I never finished Pillars of Eternity.

[Ninjamestari]

 

How is it a problem if lifting means your fireballs deal more damage? It's fantasy magic, not real world science, intellect doesn't need to increase magic damage because some of you want the skinny nerd in a dress to be a demigod.

 

It's not a problem. To me it functions like Chi in the martial arts, where it's a representation of life force. You buff up your body, and your muscles become a magical capacitor able to project more soul-based power.

 

 

With that sort of mental gymnastics you'll be able to adapt to anything, so why defend the system when you've got nothing to gain and nothing to lose?

[HooAmEye]

Because some people actually enjoy the system? Not the hardest thing to get....

[Fenixp]

Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.

*sigh* When hitting things, you're trying to exercise as little strength as humanly possible as to not over-extend yourself. That's why very sharp things eventually became much more widespread than clubby things (and eventually, strength was taken out of the equation more or less completely). You not only keep dodging the point, but also replied to 1/3 of the argument I was making in the post you quoted and like 1/10th of the argument I was making in the first place. Besides...

With that sort of mental gymnastics you'll be able to adapt to anything

Since PoE was "inspired" by the BG/IWD D&D games, I think partially the issue stems from expectations. D&D classifies STR-DEX-CON and physical attributes and INT-WIS-CHA as mental ones. Part of the disconnect I feel is that CON and DEX still heavily imply physical qualities and INT-PER-RES imply mental ones. This throws MIGHT into its own category since its in-game description does state it covers both physical and non-physical things.

Yes, absolutely - the issue does stem from expectations. But any way you put it, the 6 attributes used in DnD derive from both physical and from mental abilities of an individual - I mean, obviously. Strength isn't just about strength, it's how you apply it. We covered constitution. Dexterity is about fine movements but also perceiving details. Mental stats are mental, true, but don't really make any sense ("I can't form a coherent sentence but I'm ... Like ... Really charismatic. Bro.") At the end of the day, if you wanted a realistic system, character creation would look roughly like this:

 

What's your lung capacity (l)?

What's the tensile strength of tendons on your left arm (MPa)?

...

 

And since we have no idea how do you measure potency of magic (for... Obvious reasons), 'Might' is as good of a stat as any.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Fenixp

[Heijoushin]

 

Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.

*sigh* When hitting things, you're trying to exercise as little strength as humanly possible as to not over-extend yourself. That's why very sharp things eventually became much more widespread than clubby things (and eventually, strength was taken out of the equation more or less completely). You not only keep dodging the point, but also replied to 1/3 of the argument I was making in the post you quoted and like 1/10th of the argument I was making in the first place. Besides...

 

Fufufu, is it wise to argue with a Ninja Master on this point? It's true, a good sword or knife is sharp enough that you don't need much strength to kill someone. However, in a sword fight with all other factors (skills, experience, speed etc) being equal, I'd put my money on the guy with the bigger muscles.

 

Ah, there's no activity quite as nerdy as armchair philosophizing about combat

[Fenixp]

Fufufu, is it wise to argue with a Ninja Master on this point? It's true, a good sword or knife is sharp enough that you don't need much strength to kill someone. However, in a sword fight with all other factors (skills, experience, speed etc) being equal, I'd put my money on the guy with the bigger muscles.

That would surely make strength a part of constitution, not damage dealt tho. Regardless, we keep dancing around the core point, which was: "Physical attributes don't actually work like that." They're far more complex than +4 damage, and when Ninjamestari tries to persuade me that +4 damage is good enough, then Might is also good enough.

 

I'm also not entirely sure where did I claim mastery over meele weapons - I held a few, got basic tutoring on how to use them, but that's it.

[Heijoushin]

 

That would surely make strength a part of constitution, not damage dealt tho. Regardless, we keep dancing around the core point, which was: "Physical attributes don't actually work like that." They're far more complex than +4 damage, and when Ninjamestari tries to persuade me that +4 damage is good enough, then Might is also good enough.

