A Flawed Design

[Fearabbit]

Interesting! Can't wait to hear what you've come up with. I guess you didn't change Might much if at all though, did you?

 

As for the original topic of this thread - I think Perception and Resolve are good attributes and far better than Charisma and Wisdom. Resolve is willpower, how headstrong you are. Perception is attention to details. Important characteristics and very intuitive.

Wisdom in D&D is basically four different attributes that don't have anything to do with actual wisdom, and Charisma is a superposition of beauty and personality that is simply not very elegant.

 

There's also the question whether I really need an attribute for beauty, and how important the difference between wisdom and intelligence is for roleplaying. I often think that these things can be implemented as skills or traits if necessary - a "wise" character is one that has a high Lore skill, for example, and characters are assumed to be average looking unless they have the "Disfigured" or the "Gorgeous" trait (one gives a small Intimidation boost, the other a Seduction boost).

 

So no, I don't think the basic attribute design is flawed, other than the fact that I think Might should be Strength and should have a different effect on spellcasting than it currently has, while Resolve should be more important for spellcasting than it currently is.

I'll wait with further comment until I see the new system, but I fear that what Sensuki has hinted at might not be exactly to my liking. Resolve isn't a purely "defensive" attribute in my opinion, especially for mages I see it as very aggressive actually. But... we'll see.

[Jon of the Wired]

 

I think Might is the only weak point in the PoE system.

Are you talking in terms of simulation? Might is actually one of THE best attributes in the game. The damage bonus to everything could potentially easily be explained away by "Soul Powah".Perception and Resolve are the worst attributes by a long long way. There will be a thread coming soon that debunks them completely, and proposes a fix to PE attributes backed by mathematics combined with logic alone.

No, the "weakness" I was referring to is the lack of cohesion between how Might is used in dialogue and interactions and the combat bonuses it supplies. Also that such cohesion is probably impossible, because of how abstract Might is. Edited September 8, 2014 by Jon of the Wired

[Sensuki]

That is one of the downsides of using a pretty gamey system. You won't be able to satisfactorily explain everything away. Not really an issue for me personally.

 

I guess you didn't change Might much if at all though, did you?

Nope.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

The feel I get is that Might is tied to intimidation in conversations.

 

I thought Keyser Söze in The Usual Suspects was pretty damn frighteningly intimidating, but Kevin Spacey is no Hulk Hogan. I would have no problem describing him as Mighty though.

[Sensuki]

Yeah I think it's used to emulate forcefulness in convos

[Auda]

 

 

I think Might is the only weak point in the PoE system.

Are you talking in terms of simulation? Might is actually one of THE best attributes in the game. The damage bonus to everything could potentially easily be explained away by "Soul Powah".Perception and Resolve are the worst attributes by a long long way. There will be a thread coming soon that debunks them completely, and proposes a fix to PE attributes backed by mathematics combined with logic alone.

No, the "weakness" I was referring to is the lack of cohesion between how Might is used in dialogue and interactions and the combat bonuses it supplies. Also that such cohesion is probably impossible, because of how abstract Might is.

 

 

The feel I get is that Might is tied to intimidation in conversations.

 

I thought Keyser Söze in The Usual Suspects was pretty damn frighteningly intimidating, but Kevin Spacey is no Hulk Hogan. I would have no problem describing him as Mighty though.

 

 

Yeah I think it's used to emulate forcefulness in convos

 

 

As i said in another topic:

 

 

Why not make the Might attribute has two subsections: Physical Might and Intellectual Might?

The value might be derived from the two sub-attributes (sum of both). So you could further customize your character. Decisions, decisions

Example:

   - Muscle wizard: 10 Physical Might + 10 Intellectual  Might = 20 Might  (10 + 10)

   - Weak Wizard much specializaed on spells: 2 Physical Might + 18 Intellectual Might = 20 Might (2 + 18)

The muscle would be more versatile wizard, the weak wizard would be more powerful with spell but weaker in melee.

For stats check on both examples the attribute Might is 20, but would get them each differently.

 

 

The system attribute would look like:

 - Might (Healing and Fortitude)

      - Physical Might (Physical damage)

      - Intellectual Might (Magical damage)

 - Dexterity (Accuracy and Reflexes)

 - Constitution (Health, Stamina and Fortitude)

 - Percepction (Interrupt and Reflexes)

 - Intellect (Area and duration)

 - Resolve (Concentration and will)

 

Sorry for my poor English.

 

I think this solves the problem, no?

[Fearabbit]

The feel I get is that Might is tied to intimidation in conversations.

