Too combat-focused?

[Hormalakh]

Yeah, I'm talking about adding "class abilities" that are also useful outside of combat.

 

Of course, many of them would be things that affect dialogue, and so we're back to the original problem - Obsidian don't want to add lots of class-specific stuff in dialogue.

 

But the thing is, it would be easier for them to add more class-specific stuff in dialogue than it would be to add new skills. So it sounds like you're asking them to do more work to compensate for the absence of something that would require less work. That's...not likely to happen.

 

 

adding class abilities would require more work - which is why i didn't make that recommendation. i'm recommending that what is already in the game (skills) become more granular and divided appropriately among the classes, even though they fall under the larger umbrealla of a certain skill.

 

As it currently stands, each skill already has multiple mechanics. As an example, survival "determine how long the effects of consumable foods, drinks (including potions), and drugs last.^[5] In Conversations and scripted Interactions Surivival provides options that involve wilderness, hunting etc." Each of these are under the umbrella of survival, but they are different implemented mechanics. All I'm saying is that the effects be more granularized by class, so that these bonuses affect different classes differently.

 

i'm not asking for more work. I'm saying take what you already have: skills, with it's multiple areas of use (the survival skill as an example) and then break it up appropriately for different classes. then have talents that allow you to dilute back in the other sub-skill mechanics.

 

Dialogue is not the only thing that you do outside of combat. If it is, then what happened to the third of the holy trinity, exploring? Or crafting? etc etc. Stop thinking so narrowly.

 

If they want to make class abilities that work outside of the skill mechanics already implemented, they can do so. But that's a whole other level of work. Dividing skills into sub-skills is the most cost-effective way of doing this.

 

as i said before, this is likely too late into the development cycle, it will cause sawyer too much of a headache, or too expensive. but as it currently stands, what makes classes different is only important when it comes to combat. otherwise the differences are superficial at best (with the bonuses in each skill).

Edited March 23, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

I think what is forgotten here, and what Josh has mentioned before is that skills in PoE will be MORE useful if held by multiple team members. The example given is the stealth party which can more easily ambush foes. This does offer up multiple interesting party strategies. Instead of worrying about individual character builds, you might have to worry more about party builds. For example a stealth party could only have a smattering of other skills, and other strategies of gaining resources or overcoming obstacles may be denied them. I would still love to see an update on skills, though.

 

when the number of total skills in the pool are not that many, a majority of the skills can be taken up by the whole party. Who cares who takes stealth, mechanics, survival, etc? if you want to be efficient you'll just use the classes with the bonuses in those skills to bump it. There's no real reason to consider different classes going for different skill sets because ultimately they all do the same thing. and the main topic of this thread is that the game is too combat focused to the detriment of choices outside of combat.

[Hassat Hunter]

Obsidian don't want to add lots of class-specific stuff in dialogue.

Aaaaaw... why not?

That's like, a big part of the fun.

Druids should have it easier to convince the lone old man in the wilderness, and the Godlike should have more difficulty getting information, etc.

 

@ Hormalakh; That's not dissecting skills, that's just adding more skills, using the same qualities. So instead of 'cure' being healing+poison you now have 'healing' and 'poison'...

Edited March 23, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Hormalakh]

we aren't adding skills! if a ranger takes survival, it's the same survival that a druid takes. but their effects are different based on the class, initially. with talents, the skill can take on further mechanics.

 

 

Here's another example: Lore

 

Let's say there are three types of lore: culture and language, magic, animancy.

 

under the current system, if a mage increases his lore skill, all the 3 types increase. there is no differentiation. same with chanter. same with cipher.

 

with the new system, if a mage increases his lore skill, it initially increases the magic subtype more than animancy more than the culture and language.

cipher most with animancy, then magic, then culture and language.

chanter most with culture and language, then animancy, then magic.

 

it's the same skill all around, but the implementation for each class is different.

 

if a mage goes for the "well-read" talent, his lore then will continue to increase evenly across the three lore subtypes. if a chanter takes the "spiritual jounrey" talent, it would be the same deal: lore will continue to increase evenly across the subtypes. Cipher would have the "well-read" talent too.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Hassat Hunter]

So... it diverts skills into 3 subsections (which despite what you say, is making 1 skill 3 skills) then allows you to turn those 3 skills back into 1 skill at higher level?

 

If so, may I ask;

What's the point?

 

(I know in the previous post it was like 70% or 80%, but still, what's the point?)

[Hormalakh]

So... it diverts skills into 3 subsections (which despite what you say, is making 1 skill 3 skills) then allows you to turn those 3 skills back into 1 skill at higher level?

 

If so, may I ask;

What's the point?

