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

[Grunker]

The inventory thing isn't exactly about 360-degree-realism-at-all-costs, although going for a more realistic approach would've served the game just fine, but about sacrificing in-universe logic to cater to lootwhores (with all due respect to whores). In-universe logic breaking arbitrariness wasn't needed there.

But did it hurt something? As I said, if there's a tangible benefit to it I don't mind it that much. Inventory mechanics have always been arbitrary - in Baldur's Gate you're carrying around five full sets of full plate, hauling it back to town. There is no difference between the completely unrealistic packmule characters of most RPGs and a teleportation device.

Hell, I think portable merchants are shit gameplay-wise unless you really have to earn them in the game (like after a hard fight in a secret quest), but they actually make the most fictional sense of any of these concepts

 

[Gurkog]

Torchlight and Torchlight 2 have area damage, of varying degrees, with all 'swingable' weapons. Fist, or punching, weapons are the only ones that do not have area damage, but are the only ones with base armor penetration.

 

[Blaine]

Inventory mechanics have always been arbitrary - in Baldur's Gate you're carrying around five full sets of full plate, hauling it back to town. There is no difference between the completely unrealistic packmule characters of most RPGs and a teleportation device.

 

[Grunker]

And yet people are still able to immerse themselves in that piece of shit

Tells you all you need to know about 360 degree aspirations, haha.

 

[Lancehead]

But did it hurt something?

For myself, nothing significant, specifically due to P:E not being a world-to-explore type of game. But depending on how one views lootwhoring behaviour, it may be considered a negative, because the presence of infinite stash does increase many players' propensity to make use of it.

 

[Alex]

The inventory thing isn't exactly about 360-degree-realism-at-all-costs, although going for a more realistic approach would've served the game just fine, but about sacrificing in-universe logic to cater to lootwhores (with all due respect to whores). In-universe logic breaking arbitrariness wasn't needed there.

But did it hurt something? As I said, if there's a tangible benefit to it I don't mind it that much. Inventory mechanics have always been arbitrary - in Baldur's Gate you're carrying around five full sets of full plate, hauling it back to town. There is no difference between the completely unrealistic packmule characters of most RPGs and a teleportation device.

Hell, I think portable merchants are shit gameplay-wise unless you really have to earn them in the game (like after a hard fight in a secret quest), but they actually make the most fictional sense of any of these concepts

Well, sure, BG's inventory has lots of abstractions an doesn't simulate a lot of things. You don't spend a whole lot of time changing armor, for instance, and you can carry more than you should be able by yourself, indicating there is an implied container such as a cart or something similar in the equation. But none of these things are as grating as picking up an item just now and then being unable to get it because you put it in the big bag instead of carrying it with you. Basically, you have there an aspect of a system that doesn't map well to any kind of explanation.Aside from that, it wouldn't be that hard to fix the inventory with some simple actual containers, which would take too long to access in combat to be useful. You could even have Tenser's Floating Disc in the game" Well, as long as they didn't figure the mage would be stealing the shtick of strong characters of carting around a lot of loot.

 

[Infinitron]

PE's regular inventory can't be accessed in combat either.

 

[Grunker]

^ what the tron said

 

[Alex]

^ what the tron said

Doesn't that make the situation even worse?

 

[Infinitron]

Worse how?

Look, the point of the one way stash is to get rid of useless valuables like gems and jewelry that you constantly found yourself bogged down with in the IE games. If you actually put something useful in there, you are doing it wrong.

I'm not a big fan of loot whoring myself, but those games were what they were and I have no problem with that stuff being streamlined away. It's either that or an infinite inventory, and that would be dumbing down.

 

[Grunker]

Do note, Alex, that I'm not a fan of the infinite stash, but that's because I actually like inventory management, and I think the Infinity Engine games got inventory management exactly right. Those games had the perfect inventory for me.

If you disagree with that and identify the same problems with IE-inventories that Roguey and Sawyer do, Sawyer's solution is perfectly reasonable. Consider the alternative; infinite inventory. That would actually dumb down and weaken a mechanic.

(that this is supposed to be an IE-like is another matter )

 

[Alex]

Worse how?

Well, now you have even more restrictions that don't make so much sense. Why can't I let go of my sword and reach for a hammer if I find an skeleton, or have my friends hold the line while I look for a potion?

Look, the point of the one way stash is to get rid of useless valuables like gems and jewelry that you constantly found yourself bogged down with in the IE games. If you actually put something useful in there, you are doing it wrong.

I expect you will eventually have to (with stuff like wands, potions and what not), or the restriction of not being able to take from it makes even less sense.

I'm not a big fan of loot whoring myself, but those games were what they were and I have no problem with that stuff being streamlined away. It's either that or an infinite inventory, and that would be dumbing down.

If containers are really outside the scope, can't you just have a "Loot Area" button for when you have cleared the map of monsters?

Do note, Alex, that I'm not a fan of the infinite stash, but that's because I actually like inventory management, and I think the Infinity Engine games got inventory management exactly right. Those games had the perfect inventory for me.

If you disagree with that and identify the same problems with IE-inventories that Roguey and Sawyer do, Sawyer's solution is perfectly reasonable. Consider the alternative; infinite inventory. That would actually dumb down and weaken a mechanic.

(that this is supposed to be an IE-like is another matter )

Personally , I would have Ultima 7 inventory management, bu I am just weird like that.

