What is Pillars of Eternity's approach towards skill checks that the player CAN'T pass yet?

[Infinitron]

Is the game being structured so that players can often go back and pass those skill checks after they've gained some more levels and raised the relevant skills, or is it more like "that's what your character was specced to do, deal with it", like in the 3rd Edition D&D CRPGs?

 

In those games, the imposition of a level cap on your skills meant that it always felt (to me at least) like you needed to constantly stay "topped off" at max level with the skills you'd chosen in character generation. It discouraged you from specializing in other skills in the middle of your character's career.

 

If you WERE "topped off" at a certain skill, you could usually always pass any skill check with it when you encountered it for the first time. The games never really threw a check at you that was purposely designed to be something that you couldn't pass until later.

 

So it was like, if your character was predestined to be able to do something, then he'd be able to do it always, and if not, tough cookies, do it in your next playthrough with your next character.

 

Compare that with, say, Fallout, which was built around the idea of slowly building up your character's competency with various skills over the course of the game, even requiring you to do so with Small Guns --> Energy Weapons if you wanted to remain competitive in combat. Which was kind of bad, but also helped emphasize that sort of design - always improving the same skills was the wrong way to play the game.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Infinitron

[Prometheus]

In Pillars of Eternity there will be resting boni to skills, items that increase your skills and probably weighted skill increase. So you could always increase multiple/all skills and try to pass the threshold with items and resting boni.

 

If you WERE "topped off" at a certain skill, you could usually always pass any skill check with it when you encountered it for the first time. The games never really threw a check at you that was purposely designed to be something that you couldn't pass until later.

 

So it was like, if your character was predestined to be able to do something, then he'd be able to do it always, and if not, tough cookies, do it in your next playthrough with your next character.

Isn't that the best way? Why should there any skills you can't pass if you have invested all your points in them (Imo the only good reasons would be that you are under leveled or there is a different quest for this area at a later point in the game).

 

source for weighted skill increase:

The advancement will probably be weighted, so dumping points into one skill is not particularly efficient, though it will give you the highest score possible. If you dabble in a bunch of stuff, you won't be dramatically behind the specialist. You'll be less likely to pass any threshold checks, but you also have higher skill scores on average.

All skills also have bonuses that apply even if you're not "unlocking" whatever "locks" stand in your way. If you have one character with 18 Mechanics and another with 10 Mechanics, the former is probably going to be picking more locks than the latter, but traps set by the latter still benefit from the 10 Mechanics.

[Infinitron]

Isn't that the best way? Why should there any skills you can't pass if you have invested all your points in them (Imo the only good reasons would be that you are under leveled or there is a different quest for this area at a later point in the game).

 

What does "under leveled" mean? Under leveled for an entire area?

 

Why can't you be "under leveled" for just that one check?

[Nonek]

Didn't Mr Sawyer state early on for a lockpicking example that one might be able to burn up resources (in this case lockpicks) to improve ones odds, if not too far below a threshold? Of course that doesn't help the victim of an underspecced skill, but still I think it may be a fair compromise.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Nonek

[Hormalakh]

Didn't Mr Sawyer state early on for a lockpicking example that one might be able to burn up resources (in this case lockpicks) to improve ones odds, if not too far below a threshold? Of course that doesn't help the victim of an underspecced skill, but still I think it may be a fair compromise.

 

I think he was asking if there would e any areas where you can't possibly have someone with enough skill to even use resources, but that you'd need to come back after your skills been upped.

[Nonek]

I hope so, it makes for a more intriguing area in my opinion. Those rune covered bronze gates that turn all blows and defeat all spells and mechanical contrivances, they become a mystery we're somewhat enthralled by. Though no doubt some may dislike backtracking to hoover up loot and such, that's not so much a problem if the areas are interesting enough though.

[Prometheus]

What does "under leveled" mean? Under leveled for an entire area?

Yes for the area or the part of the area if the check is part of a difficult sidequest.

 

Why can't you be "under leveled" for just that one check?

Because if you are under leveled for just this check you must comeback for only this check and that's Imo bad gamedesign.

[Ffordesoon]

My feeling is that it should depend on the context of the check, and that, for dialogue checks, NPCs should remember failure. Which doesn't necessarily change the fact that you can succeed, but changes the nature of that success, in terms of flavor if nothing else.

 

Simple example: the old "trying to pass a guard and get into a city" chestnut. You walk up to the guard, he says nobody's allowed into the city. You try to pull the old "These are not the droids you 're looking for" bit, but your Charisma isn't high enough to bring it off successfully. So the dude's like, "Yeah-huh, whatever, smartass."

