Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Except i'm grasping at the meaning of the words. You are the one obsessed with "labels" since you are defining them as completely irrelevant to meaning. See, the word intelligence is just that, a word. I can still have the real thing and call it fuck shit if i want. Your symbolist privilege is triggering me, stop it or i won't talk to you anymore. Muh self importance.
Dude, you are deranged. Talking to you is a waste of time because reality for you means anything you want it to be.
Says you. There's not a lot of point to getting drawn into ye olde "Whatte is yon RPG?" argument, but I'll just say here that your perspective on this is sheer opinion.
Except i'm grasping at the meaning of the words. You are the one obsessed with "labels" since you are defining them as completely separate entities. See, the word intelligence is just that, a word. I can still have the real thing and call it fuck shit if i want. Your symbolist privilege is triggering me, stop it or i won't talk to you anymore.
Well, I'll admit to a little hostility going both ways, but I am trying to get to the bottom of this. I think we agree on more than we disagree on. Still, if you want to shut down the conversation, I won't blame you.
I still think you're looking at everything backwards by starting with the words and then looking for the meaning, instead of starting with the meaning and then looking for the right words. Again, you're welcome to look at things that way if it makes you happy, but in this case it seems to be making you sad, and causing you to suggest things like completely scrapping game systems and inventing new ones just because they were given misleading names. That seems incredibly wasteful and pointless to me.
Dude, you are deranged. Talking to you is a waste of time because reality for you means anything you want it to be.
Not reality, just symbology. If we say that "nutmeg" means to shoot a soccer ball between an opponent's legs, then that becomes a new definition for the word (and soccer and tennis are not the only games that do this - hint). Words do have meanings, but they can also evolve and even change entirely, so clinging to them too tightly is a mistake. It's the concepts the words represent that are important.
If thinking so makes me deranged and not worth talking to, then goodbye and good luck, and thanks for the debate. I had fun this afternoon.
Not reality, just symbology. If we say that "nutmeg" means to shoot a soccer ball between an opponent's legs, then that becomes a new definition for the word. Words do have meanings, but they can also evolve and even change entirely, so clinging to them too tightly is a mistake. It's the concepts the words represent that are important.
I find this argument spurious even on its most basic level. I think that for the most part, words are not wholly arbitrary, and the science of etymology shows this. When a word ends up meaning something completely different over time, i'd even pin that down to a degeneration of the language, not an "evolution".
But aside for this, your argument is deranged because none of us is in a position to arbitrarily change words on a whim, even assuming you were in the right. But you are not in the right you see. The fallacy with your argument is that you are implying that just because words are "relative", they are simply nothing. But to say that something is relative is not the same as saying it doesn't exist at all or that it has no value whatsoever. The label exists and has meaning, even if it is completely relative. If this wasn't the case language itself would cease to have any use for us. Instead of intelligence, i'll just say fart fuck. Never mind that this will make what i say incomprehensible to anybody else, all that matters is that i have the actual meaning in mind, right?
The fact that the rules have yet to demonstrate the special character of a more intelligent fighter in a convincing manner is a narrative issue. You dont fix those with half assed new meanings to words. I am all for designing an interesting game first, but this is an RPG. The whole story hangs on interesting and believable appraisals of the characters.
What if Intelligence allowed a character to appraise the battlefield more quickly and somehow act first? Instead of Mights raw power and Dexteritys accuracy, intelligence could act as a sort of initiative bonus. Seriously, anything is better than what we currently have
I find this argument spurious even on its most basic level. I think that for the most part, words are not wholly arbitrary, and the science of etymology shows this. When a word ends up meaning something completely different over time, i'd even pin that down to a degeneration of the language, not an "evolution".
But aside for this, your argument is deranged because none of us is in a position to arbitrarily change words on a whim, even assuming you were in the right.
Of course we are, or at least, the devs are. If Obsidian chose to name a stat "Purple" and then say "Purple stat governs AOE radius", there would be zero problem. Making these arbitrary definitions is pretty much what game design is. Or are you saying that no game has ever used made-up terms?