 

(I know in the previous post it was like 70% or 80%, but still, what's the point?)

 

 

Ultimately, skills should be another way to distinguish the classes.

[Hassat Hunter]

No, since you want to, in the end after a few levels, want to bind them together again.

 

Also, there's the matter if you want 2 wizards, and you want wilderness lore and magic lore, there's no choice to do so. No choice, why build a RPG character.

I still think, if you make 3 distinct skills, don't force people down a predetermined path (skill 1 > skill 2 > skill 3), just let them pick, sure add a bonus to one, but don't force it.

 

In the end; the solution;

1) Either reduces the players choices to build characters (bad)

or

2) With said "feat/talent" the entire distinction is useless anyway. So again; why make it in the first place? We don't have enough feats otherwise?

[Hormalakh]

you aren't being forced to take that talent. the talent option is there for precisely that reason that you just mentioned (2 wiz, one wild lore, one magic lore). ultimately, having enough skills to help diversify your classes would be nice, but PoE is having less, because as Josh said, it's tougher to get heavy use of all of them. which brings us back to square one. so either they expand the skills with equitable uses in combat (so that skills don't feel useless), which would be expensive, or keep them small with heavy use.

 

so, you've got me stumped. I guess something is better than nothing, and that would be infinitron's recommendation: make some of the dialogue options contingent on more than one condition (i.e. Lore is 70 AND class is cipher), though again, these are scripted events, and not really interesting to the overall gameplay.

 

i dunno. you got me

[happyelf]

 

Oh, yeah, and it is true that non-combat skills are largely class-agnostic. Class mostly determines how you fight rather than who you are.

 

Yes.  We have previously given details about our skill system, including how Stealth works.  As a recap, all characters can invest in the Stealth skill, though certain classes (like rogues) have a head start in that department.  You can have characters sneak individually or as a group and the gameplay consists of navigating the Stealth-based radii of your party members around the detection radii of potential enemies.  Enemies have two stages to discovering a sneaking character.  The first causes them to investigate.  Once they get close enough (IF they get close enough), they will fully realize the threat and typically start combat (sometimes dialogue).  In both of our class pair updates (rogues + rangers, wizards + druids), we've called out what non-combat skills each class emphasizes, but yes, the skills are largely class-neutral.

 

Dialogue options are also largely class-neutral.  Most threshold-based options are opened up based on the character's attributes -- using Perception to notice something, Resolve to threaten someone with scary intensity, Strength to intimidate someone with brute force (or just to smack them around a little), Dexterity to swipe something, etc.  Picking these options is not always a path to success, but the attributes are what open them up.  The same applies to class-, race-, sex-, or background-based options that pop up.  We decided to avoid dialogue skills since it pushes characters to invest in "the dialogue game" or miss out on a ton of enjoyable content.  By using as many basic elements of the character as we can to shape dialogue, we keep dialogue open to all sorts of characters, from meat-head fighters to sassy wizards and everything in-between.  Attribute-based checks worked well in Planescape: Torment and we think it will work well in PoE as well.

 

 

 

What about dialogue options based on the skills that are present? Like a Lore, or Survival check?

[Suburban-Fox]

I like how IWD2 handled the survival skill. Rangers and druids could use "Wilderness Lore" or whatever it was, on a new area, to discover what kinds of monsters could be found in the vicinity, and information like that.

 

I didn't like how it was done in NWN2 or DA:O, where you magically knew the location of every enemy on the map, even if you haven't explored that area yet. I wouldn't mind having a similar system, but it must have a much lower radius, and not be like a radar.

 

I also liked the SoZ dialogue system, where you could choose who does the talking, if you get asked something which would logically cause one of your companions to butt in with an appropriate response.

[teknoman2]

and why need specific class based abilities? they could easily be replaced by some story/quest elements unique to the class. for example if you are a paladin, you could choose to belong to one of a number of orders at character creation, and that choice will be reflected on your social interactions. if you choose the "White Knights" that safeguard order and justice, the comon folk will see you as a hero and treat you accordingly. if you are part of the "Order of the dead" that seeks to bring peace by eradicating all life, people will be scared of you

and so on

[Hassat Hunter]

the talent option is there for precisely that reason that you just mentioned (2 wiz, one wild lore, one magic lore).

But why should you take a talent for that? Instead of just being allowed to place your points in wilderness lore instead? That's really my question and ultimate problem with the suggestion.

I don't mind them being split in 3, with each class focusing on one, but I do that you have no choice to add points of which of the 3 you desire yourself. Which, IMO, kind of defeats the point of a skill system.

make some of the dialogue options contingent on more than one condition (i.e. Lore is 70 AND class is cipher), though again, these are scripted events, and not really interesting to the overall gameplay.