 

You can come back later and try again, as it's ultimately a low-pressure, non-time-sensitive check, but maybe the guy's like, "Look, I told you..." And then you get the option to force a purse of gold into his hands.

 

Now, maybe that was already an option, but because you thought you could be Rico Suave the first time, you didn't take it, raising the requirements for success next time. Maybe you have to use the equivalent of Charm Person now, should you not be inclined to pay up.

 

But, like, with vanilla Lockpicking checks, you should be able to retry those as many times as you have lockpicks for, because there's no chance a chest is going to get pissed off at you for not picking it correctly, or whatever.

 

That seems like the best way to handle it from my perspective.

[Infinitron]

My feeling is that it should depend on the context of the check, and that, for dialogue checks, NPCs should remember failure. Which doesn't necessarily change the fact that you can succeed, but changes the nature of that success, in terms of flavor if nothing else.

 

Simple example: the old "trying to pass a guard and get into a city" chestnut. You walk up to the guard, he says nobody's allowed into the city. You try to pull the old "These are not the droids you 're looking for" bit, but your Charisma isn't high enough to bring it off successfully. So the dude's like, "Yeah-huh, whatever, smartass."

 

You can come back later and try again, as it's ultimately a low-pressure, non-time-sensitive check, but maybe the guy's like, "Look, I told you..." And then you get the option to force a purse of gold into his hands.

 

Now, maybe that was already an option, but because you thought you could be Rico Suave the first time, you didn't take it, raising the requirements for success next time. Maybe you have to use the equivalent of Charm Person now, should you not be inclined to pay up.

 

But, like, with vanilla Lockpicking checks, you should be able to retry those as many times as you have lockpicks for, because there's no chance a chest is going to get pissed off at you for not picking it correctly, or whatever.

 

That seems like the best way to handle it from my perspective.

 

 

The topic of my post isn't really about the issue of retrying a skill check that you've already failed.

 

It's about whether the game is going to present you with skill checks that are far above your level at all, and whether you'll be expected to mold your character over the course of the game, such that he can return to solve those skill checks later on.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Infinitron

[Lephys]

The topic of my post isn't really about the issue of retrying a skill check that you've already failed.

 

It's about whether the game is going to present you with skill checks that are far above your level at all, and whether you'll be expected to mold your character over the course of the game, such that he can return to solve those skill checks later on.

I'd wager it'll still depend. It'll be a mix of both.

 

Sometimes, you'll go down into some ruins and find some device or door you just aren't skilled enough to mess with. But, it's not going anywhere, so, later on, you mess with it. Obviously, Obsidian could intentionally not do this, and basically always allow you to -- in a state of "topped-off"edness -- handle any check thrown your way when you first encounter it. I get that.

 

But, the only ones you'll not be able to pass AND not come back to will be ones that you weren't "topped off" for, at the very most.

 

Also, I just wanted to make a note, regarding lockpicking-type situations, and "trying as many times as you want." I believe what Josh said regarding that is that, having the random roll plus skill bonus versus a DC check, for example, and having to simply re-roll a random number of times (until you hit that high enough number on a given check roll) in order to successfully complete a task like lockpicking, is kind of a waste of time. There's no urgency, and you're simply going to keep trying so long as you deem that you have enough lockpicks left with which to attempt. Thus, I believe he said that, instead of, say, having JUST enough Lockpicking (or, in this case, Mechanics?) skill to allow you to pick a given lock, but only on a roll of 20 out of 20, that same scenario in PoE will simply require more lockpicks. There will be one attempt, but, because of your low skill relative to the complexity of the lock, it's going to take you more time (abstracted out because it's simply waiting, from the player's perspective) and lockpicks (you'll break/damage ones you're working with until you eventually get the lock opened) than if you had greater skill.

 

Interestingly enough, you could also keep the dice roll for that, but convert it to a minimal range of lockpicks that will be used to pick the lock. In other words, if you have 10 skill, and you're trying to pick a tough lock (that you're at least skilled enough TO pick, just... with much difficulty), then you could have a roll to see if it's going to take 9 lockpicks, or 13 lockpicks, or any number in between. Thus, you still have that element of luck/chance in there, but you still don't have to manually re-attempt the lock 30 times. And if you had higher skill, it'd be like 1-3 or something.

 

But, I digress. I just wanted to make sure people knew that the plan was to eliminate multiple upon multiple attempts at something like picking a lock, under absolutely no duress at all, and instead better represent the effort and resources required in an abstracted, single attempt (from the player's perspective).

 

It's kind of like in a PnP game, when you tell the DM "I want to search until I find something," instead of "I want to make a search attempt." Instead of "You find nothing... do you want to search again?" 15 times, he just tells you "Okay *roll*... It takes you 4 hours, but you eventually find a clue in the form of..." etc..