But you are not in the right you see. The fallacy with your argument is that you are implying that just because words are "relative", they are simply nothing. But to say that something is relative is not the same as saying it doesn't exist at all or that it has no value whatsoever. The label exists and has meaning, even if it is completely relative. If this wasn't the case language itself would cease to have any use for us. Instead of intelligence, i'll just say fart fuck. Never mind that this will make what i say incomprehensible to anybody else, all that matters is that i have the actual meaning in mind, right?
You can use different words all you want, provided that you also make yourself understood, because making oneself understood is the function of language. Once again you are holding death-grip tight to the notion that definitions of words are eternal and inviolate, but they just aren't. (They aren't "nothing" either; as happens so often, the truth lies somewhere between these ridiculous extremes.) If you think that "fart fuck" will catch on, by all means start using it and eventually people around you will learn what you mean. Personally, I'm pretty sure that, after a few billion rounds of combat, players of PoE will come to understand that high Intellect (note the capital I denoting a "proper" term) means better AOE radius. Certainly, just as many or more will be confused at first and possibly forever; I've agreed all along that it's an unfortunate label. But, sooner or later, players will understand this game term for what it is: not a vague descriptive term of an individual personality, but a hard measurement of a specific statistical capability.
What is it about "characters can tap into MYSTARIOUS soul power" that makes it fall into the "half-assed ruleset" side of the field instead of "fantasy situation that could only occur if magic exists"?
Pretty self-explanatory. It looks like they probably tried to write the lore in a way that (sort of) justifies the more retarded elements in the ruleset. (Thing is, I'm still not sure it justifies everything unless a barbarian's AoE is based upon little explosions of magic every time he swings vs him swinging his weapons wildly, well, like a barbarian...) Sawyer has said in many interviews that these were ruleset ideas he's been kicking around for a long time, but that they couldn't necessarily implement them if not for the kickstarter model. That leads me to believe that some of the writing for the soul lore is there to justify the system and not the other way around.
It’s very time consuming. When someone wants to know anything about the world, you have to figure out what the answer to that is. There’s no source book you can fall back on. It all needs to be made up when it’s needed, and even anticipating what people will need to know can be difficult. World-building can be exhausting, but it’s also satisfying to make the choices you want about the setting you’re making.
... Ultimately I’m the person who’s the chief regulator of lore, especially when it comes to the history of the world, the cultures of the world, and things like languages. That’s the sort of stuff I’ve been involved with on the project since the beginning, so I wound up being the caretaker.
...
I just try to avoid doing things that I don’t personally like. For example, the class balance stuff was done because I’ve made a bunch of these games, and I’ve been playing D&D for most of my life, and I keep seeing very strong trends towards behavior that I don’t think makes players happier. It doesn’t give them as much choice as the systems claim to give them, and I think we can do a better job.
What if Intelligence allowed a character to appraise the battlefield more quickly and somehow act first? Instead of Mights raw power and Dexteritys accuracy, intelligence could act as a sort of initiative bonus. Seriously, anything is better than what we currently have
Age of Decadence handles INT very well. It determines some dialog options and has a pretty big effect on how many skillpoints you get for completing quests as well as your starting skills. A high INT fighter is a viable build as his greater skill can compensate for his stats.
Of course I guess not every game can have the multimillion dollar budget and experienced dev team that Age of Decadence does.
Pretty self-explanatory. It looks like they probably tried to write the lore in a way that (sort of) justifies the more retarded elements in the ruleset. (Thing is, I'm still not sure it justifies everything unless a barbarian's AoE is based upon little explosions of magic every time he swings vs him swinging his weapons wildly, well, like a barbarian...) Sawyer has said in many interviews that these were ruleset ideas he's been kicking around for a long time, but that they couldn't necessarily implement them if not for the kickstarter model. That leads me to believe that some of the writing for the soul lore is there to justify the system and not the other way around.
This is absolutely stupid, how the hell is the gameworld going to make any sense when it's being built completely backwards? It's like that dumb "magical goo" thing they came up with to explain why their arches wouldn't collapse. They should have come up with an interesting setting first and then designed the mechanics to simulate it.
And to say "ITS TEH SOUL" as an answer to everything, all the time is going to become incredibly irritating and repetitive. The game isn't even out yet and I'm already tired of hearing about this soul bullshit.
