Can you respec?

[Gromnir]

@Gromnir IME when people stoop to attacking their interlocutors on unrelated topics, that means they're out of arguments. So I'm going to take that post as you gracefully conceding the point. Thank you. :salute:

actually, we clear responded to your silly and empty appeal to authority.  you had no argument save for a logic fallacy... one which you has made use of before today. we revealed the fallacy and the habit.  

 

a declaration o' victory is curious response, but  am suspecting that is another one o' your canned responses in the face o' failure.

 

regardless, discuss the topic, to which you ain't actual added anything, or...

 

is up to you.

 

but, since you need a review, we has pointed out multiple times that poe won't have a live gm, so your observations and experience contributes nothing relevant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

Such cynicism!

 

I suspect your definition of "broken" is: I have 18 resolve, how come I'm not interrupting stone beetles 45% of the time like the stats say! This game is BROKEN! I demand a RESPEC FEATURE!

 

By the way, your whole "the game will be broke, therefore a respect feature is needed" smacks of absurd short sightedness. First, what makes you think a developer who releases a game with broken mechanics will be able to give us a respect mechanic that also isn't broken? And second, what happens a year from now when the devs have fixed these mechanics? Do they suddenly remove the respec feature? or do they leave it in so that those poor casual modern gamers don't have to worry about those harsh mean things like tough character creation choices?

 

our definition o' broken is necessarily subjective.  is many character builds we would be content to play even though the rules descriptions don't match the actual gameplay resulting in a disconnect between our role-play choices and the actual character we end up with in poe.  our level o' tolerance for such will be different than many other folks.  why should we get to decide what is the threshold for broken?  why should stun?  poe is a single-player game.  the goal is for the player to have fun.  if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution?

 

as for silent winter's valid suggestion, we has already responded:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70370-option-to-respec/?p=1568555

 

even stun ain't wrong all the time. poe is a story-driven game. as such, we suspect that changing stuff such as race, background or culture could be problematic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

poe is a single-player game.  the goal is for the player to have fun.  if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution?

^False dilemma, logical fallacy.... Assumes there's no other option available to a player who's unhappy with his character's build.

 

Edit: and you didn't answer my question. If a game's mechanics are broken, what makes you think that the respec feature won't also be broken?

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Sure, let's get back on topic. This has gotten a bit off-track. Here's a quick summary of your arguments -- please correct me if I misunderstood them; your English idiom is so eccentric I find it hard to understand sometimes:

 

(1) POE's character creation rules are obscure and broken. Therefore, players will end up with unviable (this is what you mean by 'broken,' right?) characters. They need respec to keep on playing. Also, it's a single-player game, so why should anyone care about someone else using the option to respec even if you won't.

 

-> I disagree with you on multiple points here.

 

First, I don't find the CC rules particularly obscure or broken. They are somewhat complex and will certainly take some time and effort to learn to play with effectively. As far as I'm concerned this is a good thing. 

 

Second, I do not believe that you're likely at all to end up with an unviable character, unless you intentionally gimp yourself e.g. by not spending all your points on level-up. As Sensuki has demonstrated, there is a big difference between a mediocre character and a power build, but if the game provides a difficulty level that lets you play enjoyable even with a mediocre character -- and I, unlike you apparently, believe it does -- I don't see this as a problem.

 

Third, the "what do you care how other people play" line. That's a strawman. AFAICT nobody here has been saying they're bothered by other people respeccing. We don't like the availability of respec because of the way it affects our enjoyment of the game. It trivializes the choices made when creating and leveling up the character, just like the KOTOR end-game light-side/dark-side meter reset trivialized those choices in that game. It doesn't matter if it's worked into the plot or carries the cost or that you won't actually use it: its presence in the game cheapens the experience. (This argument, by the way, I haven't seen you address at all, which is rather curious as it's the main one against respec.)

 

(2) Then you went on a tangent about PnP and how you deal with this situation as a GM: tailor the encounters and the campaign, possibly bend the rules a bit, and offer the option to roll up a new character who then joins up. (Which, incidentally, is pretty much how I deal with it too.) However, you then argued that rolling a new character who then seamlessly joins the campaign is no different than respeccing. 

