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

[Infinitron]

Sure, but you're always going to end up with specialized skills that don't neatly balance in the Sawyeristic way

Always? I don't agree. What if they scrap the durability mechanic and come up with something that annoys people less that uses the Crafting skill? Bingo, problem solved.

I don't think this is an insurmountable problem.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Sure, but you're always going to end up with specialized skills that don't neatly balance in the Sawyeristic way

Always? I don't agree. What if they scrap the durability mechanic and come up with something that annoys people less that uses the Crafting skill? Bingo, problem solved.

I don't think this is an insurmountable problem.

Okay, then produce one possible example of this "something" that would make crafting a balanced skill that every individual party member can benefit from? Because as far as I can tell the only way to do so is the extremely anti-Sawyeristic Arcanum-way, which was to create more specialized skills (mostly) useful only to one single party member.

 

[Sensuki]

Sensuki I don't really care about Josh's motivations. I'd prefer to think about how Crafting and Durability affect me

So am I, I've already stated that if this was the system, I would take Crafting on melee characters to reduce the rate of item degradation and money spent on repairs. Not much point taking it on a Ranger, Wizard or Cipher.

And that's not taking it because I want to, it's because I have to.

 

[Infinitron]

Sure, but you're always going to end up with specialized skills that don't neatly balance in the Sawyeristic way

Always? I don't agree. What if they scrap the durability mechanic and come up with something that annoys people less that uses the Crafting skill? Bingo, problem solved.

I don't think this is an insurmountable problem.

Okay, then produce one possible example of this "something" that would make crafting a balanced skill that every individual party member can benefit from? Because as far as I can tell the only way to do so is the extremely anti-Sawyeristic Arcanum-way, which was to create more specialized skills (mostly) useful only to one single party member.

OK, how about this.

Instead of durability in the sense of weapons that start out functional and become worse, let's invert the scale. Weapons have a "Sharpened" state that they start out at. It's a damage bonus. When a character uses the weapon enough, the Sharpened bonus is lost.

The game should be designed such that you won't have the Sharpened bonus most of the time. A high Crafting/Weapon Maintenance skill, however, would you allow to retain it for a slightly longer time.

You need a blacksmith/crafting station to bring back the Sharpened bonus.

So am I, I've already stated that if this was the system, I would take Crafting on melee characters to reduce the rate of item degradation and money spent on repairs. Not much point taking it on a Ranger, Wizard or Cipher.

And that's not taking it because I want to, it's because I have to.

This is conjecture. Read the update again. Tim Cain promises at the end to show you some other skills that would make you seriously consider NOT taking Crafting. You don't know all the information yet, so how can you be so sure?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

OK, how about this.

Instead of durability in the sense of weapons that start out functional and become worse, let's invert the scale. Weapons have a "Sharpened" state that they start out at. It's a damage bonus. When a character uses the weapon enough, the Sharpened bonus is lost.

The game should be designed such that you won't have the Sharpened bonus most of the time.

A high Crafting/Weapon Maintenance skill, however, would you allow to retain it for a slightly longer time.

But this still doesn't avoid the core problem that Sensuki alluded to with his example of how he would use the durability system if implemented: grunts get crafting because they're on the frontline, while the one's you'd expect to be the most sophisticated crafters/alchemists won't have any invested. How do you solve this problem? Do mages get a "sharpening" bonus to their spells? The point is you always end up with some degree of specialization unless you go full-gamist and just give everyone an equal combat bonus based on their crafting skill. Games like Arcanum at least had a plausible context for this specialization, this system doesn't.

 

[Infinitron]

But this still doesn't avoid the core problem that Sensuki alluded to with his example of how he would use the durability system if implemented: grunts get crafting because they're on the frontline, while the one's you'd expect to be the most sophisticated crafters/alchemists won't have any invested. How do you solve this problem? Do mages get a "sharpening" bonus to their spells? The point is you always end up with some degree of specialization unless you go full-gamist and just give everyone an equal combat bonus based on their crafting skill. Games like Arcanum at least had a plausible context for this specialization, this system doesn't.

