Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[uaciaut]

Sigh.

"The way I see it" = I propose such formal system to reflect impact of strength on use of weaponry.
"That's logical" = the system I propose does conform to the effects varying levels of strength have on use of weaponry IRL.

"That's logical" = "the system I propose does conform to the effects varying levels of strength have on use of weaponry IRL." - this is YOUR opinion

"That's logical" = "the stronger you are the more strength you can put behind your swing and the more damage it does" - this conforms to "the varying levels of str have on use of weaponry IRL" in the opinion of someone you call a "simulationist" mostly based on the fact that you think you're right and they're wrong.

I could say "the way i see it strength SHOULD always affect physical stats - combat in particular, that's logical"

Nope. You'd need to prove your claim.
Unless you disagree that a person may be too weak to lift and swing something or too weak to do so in a way that owuld make such attack effective, I already have.

Do you know how momentum and force work?

Let me make this easier for you - have you ever played pool? When you take the cue in your hand and you want to fucking hit it do you think "i have enough Str to wield this cue, do i have enough Str to wield it efficiently?".

Or even easier - take "unarmed". Everyone can technically use it, right? What's the minimum requirement for it? What's the threshold to wield it efficiently? Is the current lightweight boxing champion using it efficiently? Are the heavyweight champions using it even MORE efficiently then, or is it with them that the true efficient threshold lies? Or does unarmed function differently than weapons in the "Draq realistic RPG weapon emulating system"(TM)?

There's no fucking magical number that once you pass all extra Strength you may posses becomes completely wasted, there are a lot of physical limitation that would prevent you from say cutting a huge log with single stroke, but that does not mean that a stronger individual would not cut it down faster than a weaker one who could also "wield" it efficiently.
Unless you're saying the "efficient" threshold is the one of the guy who can cut said log the fastest possible, or lies with the heavyweight boxing champions (in the unarmed scenario) but that is exactly the same as saying Str increases damage to a cap that is the Str of the strongest warrior alive, which is determined how? (the whole "threshold" mechanic actually simulates how str increases damage only adding a "hard cap" to it for some reason).

Meanwhile how the fuck can you explain someone being a fucking Einstein being able to wield a fucking club and hit much harder with it than a person of normal intellect and equal strength? Does this go on your "this is how weapons should work irl" list?

You're fucking saying that weapons should work with Str threshold and give simulationist arguments and then mock people saying int shouldn't affect damage with making fun of simulationist arguing, it's fucking retarded.

And again - this doesn't even fucking matter because IT WAS NOT THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. How you see the attributes&other shit being simulated in the game is your own fucking OPINION and even if everything i just wrote and all the physics i know is wrong i can still have a different OPINION over how a system should work/be implemented.

What i'm interested in is how a chosen system works and interacts with everything else, that's the main point of what "making sense" is to me, if it's badly designed it will create problems, which is why i don't like this aspect about it.

yet you can just deride that as simulationist crap

You seriously don't even know what you don't know.

I seriously know you're an idiot.

That depends on whether there is a range of weapons that full range of particular Str values desirable.
Having two thresholds - usability and lack of hindrance - certainly helps with that.

So i say Str being used as a threshold only is bad because you should not encourage people to go for a stat only because of an item AND only for a certain ammount, reaching said threshold.
You reply by saying 2 thresholds do what 1 threshold couldn't and it "certainly helps". This smells like a sever case of autism.

Even failing that, Str can be beneficial depending on importance of inventory management, str checks, and possible combat effects like all sorts of weapon locking and ability to stand your ground - depending on what of that is implemented and how.
You may very well need as much strength as possible if you want to be able to tank particular threats and might also need it to wield weapons effective against certain enemies.

A lot of "what if"'s and more threshold related stuff.

How fun would it be for people to be forced to put points into Str to carry their own gear + min ammount of consumable + low ammount of shit they pick up in dungeons. Boy what a fun and useful mechanic would Str be then, right! And once that threshold of items would be reached, what use would it be?

Also what the hell is "stand your ground" and how does it work?

Swinging them cattle.

There is two problems here, you see. First, you assume that STR needed for effective wielding of heaviest weapon in game will be below what a character can normally have.
Second, you assume that the biggest cow around will be unconditionally the best weapon of them all.
Third, you don't spell it out, but I'm under impression that you may think in damage/DPS dominant terms (correct me if I'm wrong) which is bloatfaggotry.

