer bro. To me it doesn't matter. I would be giving more of a damn if Josh was giving more of a damn, but he's coming at it from a "balance" perspective rather than a RP/simulation perspective. The RP elements will take place in the attribute checks and scripted interactions - of which the names of the attributes may matter, but for combat purposes, the only things that matter are the the combat stats themselves.

 

When I make a character in a game I *never* have a pre-determined vision of what that character is going to be if I haven't played the game before, I just go in and make one based on the options available. When I have played a game I optimally choose things based on efficacy rather than concept.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm pretty sure Josh is aware of the role-playing aspect of it. He's clearly put a lot of thought into naming the attributes and attempting to connect the names to the effects, and is fully aware that the Intellect-base damage connection is problematic in that respect.

 

As to powergaming, I tend to do it too, which is why easily exploitable systems bother me. But that's neither here nor there: the design function of having attributes is to support role-play and character concepts, so it's nonsensical to argue that their role-play and character-concept-support aspects don't matter. That's what they're for, so of course it matters.

 

If you're not interested in this aspect, by all means refrain from discussing it and concentrate on finding ways to minimize the harm the attribute system does to the mechanics instead. Although I don't think you've managed to improve on Josh's proposed system at all, I think it's good to have that discussion, so carry on, pal!

Edited December 28, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Silent Winter]

...

The accuracy system is unified, bonus damage is unified. The only discussion worth having should be how to place those combat stats together and how to balance them across the attributes.

*penny drops* ah, I'm clear now on what you're saying (sorry for not catching it before - caffeine deprived here).

Ok, I agree to the extent that balancing the attributes for combat is important (I also replied to your other thread that focusses on that) but I disagree that it's the only important thing to consider.

 

I am a power gamer bro. To me it doesn't matter. I would be giving more of a damn if Josh was giving more of a damn, but he's coming at it from a "balance" perspective rather than a RP/simulation perspective. The RP elements will take place in the attribute checks and scripted interactions - of which the names of the attributes may matter, but for combat purposes, the only things that matter are the the combat stats themselves.

So yes, to you it doesn't matter - but to most of us it does.  I bolded the bit that you're glossing over.

I agree that it's important to get the combat mechanics balanced with the attributes and from that POV it doesn't matter what they're called...BUT, the creation of a character (as PrimaJunta is saying) and the relationship with the attribute checks in dialogues and other scripted interactions, is very important to most of us.  Hence the discussion.

[Sensuki]

Not in regards to RP aspects. Balance though - I believe so, as STR and PER atm are ****ed, but I don't have defenses across six attributes because that is the most limiting thing about the design so far.

 

There is another way of doing attributes that hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

At the moment, attributes are groups of combat stats thrown together in a semi-simulationist manner. Another way of doing things would be to "technically" remove the attribute concept altogether while keeping the naming conventions for attribute checks in dialogue and scripted interaction.

 

So for combat stats we have

 

Damage/Healing

Accuracy

Health

Stamina

Durations/AoEs

 

Fortitude

Reflex

Willpower

 

Deflection

 

+ others

 

Josh appears like he wants all characters to have the same number of points in defenses. So we can segregate the defenses from the others as he has done. I don't like Critical Damage as a combat stat as it is inferior to the others, so I'm gonna add in action speed as the 6th

 

Now we have

 

Damage/Healing

Accuracy

Health

Stamina

Durations/AoEs

Action Speed

 

Let us give all six of these combat stats an alternate name for the purposes of attributes, so the only thing you get from the attribute is a bonus in one combat stat.

 

Name them whatever you like - here is my 10 second naming attempt

 

Intellect - Damage/Healing

Dexterity - Action Speed

Perception - Accuracy

Endurance - Stamina

Vitality - Health

Resolve - Durations/AoEs

 

3 PHYS, 3 MENTAL.

 

Now have a separate pool of points to be placed in Defenses upon Character creation. No longer to attributes have to compete with one another for the purpose of defenses.

 

10 points to spend - go!

 

Fortitude

Reflex

Willpower

 

Or just no points at all and make them all totally class based.

 

Inventory size could just be a talent or something called "TEH STRONGZ" or whatever, like in Fallout.

 

FTR I don't like this system but whatever.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Sensuki

[Mor]

I'm pretty sure Josh is aware of the role-playing aspect of it. He's clearly put a lot of thought into naming the attributes and attempting to connect the names to the effects, and is fully aware that the Intellect-base damage connection is problematic in that respect.

 

As to powergaming, I tend to do it too, which is why easily exploitable systems bother me. But that's neither here nor there: the design function of having attributes is to support role-play and character concepts, so it's nonsensical to argue that their role-play and character-concept-support aspects don't matter. That's what they're for, so of course it matters.

 

If you're not interested in this aspect, by all means refrain from discussing it and concentrate on finding ways to minimize the harm the attribute system does to the mechanics instead. Although I don't think you've managed to improve on Josh's proposed system at all, I think it's good to have that discussion, so carry on, pal!

I agree. The problem that we don't know many of the design/lore aspects and because of that in many cases we jumping the gun.

 

 

[snip]

Unless I am mistaken, what you suggest is that:

1. Defense stats won't be derived from attributes, instead we'll be able to distribute defense points as we wish. Because you believe its limiting.

2. Replace 'Critical Damage' with 'Action Speed', because even though you stated that josh design goal is balance, you believe that 'Critical Damage' is inferior to the others stats.

 

 

As far as Defense stats, IMO the current system makes more sense and more balanced then what you suggest. Also keep in mind that attributes along with class only determine your initial defense stats, after that you'll be assigning defense points each level where ever you want. Also class have unique passive abilities they can choose from, that you gain through experience and make your character more distinct.

 

As for 'Critical Damage', I am not certain we know enough about abilities to make such statements. While your suggestion to replace it with 'Action Speed' might brake some aspect of the game, if I understand correctly the whole aspect of the no class limit with armor/weapons is balanced around Action Speed(weight speed penalty).

 

 

* which IMO is the right way to go, our attributes, can take us so far,