First of all, there's no reason to go FULL gamist. Even going "part-gamist" is enough to make the game more interesting. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Second, mages may not use weapons often, but they can. They can also use armor. PE won't have AD&D's class restrictions on these things, remember.

 

[Blaine]

Well fuck, I've just run out of my monthly allotment of autism and lost all interest in arguing about durability mechanics.
I'll see you guys when the next controversial mechanic puts in an appearance. Infinitron, you win by forfeiture.

 

[Sensuki]

OK, how about this.

Instead of durability in the sense of weapons that start out functional and become worse, let's invert the scale. Weapons have a "Sharpened" state that they start out at. It's a damage bonus. When a character uses the weapon enough, the Sharpened bonus is lost.

The game should be designed such that you won't have the Sharpened bonus most of the time. A high Crafting/Weapon Maintenance skill, however, would you allow to retain it for a slightly longer time.

You need a blacksmith/crafting station to bring back the Sharpened bonus.

Sawyer has already suggested that on SomethingAwful, I think it's even worse than Item durability.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Second, mages may not use weapons often, but they can. They can also use armor. PE won't have AD&D's class restrictions on these things, remember.

What? Just because you can use your mage as a frontline fighter doesn't mean anyone is going to, and only frontline fighter get their armor hit/weapons damaged. Just admit that it's inconceivable under the current concept (or yours) that you'd have your mage invest in crafting; there'd be no conceivable reason... unless they go full-gamist.

 

[Infinitron]

Sawyer has already suggested that on SomethingAwful, I think it's even worse than Item durability.

Has he? I actually suggested something similar to him on Formspring yesterday, although I hadn't thought about it deeply and formalized it properly until today.

What? Just because you can use your mage as a frontline fighter doesn't mean anyone is going to

LOL, says who? "Battlemage" type characters are extremely popular.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

What? Just because you can use your mage as a frontline fighter doesn't mean anyone is going to

LOL, says who? "Battlemage" type characters are extremely popular.

Heh, you mean like in BG2? What, are your stone skins going to become durable?

 

[Rake]

What's the matter, Codex? Streamlining is a good thing now?

It is when it makes the game better.

Meh, that has nothing to do with it. In truth, it's all about expectations. You don't expect durability mechanics in an IE-like game, so you oppose them.

But imagine if Project Eternity had been released with durability mechanics without Obsidian telling anybody they'd be in the game in advance. Obviously many tards would complain about them, prompting Obsidian to consider removing them in the sequel.

You think the Codex wouldn't have 100 pages full of rage over that decision? "Don't dumb the game down for the noobs Obsidian!!!1" We'd all be patting ourselves on the back for being able to appreciate these complex and hardcore mechanics.

Once again Obsidian fuck themselves by telling people too much instead of just making the game they want to.

I would be perfectly happy for item durability to disapear as a concept in RPGs. I have yet to see an RPG where item durability was fun. If someone could make a game with survival and scavenging as a core part of gameplay, then yes, item durabillity makes sense. But in PE? No.
Why do you think that item durabillity is somehow hardcore? Did you read the update? Did it seemed hardcore to you? IF it is included in the final game i'm of a mind to just run around with broken weapons, accepting the penalty and be done with it.
The system Tim proposed is so forgiving that it is clear they add it for other reason(the gamism Sawyer worsips) and not a desire to be "hardcore"
Also yes, in your time travel scenario if someone told me they would scrap Arcanum's item durability i would be more than fine with it.

 

[Infinitron]

What? Just because you can use your mage as a frontline fighter doesn't mean anyone is going to

LOL, says who? "Battlemage" type characters are extremely popular.

Heh, you mean like in BG2? What, are your stone skins going to become durable?

Again, this isn't AD&D.

Remember, Project Eternity probably won't have multiclassing. Instead, the core classes will be more flexible. It should be possible to create a mage build who can do some tanking on the front lines, even if he won't be as effective as a pure melee class.

Will most people do this? No. Can they do it? Should they be supported? Yes.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Again, this isn't AD&D.