1. What does "normally" mean here? Does it mean the max Str you can reach by putting points into it is below the threshold of the biggest weapon and you need to use mage buffs or something else to reach said threshold? That only means you'll have to get [weapon threshold - Str buffs] ammount of Str to be able to wield that weapon, nothing more nothing less.

2. That's NOT what i'm assuming.
I said that there might be good weapons for a fighter that focuses less on Str and more or Int (or some other stat) and there may be good weapons for Str-based dumb warriors. Either way you're focusing your stat around the best weapon of your "type" of warrior. So the second biggest cow being the one that gives better damage milk makes no difference to my point, which makes me think you still don't get what i'm trying to say but just like to ramble on about how the system you think is right is so good.

3. The most efficient weapon is the one that kills my opponent the fastest, if we're talking strictly about combat. Idk what you think bloatfaggotry is if it apparently has something to do with you killing your opponent faster in combat while being a bad thing.

 

[bminorkey]

1036 has got to be the wordiest page so far.

 

[hoverdog]

1036 has got to be the wordiest page so far.

I sincerely doubt it.

 

[DraQ]

Prof. Dr. Dr. Draq, thank you for your brief and succinct post on whatever the fuck you were writing about.

Joined:
Jan 7, 2013
Go back to your fully voiced deRPGs.

DraQ
Did you channel sea or are just butthurt? That is some textwall

Int affects damage, but that is do to critical effect (target the more vulnerable spot)

And the stronger wielder are beyond the min. Str req, the more damage you will do depending on the weapon. Something like a hammer will scale much better with higher strength beyond the minimum, whereas additional strength is negligible with an epee.

Which just the point of weapons having upper and lower thresholds, no?
Maybe even third upper threshold for penetration alone, separate from one for general wielding.

You are streamlining strength to just minimum requirement.

Ummm... No?
lrn2rd?

"That's logical" = "the stronger you are the more strength you can put behind your swing and the more damage it does" - this conforms to "the varying levels of str have on use of weaponry IRL" in the opinion of someone you call a "simulationist" mostly based on the fact that you think you're right and they're wrong.

(...)

yet you can just deride that as simulationist crap

You seriously don't even know what you don't know.

I seriously know you're an idiot.

No, seriously, you being so monumentally wrong without having a clue is hilarious and all, but I'll give you a hint:

Ask someone (who hasn't joined in 2013) who are the biggest simulationists on the Codex.
Then wallow in embarrassment.

I could say "the way i see it strength SHOULD always affect physical stats - combat in particular, that's logical"

Nope. You'd need to prove your claim.
Unless you disagree that a person may be too weak to lift and swing something or too weak to do so in a way that owuld make such attack effective, I already have.

Do you know how momentum and force work?

And do *YOU* realize that sword or even mace is not a fucking railgun?

Let me clue you in:

If you try to wield the long sword quickly, you will mistake the way. To wield the long sword well, you must wield it calmly. If you try to wield it quickly, like a folding fan or a short sword, you will err by using "short sword chopping". You cannot cut down a man with a long sword using this method.

I assume the guy knew WTF he was talking about, especially given he killed a whole lot of people in duels, and also had enough strength (and coordination) to dual wield katana and wakizashi.
You typically don't swing your weapon as hard as you possibly can, you swing it as hard as you *need* to and can afford it.

Yeah, I know, a weeaboo, but alas Talhoffer preferred pictures instead and they just aren't dynamic enough.

I will gladly defer to any codexer that has actual experience in swinging steel at other people who swing steel at you, though.

Let me make this easier for you - have you ever played pool? When you take the cue in your hand and you want to fucking hit it do you think "i have enough Str to wield this cue, do i have enough Str to wield it efficiently?".

So? I don't calculate quadratic function when throwing a ball either.

Besides it takes much less strength than its possible for a healthy human to have to wield a cue.
Or do you postulate that the stronger you are, the better you are at pool?

Or even easier - take "unarmed". Everyone can technically use it, right?

Hawking can't.

There's no fucking magical number that once you pass all extra Strength you may posses becomes completely wasted

Actually, there is. Even unarmed you can only swing so fast. The lighter and better balanced your weapon, the less strength you need to swing it optimally.