 

-> Here, I strongly disagree with your assertion that rolling a new character and joining in seamlessly is no different from respeccing. In the campaigns I've been running, all of my players have made some effort at, y'know, role-playing. Their characters have had personalities that are distinct from their RL ones, and when they've rolled a new one, they've rolled a different character. Someone who fits the party better mechanically maybe, but also usually a different class, with a different background, agenda, and personality. But then my games feature a quite a bit of narrative and "lore," they're not just wargames-lite.

 

As to my "appeal from authority," I was simply stating my experience: I've been running games for a long time, and I've never had a player ask to respec. Not saying it can't happen, it might happen in the next session I run, just like I was wrong with my prediction on P:E's release schedule.

 

Summa summarum, Gromnir my droog, I don't think there's much there, there. You're spectacularly failing to address our argument -- that the very presence of respeccing robs our character-building choices of their consequence -- and instead calling P:E "obscure" and "broken," then going off on a tangent about PnP, then going ad-hom on us.

 

You're a lawyer, right? If so, I hope you treat your paying customers better, 'cuz this strikes me as... not your brightest courtroom moment.

 

Edit: For the record, I have nothing against leaving the data files open so people so inclined can "respec" them 'til the cows come home. Just not in the game itself thanks.

Edited March 19, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Gromnir]

 

^False dilemma, logical fallacy.... Assumes there's no other option available to a player who's unhappy with his character's build.

 

is not a false dilemma.  do you know what is false dilemma? we said respec gives players an option to fix broken characters... characters broken through no fault of their own. we did not offer a choice between respec and a false range o' alternatives.  

 

for chrissakes, what is kids learning in schools these days?

 

and pj is being willful obtuse... again. stating your experience to bolster (and in your case, to replace) an argument is a poor argument, since you had no actual argument. you have 30 years experience and never had to respec?  HA!  we addressed that.  so what?  so what you got 30 years and so what you never had need o' respec.  as Gromnir pointed out before you, a Living Gm won't be available in poe.  we observed that as a living gm we could tailor encounters and create house rules.  those are not options in poe.  you made an irrelevant observation and attempted to give it merit by telling us how much experience you got. you replaced an argument and instead gave us resume material. 

 

*snort*

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66210-the-possibility-of-a-delayed-2015-release/?p=1450898

 

and again, is a pattern with you.  being wrong could also be part o' the pattern... though we do concede that you actual made relevant arguments in the other thread.  still, you were clear wrong... in spite o' your certainty and experience.

 

as for robbing o' consequences, we has covered that ad nauseum.  first, you ain't established that robbing o' consequences is a genuine worthy reason to prevent respec.  a player made a mistake and thought 1h weapons would be a viable weapon choice. 1/3 through the game they realize that 1h weapon style were a poor choice.  and?  what is the value in forcing bob to either restart game or finish game with a character he discovered after many hours were a fraud.  the character he meant to role-play as a combat expert turned out to be a combat liability? in any event, a single respec robs very little, not that you has shown that anything o' value has been robbed... and who is being robbed in any event?  is this pj paternalism?  is you deciding for the player that they are robbing themselves o' consequences?  

 

in the alternative, developer bugs and poor crafted rules descriptions actual do rob the player o' the meaning o' their choices.  what Bob thought he were getting when he put points in dex before 480 were not what he actual got.  there will be many similar problems at release.  is many people still confused about what various talents do.  there will be folks who were robbed o' the meaning o' their choices. the goal o' obsidian is to get folks to buy poe and future games.  frustrate players unnecessarily is not aiding in such a goal. does need wait for a patch to be released to fix a major mechanical error increase player frustration?  yes.  does starting game over after dozens o' hours o' gameplay 'cause the player feels they were misled by poor worded talent descriptions tend to increase player frustration? yes.  

 

respec would save the developers grief. respec would avoid frustration for some and possibly many players. so what is the actual argument against a single respec?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

Really, Gromnir? Ok, then let me respond to your post.