Lore being 70 is kinda extreme for a 12-level game .

But, why not? I don't mind those scripted events, they add to the game. Aslong as they aren't PC only, and for example a cipher teammate can budge in if they have said requirements.

Dialogue is very important to the overall gameplay, why say it isn't?

[Micamo]

From the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:

 

Brain-teasing puzzles, roleplaying challenges, and skill checks are all classic methods for resolving encounters, but the most complex encounters to build are the most common ones—combat encounters.

If I may be forgiven for quoting that out of its original context, I suspect this is why we've mainly heard about combat. It's the most challenging part of the game to build, so doing it upfront is best. Also, combat has rarely been an area in which Obsidian has excelled, whereas they always excel at writing, C&C, and world-building. I expect they're trying to shore up this weakness first and foremost. And, of course, there's the fact that non-combat stuff tends to involve scripted interactions, and thus spoilers.

 

Which is not to say that they aren't working on any of that stuff, necessarily. It's just that they're not talking as much about that.

 

 

My worry is that 20 minutes into the game I'm going to turn on a cheat that lets me kill everything instantly to skip the combat segments altogether (I can't play any of the IE games without this honestly) and aaaaaaaall of this effort on trying to build an interesting combat system will go to waste and end up making the game weaker. My big worry is that the combat will be unbearable and this cheat won't exist, and I'll be unable to finish the game due to it (Shadowrun Returns had a variation this problem; Whoever thought it was a smart idea to have checkpoint-based saves in an open-ish game should be taken out back and shot). There's a difference between trying to shore up your weaknesses and failing to focus on your strengths. See: Skyrim's focus on exposition-y plot-focused narrative that both distracted from and often actively got in the way of freeform exploration and roleplaying.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Micamo

[rustypup]

My worry is that 20 minutes into the game I'm going to turn on a cheat that lets me kill everything instantly to skip the combat segments altogether (I can't play any of the IE games without this honestly)  

I'm not being a pedant or confrontational here, but what is it about this game that drew you here?

 

Combat in the IE games was always, at least for me, enormous fun.

 

Simply side-stepping a large portion of the content doesn't say "content is broken", it says "this isn't my type of game". :/ 

[rjshae]

My worry is that 20 minutes into the game I'm going to turn on a cheat that lets me kill everything instantly to skip the combat segments altogether (I can't play any of the IE games without this honestly) and aaaaaaaall of this effort on trying to build an interesting combat system will go to waste and end up making the game weaker. My big worry is that the combat will be unbearable and this cheat won't exist, and I'll be unable to finish the game due to it (Shadowrun Returns had a variation this problem; Whoever thought it was a smart idea to have checkpoint-based saves in an open-ish game should be taken out back and shot). There's a difference between trying to shore up your weaknesses and failing to focus on your strengths. See: Skyrim's focus on exposition-y plot-focused narrative that both distracted from and often actively got in the way of freeform exploration and roleplaying.

 

It doesn't look like you're a backer, so why worry? Wait to read the reviews and see if the game sounds to your liking.

[Hormalakh]

It doesn't look like you're a backer, so why worry? Wait to read the reviews and see if the game sounds to your liking.

 

 

wow. low blow. people can have reservations without being a backer. in case you are worried about my backer status, i am a backer.

 

it doesn't lessen the concern however that micamo raised - to this day, i still will play ps:t and Bg1/2 over IWD. I even tried playing IWD again, but it just bores me. The exploration of bg1/2 were much more interesting to me as was the broken combat. a game without a story and just "tactical combat" is not what IE was really about, it was more a culmination of several things.

 

as for @hassat hunter, dialogue is important, but again not the only thing. these games have multiple mechanics and gameplay elements that make them interesting. dialogue is again, one important aspect, but not the whole.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Monte Carlo]

I don't think it was a low blow. It's like someone playing a flight sim but doesn't like landing or taking off.

[Micamo]

I'm not being a pedant or confrontational here, but what is it about this game that drew you here?

To be honest, Planescape: Torment is a video game that has deep, personal meaning to me: I consider playing it to be one of my most important formative experiences. It was one of my biggest influences on the shaping of my voice as a creator (most of which has admittedly gone into tabletop gaming) and it shaped the way I view stories themselves (and interactive narrative in particular). I care about the direction of PoE because by all indications it has the potential (moreso than Tides of Numenera) to strike that nerve again. If they manage to get this right, then this game will basically be the equivalent of being able to go to heaven and see my kitty that died when I was 5. And I honestly think Obsidian has a good chance of pulling it off.

 

Of course, I'd love it if the combat system was amazing and well-designed too. Or we could get another Alpha Protocol.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Micamo

[Hormalakh]

I don't think it was a low blow. It's like someone playing a flight sim but doesn't like landing or taking off.

