Something that really bothers me about POE

[Vicarius]

I have played this game to L11'ish atleast 5 times on potd and I never finish. I'm actually rerolling again as news of new patches circulate. Don't misunderstand me, I love the game. I have personal issues and never finish because I always come up with a better or more enjoyable way of doing things and reroll the entire party. I know I can swap in members and create companions etc. It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

 

What really troubles me is creating a lead character for dialog options and the severe limitations it imposes. Dialog largly comes down to resolve and intelligence with perception being a flavor stat in order of importance. These stats pigeon hole your character choices to a few specific lead classes. Sure, I could create a rogue with 16 per, int, res but the character would be flawed and I cannot bring myself to play a flawed character. If I rolled this rogue I know inside I would not be experiencing the full potential of the class which turns me off. 

 

Paladins and Chanters make the best lead dialog characters. There are other builds that allow for maximum dialog choices but, again, the characters are flawed and I wouldn't enjoy playing one. There has to be a more creative way of doing this. A way that separates combat effectiveness from personality. I have struggled with this in other games as well.. always trying to pigeon hole a lead character for dialog without making him a less effective version of the class.

 

I would completely separate personality from class. How would I do it? Well, I'm not a professional so I haven't brainstormed properly but the previous sentence is a good start. Is anyone else as neurotic as I am or am I a total outlier? Systematically it shouldn't be difficult to accomplish, it could even be dynamic but I might be getting ahead of myself on that.

[KDubya]

From a roleplaying standpoint I don't like to have the same character choosing the high intellect and the high resolve dialogue choices. I look at the high intellect as being like a lawyer, looking for a loophole or a clever trick with words to get what you want. I look at Resolve as being the type of grounded individual who makes the hard choice and does the right thing, not the easy thing. I have a roleplaying problem having a character that both looks for the loophole easy way as well as being capable of choosing the right way.

 

Based on the above it is easy for me to design and roleplay. Trying to get all possible dialogue options is just going to lead to frustration and sub-optimal builds.

[Infinitron]

Who says a Rogue with 16 Per, Int and Res is flawed? Those atttributes have advantages, learn to make them work for you.

 

Also, it's not like you're entitled to have a main character who can pass all dialogue checks.

 

Or in other words:

 

 

It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

 

This may be your problem.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Infinitron

[Fenixp]

The game has been designed in such a way that by creating a character you want to play, you must inevitably cut yourself from some dialogue options. And the game counts on this being the case - often enough, when an important enough reply is tied to a stat check, there are multiple replies checking against multiple stats to give a wide variety of characters chance of passing this particular check, often with the same outcome.

 

I do not believe that completely separating character traits and personality would really be a good solution, since personality is largely based on your traits and the game already reflects your personality trough reputations (you can be aggressive, stoic, diplomatic, that kind of thing)

[Gairnulf]

You should know that dialogue checks exist for every attribute score, not just PER or INT. There was a list circulating somewhere of all the dialogue checks for attributes and skills in the game, but I haven't looked at it, I think it's too much of a spoiler.

 

In addition, not every use of an attribute score-enabled dialogue choice leads to a good outcome, which I think improves the use of attributes in dialogue for role-playing.

 

One of the things I was pretty happy about in PoE were that it wasn't restricting your role-playing opportunities by giving you different amount of XP for different quest outcomes.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Sannom]

It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

Careful there, someone could confuse you with whoever it was who complained that female Orlans being taller than male Orlans broke his immersion or whatever because it wasn't "perfect".

[Karkarov]

Gairnulf is right.  All stats are used at different points for different checks and the "stat based" dialogue checks don't always lead to superior results or even results you couldn't have gotten with the non stat based choices.  You are literally stressing about a non issue.

 

 

It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

This may be your problem.

Also this bears repeating.

[Ink Blot]

IRoll20s. Set all stats to 20. Problem solved.

[Vicarius]

 

Who says a Rogue with 16 Per, Int and Res is flawed? Those atttributes have advantages, learn to make them work for you.

 

Also, it's not like you're not entitled to have a main character who can pass all dialogue checks.

 

Or in other words:

 

 

It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

 

This may be your problem.

 

 

As I said in my post that rogue would certainly not reach it's full potential so it is flawed. To answer your question, I am saying it's flawed and I wouldn't enjoy playing it.

 

 

Gairnulf is right.  All stats are used at different points for different checks and the "stat based" dialogue checks don't always lead to superior results or even results you couldn't have gotten with the non stat based choices.  You are literally stressing about a non issue.