 

the goal is for the player to have fun.  if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game...?

They're not forced to do any such thing.

 

Hell, forget False Dilemma, this is a straw man.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stun

[Lord of Riva]

why are you hitting each other again about nothing?

 

im no english speaker but the use of words like ad-hominem, strawman and logical Fallacy is so damn boring nowadays, regardless of your opinion its like you are sitting in the same room screaming at each other some garbled mess because they need to be persuaded of their wrongness? who does that, and expect to find a useful end to the discussion?

 

I want to point to Mr. Silent winter who made a Valid point, as long as the debug commands arent disabled (which i always think shouldnt be, since nobody has to cheat but there is no issue with that if you are alone) respec is already in the game.

 

as others have pointed out in the other thread that bringing the whole thing into the background context you build over the course of the game it will always feel Hacked in, so in all honesty the ones making this decision will probably not do a respec but thats just a guess.

[TheisEjsing]

If we wanted a game with no consequences both storywise and mechanically, we'd have plenty options without PoE. In the IE games I made a bad character at my first go, and I got punished. But I enjoyed myself so much more, when I made my second one and succeeded. 

 

Players should be forced to live with their ****ty choices or start the whole game over. Games should not be discouraging, but respec and all the other hand holding features in games are unhealthy for the player. If you want to build a character and just choose ****ty stuff, because you won't bother to research what you're doing, you need to be punished for it. You feel no satisfaction, if you get it easy.

 

I got pissed in DA:I, when I saw the endless respec amulets for close to no cost at all. It made my investment in the skill system less rewarding and removed my incentive for planning ahead. Oopsie mechanics do not belong in games with tactical combat.  

Edited March 19, 2015 by TheisEjsing

[PrimeJunta]

I would've felt bad about DA:I's endless respec amulets if the character building choices hadn't been so utterly trivial to start with. As it is it ranked pretty low among my list of things wrong with the mechanics of that game.

 

(Rather to my own surprise, I had a good deal of fun with it anyway, until I got bored I believe somewhere mid-game, after looking under lots of rocks, killing a couple of dragons, getting a waifu, and having deep conversations about the sexual politics of fantasy Musl^H^H^H^H Qunari.)

[TheisEjsing]

I agree PJ, but the respec amulets in a game with a fairly simple system is disrespectful towards the player. I found it fine in Diablo 3, where it complimented the dynamic gameplay, but in RPGS with tactical-RTwP games. No way.  

I guess my point with my rant above is that I want to be respected for my choices in games and I want a sensation of defeat and the learning experience if (when) I fail. That's the way I get the most satisfaction from my investment of time and energy into a game, when I play it. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by TheisEjsing

[Stun]

In the IE games I made a bad character at my first go, and I got punished. But I enjoyed myself so much more, when I made my second one and succeeded.

^I had a somewhat similar type of experience in my first BG2 playthrough.

 

Ok, I imported my most powerful BG1 character:

 

1) He had 19s in all his stats except for Intelligence...which was 3 (mistake #1)

2) He was a fighter, and for some reason, I kept him as one instead of opting for any of the fighter kits. (mistake #2)

3) I put 5 points into Longsword and 1 point into sword & shield style (mistake #3)

 

And then I started the game. As the hours went by, I found myself collecting awesome weapons I either had no proficiency slots in or couldn't use due to class restrictions....Flail of the Ages (ouch!), Frost Reaver, Celestial Fury, Mace of Disruption, Carsomyr! etc.

 

Then I ran into Mindflayers. Ouch!

 

 

And while I constantly had that nagging feeling that my fighter was sub-optimal (and I'm an eternal power gamer, so that feeling was more than just a feeling, it was a recurring kick in the balls) I still had more fun sub-optimally playing this game than should ever be legally possible. And correcting my mistakes in the second playthrough was even more fun.

 

I suspect that this entire debate is being waged under a ridiculously false premise: that a bad build will lead to the player not having fun. In reality, it's probably more accurate to conclude that if you're not having fun with PoE due to a certain way you built your character, you probably won't have much more fun after 'respeccing' that character. Good RPGs are about more than just your stats and feats.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

Really, Gromnir? Ok, then let me respond to your post.