 

I'm also not entirely sure where did I claim mastery over meele weapons - I held a few, got basic tutoring on how to use them, but that's it.

 

Quite so, quite so. They don't really work like that. I think the problem that everyone has with might is that people don't instinctively link it to magical power. Sure, if they read the explanations, they would know better, but being intuitive is one of the signs of a good system, yes?

 

You didn't claim mastery over melee weapons, I was just taking the mickey out of you guys

[Ninjamestari]

 

Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.

*sigh* When hitting things, you're trying to exercise as little strength as humanly possible as to not over-extend yourself. That's why very sharp things eventually became much more widespread than clubby things (and eventually, strength was taken out of the equation more or less completely). You not only keep dodging the point, but also replied to 1/3 of the argument I was making in the post you quoted and like 1/10th of the argument I was making in the first place. 

 

 

You're a weasel, you know that. My argument has been the same from the beginning, you're the one that tries new angles with every single post. Now you're trying to twist a simple "a stronger blow will cause more damage" into some "actually in combat you're trying to do this and that fancy stuff I've never really understood anything about but heard someone talking of which was cool!"

 

So let's clarify, you are of the opinion that more strength behind a hit doesn't equate to more damage caused? I mean are you seriously deluded enough to start arguing against physics? And just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not talking just about swords here, but even with a cutting weapon such as a sword, more power means more momentum and kinetic energy being applied to the actual cutting.

[JFSOCC]

 

Pillars is a good game.  As with basically everything Obsidian touches, I'd give it a solid 8/10 at bare minimum - everything Obsidian makes or is directly involved with seems to be at least that good.  But it's frustrating to play in many cases, because you can see what it COULD have been.  I sometimes wonder if devoting so much effort to the Endless Paths was a smart design choice.  I know both players and Obsidian themselves wanted a sort of sequel to the stellar Watcher's Keep from BG2, but I can't help but feel like it might have been better to devote some of that energy and effort into polishing the rest of the game.  Maybe they could've added new floors to the Endless Paths later, or something.

 

 

This is one of the reasons why I'm excited for Dreadfire, despite my experience with PoE. I still got a good 64 hours in PoE. according to steam.

 

By making Project Eternity a reality, Obsidian has managed to get a footing for their own IP from which they can create an entire universe full of games. (Wouldn't it have been great if they had had that option for Knights of the Old Republic!)

 

PoE is in many ways a pitch for further games, a quasi-vertical slice, and has given Obsidian not only something to build on, but a good deal of funds to invest in their next project.

There is no doubt in my mind that with these added resources, any following game will iterate on the good, and rethink the bad or controversial.

 

There are already a significant number of things that Dreadfire will include that the Pillars team simply didn't have the resources to manage.

 

It's easy to forget that expectations were high for Pillars, and for the team to build such a solid game is I believe in great part due to Josh Sawyers wisdom in project management, as well as good communication with the fanbase. Many of his posts on these forums were managing expectations by explaining what the team could and could not do, what they were working on, and what they were considering during development.

Many of the things that I see slated for Dreadfire remind me of discussions held on these very forums.

If anyone is new here, I do encourage you if you have the time and interest to explore the old (well, they're still around) Project Eternity forums and look for threads with Posts from Josh, they're good quality, and provide good insight.

 

For Deadfire I see romance, a change in stealth (vision cones! thank you Josh, I do appreciate that very much!) and a change in the approach to exploration.

All this tells me that not only will Dreadfire be more ambitious than Pillars, and that the team is actively learning and has paid close attention to the feedback they've gotten over the years.

 

There are still things about Dreadfire that will make me manage my own expectations. I favour a classless system because it allows you to approach character stats differently, but I'm curious to see the multiclass system work out. I do hope that there will be effort put into allowing powerful synergies.

I'm also interested in learning more about the density of sidequests in Pillars, or if it will still focus heavily on the Critical Path.

Nevertheless I think things are looking up for the Pillars Setting, and even if Dreadfire wouldn't be "all that", perhaps 8/10, Obsidian will no doubt continue to grow from this title.

