Something that really bothers me about POE

[Cantousent]

Yeah, what Karkarov said! Seriously, while I'm a little dense, the question as regards the game is whether we prefer to separate our combat and utility related stats from our interpersonal stats. Of course, we could separate stats into all manner of categories and have the points distributed separately. We could use the Age of Decadence model where there's a general pool that can be used for any stats and specialized pools that can only be distributed to combat or conversation. We could separate combat from utility/conversation (such as lockpicking and fast talkin'). ...But, when all is said and done, the design team will decide on a system and then we have to play it.

 

So, I sympathize with Vic wanting a different system, but we have the system we have and I think it would be insane for the devs to switch it at this point, even if they did it in a sequel. All joking aside, I agree with Karkarov about the Art of War. The art of war might teach a simple fellow like me how to win in either an aggregate skill/stat setting or a setting in which the stats and distribution pools are separated. The critical thinking taught by the art of war can benefit someone who has never even picked up a sword in real life. On the other hand, I disclaim that I think the art of war is often over hyped, but its influence historically is beyond question. ...And just saying that means I'd better hunker down in an asbestos bunker because I know some members in these parts who hold the art of war as holy gospel.

[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.

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.

 

 

The Art of War teaches many things, including the importance of "knowing yourself" which is very much a personality trait. That was the main point I was addressing by bringing up this old text. Vic believes that a game centered around combat should separate personality from the traits that make someone effective in combat. To me, that is the exact opposite of "know yourself."

 

The Art of War teaches strategic positioning (which virtually all PoE battles rely on) as well as martial skills such as the use of Fire in battle (see: the Art of War Chapter 12). If your point is that the Art of War does not teach actual sword swinging strategies, well hooray for being obvious. Another thing that does not teach sword swinging tactics is having a Strength or Dexterity attribute of 18+. Just because you are strong or agile doesn't mean you are a master of any weapon by default. You still have to undergo years of training in order to make use of your exceptional Strength and Dexterity. Those years of training will most certainly shape your personality, and impact your ability in the battlefield vs your ability in a diplomatic conversation.

 

To excel in either combat or conversation you would have to "know yourself" - and that fact allows the current PoE system to sit perfectly as-is, imo.

 

But if it's too bothersome to bring up the Art of War on a gaming forum then we can put it to rest. Personally I feel that this part of the discussion was the  most interesting anyway; since there is likely no chance that PoE will be updated to reflect the changes Vic is requesting, and rightfully so. There's no real point in debating why one person is happy with the current outcome vs another person being happy about the exact same outcome lol

[Gairnulf]

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

Have you noticed how more intelligent people can execute larger-arc hooks when they fight h2h? Or how when you lift more at the bench press the bullets you shoot cause bigger wounds?

 

That's because combat performance results from your character's personality, and this is totally not unintuitive design aimed at having each class favor each attribute equally.

 

Also, locking engagement with your tank at a doorway and spamming spells and projectiles from behind, what people do in the majority of side-content combat in the base game requires Sun Tzu-level of understanding of strategy and theory of conflict.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Gairnulf

[Vicarius]

I can be considered intelligent in a few areas of expertise, this does not make me a renaissance man. I could even be considered mighty in a few areas, I am certainly not intimidating. Attributes in life are not blanket allowances. I don't mind peoples opinions on an alternate system but trying to argue against the logic of such a sytem is a bit disengenous.

 

As much as I love conversation and alternate solutions, I dislike even more sacrificing combat ability for the sake of conversation. It binds me to a few classes as a lead character because I just cannot roll a combat flawed character willingly. 

[Zenbane]

I don't mind peoples opinions on an alternate system but trying to argue against the logic of such a sytem is a bit disengenous.

Yes, but who set that context...

 

"A system that separates the two would be more logical and elegant." - Vicarius

 

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

 

The reason this became an argument against the logic of an alternate system is because you began by arguing against the logic of the existing system. It's the context you set.