 

the goal is for the player to have fun.  if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game...?

They're not forced to do any such thing.

 

Hell, forget False Dilemma, this is a straw man.

 

you should stick with false dilemma.  honest.  you clear don't know straw man.  we has observed that the frustrated and disgruntled player has option o' waiting for patches (weeks and months o' waiting) that frequently break the game in new ways, OR they can finish game with the character that they find frustrating OR they can start over.  we asked for alternatives.  is not a false dilemma unless we offer disingenuous alternatives and force a choice.  so, come up with the alternatives we missed. respec is an alternative.  

 

as for da:i endless respec... 

 

...

 

thought we made clear that we were suggesting a single respec.  am admitting we ain't played da:i, but "endless" sounds like more than one.

 

"Players should be forced to live with their ****ty choices or start the whole game over. Games should not be discouraging, but respec and all the other hand holding features in games are unhealthy for the player. If you want to build a character and just choose ****ty stuff, because you won't bother to research what you're doing, you need to be punished for it. You feel no satisfaction, if you get it easy"

 

am not wholly in agreement, but for the most part, we ain't actual arguing with you.  we keep mentioning bugs and poor written talent descriptions as prime reasons for respec.  even if you believe that the player should be given the wonderfully stark alternative between restart and endurance, that don't change the fact that frequent what makes the player choice $% is developer error.  am not seeing why players need be punished, but if they do, surely they should not be punished for developer mistakes.  that strikes us as more than just a bit unfair.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gromnir

[TheisEjsing]

@Gromnir, I wasn't ranting against you, and I agree with you, that a bad experience as a result of bugs, which cannot simply be adjusted is a serious problem. I do find respec a fix for that. But if they release a game, where they feel it's necessary to put a mechanic in like that, just to deal with buggy content, then the game got bigger problems than bad builds in my opinion. 

@Stun hehe, I actually did excatly the same build in BG2. (my second character from BG 1) Same stats (21 wisdom I think thou ), longsword and shield. I found it awesome thou. Shields of Balduren and shield of harmony made the hardest part of BG 2 so easy. I got the Blade of Roses really early, so the big weapons didn't bother me too much. Ofc I found out later, that my build was very far from optimal, but I enjoyed it. Being a power gamer myself, I must admit I enjoyed my EE playthrough with kenmage from  BG 1 alot aswell thou. =) 

Edited March 19, 2015 by TheisEjsing

[Stun]

 we has observed that the frustrated and disgruntled player has option o' waiting for patches (weeks and months o' waiting) that frequently break the game in new ways, OR they can finish game with the character that they find frustrating OR they can start over.

Good god. What a presumptuous load of wash. For one, Speak for yourself. Bad/broken builds don't frustrate me, they do the opposite. They challenge me. In PoE, if my fighter isn't 'tanky' enough because I managed to build him wrong or whatever, I'll *will* him to be more tanky...with actual gameplay. I'll scour the game for better armor. I'll pick 'tanky' talents on my next 6 level ups. I'll enchant my gear with 'tanky' enchantments. I'll recruit spell casters who can cast 'tanky buffs" on me. etc.

 

I'm not a weak-minded ADD suffering casual. I don't need a reset button on my RPGs, like you do.

[PrimeJunta]

Gotta say that being on the same side as Stun about something is much more fun.

[Gromnir]

 

 we has observed that the frustrated and disgruntled player has option o' waiting for patches (weeks and months o' waiting) that frequently break the game in new ways, OR they can finish game with the character that they find frustrating OR they can start over.

Good god. What a presumptuous load of wash. For one, Speak for yourself. Bad/broken builds don't frustrate me, they do the opposite. They challenge me. In PoE, if my fighter isn't 'tanky' enough because I managed to build him wrong or whatever, I'll *will* him to be more tanky...with actual gameplay. I'll scour the game for better armor. I'll pick 'tanky' talents on my next 6 level ups. I'll enchant my gear with 'tanky' enchantments. I'll recruit spell casters who can cast 'tanky buffs" on me. etc.