 

It's like that.

[Infinitron]

Yeah, I don't think there's going to be any dice rolling on that type of stuff in Pillars of Eternity. By the way, if you do like the dice rolling stuff, then Torment's lead designer Adam Heine takes the opposite approach: http://it-tormentrpg.tumblr.com/post/78434193081/una-lunga-chiacchierata-con-adam-heine

 

(there's an english translation in there, ctrl-f to "randomness")

[Ffordesoon]

@Lephys:

 

Infinitron is right, I believe. I think the approach PoE's taking is more similar to the original Deus Ex's approach than anything dice-based. Which is fine by me, since failing a lockpick check is only fun/interesting in PnP, and Deus Ex's system is my absolute favorite lockpicking system ever in anything.

 

@Infinitron:

 

Ah. Well, now you know my opinion on a thing you weren't talking about, you lucky fella!

[Lephys]

@Infinitron:

 

I don't readily suspect there will be, either. I just had a side-thought of how a dice roll could actually still fit in. Just for that little pinch of seasoning, ya know?

 

"Oh, hey, it only took me EIGHT lockpicks to get this open, instead of 10. Woot!"

 

There wouldn't just be a dice roll that determines, from 0 to infinity, how many resources the lock too. It would still be dependent upon your skill versus the lock's difficulty. Just, instead of a set number, it could be a small range. Just like weapon damage.

 

Hit or graze or crit each determine different degrees of weapon damage. Yet, there's still a "6-8"-type range on the base weapon damage, methinks (as Josh commented somewhere that we wouldn't be seeing extremely wide gaps in the weapon damage ranges, like 1-12 on some stuff in D&D rules). I was just thinking of the same principle for something such as lockpicking is all. Just a possibility.

 

@Ffordesoon:

 

You mistake me. The presence of chance does not force that chance to be applied to success or failure. As per above, I was only talking about a small range of specific outcomes regarding the resources used (lockpicks, in this case) in completing the task. You don't ever roll to see if you succeed or not. That's the point of the abstraction (as, if you fail, you're just going to try again, so long as your resources and your patience permit). The roll would just add in a "Yay, slightly lucky!" vs. "Aww, slightly not as lucky this time" element, is all.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lephys

[Silent Winter]

I think for dialogue / scripted interaction checks, it's mostly going to be down to your stats (Might/Intellect/Resolve/etc) which won't (AFAWK) increase much if at all over the game.

For things like mechanics (picking a lock/fixing a contraption), I wouldn't mind having something we simply couldn't do at first (which we could then choose to focus skills on to come back later) - if it's something that's worth coming back for (eg a nice side-quest or an interesting area) that gets kept in the journal so I don't forget about it.  And it better not just have a plain old dagger hiding in that impossible to open chest (there should be a reason it's so carefully sealed for example)

[Hassat Hunter]

I really didn't follow the entire conversation, but for lockpicking, if you got to an area "too high-leveled for you" and the chest is locked, it's simply locked.

 

Much rather have every area be flat-generated, then having levelscaling locks and stuff, the bane of modern RPG's.

 

Area's should be X strength, and that's it... not [Your power] strength, in any skillcheck or otherwise.

[Kjaamor]

I can see the gameplay mechanic created by locks requiring a varying number of lockpicks dependant upon skill, but I would much prefer a simple "You need five levels of lockpicking or four with lockpicks to pick this lock" system. I much prefer games which have unbreakable picks of different types or levels.

 

Incidentally, do we have any locksportsmen here? Exactly how often do locks break picks? I may finally support the immersion crowd if they'll rid me of an unpleasant mechanic.

 

In terms of my reading of Infinitron's original point, I agree that many of the 3.5E games discouraged cross-class utility (as opposed to combat)skills because the vast majority of skill-checks in an area were only passable by a maxed-out class skill - certainly the places where the best loot was hiding. To be fair, though, that was another reason why I prefered 2E thieves, because a multiclass/dual was all you needed if you didn't like true thievery.

[Sabotin]

I think it depends on the specific skill checks to be honest. Being unable to open a door seems reasonable. The thing I'd like to avoid though is a 15min backtrack through a three level maze of a dungeon to reach that one shiny chest that I was unable to open while clearing it.

 

So I'd prefer if world interactions in general be of two kinds: content gate or content choices. An example of the first would be if you can't yet open the complex gate to a deeper level of the dungeon or fix the machine that would finish a quest. The second I mean stuff like rigging a trap for an incoming patrol or being able to talk yourself past; different approaches and/or help for an encounter.