 

 

It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

This may be your problem.

Also this bears repeating.

 

The vast majority of alternate solutions are tied to INT and RES unless you play an aggressive character and use the MIG solutions. BTW all players play the game in their own way. In that sense all players have their own "problems". I just can't bring myself to play a character I know is flawed. I know many people are just like me. My party is like a machine to me and I want it to work optimally. It's why i reroll so much, I simply come up with a more interesting "machine" to play with lol. I guess it's my inner engineer.

 

I thought about this some this morning. Separating personality from combat effectiveness makes sense. Let's take one attribute and one class, Intelligence and wizard. Intelligence as it applies to combat effectiveness simply means the wizard has a high aptitude in wizardry with the result being longer durations with a larger aoe radius. Intelligence as it applies to wizardry is strong. Being intelligent in one area of expertise doesn't necessarily make one intelligent overall.

 

A system that separates the two would be more logical and elegant. I know I would prefer something like this if it were done well. Just my thoughts..

[Vicarius]

IRoll20s. Set all stats to 20. Problem solved.

 

lol I have considered this but then the character would be flawed again in a different way, too powerful. 

[Parasol_Syndicate]

I can sort of relate to this, as I like to play barbarians. 

 

POE is the first time I can think of where I've been encouraged to place intelligence over resolve to be good at getting mad at stuff. 

The game's pretty good, but that's just not working for me. 

[Zenbane]

I have played this game to L11'ish atleast 5 times on potd and I never finish. I'm actually rerolling again as news of new patches circulate. Don't misunderstand me, I love the game. I have personal issues and never finish because I always come up with a better or more enjoyable way of doing things and reroll the entire party. I know I can swap in members and create companions etc. It's just the way I am, everything has to be perfect in my mind.

 

What really troubles me is creating a lead character for dialog options and the severe limitations it imposes. Dialog largly comes down to resolve and intelligence with perception being a flavor stat in order of importance. These stats pigeon hole your character choices to a few specific lead classes. Sure, I could create a rogue with 16 per, int, res but the character would be flawed and I cannot bring myself to play a flawed character. If I rolled this rogue I know inside I would not be experiencing the full potential of the class which turns me off. 

 

Paladins and Chanters make the best lead dialog characters. There are other builds that allow for maximum dialog choices but, again, the characters are flawed and I wouldn't enjoy playing one. There has to be a more creative way of doing this. A way that separates combat effectiveness from personality. I have struggled with this in other games as well.. always trying to pigeon hole a lead character for dialog without making him a less effective version of the class.

 

I would completely separate personality from class. How would I do it? Well, I'm not a professional so I haven't brainstormed properly but the previous sentence is a good start. Is anyone else as neurotic as I am or am I a total outlier? Systematically it shouldn't be difficult to accomplish, it could even be dynamic but I might be getting ahead of myself on that.

Your post comes off confusing to me since you seem to be stating that: you want a character that excels at both combat and dialogue, to the best of both abilities, in all cases, so that everything can be perfect for you... but without the character being flawed by being "too powerful."

 

I'm also not sure that a world where a brute force Barbarian can have as charming a dialogue engagement as a Holy Paladin... can be considered "perfect."

 

I think the answer to your problem lies within your opening remark, "I have played this game to L11'ish atleast 5 times"

 

Okay so on the 6th time, play it with a lead character built for optimal dialogue. When you beat the game, replay it with a lead character built for mass combat destruction. Had you done this from the start, you would only have endured 2 full playthroughs with a perfect experience on both sides of the gaming spectrum. Instead of 5 different unsuccessful attempts.

[R.Alexander]

 

IRoll20s. Set all stats to 20. Problem solved.

 

lol I have considered this but then the character would be flawed again in a different way, too powerful. 

 

If that is the case, then you cannot have an "unflawed" character. Which, in my opinion, is a good (realistic) thing. The point of the balancing act they are doing is so there is no perfect build.

[Cantousent]

I don't think you have a good gripe on this one, Vicarious, especially since part of the point of having specific dialogue for races, classes, personal history between the interlocutors, as well as skills and stats, is that there're consequences for player decisions. I also don't think that there should be 'balance' or any real attempt at parity is terms of spreading out these checks. Intelligence and Perception *should* provide the best options, kind of like PS:T where Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma had the most weight in terms of additional responses. On the other hand, having all stats have an impact where it can be logically explained appeals to me and that exists in the game.