To be fair, weight (yours) does get into equation as you won't generally be swinging with just your arms, and we can generally assume that stronger trained person will also be heavier, but you'd have to use total weight, armour and all, so you'd basically end up with a dual threshold system again, only using a composite of character, weapon and armour as actual weapon.
STR also does get into equation when you consider grappling, binds and ability to defend without stepping out of the way, but it's then used in more of a defensive role, with direct contest between attacker's and defender's strength scores.

Meanwhile how the fuck can you explain someone being a fucking Einstein being able to wield a fucking club and hit much harder with it than a person of normal intellect and equal strength?

Jesus Fucking Christ, you still don't get it.
In a game where neither you, nor your characters can't time attacks in a way representable by mechanics, there are no aimed attacks or locational damage and you can't choose technique or environmental interaction accompanying each attack - basically an IE style game - damage doesn't represent just how hard you can swing. It represents overall effect you can expect from your swings.

Assuming that both combatants had comparable other stats, certain amount of actual combat experience and were determined to kill, I'd expect our Einstein to hit for much better effect, therefore dealing more damage.
Technique is more important than strength (assuming that you're strong enough to use the given equipment with no problems), but even a moron can be drilled.
Once you have the technique and are fast/dextrous enough, what matters is how you react, and smarter person will generally be better in finding vulnerabilities, identifying patterns and exploiting them.

Again, we are talking about IE style game where characters simply attack certain amount of times per unit of time and sprites/models essentially go swishswishswish.

I'd be seriously butthurt if someone attempted to use INT this way in a, for example TES style first or third person RPG/slasher, because combat factors controlled by intelligence are under full player control in such games, but an IE style game has no way for player to control that, and no way for character intelligence to influence those factors in a more detailed manner, so damage scaler it is.

And again - this doesn't even fucking matter because IT WAS NOT THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. How you see the attributes&other shit being simulated in the game is your own fucking OPINION and even if everything i just wrote and all the physics i know is wrong i can still have a different OPINION over how a system should work/be implemented.

Go somewhere else if you want people to respect your unique beautiful snowflake opinions.
On the Codex we don't give a flying fuck about that.

1. What does "normally" mean here? Does it mean the max Str you can reach by putting points into it is below the threshold of the biggest weapon and you need to use mage buffs or something else to reach said threshold? That only means you'll have to get [weapon threshold - Str buffs] ammount of Str to be able to wield that weapon, nothing more nothing less.

What if max STR + all buffs is what's required?
What if reaching the upper threshold requires particular racials?

2. That's NOT what i'm assuming.
I said that there might be good weapons for a fighter that focuses less on Str and more or Int (or some other stat) and there may be good weapons for Str-based dumb warriors. Either way you're focusing your stat around the best weapon of your "type" of warrior. So the second biggest cow being the one that gives better damage milk makes no difference to my point, which makes me think you still don't get what i'm trying to say but just like to ramble on about how the system you think is right is so good.

What if thresholds are more based on weapon types and/or if biggest cows are also rather specialized, and second biggest more generalist?

3. The most efficient weapon is the one that kills my opponent the fastest, if we're talking strictly about combat. Idk what you think bloatfaggotry is if it apparently has something to do with you killing your opponent faster in combat while being a bad thing.

Why do tanks have machineguns?

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't have anything worthwhile to add to the current GNS conversation, but can we please get the topic title back to Josh Sawyer wants to end fun, because it is clear by the conversations here that many people still firmly believe this is so.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

DraQ
What about a threshold model with much more granularity? there could be multiple thresholds for multiple weapons, like in TDE ruleset, for example say +1 dmg for every +3 str above min str req for a axe. you could say that there are multiple finite thresholds (and max stat is 18 in any stat). I jut like to call it scaling, instead of n thresholds

 

[Rake]

I don't have anything worthwhile to add to the current GNS conversation, but can we please get the topic title back to Josh Sawyer wants to end fun, because it is clear by the conversations here that many people still firmly believe this is so.

The topic title should be autists central. Or maybe W2 megathread deserves that title. Point is, as long as we don't get updates, the megathreads turn to shit.

 

[DraQ]

DraQ
What about a threshold model with much more granularity? there could be multiple thresholds for multiple weapons, like in TDE ruleset, for example say +1 dmg for every +3 str above min str req for a axe. you could say that there are multiple finite thresholds (and max stat is 18 in any stat). I jut like to call it scaling, instead of n thresholds

Well, I did propose that aspects of weapon performance (not sure if damage, but definitely stuff like to hit and defensive penalties on attack) should scale linearly (or according to some other function) between thresholds.