 

[Grunker]

Why can't I let go of my sword and reach for a hammer if I find an skeleton,

I believe there are quick slots for changing weapons. Infinitron can correct me.

If containers are really outside the scope

Dammit Alex, read the source before making us reiterate what's already been said a bunch of times

Containers aren't outside the scope; infinite stash is also a means to combat what some saw as tedious inventory management in the IE-games. Containers only made that "worse."

See my post above yours.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, you mean "worse" in terms of realism.

You will have a limited number of slots to put alternate weapons in that can be accessed in combat.

 

[Arkeus]

Yeah, you have your 'belt' during combat, so you can drink potions, uses scrolls, change weapons.

You can't, however, go into your pack and grab someone else's bow and equip them instantly.

 

[tuluse]

But did it hurt something? As I said, if there's a tangible benefit to it I don't mind it that much. Inventory mechanics have always been arbitrary - in Baldur's Gate you're carrying around five full sets of full plate, hauling it back to town. There is no difference between the completely unrealistic packmule characters of most RPGs and a teleportation device.

Hell, I think portable merchants are shit gameplay-wise unless you really have to earn them in the game (like after a hard fight in a secret quest), but they actually make the most fictional sense of any of these concepts

Platemail weighs 50, with 10 str you can carry 70.

Oh no, characters with super human strength can carry multiple suits of platemail.

 

[Grunker]

But did it hurt something? As I said, if there's a tangible benefit to it I don't mind it that much. Inventory mechanics have always been arbitrary - in Baldur's Gate you're carrying around five full sets of full plate, hauling it back to town. There is no difference between the completely unrealistic packmule characters of most RPGs and a teleportation device.

Hell, I think portable merchants are shit gameplay-wise unless you really have to earn them in the game (like after a hard fight in a secret quest), but they actually make the most fictional sense of any of these concepts

Platemail weighs 50, with 10 str you can carry 70.

Oh no, characters with super human strength can carry multiple suits of platemail.

I don't care if you show me the craziest bodybuilder in the world able to pull an eighteen-wheeler five miles. That nigger still doesn't have the physique to carry five suits of platemail around. 18 is pinnacle of normal human performance according to AD&D, and 18 strength grants you the ability to equip a full set of armor and fight tirelessly for 12 hours while slogging around with sets of additional plate slung over your shoulder.

360 degree arguments fail because they often conflict with themselves - like yours does here. The mechanics in Baldur's Gate were fine - weight limitations are great - but it isn't far removed in terms of realism from teleportation to a sack.

Both work via arbitrary abstraction.

Disucussing which kinds of abstractions we would like is much more fruitful than trying to enforce quote-unquote "realism" on our mechanics.

 

[Blaine]

In fairness, even powerlifters would have trouble carrying around 250 pounds while also functioning in any meaningful way other than as a pack animal.

Edit: Ninja'd by Grunker, GRUNNNNKERR! There is no way that was two minutes, took ten seconds to type that.

 

[tuluse]

I don't care if you show me the craziest bodybuilder in the world able to pull an eighteen-wheeler five miles. That nigger still doesn't have the physique to carry five suits of platemail around.

Well it's not my fault carry weight goes from 70 at 10 str to 320 at 18 str, but it does make sense with "average" strength.

Edit: For the record I don't like Sawyer's stash inventory because it just doesn't make any sense to me on any level. From a gamist pov, you should limit what characters can transport back for balance reasons. From a narrativist pov, you should limit what characters can transport back because it doesn't support story drama in any way. Simulationist is obvious. I don't see what's gained from this stash mechanic. Instead of disincentivizing carrying back 5 suits of plate mail, the game mechanics say "go ahead you're supposed to sell literally every minor item you find".

 

[Arkeus]

Someone with 'average strength' cannot carry a suite of platemail all day long.

 

[Lancehead]

He can if we define a game world rule as an average strength person can carry a suit of platemail all day long, and apply that rule all across the game and scale it properly with varying strength.

 

[Grunker]

He can if we define a game world rule as an average strength person can carry a suit of platemail all day long, and apply that rule all across the game and scale it properly with varying strength.

Yep, we can define the fiction anyway we want, which is why this discussion is as pointless as when it began.

 

[tuluse]

Yep, we can define the fiction anyway we want, which is why this discussion is as pointless as when it began.

Not really. Since this was created as a gameplay mechanic we can ask "what was gained by this?" or "What new choices do we have to make from any extra equipment being teleported back to town?" I don't have an answer to either of these questions.

You could also frame like this, "just because the IE engine had shit inventory mechanics, is any change at all an improvement?" My answer here would be no. I think PE inventory will be equally as bad but for different reasons. I really like his top of stash idea too.

 

[Grunker]

Not really. Since this was created as a gameplay mechanic we can ask "what was gained by this?" or "What new choices do we have to make from any extra equipment being teleported back to town?" I don't have an answer to either of these questions.

Those questions questions are solid (though I believe they have been answered) but are completely unrelated to the discussion on realism which is the discussion I just argued was pointless.

 

[Infinitron]

From a gamist pov, you should limit what characters can transport back for balance reasons.

Except not really, since you can always keep going back to the dungeon and get the rest of the loot you couldn't carry the first time. You could only achieve a true balance here if the game contained many areas that you couldn't return to, forcing the player to make a substantive choice. As it is, the game is only removing a false choice that only means something if you "LARP".