A Flawed Design

[archangel979]

It does not matter how you rationalize it to yourselves. Just like Health/Stamina system, Might is not intuitive to new players. Nobody coming into this game is going to figure this out. People are going to making high Might fighters and low Might wizards 95% of the time. 

[PrimeJunta]

What's wrong with that? Both will work fine.

[Sensuki]

Might is not intuitive to new players.

Yes it is. It gives you damage and healing - pretty intuitive if you ask me. Now you know you do more damage and your character heals better. The only thing unintuitive about it is that the bonus is percentile, so how much you get really determines on what you're using to deal damage and what heals you.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

 

Might is not intuitive to new players.

Yes it is. It gives you damage and healing - pretty intuitive if you ask me. Now you know you do more damage and your character heals better. The only thing unintuitive about it is that the bonus is percentile, so how much you get really determines on what you're using to deal damage and what heals you.

 

No it is not. Check out the PCgamer article. He made a high might character thinking this makes a powerful fighter. And it does, but not for the reason fighters are powerful in 99% of other games with attributes. 

 

Obsidian went against the current on this one and it is going to confuse a whole lot of people. They might learn to live with it, but it is not a intuitive design.

[Sensuki]

You're just not thinking at it from a purely game mechanical way is all. Don't worry I felt the same way for a while, but I've known about how the attributes would be for like 15 months. You'll get used to it.

[archangel979]

You're just not thinking at it from a purely game mechanical way is all. Don't worry I felt the same way for a while, but I've known about how the attributes would be for like 15 months. You'll get used to it.

I am not talking about me. I am talking about people who don't know the mechanics, who have not followed the design and who will start the game for first time, you know, the 99% of players. You, me and everyone on these forums are like 1% of playerbase once this game is released. These people will go to make a character, see might and ignore it with non fighters. Even if they read the effect they are not going to immediately figure out it gives bonus damage to everything. Later yes, but not immediately. Than they are going to find their spells do weak damage and call the game bad.

[Tartantyco]

For those people it will be extremely simple, archangel. It's just those stuck in the DnD mindset who have trouble comprehending this. MIGHT perfectly encapsulates what the attribute does, while having a name that fits with the setting. Whoever your character is, increasing that attribute makes them mightier. I think the least descriptive attribute is PERCEPTION, as it implies something that is maybe not well represented its mechanics(But changes are incoming, so there's little point in fretting until we know what those changes are).

 

MIGHT, on the other hand, is a mighty fine attribute.

[Infinitron]

Do spells actually do "weak damage" with low Might?

[Uomoz]

It's implied in this setting that to have powerful magics, one needs to have a strong soul. A strong soul also make you better at everything, even shooting weapons, hence the "mighty" status.

[Infinitron]

Yeah, I know, but I'm asking whether they actually do "weak damage". As opposed to "strong but not as strong as they could be" damage.

[archangel979]

Considering people complained wizards do weak damage even with high Might, they probably do really weak damage in low might :D

 

Anyways, my point still stands. Might is going to confuse most players.

[Tartantyco]

No, your point doesn't still stand. You've simply reiterated your opinion without actually substantiating it.

[Panteleimon]

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'.

 

'Intestinal Fortitude' is my personal translation of 'Might'.

 

 

I like it, and I don't think it's unintuitive at all. Thank goodness muscle size isn't the measure of a fighter anymore. That's like saying Hulk Hogan could beat Georges St-Pierre in a real fight without breaking a sweat. Goofy stuff.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Mayama]

I always thought that intelligence, wisdom and charisma are weird attributes for, at least, a PnP rpg. A character cant be wiser, smarter or more charismatic than the player that controls him.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Mayama

[mutonizer]

He can if you consider (and simulate) these attributes just like physical attributes.

 

Consider a puzzle or a riddle, for simplicity.

Most GMs (and games) go at it presenting the actual puzzle to the players and asking them to solve it, instead of presenting it to the characters just like a physical challenge (ie: breaking a door). By doing so, they create a split that not only voids a large part of the RPG core concepts (the ones with non-physical attributes that is) but also create a disconnect between the role and the actor.

If instead puzzles and riddles where presented as game simulations, then the disconnect would not exist and players would remain in their place: providing intents to their actors, and that's it.

 

cRPGs also do this a lot and though previously it was mostly for mental challenges, they now also include this disconnect for physical challenges. By doing so, in my opinion, they create an even bigger disconnect between the character and the player, almost erasing the character itself and forcing the player to stop playing the role he chose, and instead inject himself (as a human being) into the game, thereby replacing his actor completely.