 

But I am sympathetic. I felt like I had to do everything in PS:T. I finished the game a few times just playing through and scouring everything. Then, I edited my stats which I had to do with a hex editor on a saved game if I remember it right. It's been a while. Even then, I was curious, so I eventually, a long time after I'd first played and finished it, I got a dialogue editor and simply read all the options for every exchange. ...But I would have felt robbed of the experience if I could have just made the 'perfect' character straight out of the box.

 

This is kind of like those situations where folks like consequences but many become irritated or even irate if there's a quest-choice whereby finishing one quest prevents completing of the other, or where previous actions make optimal completion of a future quest impossible. I like those kinds of choices and consequences, although, as an aside, I beleive the devs need to make sure the player understands them early so it isn't a nasty surprise later.

 

EDIT: meant to say gripe, not grip. Grip just came off rude to me.

[Vicarius]

I had my issues with PST as well!! I think some are misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I enjoy most the tweaking of and resultant performance of a character and party. I will not make concessions in a character to allow for dialog. The problem with this is that I love additional dialog and choices as well!! If the two were separated from each other I would be happy. I do not want to have all dialog options available, this isn't what I mean by "a perfect character in my mind". I just feel logically combat performance and personality shouldn't be so closely tied.

 

An alternate skill system for developing the personality of a character and thereby unlocking additional dialog and choices as you travel. Completely unrelated to the combat performance of the character. "Through your travels and encounters you have experienced many behaviors and choose apply this experience to the study of (Disposition, Intellect, Body language, Persuasion, etc.)" You still have to make limited choices on how your character is perceived in the world. I hope this better describes what I'm saying.

[Zenbane]

I just feel logically combat performance and personality shouldn't be so closely tied.

Have you ever read, "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu? Cause there's this quote about "knowing yourself" that pretty much logically concludes the opposite.

[Elerond]

An alternate skill system for developing the personality of a character and thereby unlocking additional dialog and choices as you travel. Completely unrelated to the combat performance of the character. "Through your travels and encounters you have experienced many behaviors and choose apply this experience to the study of (Disposition, Intellect, Body language, Persuasion, etc.)" You still have to make limited choices on how your character is perceived in the world. I hope this better describes what I'm saying.

 

That is system that Obsidian decided early on that they don't want to have in PoE, so I think that you may be out of luck.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Elerond

[Cantousent]

Yeah, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate desire for a game. It's just not what PoE did. It would be a much different game, but I think maybe Tides might use a similar system to what Vic suggests. I wouldn't mind trying out such a system. I'm happy with the route they went with PoE, but that doesn't mean it had to be the way it is, just that it works out just fine for me the way they did it.

[Guest]

As someone who is similarly neurotic, I kinda feel your pain.

 

A couple of things:

1. You're going to have to make trade-offs. Accept that.
2. The devs have to include narrative hooks for different classes. You won't be able to avoid them.

With that said, I've found that most rpgs tend to favor fighters and by selecting fighter as your class, you can avoid a great deal of the mental gymnastics that we neurotics have to endure.

 

My PoE build is an Aedyr fighter with the Aristocrat background. Young and wealthy, he had access to high quality tutors and training in martial arts (i.e. more chivalry, less kung-fu).

With high lore, perception, and resolve you will have a very decent defensive fighter who will be able to pass a lot of dialog checks. 

 

So long as you remember 1 and 2 above, you should be good to go.

 

hope this helps.

[Vicarius]

 

I just feel logically combat performance and personality shouldn't be so closely tied.

Have you ever read, "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu? Cause there's this quote about "knowing yourself" that pretty much logically concludes the opposite.

 

 

Yeah but that is on a macro or strategic/operational level. It has little to do with how well person can swing a sword. Have a look at boxing or mma world champions over the last 10 years. Nobody would say they all are equally capable socially. Although it could be argued most rolled 3's. haha

[KDubya]

Maybe the solution is to play on expert mode or at least with the options of not showing dialogue options that you don't qualify for and not showing the reputation effect from dialogue options. That way you won't know what you are missing and you won't know what the effect will be and will need to rely on what sounds best or most in character.

[Zenbane]

 

 

I just feel logically combat performance and personality shouldn't be so closely tied.

Have you ever read, "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu? Cause there's this quote about "knowing yourself" that pretty much logically concludes the opposite.