 

What I think would be interesting is also to play a bit with the difficulties. I think it's standard practice to rather max out x skills than to only half invest into 2x of them? This might be already in the "lots of skills with little use vs. few skills with heavy use" territory, but I think lower checks with more varied skills would be a welcome change of pace. Perhaps the answer would be to make them more complex, too, requiring combinations of skills. Thinking of the stealth system, perhaps even going so far as to have group skill checks at times. For instance if you're trying to get access to the castle while disguising as a troupe of entertainers you could only fool the guards if most of your party member can show off some dextrous feat?

 

Another aspect that I'm not sure was addressed yet: will dialogue options/actions be simply hidden if conditions are not met or have a pass/fail scenario only after the attempt? I'm in two minds about this: being able to attempt something feels more natural, but it could also be nice to have a slightly different narrative experience with different party setups, connecting better the crunch and the fluff so to speak.

[Ffordesoon]

There is also the concept of "failing forward," which I find intriguing. As Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo write in the 13th Age Core Book:

 

A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn't good enough. ” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they're exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing. ”

 

The traditional way to interpret a failure is to see it as the character not being up to the task at hand. A low roll on the d20 implies some unexpectedly poor showing on the character's account. This interpretation is natural, and in practice we still use it quite often: occasionally we want failure to mean sheer failure and nothing but. That's particularly true when characters are attempting skill rolls as part of a battle; when the rogue tries to be stealthy in the middle of a fight and fails we're generally not failing them forward.

 

But outside of battle, true failure tends to slow action down rather than move the action along. A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that's because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.

 

Suppose a player makes a Charisma check to have his or her rogue rustle up some clues as to where a certain monk of the black dragon might be hiding. The player fails the check. Traditionally, the GM would rule that the character had failed to find any information. With 13th Age, we encourage you to rule that the character does indeed find clues as to the monk's location, but with unexpectedly bad results. Most likely, word has gotten to the monk that the rogue is looking for him, and he either escapes before his lair is found, or prepares for the group, either setting up an ambush or leaving a trap. The failure means that interesting things happen.

I'm not advocating for this argument, necessarily, but it is interesting.

[Volourn]

"But, like, with vanilla Lockpicking checks, you should be able to retry those as many times as you have lockpicks for, because there's no chance a chest is going to get pissed off at you for not picking it correctly, or whatever."

 

Mr. Mimic disagrees.

[anameforobsidian]

I've always wondered how mimics feel about lockpicking.  Is it like poking them in the eye?

[Kjaamor]

I've always wondered how mimics feel about lockpicking.  Is it like poking them in the eye?

 

I believe it would be something closer to a sex act.

[Suburban-Fox]

As long as it's not "everything scales to you so no matter what level you are, all skill checks you ever meet will be passable", I don't mind.

 

I hated that system in Oblivion (I know that's monsters and not skill checks but the same logic applies). I'd much rather areas be designed so that you have to be a certain level to stand a chance - below that and you'll struggle, above that and you'll waltz through. The dreaded thief's gauntlet that nobody has ever successfully gotten through alive, even though the best thieves in the world have attempted it, should be so difficult that your level 1 thief won't have a chance, but if he levels up to an appropriate level then he might.

 

wrt lockpicks: I really didn't like that in NWN. Lockpicks shouldn't be single-use items, and to my knowledge, they don't break that easily. At most, they should only break if you crit-fail (or whatever the equivalent is here).

[Infinitron]

wrt lockpicks: I really didn't like that in NWN. Lockpicks shouldn't be single-use items, and to my knowledge, they don't break that easily. At most, they should only break if you crit-fail (or whatever the equivalent is here).

 

Unfortunately, there's really no way to make lockpicking a non-savescummy mechanic without this break from realism.

 

I mean, crit-fail? Why should I ever crit-fail? Reload!

Edited March 31, 2014 by Infinitron

[Suburban-Fox]

 

wrt lockpicks: I really didn't like that in NWN. Lockpicks shouldn't be single-use items, and to my knowledge, they don't break that easily. At most, they should only break if you crit-fail (or whatever the equivalent is here).

 

Unfortunately, there's really no way to make lockpicking a non-savescummy mechanic without this break from realism.

 

I mean, crit-fail? Why should I ever crit-fail? Reload!

 

 

Meh, if people want to save before they pick every single lock, and save after each one, and reload if they fail, then that's their choice.

 

Save/reload mechanics isn't something that the difficulty design generally has to compensate for, therefore I don't care if people do it, because if I decide not to save before every lock and accept it if I lose a set of picks on occasion, I can easily do so.

[Infinitron]

Save/reload mechanics isn't something that the difficulty design generally has to compensate for

 

In this game, it is. A wide range of mechanics in Pillars of Eternity has been designed to be "save scum resistant". We've had many discussions about this so feel free to use the forum search function.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Infinitron