 

I'm not a weak-minded ADD suffering casual. I don't need a reset button on my RPGs, like you do.

 

what is your problem. we specific addressed this already by noting how subjective brokenness is. it ain't for Gromnir or stun to decide.

 

"our definition o' broken is necessarily subjective.  is many character builds we would be content to play even though the rules descriptions don't match the actual gameplay resulting in a disconnect between our role-play choices and the actual character we end up with in poe.  our level o' tolerance for such will be different than many other folks.  why should we get to decide what is the threshold for broken?  why should stun?  poe is a single-player game.  the goal is for the player to have fun.  if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution?"

 

am freaking stuck repeating self to stun... what a waste.

 

"@Gromnir, I wasn't ranting against you, and I agree with you, that a bad experience as a result of bugs, which cannot simply be adjusted is a serious problem. I do find respec a fix for that. But if they release a game, where they feel it's necessary to put a mechanic in like that, just to deal with buggy content, then the game got bigger problems than bad builds in my opinion."

 

dunno.  it seems to be par for the course in our experience. am not able to recall the last crpg we played that didn't have a few major mechanical bugs that were only fixed after a patch that came at least weeks (and more likely months) following the release.  wasteland 2 is a recent example.  all one needs do is look at the patch notes to see the extent o'' the mechanics blunders that were still being fixed months following release o' wasteland 2.  and let's be honest for a sec, obsidian/bis has a rather unfortunate reputation when it comes to stability and bugs in their game releases.  

 

that being said, am not seeing a buggy release as a particular problem-- is simply a given.  we expect that in a few months, poe will be relatively stable and most major rules mechanics bugs will be eliminated.  that doesn't bother us, but we ain't pretending that this release will be different from all other obsidian/bis releases.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps and one need not look very hard in the bb section o' the board to see the numerous folks who is confused about the current rules mechanics in poe.  descriptions frequent don't match actual performance or is outdated  or is seeming plain wrong.  some people who follow these boards daily and have beta experience are unsure about how various mechanics actual work.  near as bad as bugs is the seeming impenetrable nature o' poe mechanics.  is tough to reasonably punish players for their $#@% choices if those players is not having genuine knowledge o' what they is choosing.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gromnir

[Polanski]

A lot can be said and have been said about the attributes, but they really looks to have fulfilled the design goal of 'not screwing over the player for taking alternative paths in character building', which was the case the DnD. 

 

As long as you do not play on Path of the Damned (or hard), I really don't think you can screw up your build so much that it becomes useless. Unless you actively try to that is (e.g. making a dps focused character with 3 might and 3 dex). 

 

I think living with some of the janky character traits/abilities, is part of what gives the character personality, instead of just being a numbers sheet from a powerplay guide.

[PrimeJunta]

and pj is being willful obtuse... again. stating your experience to bolster (and in your case, to replace) an argument is a poor argument, since you had no actual argument. you have 30 years experience and never had to respec?  HA!  we addressed that.  so what?  so what you got 30 years and so what you never had need o' respec.  as Gromnir pointed out before you, a Living Gm won't be available in poe.  we observed that as a living gm we could tailor encounters and create house rules.  those are not options in poe.  you made an irrelevant observation and attempted to give it merit by telling us how much experience you got. you replaced an argument and instead gave us resume material.

You're the one who brought PnP into this, Grom. I'm glad you admit that it's irrelevant, though, since presumably we can now drop it, unless you have something further to say about it?

 

 

*snort*

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66210-the-possibility-of-a-delayed-2015-release/?p=1450898

 

and again, is a pattern with you.  being wrong could also be part o' the pattern... though we do concede that you actual made relevant arguments in the other thread.  still, you were clear wrong... in spite o' your certainty and experience.

Yes, I was wrong. I do make mistakes... from time to time.

 

as for robbing o' consequences, we has covered that ad nauseum.

first, you ain't established that robbing o' consequences is a genuine worthy reason to prevent respec.