 

backing a game is not the same as liking a genre. there are a multitude of reasons why someone can't/won't back a game but still like the genre or the developer or the game. get out of here with your silly analogies.

 

 i liked the IE games (still can't get into IWD, but liked all the other ones nonetheless), but I have the same concern. I'm also a backer too. what other silly excuse are you guys going to throw out there instead of actually considering the question asked?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Sarex]

To be honest, Planescape: Torment is a video game that has deep, personal meaning to me: I consider playing it to be one of my most important formative experiences. It was one of my biggest influences on the shaping of my voice as a creator (most of which has admittedly gone into tabletop gaming) and it shaped the way I view stories themselves (and interactive narrative in particular). I care about the direction of PoE because by all indications it has the potential (moreso than Tides of Numenera) to strike that nerve again. If they manage to get this right, then this game will basically be the equivalent of being able to go to heaven and see my kitty that died when I was 5. And I honestly think Obsidian has a good chance of pulling it off.

 

Of course, I'd love it if the combat system was amazing and well-designed too. Or we could get another Alpha Protocol.

 

PoE is going more to the BG/IWD series gameplay wise, and more to the BG/PS:T story wise. That was the first thing they said.

[Nonek]

As a wise old Zerth I once knew was wont to quote: Balance in All Things. I like good implementations of combat systems, turn based ideally, but they must not come before all other considerations, as that allows a weakness to fester and leads to combat becoming a crutch that cripples the other legs of the game.

 

Personally I do believe that many interesting aspects of the genre have been abandoned or simply judged unsuitable, when the truth is almost anything can fit into a good rpg, and nothing if implemented well is a wasted feature. Enviromental interaction, durability, npc schedules, politics, history, study, training, all of these and more can and have in my pen and paper games come into play. To the betterment and richness of the setting and the characters. Except romance of course which is a cancer that needs treating with the utmost prejudice, and maybe atomic warfare.

 

I'm of course not asking for a graphical novel that plays itself, that is truly degenerate and makes a mockery of interactivity, but I do believe that ideally a more rounded amount of content should be included other than just combat and conversation, in corridors.

[Hassat Hunter]

Seems both are backers, the badges just don't appear for them (you can see them listed on their userpage)... guess that's a case for...
EDIT: And Sarex too. That makes 3 backers without obvious badges here.

 

as for @hassat hunter, dialogue is important, but again not the only thing. these games have multiple mechanics and gameplay elements that make them interesting. dialogue is again, one important aspect, but not the whole.

I probably agree, but aside from conversation and combat... what exactly would you say are these other mechanics/gameplay elements?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Infinitron]

we aren't adding skills!

 

Semantics. It's the same thing as making a bunch of class-exclusive skills, like Perform for Bards in NWN.

 

Ah, but you say "no, we're basically taking existing universal skills and chopping them up into class-exclusive skills, not creating new ones whole cloth!". Well, I'd say that's still almost as much work in terms of balancing and re-balancing.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Infinitron

[Hormalakh]

Seems both are backers, the badges just don't appear for them (you can see them listed on their userpage)... guess that's a case for...

EDIT: And Sarex too. That makes 3 backers without obvious badges here.

 

as for @hassat hunter, dialogue is important, but again not the only thing. these games have multiple mechanics and gameplay elements that make them interesting. dialogue is again, one important aspect, but not the whole.

I probably agree, but aside from conversation and combat... what exactly would you say are these other mechanics/gameplay elements?

 

i mentioned them before. exploration (content lock-out), crafting, puzzle solving, stronghold minigame.

 

 

we aren't adding skills!

 

Semantics. It's the same thing as making a bunch of class-exclusive skills, like Perform for Bards in NWN.

 

Ah, but you say "no, we're basically taking existing universal skills and chopping them up into class-exclusive skills, not creating new ones whole cloth!". Well, I'd say that's still almost as much work in terms of balancing and re-balancing.

 

 

yeah. you're right infinitron. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR?! *SOB*

 

actually hassat and i broke it down, and it seems that really, it's not a great idea when you sit and pan it out completely. so ... yeah there's that.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Hassat Hunter]

* Well, they don't need to add mechanics for exploration. Just, interesting maps.

* Crafting I suppose. I personally hate crafting with a deep passion, except done BG2-style. But since they aren't doing BG2-style...

* Puzzle solving is mostly conversation. While there could be puzzles with interactives in the environment, I still think the majority will be conversation.

* Stronghold minigame is not really a minigame... it's a gold-sink. I suppose 'economy' is a mechanic, but that's heavily tied to combat, conversations (quests) and exploration.