 

I thought Keyser Söze in The Usual Suspects was pretty damn frighteningly intimidating, but Kevin Spacey is no Hulk Hogan. I would have no problem describing him as Mighty though.

 

In real life, I think you can boil intimidation down to two aspects: willpower and resourcefulness.

If someone threatens me, I first think "does it appear like he might go through with it?" and second "does he have the muscle, the tools or the skills to go through with it?".

 

Keyser Soze was intimidating not only because he was strong-minded, but also because he had the manpower, the reputation and also simply the weaponry to back it up.

 

This is something that you can't put into one attribute, if you ask me. Tying it to body strength is completely ridiculous since, like you say, that's not what is needed. Tying it to your mental strength is closer - and I'd argue that Resolve is a better candidate for that than Might is, since Resolve literally is the "go through with it or not" attribute. But your reputation and simply your level (which is an indicator of your combat prowess) should heavily influence indimidation too, and I'm always disappointed by the game mechanics used to represent it. PoE takes a step in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Sensuki]

Souls explains everything away

[archangel979]

This is not my experience. I've run a Numenera PnP campaign for most of the year, and while some of the mechanics stink to high heaven (<- won't go into it here), I like the basic resolution mechanic. It's stripped-to-the-bone simple, while allowing enough randomness, situational modifiers, and variation to let you do just about anything with it. The combat variant is based on a to-hit roll and flat damage soaked by armor, modified by tactical/strategic resources the player chooses to spend. It's transparent, simple, and enjoyable, and encourages you to do stuff rather than just standard-attack all the time.

 

Put another way, if the excitement in a combat system comes from the RNG, then the combat system needs some work. IMO as always.

 

That said, it would be even more enjoyable with grazes and crits, and with more computational resources than mental arithmetic I would modify the armor mechanic too so there's a little more to it than flat subtraction. But the basic idea is both sound and enjoyable IMO.

As a Numenera GM, that system does not work in combat heavy games. It was created for roleplaying systems. Flat damage is here to make combat faster, not more exciting. Random numbers up to a certain level (not aRPG level) are fun and exciting. 

[PrimeJunta]

What doesn't work, the Numenera combat system, or the resolution mechanic?

 

There are a whole bunch of things wrong with Numenera, but the resolution mechanic is not in that list IMO. Much was gained by boiling down the standard attack to a single die roll against a Difficulty Class with flat damage - Armor. It's not only faster, it's also more transparent; easier to see what's going on.

 

It would be extremely easy to build on that to make a more traditional combat-heavy game. You just need to define more things you can do in combat, instead of leaving most of it up to improv.

 

(I'm fairly certain Shadowrun Returns uses a similar system -- flat damage adjusted by accuracy, x0.5 for graze, x1.5 to x2 for crit. That mechanic works fine there too IMO, and that's about as combat-heavy as stuff gets.)

[archangel979]

You were talking about flat damage in numenera compared to random damage from IE games. Flat damage is less interesting combat. I play numenera not for combat, but better and nicer roleplaying mechanics. I don't see anything wrong with Numenera systems, it is perfect for what it was made for. 

 

Shadowrun has both hit chance and critical chance, critical chance determines from 0.5x to 2x

[WebShaman]

I must say that I don't really enjoy the "new" system much at all.

 

It is mostly confusing, and has a few pump stats (just like D&D).

 

So how is it supposed to be superior AND remind me of BG and Infinity, etc?

 

It isn't, and it doesn't.

 

I was excited with the game, supported it, and I paid for a beta.  I have played it multiple times, and I can say that I am...not liking how it is developing.  I especially dislike how just about any opinion to the contrary of how the system is done is immediately pounced on and negativety is rained down on it. 

 

The Health system winds up making me have to rest if I engage in combat.  So -> ergo, avoid combat (since I get no real reward from it, with the exception of fights that advance quests and storyline).  However, the maps and encounters make me engage in combat because I can't avoid them.  Ridiculous.

 

The stats system has everyone commenting on it, and opinions abound.  If it was such a good system, this would not be the case.  That an entire game was build around a core system that is just not mature has all the signs of something not nice.

 

I normally like to play mage characters, but in this game, why bother?  My spells are only of use in combat.  This is just soooo wrong from many a RP perspective, that it just does not make sense!  Where are my spells for invisibility (exploration, etc), for taking over the minds of others (charm, domination, etc) that can also be used outside of combat, ability increases, skill increases, transportation, and a whole slew of other things?

 

Right now I only need ranged guns and some sort of alchemy bombs for AoE and I don't need any mage, whatsoever.  In fact, since the guns always fire, and if I can create my alchemy bombs easily enough (or purchase them cheaply enough) then it alleviates my need to R-E-S-T due to limited spells.