 

I like that Dreadfire eyes different from Pillars, I have this nagging feeling that my personal feedback has influenced the setting which is probably nonsense but I'm stoked nonetheless, so I'll be paying close attention to its development.

 

So please, remind me on occasion to manage my expectations when I get hyped again.

 

It's good to be back here, I hope the devs feel the same

[Amentep]

Yes, absolutely - the issue does stem from expectations. But any way you put it, the 6 attributes used in DnD derive from both physical and from mental abilities of an individual - I mean, obviously. Strength isn't just about strength, it's how you apply it. We covered constitution. Dexterity is about fine movements but also perceiving details. Mental stats are mental, true, but don't really make any sense ("I can't form a coherent sentence but I'm ... Like ... Really charismatic. Bro.") At the end of the day, if you wanted a realistic system, character creation would look roughly like this:

 

What's your lung capacity (l)?

What's the tensile strength of tendons on your left arm (MPa)?

...

 

And since we have no idea how do you measure potency of magic (for... Obvious reasons), 'Might' is as good of a stat as any.

 

I don't disagree, stats are abstractions for interaction into the game. So it doesn't bother me, but this particular debate has been around awhile and while it doesn't bother me, ultimately, I understand why it bothers others as it feels logically inconsistent. 

 

In retrospect, they may have been better off leaving Dex, Con and Int behind and using other descriptors that could divorce further from the D&D origins might have helped.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.

*sigh* When hitting things, you're trying to exercise as little strength as humanly possible as to not over-extend yourself. That's why very sharp things eventually became much more widespread than clubby things (and eventually, strength was taken out of the equation more or less completely). You not only keep dodging the point, but also replied to 1/3 of the argument I was making in the post you quoted and like 1/10th of the argument I was making in the first place. 

 

 

You're a weasel, you know that. My argument has been the same from the beginning, you're the one that tries new angles with every single post. Now you're trying to twist a simple "a stronger blow will cause more damage" into some "actually in combat you're trying to do this and that fancy stuff I've never really understood anything about but heard someone talking of which was cool!"

 

So let's clarify, you are of the opinion that more strength behind a hit doesn't equate to more damage caused? I mean are you seriously deluded enough to start arguing against physics? And just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not talking just about swords here, but even with a cutting weapon such as a sword, more power means more momentum and kinetic energy being applied to the actual cutting.

 

Gaan we nu weer oude koeien uit de sloot halen.

 

Children, this argument of yours has a beard by now.

Let's start with the obvious.

When someone writes in a way you disagree with, don't respond in kind. Either you're feeding a troll, or you're reducing yourself to the level of the character you pretend to despise.

It's not interesting discussion, and it doesn't make others want to weigh in, other than perhaps to the fact that there are duelists in the thread.

This has gone on long enough. Please remain civil in my damn thread so that people can have intelligent discourse.

 

Secondly, the question you should ask is not, why isn't it Strength? Why Might? But rather, what motivated the developers to choose this stat model?

Is it to create a system of stats that can accurately tell a player what they can do in combat, which was one of the 'pillars' of this game? Perhaps it has to do with the iteration on the affected attributes that moved it away from what you had envisioned the attribute name stood for? Might was named in order to distinguish it from strength, to allow players to decouple their past expectations from this new system. One where it described the intensity of the player character ability in combat, regardless of whether they were a 40kg woman or Conan the Barbarian. This allowed the player to choose a character model they prefer, without limiting what they believed their character should be able to do.

 

In this sense I think Obsidian made the right decision.

Although I believe that it might be even better to do away with the stats altogether. No strength, intelligence, dex, might, luck, etc. Nothing.

I believe it's hampered what RPG's can be for decades. But I'm including that in my own game pitch.

 

^-- See that is how that is better than what you two are doing?

Edited April 7, 2017 by JFSOCC

[Fenixp]

So let's clarify, you are of the opinion that more strength behind a hit doesn't equate to more damage caused? I mean are you seriously deluded enough to start arguing against physics? And just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not talking just about swords here, but even with a cutting weapon such as a sword, more power means more momentum and kinetic energy being applied to the actual cutting.