 

 

Yeah but that is on a macro or strategic/operational level. It has little to do with how well person can swing a sword. Have a look at boxing or mma world champions over the last 10 years. Nobody would say they all are equally capable socially. Although it could be argued most rolled 3's. haha

 

Well I hate to break it to ya, but Sun Tzu wrote this some 2,000 years about (500 BC era), and statues of him literally have him wearing a sword. He wrote this during a time where the sword was actually the main weapon. Boxing and MMA is a "controlled" environment for simulated fighting under a predefined set of rules. That has nothing to do with true unconstrained warfare, which is what you technically experience in PoE; the same unconstrained environment Sun Tzu operated in.

 

But yeah, lol at the rolling of 3's 

 

And when you say that it's not about how well a person can swing a sword I'm not sure how you're making that distinction. For example, just having High Strength or Dexterity doesn't mean you are automatically good at using a weapon. The weapon proficiency comes from years of practice. In a video game we don't have that long, so when you're maxing Str and Dex, you're essentially giving that character a background where they spent years of their lives honing those attributes. That is very much a strategic/operational decision that Sun Tzu's philosophies apply towards. And it would certainly impact a persons personality.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Zenbane

[Vicarius]

 

 

 

I just feel logically combat performance and personality shouldn't be so closely tied.

Have you ever read, "The Art of War," by Sun Tzu? Cause there's this quote about "knowing yourself" that pretty much logically concludes the opposite.

 

 

Yeah but that is on a macro or strategic/operational level. It has little to do with how well person can swing a sword. Have a look at boxing or mma world champions over the last 10 years. Nobody would say they all are equally capable socially. Although it could be argued most rolled 3's. haha

 

Well I hate to break it to ya, but Sun Tzu wrote this some 2,000 years about (500 BC era), and statues of him literally have him wearing a sword. He wrote this during a time where the sword was actually the main weapon. Boxing and MMA is a "controlled" environment for simulated fighting under a predefined set of rules. That has nothing to do with true unconstrained warfare, which is what you technically experience in PoE; the same unconstrained environment Sun Tzu operated in.

 

But yeah, lol at the rolling of 3's 

 

And when you say that it's not about how well a person can swing a sword I'm not sure how you're making that distinction. For example, just having High Strength or Dexterity doesn't mean you are automatically good at using a weapon. The weapon proficiency comes from years of practice. In a video game we don't have that long, so when you're maxing Str and Dex, you're essentially giving that character a background where they spent years of their lives honing those attributes. That is very much a strategic/operational decision that Sun Tzu's philosophies apply towards. And it would certainly impact a persons personality.

 

 

No really, the book was written on a strategic (army) level. Sun Tzu was a general and philosopher. Let's not argue that because the man is depicted wearing a sword that his whole book was written about swordplay. It wasn't. Let's not use this as evidence that something the book was not about, individual personality, is closely tied to warrior capability. You're starting to roll sub 10's my friend.

 

edit: Beyond common cause, are soldiers in modern armies clones sharing identical personalities? Of course not.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Vicarius

[Zenbane]

Well lets keep in mind that you used MMA as an example as to why a video game should separate combat ability from personality. You make some cute references to D&D dice rolls but at this point I'm not sure you're even holding a pair to roll, na' mean?

 

In the end, to me it's become clear that you want less D&D RPG in your video games, and more Mario Kart.

 

As for Sun Tzu, it's taught in both business and law schools to help with detailed strategies in implementing ones craft; eg, how and when to swing a sword.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Zenbane

[Karkarov]

Well lets keep in mind that you used MMA as an example as to why a video game should separate combat ability from personality. You make some cute references to D&D dice rolls but at this point I'm not sure you're even holding a pair to roll, na' mean?

 

In the end, to me it's become clear that you want less D&D RPG in your video games, and more Mario Kart.

 

As for Sun Tzu, it's taught in both business and law schools to help with detailed strategies in implementing ones craft; eg, how and when to swing a sword.

Personally I don't really agree with much of what Vicarius has posted but I have to chime in here.

 

"The Art of War" has nothing to do with martial skill, or swords.  If you strip it down to what it is, it is a set of rules and strategies that define how best to use the resources at your disposal to achieve success.  Whether those resources are a mob of guys with swords, an MMA fighter going for a title win, or a team of lawyers trying to win a court case the rules can still apply.  So Sun Tzu was not "teaching you how to swing a sword" he was simply teaching "how to win" regardless of the actual form of the battle.