 

Right now, all I like about the game is the artwork (very nice), the dialogs (well written IMHO and lots of fun) and parts of the story are very nicely done (and are of mature content, which I really like).  I also like the Godlike as a race.  And, of course, a fully controllable party.

 

What I really don't like, and what is starting to turn me off more and more, is the combat system, the magic system, and basically the "core mechanics" of the game.

 

Since this doesn't seem to be capable of being changed anymore (Sensuki & Co. seem to have a mainline to the Devs and are system pro-gungho), I am beginning to suspect that this game is not going to reach the level of BG:EE + IWD:EE for me.

 

So I am bowing out.  I will check back on each progressive beta build to see if anything has changed for the positive (I really was disappointed with the new build, it literally killed my Ranger due to the companion bug not allowing one to transition).

 

Have fun.

 

Bye.

[archangel979]

I think you put this in wrong topic. If you want to be heard, you should put this in your own topic. 

[Ink Blot]

The Health system winds up making me have to rest if I engage in combat.  So -> ergo, avoid combat (since I get no real reward from it, with the exception of fights that advance quests and storyline).  However, the maps and encounters make me engage in combat because I can't avoid them.  Ridiculous.

 

 

I normally like to play mage characters, but in this game, why bother?  My spells are only of use in combat.  This is just soooo wrong from many a RP perspective, that it just does not make sense!  Where are my spells for invisibility (exploration, etc), for taking over the minds of others (charm, domination, etc) that can also be used outside of combat, ability increases, skill increases, transportation, and a whole slew of other things?

If you're still around, I'll comment that I complained about this aspect as well. It seems every spell, ability, class unlock, and talent (and even some skills) are oriented to make you better at combat, which doesn't make sense to me if the game is supposed to be designed to give you lots of options other than combat. I'm hopeful that this is something that will change in the final release and we'll see a lot more things aimed at the non-combat side of things. Anyway, I agree with your points here. I'm just thinking that the beta is set up to have you engage in combat more than the actual game would so we can test the mechanics and find the bugs easier. There's still time for tweaking and adjustments to make this something you may like a lot better.

[Fearabbit]

Souls explains everything away

 

I know it's a joke, but... that's actually the reasoning behind it, yeah, and I don't find it satisfying for two reasons:

1. You can't ignore effects like reputation, weaponry and so on in favor of only looking at your soul power.

2. And even if you do, how does soul power manifest itself in conversation? It comes off as being headstrong and intense, right? Well... Resolve is supposed to be the attribute for "strength of personality, intensity, and determination". So Might does the same thing, only with your soul? And soul always trumps body and mind (unless of course when it doesn't)?

 

It just doesn't work. In the case of Intimidation, you have two attributes that should do the same thing, and the game just says "yeah but let's just look at the one attribute". And why does it say that? Because that's the disguised Strength attribute, and Strength is the classical attribute that Intimidation is based on. Which never made any sense to begin with.

 

So even if we live in a world where you can feel the other person's soul and it can be somehow intimidating, that just means that you can use Might to do Resolve stuff with it. That's bad. At the same time you disregard any other qualities with which one could intimidate another person, like knowledge of the body parts that hurt the most when tortured, or an arrow aimed at the groin. Also bad.

 

Basically, this is a good example why I find Might so unintuitive. It feels kind of all over the place, which would be alright if it didn't interfere with already existing attributes.

[wpmaura]

I agree with this, as an increadible dumb strong ogre is as physcialy strong as 80lb skinny little mage. I just think obsidian while good as making games are not good at there on IP.

[Sensuki]

I once found it difficult to get out of a simulationist mindset, but I don't find it that difficult anymore. It's a game, doesn't have to be realistic *shrug*.

 

For instance, as I pointed out in a thread. Combat doesn't look ANYTHING like realistic medieval/renaissance warfare. 

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[Fearabbit]

I think there's a difference between wanting an actual simulation of medieval warfare and wanting attributes that sort of simulate a human being.

 

(My personal response to the warfare thing would be that a typical RPG usually is more based on epic poems of that time than on the actual combat anyway, just like it is the case for most fantasy stories. The way Legolas and Gimli go through orcs in LotR surely isn't realistic either.)

[Hamenaglar]

I once found it difficult to get out of a simulationist mindset, but I don't find it that difficult anymore. It's a game, doesn't have to be realistic *shrug*.

 

For instance, as I pointed out in a thread. Combat doesn't look ANYTHING like realistic medieval/renaissance warfare. 