I'm still sticking to the same goalposts of the discussion - but I might have set them unclearly in my flurry of words, for which I apologize. And, more importantly, I'm of the opinion that this entire line of argumentation is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in the first place - you are arguing with illustration of my point, not the point itself, which is that attributes in games never translate to how similarly named attributes behave in real life. I do think we can agree on that point easily enough, yes? Not just with strength, with pretty much all of them.

 

To extend that argument, I'm saying that since there already is a disconnect between the attributes and their real-life behavior, there's also a disconnect between how you see your character and what is the character doing (you will always be explaining away a lot of inconsistencies in any attribute-based RPG), or am I wrong on that account?

 

In retrospect, they may have been better off leaving Dex, Con and Int behind and using other descriptors that could divorce further from the D&D origins might have helped.

That I also agree with, yes. Or leave 'Might' named 'Strength' and explain it away by potency of magic being governed by body mass or bollocks like that - it's not like we have real-life basis for how magic works anyway.

 

^-- See that is how that is better than what you two are doing?

You... Did start with a condescending personal jab and then just threw your own opinion into the mix, so it's more of a "Welcome to the club." Anyway,

What motivated the developers to choose this stat model? Is it to create a system of stats that can accurately tell a player what they can do in combat, which was one of the 'pillars' of this game? Perhaps it has to do with the iteration on the affected attributes that moved it away from what you had envisioned the attribute name stood for? Might was named in order to distinguish it from strength, to allow players to decouple their past expectations from this new system. One where it described the intensity of the player character ability in combat, regardless of whether they were a 40kg woman or Conan the Barbarian. This allowed the player to choose a character model they prefer, without limiting what they believed their character should be able to do.

Which is the second part of the argument I was making, put much more eloquently. So thank you. Edited April 7, 2017 by Fenixp

[Ninjamestari]

I'm still sticking to the same goalposts of the discussion - but I might have set them unclearly in my flurry of words, for which I apologize. And, more importantly, I'm of the opinion that this entire line of argumentation is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in the first place - you are arguing with illustration of my point, not the point itself, which is that attributes in games never translate to how similarly named attributes behave in real life. I do think we can agree on that point easily enough, yes? Not just with strength, with pretty much all of them.

To extend that argument, I'm saying that since there already is a disconnect between the attributes and their real-life behavior, there's also a disconnect between how you see your character and what is the character doing (you will always be explaining away a lot of inconsistencies in any attribute-based RPG), or am I wrong on that account? 

 

 

Aah, progress. Thank you.

 

Here lies the problem with your comparison: While strength in D&D is obviously an abstraction, it is an abstraction of reality. Might in PoE isn't, it's an abstraction of an abstract metaphysical concept that doesn't resonate as much (or at all) with the instinctual reality, as strength in D&D does. So you're right, they're both abstractions, obviously, but Might in PoE doesn't have roots in the concrete reality and human instinct like STR of D&D does. That is the difference.

[FlintlockJazz]

Early in development I remember that Intelligence was being considered the Damage stat instead, working on the concept that a more intelligent character would be able to pinpoint what particular weak spots their opponents were exposing the most and go for them.  Might then came in as a combo physical and spiritual strength stat.

 

 

Strength as an attribute is very concrete and people have a strong instinctual understanding of what it is. This helps in creating stronger immerison, as everyone already has an instinctive understanding of what the stat does and thus it helps establish the connection between player and player character.

Really? There's an instinctual understanding that when I'm 5 strong, I get -5 to hit and -4 to damage, but when I'm 18/76-90 strong I get +2 to hit and +4 to damage? Do you really believe that people feel more connected to their characters when their character has a "strength" attribute that can be an arbitrary number?