 

Maybe instead of starting out by claiming the PoE system isn't logical, you could have instead cited some examples that fit your personal playstyle. Because that's really what this is about, your playstyle - not logic.

 

The Elder Scrolls comes to mind, which implements Speechcraft and Pursasion:

 

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Persuasion

 

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Speechcraft

[Vicarius]

 

I don't mind peoples opinions on an alternate system but trying to argue against the logic of such a sytem is a bit disengenous.

Yes, but who set that context...

 

"A system that separates the two would be more logical and elegant." - Vicarius

 

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

 

The reason this became an argument against the logic of an alternate system is because you began by arguing against the logic of the existing system. It's the context you set.

 

Maybe instead of starting out by claiming the PoE system isn't logical, you could have instead cited some examples that fit your personal playstyle. Because that's really what this is about, your playstyle - not logic.

 

The Elder Scrolls comes to mind, which implements Speechcraft and Pursasion:

 

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Persuasion

 

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Speechcraf

 

Totally disagree. I didn't set the tone for anything. I simply justified logically how an alternate system could work. As I said, agree or disagree with a system all you want. That is what forums are for. A split system is more flexible and elegant. Is it too complex? Depends on how it's implemented.

[Zenbane]

You didn't justify anything, you just said your preference would "be more logical." Proclaiming an opinion is not the same thing as justifying the proclamation. Justification takes work, not just typing, "my idea is more better"

 

Also, if you don't understand how you set the tone, then I can suggest some reading material: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/in-writing-tone-is-the-author%E2%80%99s-attitude/

 

As far as the system mechanics, it is not an issue of complexity, but an issue of personal preference.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Zenbane

[Gairnulf]

Nothing is "about logic" in some arguments.

 

IMO, dialogue choice qualifiers in games featuring a system like "persuasion" are always more or less arbitrary. That's because dialogue is not system-like, it's supposed to be the opposite - every person you talk to should ideally feel as distinct as possible. So it's difficult to have clear rules about when you will succeed or fail in a dialogue check. I think PoE portrays this really well. I can't think of many games which offer you such a variety of choices of dialogue lines, depending on your base stats and reputations. I can't recall a moment in PoE where I've felt constrained by the dialogue - I want to say something, but I'm not given that option.

 

Then again, the dialogue choice qualifiers themselves are often arbitrary in games, and in the worst of cases, the writer had one "thing" in mind and you have to guess what he was thinking in order to hit the right line. The most simplistic implementation of persuasion is "you have the skill level, you get the "right" choice". PoE is much more advanced than that though, and less predictable at least on a surface level.

 

For example, a character with above average Perception gets a certain dialogue choice in Gilded Vale's mill, when talking to the miller, but this doesn't produce a "good effect" from quest progression standpoint. Yet, I wouldn't say the bad effect is unpredictable - if the player really tries to read into the situation - the miller and his guards, the descriptions the text gives - the player should draw the conclusion that the authors have provided him dialogue lines which are dangerous, as well as ones which are useful. It's still up to personal interpretation, because there are as many interpretations of a text as there are readers. But the general rule is, consider the situation when choosing a dialogue line, and not every dialogue line with a qualifier is a "good" response.

[Zenbane]

Nothing is "about logic" in some arguments.

 

IMO, dialogue choice qualifiers in games featuring a system like "persuasion" are always more or less arbitrary. That's because dialogue is not system-like, it's supposed to be the opposite - every person you talk to should ideally feel as distinct as possible. So it's difficult to have clear rules about when you will succeed or fail in a dialogue check. I think PoE portrays this really well. I can't think of many games which offer you such a variety of choices of dialogue lines, depending on your base stats and reputations. I can't recall a moment in PoE where I've felt constrained by the dialogue - I want to say something, but I'm not given that option.

 

Then again, the dialogue choice qualifiers themselves are often arbitrary in games, and in the worst of cases, the writer had one "thing" in mind and you have to guess what he was thinking in order to hit the right line. The most simplistic implementation of persuasion is "you have the skill level, you get the "right" choice". PoE is much more advanced than that though, and less predictable at least on a surface level.