Remember, Project Eternity probably won't have multiclassing. Instead, the core classes will be more flexible. It should be possible to create a mage build who can do some tanking on the front lines, even if he won't be as effective as a pure melee class.

Will most people do this? No. Can they do it? Should they be supported? Yes.

Exactly, some tanking, while you're also always going to have party members who are always tanking. That's why it will always make sense to have your perma-tanks have the highest crafting skill and have them do any crafting/alchemy you might end up wanting to do.

 

[CappenVarra]

[pre-coffee rant]

You know, despite all the gleeful shadenfreude I feel from watching Josh trying to explain his design decisions to the internet at large (what a waste of time), and the fact that his currently preferred design direction is something I personally find pointless if not The Ideological Enemy™, I also kinda sympathize with him (don't tell anybody)...

I mean, IWD1 had a lot of nice touches which were more or less invisible to an average BG player. You'd need a SoZ-like party conversation system to better showcase the many dialogue variations depending on race, class, and attribute values (the current "talk to first character that enters the NPCs visual range" system is horrible, so you'd need to play the game 7 times to catch most of the variation). And the mechanics touches like specialist wizard saving throw bonuses, elf bow & sword bonuses, ranger extra attacks with no shield etc. were something only AD&D geeks would (and did) appreciate. So of course all the BG lovers who played IWD1 glossed over all of that (which took non-trivial effort and time to build), and only had stupid complaints. "I don't want to buy unique equipment in shops", who the hell thinks like that? And Josh even has the good sense to recognize that Athkatla was annoying as hell - clearly the man has (had) at least two braincells to rub together.

The only sane way forward from that point (lack of recognition for his work on IWD1) was to tell the general public to go screw themselves and continue working on things AD&D geeks would appreciate... But that train was missed. Instead, we got a RTwP 3rd edition half-assing that was IWD2 (pointless, utterly pointless). And it got worse... Now we're at the dead-end station called "design a crafting skill with Balance in mind; oh and I saw a RTS the other day, what wonderful creatures!". When all you need to design a Crafting skill in a cRPG is to go back to the "RPG" part. Instead of running away from it; why do you want to run away? Goons and (other?) retards his current work seems to be aimed at won't appreciate his efforts, how can't he see that? Come home to non-gamist-ville you wayward son, and give me a save-or-die effect - it's the only way and you know it...

Then again, he gets paid to do work at Obsidian, and he likes SA - so he deserves to suffer

[/time for coffee]

 

[Infinitron]

Exactly, some tanking, while you're also always going to have party members who are always tanking. That's why it will always make sense to have your perma-tanks have the highest crafting skill and have them do any crafting/alchemy you might end up wanting to do.

OK, what's the problem with that? The point is that all classes still have a reason to take some ranks in Crafting. It's not a completely useless skill for them.

"Sawyerism" has never been about making everything "equal". It's about there not being things in the game that make you say "I will never need this. It's useless."

 

[Sensuki]

From some quotes he made on Something Awful

You will not be able to max two skills, but you can have two high skills - this can only mean two things. (a) The amount of total skill points you get at any level is less than maxSkillRank(x2) or (b) there is a D&D 3E-style point buy system where higher ranks cost more skill points.

This either means that in an optimal situation you will 1) only ever really choose 2 skills on a character or (2) the same as (1) but you might have a max or high skill and then low skill points on a few skills spread out - solely because of the combat benefits (herbalism increases duration of consumables, crafting reduces item durability etc).

I think it is real silly to give combat bonuses to non-combat skills as a reason for taking them, you are then NOT taking the skill for the skill, but for the side-effect combat bonus.

 

[Rake]

I think it is real silly to give combat bonuses to non-combat skills as a reason for taking them, you are then NOT taking the skill for the skill, but for the side-effect combat bonus.

 

[Infinitron]

Re: Crafting and mages

It's also possible that there are additional reasons for a mage to specialize in Crafting that we don't know yet. For example, there might be magic-related stuff that only a mage can craft. Or skill synergies - something that you can only do with Crafting AND another skill that mages typically have.