 

At least system in Pillars was consistent - Might made things more powerful. All of them, universally. If you ask me, that's exactly the kind of streamlining attributes need, because as it stands, it's always "This attribute does this, this, this and this, except when that happens, that's when it starts doing this." You have to stretch it for it to make roleplaying sense, but you have to do that with pretty much all abstractions in RPGs.

 

 

Don't act like an idiot, you're smarter than that and you know exactly what I meant. People have an instinctual understanding what strength is an what it means to have more or less of it.

 

Fun fact: in GURPS Strength is used to calculate a person's Hit Points instead of their Health attribute.  Health is used to determine their strain points instead.  The Storyteller system by White Wolf uses Stamina instead of Constitution, and have a specific Manipulation stat separate from Charisma in the belief that someone can be likeable without being manipulative whereas other systems have them both in a Charisma stat because those with charisma obviously find it easier to manipulate people even if they choose not to do so.  Other systems merge it into one Body stat because if you are quite strong in real life you also tend to be quite healthy as well.

[rjshae]

Here lies the problem with your comparison: While strength in D&D is obviously an abstraction, it is an abstraction of reality. Might in PoE isn't, it's an abstraction of an abstract metaphysical concept that doesn't resonate as much (or at all) with the instinctual reality, as strength in D&D does. So you're right, they're both abstractions, obviously, but Might in PoE doesn't have roots in the concrete reality and human instinct like STR of D&D does. That is the difference.

 

My thinking is: so what? You talk as if our "concrete reality" has to hold in a world replete with magic. It doesn't. This is not a design flaw; it's the reality of a fantasy setting. The game developers have hard coded a direct relationship between physical and spiritual strength. That's the physics of Eora. It doesn't have to look like our "concrete" reality. If you were somehow tossed into that world, you'd have to deal with it on its own terms. All it really needs to be is consistent.

Edited April 7, 2017 by rjshae

[Ninjamestari]

My thinking is: so what? You talk as if our "concrete reality" has to hold in a world replete with magic. It doesn't. This is not a design flaw; it's the reality of a fantasy setting. The game developers have hard coded a direct relationship between physical and spiritual strength. That's the physics of Eora. It doesn't have to look like our "concrete" reality. If you were somehow tossed into that world, you'd have to deal with it on its own terms. All it really needs to be is consistent.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not interested in a fantasy world that is so out of touch with reality that even physics don't work. Especially when it otherwise doesn't pursue its own 'version', but instead still takes its ques from history. The two contexts are in conflict, and we again get to the point that Obsidian really didn't have a clear vision when making PoE. I can understand how these new generations of people who have never done anything in the real world might not see that disconnect as problematic, but when like me you have intimately experienced the gritty reality of the world, you can no longer respect anything that is purely make-believe. You need that connection to reality to give the fantasy meaning, and when that connection is lost, the fiction becomes empty.

[rjshae]

Yeah, I'm not interested in a fantasy world that is so out of touch with reality that even physics don't work. Especially when it otherwise doesn't pursue its own 'version', but instead still takes its ques from history. The two contexts are in conflict, and we again get to the point that Obsidian really didn't have a clear vision when making PoE. I can understand how these new generations of people who have never done anything in the real world might not see that disconnect as problematic, but when like me you have intimately experienced the gritty reality of the world, you can no longer respect anything that is purely make-believe. You need that connection to reality to give the fantasy meaning, and when that connection is lost, the fiction becomes empty.

 

Sounds like this isn't the game for you then, and I'm fine with that. Good luck finding a game you'll enjoy.

[Messier-31]

Yeah, no, sorry Ninja, but it oddly seems you wish for a game that is a life simulator.