 

For example, a character with above average Perception gets a certain dialogue choice in Gilded Vale's mill, when talking to the miller, but this doesn't produce a "good effect" from quest progression standpoint. Yet, I wouldn't say the bad effect is unpredictable - if the player really tries to read into the situation - the miller and his guards, the descriptions the text gives - the player should draw the conclusion that the authors have provided him dialogue lines which are dangerous, as well as ones which are useful. It's still up to personal interpretation, because there are as many interpretations of a text as there are readers. But the general rule is, consider the situation when choosing a dialogue line, and not every dialogue line with a qualifier is a "good" response.

I mentioned this before, but the Elder Scrolls (eg, Skyrim) has Pursuaion and Speechcraft.

 

Being able to properly hold a conversation is definitely a skill in and of itself. Argumentative Speech, for example, can be taken in college.

 

However, within the PoE Universe, I feel that the system is logical and works just fine.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Zenbane

[Cantousent]

Which is really the point. I don't mind folks advocating an opposing position but as long as the system works as is, it's merely matter of preference rather than, say, the mechanics not working or being so manifestly incongruent as to be 'illogical.'

[Guest 4ward]

 

it's odd that companions are only useful in battle, in dialogues they just chime in for flavour but whatever they say it's no influence on the dialogue itself. Since the devs decided to let attributes effect dialogue it would have been nice IMO that companions's stats played a role. So, you get a blue-color dialogue line from that blue-dressed companion giving you an option which you'd miss if you didn't have him/her. And the goldilock ego of the player wouldn't be that damaged much either, simply take another option if you don't like to use the dialogue line from your companion ??

[rheingold]

To the OP, I can kinda relate, but the thing is that the stat building is over rated. You can make an excellent character without min/maxing. And it wouldn't necessarily be less powerful. An example is a rogue with high resolve, perc and dex. You miss virtually nothing by not taking strength, in fact you gain more than you lose with high resolve as opposed to strength. The same could be said for favoring intelligence over perception. Your abilities will last longer so you won't really need the extra accuracy. It would be perfectly viable, not weaker at all, just different.

[otokage]

I don't agree with the OP. It is only logical that high intellect and resolution will be most useful and recurrent talents to use in a conversation. We see this everyday in fantasy: mages usualy end fights by diplomacy and wisdom, and not by using their (immense) power. While warriors rarely achieve what they want by talking.

 

Now, I remember perception, power and tradition being pretty recurrent as conversation options. Sometimes I always saw survavility, which seems legit.

 

I don't know how "mechanics" and "stealth" or "atletism" can be used widely on conversations except for very specific points, that will obviously be a very reduced part of the whole dialogues that are in the game.

[Heijoushin]

Look, I know how OP feels. When rolling my first character, I also wanted a main with lots of int\per\res so my dialogue options wouldn't be limited. As it turns out... it doesn't make a big difference to how the game feels/plays, but I didn't know that the first time round...

 

Maybe it would help if (as 4ward) said, companions could assist in dialogue. Then you could roleplay a dumb-as-bricks warrior type, but have a smart wizard in your party to back you up with brains. I think in Neverwinter Nights 2, you occasionally get an option like "leave this to so-and-so".

[otokage]

Look, I know how OP feels. When rolling my first character, I also wanted a main with lots of int\per\res so my dialogue options wouldn't be limited. As it turns out... it doesn't make a big difference to how the game feels/plays, but I didn't know that the first time round...

 

Maybe it would help if (as 4ward) said, companions could assist in dialogue. Then you could roleplay a dumb-as-bricks warrior type, but have a smart wizard in your party to back you up with brains. I think in Neverwinter Nights 2, you occasionally get an option like "leave this to so-and-so".

 

Sure, this option also was in Dragon Age. It would be a very good adition imo.

[PrimeJunta]

Storm of Zehir did that and it worked really well.

 

But then Storm of Zehir was a very different kind of game.