I think it is real silly to give combat bonuses to non-combat skills as a reason for taking them, you are then NOT taking the skill for the skill, but for the side-effect combat bonus.

I don't. Who cares what the reason is?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

OK, what's the problem with that? The point is that all classes still have a reason to take some ranks in Crafting. It's not a completely useless skill for them.

"Sawyerism" has never been about making everything "equal". It's about there not being things in the game that make you say "I will never need this. It's useless."

But that's just it: crafting will be useless for the one you'd expect to be doing most of the crafting (or at the very least alchemy and herbology), namely the total non-tanks. In Arcanum, non-tanks made the best crafters, under the current system, tanks make the best crafters.

That's my point, the current system is the semi-gamism you advocate and in that fails both in terms of simulationism (especially compared to Arcanum), and in terms of Sawyerist gamism (because crafting is going to be useless for non-tanks, unless all the other skills happen to be equally useless for non-tanks, which they won't). I'd actually agree with Roguey in that regard; might as well go full-retard.

 

[Infinitron]

But that's just it: crafting will be useless for the one you'd expect to be doing most of the crafting (or at the very least alchemy and herbology), namely the total non-tanks. In Arcanum, non-tanks made the best crafters, under the current system, tanks make the best crafters.

That's my point, the current system is the semi-gamism you advocate and in that fails both in terms of simulationism (especially compared to Arcanum), and in terms of Sawyerist gamism (because crafting is going to be useless for non-tanks, unless all the other skills happen to be equally useless for non-tanks, which they won't).

I've already explained to you how it will not be useless.

But fine, let's ask Sawyer about this.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

I've already explained to you how it will not be useless..

It's also possible that there are additional reasons for a mage to specialize in Crafting that we don't know yet. For example, there might be magic-related stuff that only a mage can craft. Or skill synergies - something that you can only do with Crafting AND another skill that mages typically have.

Sorry, missed that one. But that approach would be very anti-Sawyerist, and would essentially be a variation on the Arcanum approach (instead of different technology branches, different class-based branches). Plus, if you're doing that, then why involve durability in crafting at all? You'd have enough reason to get crafting for each member of your party to access the class-crafting options.

 

[Liston]

I think it is real silly to give combat bonuses to non-combat skills in D&D as a reason for taking them, you are then NOT taking the skill for the same reason you would in D&D, but for the newly added combat bonus.

FTFY, now it makes some sense.

First of all if skill have combat bonus than it isn't non-combat skill, and second there is nothing wrong with the fact that a skill can influence more than one thing and you take it only because of some bonuses and not all. This is like complaining that someone is putting points in Dexterity only because of AC bonus and isn't planing to use ranged weapons.

 

[Infinitron]

Sorry, missed that one. But that approach would be very anti-Sawyerist, and would essentially be a variation on the Arcanum approach (instead of different technology branches, different class-based branches).

It would still use the same skill for all those things, though. Don't see anything anti-Sawyerist about it.

Plus, if you're doing that, then why involve durability in crafting at all?

To give fighters a reason to take crafting? The question is "why not"? Skills should be broadly useful IMO, they shouldn't only do one thing.

 

[Sensuki]

FTFY, now it makes some sense.

First of all if skill have combat bonus than it isn't non-combat skill, and second there is nothing wrong with the fact that a skill can influence more than one thing and you take it only because of some bonuses and not all. This is like complaining that someone is putting points in Dexterity only because of AC bonus and isn't planing to use ranged weapons.

Time to use the 'poofter words'

Call me quasi-simulationist but I am fine with the arbitrariness of Ability Scores.

What I am not fine with is
The complete mathematical unification across as many systems as possible because of the thought that it produces "better gameplay" - it doesn't.
Giving skills a gamist or arbitrary combat application to make up for their lack of appeal to more than a single character in a group when IMO this is not a problem in the first place and it could be solved in a more simulationist manner including non-combat application
The thought that every skill needs a per-character sliding combat benefit to match the Stealth skill's usefulness.

There are definitely better ways of solving the "why would I take this" question.