 

This is really, again, to me, a major misunderstanding of the core concept of "role playing". The resolution of any given action should not involve the player whatsoever and instead, the player should only be there to provide the intents, which then lead (via game simulation) to a resolution. For example, I (as a player) want my character to try and break the door (intent), the game simulates the resolution (via game mechanics). Never should the game involve me (as a player) into the resolution itself (ie: quick action event, button mashing to open door, etc). Likewise, if presented with a puzzle, I as a player should only provide the intent of solving said puzzle (for example, deciding to invest time and effort, investing research cost, etc) but never in actually pushing buttons or providing the correct answer to a riddle, because it's not the player who should know this and instead, it's the character.

That's how, with high INT (or knowledge, etc), a character should be able to answer the question about complex arcane secrets, without the player having to manually find the answer. Likewise, that's how a character should be able to intimidate someone, with the player only providing the intent of doing so, leaving the actual resolution not to choosing the correct dialog option, but the character itself.

That's also how, with low INT, some information will ALWAYS be unavailable to the character, despite the player looking up for walk-through and whatnot.

 

 

Of course there are various schools on this, just saying that it is possible if you handle it properly.

Edited September 9, 2014 by mutonizer

[Mayama]

He can if you consider (and simulate) these attributes just like physical attributes.

 

Consider a puzzle or a riddle, for simplicity.

Most GMs (and games) go at it presenting the actual puzzle to the players and asking them to solve it, instead of presenting it to the characters just like a physical challenge (ie: breaking a door). By doing so, they create a split that not only voids a large part of the RPG core concepts (the ones with non-physical attributes that is) but also create a disconnect between the role and the actor.

If instead puzzles and riddles where presented as game simulations, then the disconnect would not exist and players would remain in their place: providing intents to their actors, and that's it.

 

cRPGs also do this a lot and though previously it was mostly for mental challenges, they now also include this disconnect for physical challenges. By doing so, in my opinion, they create an even bigger disconnect between the character and the player, almost erasing the character itself and forcing the player to stop playing the role he chose, and instead inject himself (as a human being) into the game, thereby replacing his actor completely.

 

This is really, again, to me, a major misunderstanding of the core concept of "role playing". The resolution of any given action should not involve the player whatsoever and instead, the player should only be there to provide the intents, which then lead (via game simulation) to a resolution. For example, I (as a player) want my character to try and break the door (intent), the game simulates the resolution (via game mechanics). Never should the game involve me (as a player) into the resolution itself (ie: quick action event, button mashing to open door, etc). Likewise, if presented with a puzzle, I as a player should only provide the intent of solving said puzzle (for example, deciding to invest time and effort, investing research cost, etc) but never in actually pushing buttons or providing the correct answer to a riddle, because it's not the player who should know this and instead, it's the character.

That's how, with high INT (or knowledge, etc), a character should be able to answer the question about complex arcane secrets, without the player having to manually find the answer. Likewise, that's how a character should be able to intimidate someone, with the player only providing the intent of doing so, leaving the actual resolution not to choosing the correct dialog option, but the character itself.

That's also how, with low INT, some information will ALWAYS be unavailable to the character, despite the player looking up for walk-through and whatnot.

 

 

Of course there are various schools on this, just saying that it is possible if you handle it properly.

I agree that you can give out free knowledge with wisdom or warn them if they do something stupid but imo it feels a bit to detached from roleplaying. I think the problem is that we all now how a strong, dexterious or someone with a high endurance behaves because its something you can observe but thats impossible with the other attributes. It always felt strange to me when a player constantly acted stupid and the game master corrected his behavior constantly because the character was actually very intelligent.

[Fearabbit]

Everyone's a prophet. God I hate that. "People will find it difficult", "no they won't". Is this what our discussions have turned into?

 

And Sensuki, "you'll get used to it" is not a good argument for a game system that has some actual logical flaws. That's purposefully aiming for mediocrity. And sorry, I'll choose to start getting used to it when I actually hold the finished product in my (virtual) hands, not before when there's still a chance to change it.

I mean come on, you make dozens of threads trying to change the game in a way that you like. Let some other share their opinions without shutting them down like that.

 

 

Thank goodness muscle size isn't the measure of a fighter anymore. That's like saying Hulk Hogan could beat Georges St-Pierre in a real fight without breaking a sweat. Goofy stuff.