[HooAmEye]

 

My thinking is: so what? You talk as if our "concrete reality" has to hold in a world replete with magic. It doesn't. This is not a design flaw; it's the reality of a fantasy setting. The game developers have hard coded a direct relationship between physical and spiritual strength. That's the physics of Eora. It doesn't have to look like our "concrete" reality. If you were somehow tossed into that world, you'd have to deal with it on its own terms. All it really needs to be is consistent.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not interested in a fantasy world that is so out of touch with reality that even physics don't work. Especially when it otherwise doesn't pursue its own 'version', but instead still takes its ques from history. The two contexts are in conflict, and we again get to the point that Obsidian really didn't have a clear vision when making PoE. I can understand how these new generations of people who have never done anything in the real world might not see that disconnect as problematic, but when like me you have intimately experienced the gritty reality of the world, you can no longer respect anything that is purely make-believe. You need that connection to reality to give the fantasy meaning, and when that connection is lost, the fiction becomes empty.

 

 

There are so many fantasy settings that are pretty much devoid of real world context though. New Sun, Gormenghast, Cloud Roads, Planescape, Dhalgren, Shadows of the Adept, Tymon's Flight, and Coldfire, just to name a few. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Yeah, no, sorry Ninja, but it oddly seems you wish for a game that is a life simulator.

Which would mean no (flying) dragons or giant insects or various other fantastical creatures with impossible anatomies, the major cause of death being disease and infection, a hugely complicated sleep/water/food system, and equipment damage. That sounds like a game that would be so tedious that playing it becomes a chore.

[HooAmEye]

Sounds like Ninja would be a fan of FATAL

 

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml

[Ninjamestari]

Yeah, no, sorry Ninja, but it oddly seems you wish for a game that is a life simulator.

 

You do understand that there's this gray area between a reality simulator and a completely ludicrous make-believe? PoE exists somewhere in that gray area, as does every single fantasy game. If you're trying to be an ass on purpose, you could at least try to do it with some wit.

[HooAmEye]

Read my preivious post

[Fenixp]

I can understand how these new generations of people who have never done anything in the real world might not see that disconnect as problematic, but when like me you have intimately experienced the gritty reality of the world, you can no longer respect anything that is purely make-believe.

So um... What's the scale? How much of gritty reality do I need to experience? I live in a basement with my parents (they actually also live in the basement) and have never left for outside, I have my rats do my groceries, see. That means I can enjoy games like Torment: Tides of Numenera and Might attribute in Pillars of Eternity. Will I stop playing Torment if I now grab an axe and chop down a tree for I will be touched by the gritty reality?

 

On scale from 1 to 1000, how much of gritty reality did you experience to be able to accept much more obvious breaches of physics like people shooting flames out of their hands, calling for lightning, transforming into animals or continents that are formed completely illogically but get bothered by naming of an abstract statistic? If you fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, will that make you stop accepting mages? And if you then move to US police force and shoot a few people by accident, are any fantastical elements in your games impossible? I'm genuinely confused, never having experienced reality of any sort.

 

Seriously tho, there's not much more to be said after you pulling that. If you find your point validated on basis of believing to have more real-life experience than everybody else you know nothing about because they don't mind fantastical elements in make-believe videogame on a discussion board about fantastical make-believe videogames, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Let me sign off with a nice song for calm evenings so that we can return to our regular scheduling.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qatmJtIJAPw

Edited April 8, 2017 by Fenixp

[Ninjamestari]

Secondly, the question you should ask is not, why isn't it Strength? Why Might? But rather, what motivated the developers to choose this stat model?

Is it to create a system of stats that can accurately tell a player what they can do in combat, which was one of the 'pillars' of this game? Perhaps it has to do with the iteration on the affected attributes that moved it away from what you had envisioned the attribute name stood for? Might was named in order to distinguish it from strength, to allow players to decouple their past expectations from this new system. One where it described the intensity of the player character ability in combat, regardless of whether they were a 40kg woman or Conan the Barbarian. This allowed the player to choose a character model they prefer, without limiting what they believed their character should be able to do

 

 

I remember vaguely the ****storm that was created when I started speculating on the motive being "enabling female characters", although I may not have used those words. I don't think that "enabling a 40kg woman to have the same punching power as Conan the Barbarian" is a worthy goal, and it has in fact probably caused this whole statistics issue. When compared to D&D, we lost a system that tied our ideas of the character to the reality we understand instinctively, and got back an MMO-esque abomination in return. Anyway, the why of it isn't nearly as important as are the implications of it. The why is a question for politicians who want to manipulate the playing field to achieve their own agenda, but from a design standpoint you want to focus on the implications, as that allows you to understand the benefits and drawbacks of certain design concepts and thus help judge whether or not they're worth pursuing. The intentions are irrelevant to the outcome, and we've already gone one round through guessing the motivations of the developers.