Many weapons would actually have lower threshold below what is possible for a healthy human, so that would only come to play if character was weakened in some manner or if there were races of vastly varying strength and stature in setting but that doesn't seem to be the case in PE.

OTOH few weapons would have higher threshold above what's possible for a human to reach, which would generally reduce them to special purposes (generally fighting big, scary stuff and/or fighting alongside other melee combatants setting the target up for the wielder), and suck used against other, normal size humanoids (because of overkill not making up for penalties).

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Miyamoto Musashi said:
If you try to wield the long sword quickly, you will mistake the way. To wield the long sword well, you must wield it calmly. If you try to wield it quickly, like a folding fan or a short sword, you will err by using "short sword chopping". You cannot cut down a man with a long sword using this method.

I assume the guy knew WTF he was talking about, especially given he killed a whole lot of people in duels, and also had enough strength (and coordination) to dual wield katana and wakizashi.
You typically don't swing your weapon as hard as you possibly can, you swing it as hard as you *need* to and can afford it.

Okay, but the point people are making is that of two people wielding a sword equally "calmy" (i.e. equally skillfully), the stronger one will do more damage if they hit the same spot. Nobody's denying that intelligence doesn't factor into the equation, just that the traditional crpg system of intelligence=>skill points=>possible combat skill investment makes for better simulation (or, as most people don't care that much about that, more interesting gameplay) than simply equating codex arguing intelligence and sword wielding intelligence.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can't get around it with str reqs for weapons, given that you'd still have the Stephen Hawking punching harder than Tyson syndrome (or did you address that somewhere? edit: what do you know, you did, sort of).

 

[uaciaut]

My autism sensors were pretty accurate.

 

[DraQ]

Okay, but the point people are making is that of two people wielding a sword equally "calmy" (i.e. equally skillfully), the stronger one will do more damage if they hit the same spot.

How?

You generally deposit most of the energy needed over time while you swing. If you swing calmly, then it doesn't matter how much faster you could try to swing your weapon.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can't get around it with str reqs for weapons, given that you'd still have the Stephen Hawking punching harder than Tyson syndrome (or did you address that somewhere?).

That's actually easy - natural weapons and actions may have stat requirements too.
Usability threshold for something as trivial as punching may be well below lowest natural score, but it will be there and stat draining someone will prevent them from using natural functions.
After all a person can be too weak to stand up, walk, or punch someone.

 

[DefJam101]

Okay, but the point people are making is that of two people wielding a sword equally "calmy" (i.e. equally skillfully), the stronger one will do more damage if they hit the same spot.

How?

You generally deposit most of the energy needed over time while you swing. If you swing calmly, then it doesn't matter how much faster you could try to swing your weapon.

Pretty sure he means calm as in not wildly swinging like a retard, not calm as in dude i'm so high right now, these swords man these swords

 

[Delterius]

Anyone that can give a short version on whats happening in the last... 50 pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Indeed.

Spoiler

As usual, with gamistfags herpaderping as usual and narrativists not realizing that narrativism in cRPG context boils down to effectively reducing game to CYOA.

Frankly, I do consider myself a 'Narrativist'. But I suppose not in the way of a given obnoxious storyfag. I'm playing games here and I work with the rules. Drama doesn't preclude that. Instead I'm trying to find a middle ground between the imperatives of creating a solid game no matter what and making sure there's something of a logic behind it.

On one hand, I derive little satisfaction from absolutely abstract systems. As such, I see issues whenever numbers (damage, gold or whatever) become so pointlessly high that they become hard to grasp. Or maybe whenever the character sheet is completely devoid of character, with attributes that tell no story of their own. If my character has 18 points in strenght and that lets him haul more shit around, that's something I can relate to. If my character has 547 points in Power and that lets him deal 43,129 HP damage out of the boss monster's 1,233,001 then I can't really care.