 

It's a Role Playing Game. The attribute system is supposed to allow and enhance that. Allow people to play the roles. It's supposed to be grounded in realism. They allow people to use the in game mechanics to describe their characters. It allows the game world to recognize that character.

 

Forget about combat. If I want to build a strong character, game world should recognize me as strong. An NPC would say, hey dude you are really strong, help me move this cart. Or a mutant challenges you to arm wrestling and you beat him because you are stronger (and pumped with stims). I want to be an intelligent character, game should recognize it and offer me possibilities that lower intelligence characters can't do.

 

Otherwise, let's just go with the following attributes:

Damage

Hit points

Dialogue options

Spell saves.

[No idea]

 

The Health system winds up making me have to rest if I engage in combat.  So -> ergo, avoid combat (since I get no real reward from it, with the exception of fights that advance quests and storyline).  However, the maps and encounters make me engage in combat because I can't avoid them.  Ridiculous.

 

 

I normally like to play mage characters, but in this game, why bother?  My spells are only of use in combat.  This is just soooo wrong from many a RP perspective, that it just does not make sense!  Where are my spells for invisibility (exploration, etc), for taking over the minds of others (charm, domination, etc) that can also be used outside of combat, ability increases, skill increases, transportation, and a whole slew of other things?

If you're still around, I'll comment that I complained about this aspect as well. It seems every spell, ability, class unlock, and talent (and even some skills) are oriented to make you better at combat, which doesn't make sense to me if the game is supposed to be designed to give you lots of options other than combat. I'm hopeful that this is something that will change in the final release and we'll see a lot more things aimed at the non-combat side of things. Anyway, I agree with your points here. I'm just thinking that the beta is set up to have you engage in combat more than the actual game would so we can test the mechanics and find the bugs easier. There's still time for tweaking and adjustments to make this something you may like a lot better.

 

 

Yes, it is quite a nonsense, especially because there is no xp reward for combat (quest combat apart). They try not to make a game where combat absolutely rules and, at the same time, they dont give non combat options (non combat spells and options to avoid engagements). 

[No idea]

Souls explains everything away

 

Care to explain? I dont know if you are being sarcastic or you really know something we dont. 

[No idea]

I once found it difficult to get out of a simulationist mindset, but I don't find it that difficult anymore. It's a game, doesn't have to be realistic *shrug*.

 

For instance, as I pointed out in a thread. Combat doesn't look ANYTHING like realistic medieval/renaissance warfare. 

 

 

Of course, it doesnt have to be real. In fact, most things in a RPG world (even those things you think are realistic) are pure science fiction. But any world and any system, no matter how fantasy ones, must have internal coherence. And I just dont see it in the attribute system. Some explanation is needed about this "soul powa". 

[Sensuki]

You should go back and read the first few Kickstarter updates and the wiki article about animancy.

 

It could be said that attributes boost the strength of your soul, rather than your body.

[mutonizer]

You should go back and read the first few Kickstarter updates and the wiki article about animancy.

 

It could be said that attributes boost the strength of your soul, rather than your body.

 

Not to beat a dead horse here but someone should really tell that to the dev team then, because obviously they themselves think that excuse is bull**** and use Might just like anyone else with half a brain would: physical strength.

 

...unless of course someone's gonna come here and cleverly retort that a collective of plants and fungi has a ultra powerful "soul" because... reasons?.

 

On top of that, the fact that non sentient/humanoid creatures have a fixed Might value instead of, as you should be expecting if Might was indeed treated as Soul power by the dev team itself (since one soul could be strong, while another could be weak, etc) clearly shows that this whole "Soul Power" thing is just an excuse to try and justify a game mechanic with some "lore" sugar.

 

That said, it's not a big deal in itself ... as long as it's kept within the confines of the game mechanic and the story doesn't go on and on about this. If at any point there's a "your soul is powerful Watcher, you are the one to help" or "his soul is powerful, I cannot resist" and some other crap like that, then gimme the option to say "dude, go ask a plant fungi, they're way better at this than I am"...

 

My point is, I don't mind too much eating the **** you feed me, as long as you don't start calling it maple sirup

Edited September 9, 2014 by mutonizer

[PrimeJunta]

I've found a pretty good ex post facto rationalization for this. It keeps me from losing sleep, anyway.

 

Might is a property of your soul. How it manifests depends on what you do with it. So you could have a mighty wizard who is not physically all that powerful, because he's channeled that might into spell power, whereas a mighty barbarian would have channeled it into bulging muscles.

 

Gluteus Maximus the muscle wizard still casts with muscles. Just sayin'.