No, you did not. Let's see if you're doing it now, or just reiterating the assertions, red herrings, and strawmen you set up before:

 

What is there to establish? Choices and consequences as absolutely central to my enjoyment of a role-playing game. That is a personal preference. If you feel that choices and consequences are unimportant, that is also a preference. Entirely legitimate, but a different preference.

 

a player made a mistake and thought 1h weapons would be a viable weapon choice. 1/3 through the game they realize that 1h weapon style were a poor choice.  and?  what is the value in forcing bob to either restart game or finish game with a character he discovered after many hours were a fraud.  the character he meant to role-play as a combat expert turned out to be a combat liability? in any event, a single respec robs very little, not that you has shown that anything o' value has been robbed... and who is being robbed in any event?

I am. Having. Respec. Available. Robs. Me. Of. The. Consequences. Of. My. Character. Building. Choices.

 

First: if a game has "trap choices" (example: specializing in quarterstaves in IWD), I consider that to be a significant flaw. Designers should take care not to offer such "trap choices." Not everything has to be equally powerful, mind, but they should make sure that there is a "top-tier" weapon available in every category the player can choose. Adding a Carsomyr or Crom Faeyr on top of that is icing on the cake. BG2, for example, does this well: AFAICT there are +3 or better weapons in every category, which is sufficient to make you a competent combatant. The couple of +5's are super-cool because not everyone can use them even if they can find, build, or win them.

 

However, sticking "respec" on top of that is just fixing a flaw by adding a bigger flaw. That's not a good approach to system design.

 

 

 

 

is this pj paternalism?  is you deciding for the player that they are robbing themselves o' consequences?

Ah, there's that strawman again. Once more: I do not care at all how you or anyone else plays the game. I do care about my enjoyment of it.

 

in the alternative, developer bugs and poor crafted rules descriptions actual do rob the player o' the meaning o' their choices.

 what Bob thought he were getting when he put points in dex before 480 were not what he actual got.

Yeah, the beta was bugged. Shocking, I know.

 

there will be many similar problems at release. is many people still confused about what various talents do.  there will be folks who were robbed o' the meaning o' their choices.

Will there?

 

So, people who don't understand how the system works and consequently make poor choices and experience the consequences of said poor choices, are being "robbed of the meaning of their choices." Riiiiight.

 

the goal o' obsidian is to get folks to buy poe and future games.  frustrate players unnecessarily is not aiding in such a goal. does need wait for a patch to be released to fix a major mechanical error increase player frustration?  yes.  does starting game over after dozens o' hours o' gameplay 'cause the player feels they were misled by poor worded talent descriptions tend to increase player frustration? yes.

You know what else would solve this problem? I nice red "Win!" button at top right. Press it, and all the enemies in the encounter keel over dead. Wouldn't that be great fun?

 

respec would save the developers grief. respec would avoid frustration for some and possibly many players. so what is the actual argument against a single respec?

It would greatly detract from my enjoyment of the game, because it would make me feel that my choices in character creation and level-up were robbed of their consequences.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Yes, this is, rather.

[Silent Winter]

as for silent winter's valid suggestion, we has already responded:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70370-option-to-respec/?p=1568555

 

even stun ain't wrong all the time. poe is a story-driven game. as such, we suspect that changing stuff such as race, background or culture could be problematic.

 

indeed - but since most of the same arguments are being repeated here, I figured I'd add that back in too.  (and I never mentioned changing race, background, culture (or even class) - only that the console already allows people to 'fix' a 'broken' character).  It's a fair point that in-game respec would be easier to use, but I don't see the need - (especially when internet provides a way to instruct anybody on how to use the console)

You are entitled to your opinion of course.  Mine is that it's a waste of resources, and even if Obs say it'd be easy to add in (and add in the time spent bug-checking),  I still think a respeccing side-quest is a monumental waste of resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

 

Edit: Arguments that we need respec because the game will be bugged ignore the necessity of other features to fix game bugs - console is already there.

"We need a 'set variable' UI because the game will be bugged", "We need a 'kill mistakenly-unkillable NPC' UI" etc are also arguments from this.