Nonetheless, all I want is for the game world to be logical. I don't believe we can yet have something like an absolute simulation. No matter how sound some arguments can be, all that is often needed to cause cracks in absolute simulationism is a simple change of perspective. You turn the object of the discussion around just a little bit and, suddenly, you've got a situation where the combat system doesn't really make sense. Which is why I'm looking for things I can relate to, as per a given story, instead of trying to catalogue what is realistic or not. After all, you asked earlier in this thread what a stronger arm could cause in melee -- even mocked some people here that, supposedly, wanted their fighters to be supermen. Certainly a silly notion, except that in a realm of High Fantasy that's completely possible. In a world with indestructable artifacts as weapons and where magic might enhance one's body to the point of casually breaking real world weightlifting records while taking a trek through the woods... well, you'd think that something bizarre would happen if that guy hit people with a sledgehammer. And even if the new system doesn't support superhuman strenght, which is entirely possible, it would be strange that someone severely enfeebled by a Necromancer would suffer no penalty to his damage rolls beyond encumberance. Especially if the person in question is a martial artist who likely won't suffer anything at all. Sure, more rules can likely take care of these issues but there are bound to be more, and bloating the game is a real danger.

So what I mean to say is that even if I agree with those arguments which are pro INT damage (some of them came from me, after all), my focus lies somewhere else other than realism. I'm looking for contrasts, I'm looking for a good story in this combat system. I'd like if there are trade offs involved between trading STR for INT, or those two for other attributes. I don't really care if the logic behind the system isn't entirely reasonable, as long as the narrative being told is good. In this case, I'm satisfied that, for melee fighters, INT seems to reflect technical prowess (Damage) and STR, physical superiority (carrying shit around; more HPs). But I certainly wouldn't cry at all if INT and STR served different purposes, the first meaning more skill points and the latter giving melee damage.

 

[Murk]

Man I remember once I argued something about how I could lift a typical longsword with one hand and so buffer dudes could easily use it as a one-handed weapon and some guy kept quoting old timey Italian sword fighting technique books from the 17th century or some shit about how longswords are actually two handed weapons and games/movies misrepresent it as a one handed weapon and I thought "whoaw man am I too nerdy to get poon or what" just for being in that argument... and now I read this shit.

Fuck, I'm even writing run-on sentences. Carry on good sirs; fight the good fight as I do so love reading this shit. All of it.

 

[Delterius]

Well, at least I can pride myself for waiting a full day after the holiday celebrations. I almost have a life.

 

[Lhynn]

I always found the GNS theory utterly retarded. I draw equal entertainment from all 3 parts of it.

 

[Excidium]

I do not find it retarded as much as I find retarded people who misinterpret and argue over it in a context where it does not apply (Vidya Gaems)

 

[Name]

Why not? I read the wiki article, it seems that most of the video games are designed for G. Those games that emphasize choice & consequences (Obsidian, Bioware, CD Project) are trying to accommodate N. And there are simulation style games (The Elder Scroll, Darklands, maybe Ultima) for S.

 

[Excidium]

Wrong

 

[tuluse]

I imagine that Excidium is like Lex Luthor in this scene:



Name of course is Lois saying "skyrim is for simula--"

 

[Sensuki]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

How about some constructive discussion for a change.

 

[Infinitron]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64891-attribute-questionnaire/

How about some constructive discussion for a change.

"What do you think about Deflection be attribute independent?"

 

[Sensuki]

I don't mind it but I think with all the other design constraints of the PE attribute system that Josh has "imposed" upon himself it makes it very difficult to balance the attributes properly. I posted about it ITT but people can read the link. Josh was complaining recently on SA about (implicitly, not explicitly) the Codex's response regarding the number of attributes. When accuracy and damage being unified were revealed we were like OMG plz not 3-4 attributes. But I think he misinterpreted that as "we must have 6 attributes".

He seems to get pretty finnicky if a small majority of people arc up about something. For instance the "QQ too much money" in the IWDs from tests etc back in the day resulting in Item Durability in PE.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't mind it but I think with all the other design constraints of the PE attribute system that Josh has "imposed" upon himself it makes it very difficult to balance the attributes properly. I posted about it ITT but people can read the link. Josh was complaining recently on SA about the Codex's response regarding the number of attributes. When accuracy and damage being unified were revealed we were like OMG plz not 3-4 attributes. But I think he misinterpreted that as "we must have 6 attributes".

He seems to get pretty finnicky if a small majority of people arc up about something. For instance the "QQ too much money" in the IWDs from tests etc back in the day.

No, no, I mean that sentence's grammar is all mangled up. Fix it.

Anyway, good post. You've become the Eternity System Master. We might want to hire you to write something about it for the Codex when the game is released.

 

[Sensuki]

I would be glad to. And yeah whoops missed the spelling mistake. That was meant to be "being" instead of "be".