 

You're talking about differences in their Dexterity and Constitution. A Georges St-Pierre with the muscles of Hulk Hogan would be superior to normal Georges St-Pierre, as long as they didn't affect his Dexterity and Constitution.

So you're not really making an argument here.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Do spells actually do "weak damage" with low Might?

I made an Orlan with Might 2 and spells had fairly high base damage. They didn't do much in pratical use, but I think that had more to do with grazes than base damage.

Edited September 9, 2014 by KaineParker

[archangel979]

No, your point doesn't still stand. You've simply reiterated your opinion without actually substantiating it.

We can go in circles like this. You didn't tear it down either. My comes from common sense, you come from fanboy blindness. 

The time I been here, you are just an opposite of Helm.

Edited September 9, 2014 by archangel979

[morhilane]

Everyone's a prophet. God I hate that. "People will find it difficult", "no they won't". Is this what our discussions have turned into?

 

As far as I know, most people read the description on the side before deciding what to pick or put points into. So I personally expect the majority to have no issues at all with Might current existence going by its description.

 

In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat.

[Tartantyco]

 

No, your point doesn't still stand. You've simply reiterated your opinion without actually substantiating it.

We can go in circles like this. You didn't tear it down either. My comes from common sense, you come from fanboy blindness. 

The time I been here, you are just an opposite of Helm.

 

Another claim you can't substantiate, I see.

[archangel979]

 

Everyone's a prophet. God I hate that. "People will find it difficult", "no they won't". Is this what our discussions have turned into?

 

As far as I know, most people read the description on the side before deciding what to pick or put points into. So I personally expect the majority to have no issues at all with Might current existence going by its description.

 

In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat.

 

It is an accepted fact in development industry that of the people who buy a game 1 in 10 ever visit the game's forum in their lifetime. Out of those 1 in 10 ever writes something on it. So, as you can see all of us represent 1% of player base (actually much less since the game is not released yet). So saying things like only the ones complaining about Might are complaining about Might is pure bull****. 

 

I am talking about the 99% of the average gamers that are going to buy the game with no previous knowledge of its mechanics, start it up and make their character by assuming the games keeps to industry standards. Because humans are creatures of habit and use previous experience foremost. 

You are going to see a lot of high Might Fighters and low Might Wizards in Week 1 and then people complaining on the forums about it.

[mutonizer]

 

In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat.

 

 

Maybe, though there are some who, while they can get over the game mechanics, recognize that the "lore" reason is bull and just there to try and justify the first. Same thing can be said for many things really, such as the Health system, camping supplies, stash, crafting, stealth, etc. And for some, lack of cohesion within a given context to pursue purely abstract game mechanics (as in, completely disconnected from the world presented to the player), means lack of immersion.

 

While not a problem in itself, it's there and it's important for some. That said, once you accept the game design philosophy of PoE, you start considering the game as actually being two completely disconnected games (one based around the story and lore, the other based on mechanics). Once you reach that point, makes you wonder if there will be an option to "auto win" battles, therefore just letting you enjoy the story portion, or, likewise, another option to "auto-win stories", and therefore focusing on the mechanics.

[Fearabbit]

 

Everyone's a prophet. God I hate that. "People will find it difficult", "no they won't". Is this what our discussions have turned into?

 

As far as I know, most people read the description on the side before deciding what to pick or put points into. So I personally expect the majority to have no issues at all with Might current existence going by its description.

 

In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat.

 

 

"Most people read the description on the side"... bold statement. I don't think that's the case. Of course, at some point people will understand the system, but I think in their first playthrough many people will pump certain attributes for the wrong reasons. (However, I wouldn't make this my main argument against Might. I have other problems with it, like the ones regarding Intimidation I mentioned in an earlier post here.)

 

Anyway, what I actually want to say is that I am personally not a fanboy of IE games. In fact I only got to know them a couple of years ago. The D&D system is very weird and unintuitive to me. I would never play IE games without consulting the internet for a good build before, because I know the frustrations of playing with a bad build that I thought would be awesome.

And yet I don't like Might, and I think many people will have a problem with it.

I'm not one of the people who "can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat", and I hate being put into this category without having said anything to warrant it.

[Tartantyco]

If we're going to be using lowest common denominator illiterate hill people as our benchmark for who needs to understand these attributes, then nothing will ever be sufficient.