Obs should focus on fixing bugs - not adding a potentially buggy interface to fix a potential bug.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Silent Winter

[Stun]

what is your problem. we specific addressed this already by noting how subjective brokenness is. it ain't for Gromnir or stun to decide.

Wait... Ok, let me see if I can sum up your argument here.

 

A respec mechanic is needed because the point of a game is to have fun, and a respec mechanic is preferable because it's simple workaround for broken mechanics. But, what constitutes a broken mechanic, and what constitutes fun, are both subjective.

 

So... Subjectively speaking, Gromnir will have more fun with a respec mechanic in PoE because PoE will no doubt be unfun without one...due to being too broken.

 

Do I have the gist of it?

Edited March 19, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

pj and reply/bs

 

pnp is not irrelevant.  your 30 years never  respecing players in pnp is irrelevant precisely 'cause you got a live gm to tailor encounters and create house rules.  is a reading comprehension issue we s'pose. can't get any further if that is how you start. 

 

"Wait... Ok, let me see if I can sum up your argument here."

 

you are as predictable as pj... and as hypocritical.  don't sum up.  you did that in the romance thread too.  didn't turn out well for you then either.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PrimeJunta]

@Gromnir Make up your mind. First you're saying that PnP is not irrelevant (presumably to the discussion on respec), then in the very next sentence you're saying that respeccing in PnP is irrelevant because, unlike in a cRPG, you have a GM around to "tailor encounters and create house rules."

 

Which is it? Relevant or irrelevant? Or are you saying that PnP is relevant, only not to respeccing? If so, what is it relevant to, and what does that relevance have to do with a discussion on respec? Is this how you argue your cases too?

[Stun]

From a relevance standpoint, PoE WILL have a Live DM: The PLAYER. It's call the gameplay settings. And the reload button.

[Elerond]

From a relevance standpoint, PoE WILL have a Live DM: The PLAYER. It's call the gameplay settings. And the reload button.

 

Those things are actually equal and don't offer same things. Live DM has ability to change how all mechanics in game work, how encounters work, what quest player(s) need to do, how they can solve those quests, what npcs do and so on. Dropping difficulty level, changing what information is shown and ability reload don't make you DM or even close to be one.

 

I say that I don't see problem offering respec option for players to lessen possible moments of middle game frustration, especially when you take consideration that game still don't have all its character development options described accurately or working as intended.  Even players that have played beta over hundred hours don't know how all the mechanics should work, because game don't give you always accurate description what things actually do and everything that they influence and because of this it is somethings hard to guess if things work as intended or is it bug. And Josh has stated that he will continue to balance game after release, meaning that even if you know what thing that you chose do it don't necessary work same way when you reach end of game as during your play through there has been patch that is changed how thing that you selected works. 

 

I would also like to say that not every body liked how IE games punished for wrong builds, as I have several hardcore roleplayers who never finished those games (especially original BG) because they found how their mechanics work too frustrating. And it would be sad if people will have similar experiences with PoE.

[PrimeJunta]

There's frustrating and frustrating though. In the IE game character-building, some of the weapon choices are trap choices in some of the games, and IMO this is a major and unnecessary flaw. Ability score distributions are not so much trap choices as non-choices, since each class only needs about three of the stats; with that system they might as well not have had stats at all.

 

Then there's PS:T of course, where distributing your stats for a fighter or thief build robs you of, like, half the game, which is just nuts. I can't hate it for it though, since it makes up for it in so many other ways. I don't think it would've suffered much if it had had no ability score distribution in CC at all though, and had only the tats and other items affect them. But that's because it's PS:T.

 

As to the rest, IWD isn't frustrating at all (since it's linear), BG1 is frustrating because of the early-level instant lethality, and BG2 is frustrating because of the wildly varying difficulty in the Chapter 2 quests. (I've chronicled my travails with it here; only now that I know what the Chapter 2 quests are and where the kewl lewt is am I genuinely, really enjoying the ride -- and I'm enjoying it much more than I expected.)