 

If you can do the mental gymnastics of your physical strength being the byproduct of your metaphysical properties, then you should have no trouble doing those very same gymnastics with normal strenght, and the transition to an abstracted metaphysical might thus serves no purpose. The way people usually defend this system with such a religious fervor leads me to believe that there are deeper ideological agendas at work here, and I definitely do not want to see the cringe-worthy ideologies of people represented in the games I play. And I'm not alone, there is a significant portion of players that has been alienated by this decision, and I'd wager that it hasn't attracted a single player that wouldn't otherwise have bought and played the game to compensate for that.

 

And before anyone makes another idiotic "go play something else", you know perfectly well that there aren't that many companies producing these types of games. So if you absolutely have to be an **** on purpose, and if you absolutely have to do it here, at least put in the effort of not being a tired old cliché.

[HooAmEye]

 

Secondly, the question you should ask is not, why isn't it Strength? Why Might? But rather, what motivated the developers to choose this stat model?

Is it to create a system of stats that can accurately tell a player what they can do in combat, which was one of the 'pillars' of this game? Perhaps it has to do with the iteration on the affected attributes that moved it away from what you had envisioned the attribute name stood for? Might was named in order to distinguish it from strength, to allow players to decouple their past expectations from this new system. One where it described the intensity of the player character ability in combat, regardless of whether they were a 40kg woman or Conan the Barbarian. This allowed the player to choose a character model they prefer, without limiting what they believed their character should be able to do

 

 

I remember vaguely the ****storm that was created when I started speculating on the motive being "enabling female characters", although I may not have used those words. I don't think that "enabling a 40kg woman to have the same punching power as Conan the Barbarian" is a worthy goal, and it has in fact probably caused this whole statistics issue. When compared to D&D, we lost a system that tied our ideas of the character to the reality we understand instinctively, and got back an MMO-esque abomination in return. Anyway, the why of it isn't nearly as important as are the implications of it. The why is a question for politicians who want to manipulate the playing field to achieve their own agenda, but from a design standpoint you want to focus on the implications, as that allows you to understand the benefits and drawbacks of certain design concepts and thus help judge whether or not they're worth pursuing. The intentions are irrelevant to the outcome, and we've already gone one round through guessing the motivations of the developers.

 

If you can do the mental gymnastics of your physical strength being the byproduct of your metaphysical properties, then you should have no trouble doing those very same gymnastics with normal strenght, and the transition to an abstracted metaphysical might thus serves no purpose. The way people usually defend this system with such a religious fervor leads me to believe that there are deeper ideological agendas at work here, and I definitely do not want to see the cringe-worthy ideologies of people represented in the games I play. And I'm not alone, there is a significant portion of players that has been alienated by this decision, and I'd wager that it hasn't attracted a single player that wouldn't otherwise have bought and played the game to compensate for that.

 

And before anyone makes another idiotic "go play something else", you know perfectly well that there aren't that many companies producing these types of games. So if you absolutely have to be an **** on purpose, and if you absolutely have to do it here, at least put in the effort of not being a tired old cliché.

 

 

You imply that D&D had a more "gender realistic" system, so allow me to quote to you from the first edition of the Dungeons and Dragons Player Handbook, page six. Here Gary Gygax (the father of the RPG) states that players will find "baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength”. Not just that, but Gygax also famously dismissed the RPG as an accurate simulation of anything, rather stating that is "dismal failure" at depicting realism. Finally, there has been plenty of empirical evidence of women being able to become strong as men. Or to relate it more closely to the topic, take a look at Samantha Swords, two time world longsword champion