Sawyer said:
I just try to avoid doing things that I don’t personally like. For example, the class balance stuff was done because I’ve made a bunch of these games, and I’ve been playing D&D for most of my life, and I keep seeing very strong trends towards behavior that I don’t think makes players happier. It doesn’t give them as much choice as the systems claim to give them, and I think we can do a better job.
I'm going to reiterate my thoughts. Yes, the stats that Intellect affect don't make sense. I am hardly, if at all, excusing this.
I agree that
Lyric Suite said:
We should throw out the AOE radius crap and correlate intelligence with a mechanic which reflects the actual meaning of the word. I don't understand how you managed to reason out the opposite of that.
Mind you that i'm just relying on the information as it has been given to me. I don't know if there's more to this system than what first meets the eyes, but to be me their conception of this intellect stat doesn't make a single iota of sense.
And I would be happy with Intellect making more sense. However, I've tried thinking about this myself and I can't come up with an easy way to do this, because I come across with a series of issues:
Me said:
First, what are you gonna Stat are you gonna replace it with so that Intellect still affects an equal number of Stats? Note that this Stat would also have to "make sense."
Secondly, what Attribute will instead affect AoE size? It is an important stat because it interacts with the Engagement mechanic. An ability or spell that paralyzes or knocks down an opponent breaks Engagement, allowing characters to move away from melee range without suffering a Disengagement Attack. That means a larger AoE (that paralyzes or knocks down) can break more Engagements than a smaller AoE.
Then, if you add AoE size to a different Attribute, then what Stat will you remove so that this Attribute affects an equal number of Stats? If that removed Stat is important, where are you going to put it? If you attach it to Intellect, then again it has to "make sense." If you attach it to another Attribute, then you have to again consider which Attribute to remove and possibly attach to another Attribute.
Now I'm not defending Sawyer or the system or whatever. I'm just trying to think more in depth about how to solve this problem, or if it's even possible. It's not constructive keep repeating that the system sucks or the system is great. I mean, yes, you have the right to your opinion and you have the right to state it. But it's silly to keep saying the same thing for more than one pages. We have a flaw, let's discuss how we can fix it.
What is everybody's answers these questions? Or do you think one or some or all of these issues are not that big of a deal? Again I ask these questions dialectically so that we can try (even just a little bit) to come up with a solution, not to debate whether or not Sawyer is right or wrong.
Can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea that Might = +damage, even for Wizards, and healing while Intelligence = +AoE (wtf). Josh, in his infinite quest to balance a games system so that any kind of goofy character is possible, may have possibly created one of the dumbest rule systems yet. It remains to be seen, though. Personally I've never been bothered by dump stats and some stats being useless for certain classes. To me Josh is just trying to fix something that isn't broken in the misguided thought that because he's sick of how D&D works everyone else is, too.
True. It may be sufficient to have, say, 3-5 attributes were useful to a character, with 1-3 dump stats (instead of D&D with like 3-5 dump stats for the base classes, obviously Paladins excluded). I don't think Josh is misguided as much as... very extreme in his implementations.
Also I do think this is feedback we can give him in the Obsidian forums. I think at a time Intellect did affect Magic Damage and several other attributes were different, but they shuffled things around. They could still shuffle things around later. This is why I think we should discuss possible solutions instead of only complaining or only defending. Or at the least find a compromise of things that are disliked, explain why, and post an organized and polite thread in the Obsidian forums. (Not that being rude is bad, I've been a fucking Codexer for almost a decade. But if I want someone to really listen to criticism, rudeness tends to get him emotional and dismiss it without considering it fully).
You know an awesome way to implement wizards that will a) do them justice as wielders of the arcane and b) make them fairly balanced? Have spells fail in various ways, and have spell success tied to int - while making spells more powerful. Spells can fizzle out, they can backfire on the party, etc., but the higher the int stat, the higher the success rate. It even has a built in internal logic to it - smarter wizards will be better at casting spells.
You know an awesome way to implement wizards that will a) do them justice as wielders of the arcane and b) make them fairly balanced? Have spells fail in various ways, and have spell success tied to int - while making spells more powerful. Spells can fizzle out, they can backfire on the party, etc., but the higher the int stat, the higher the success rate. It even has a built in internal logic to it - smarter wizards will be better at casting spells.
How does that solve the problem? It would make INT a no-brainer stat, since not only would it increase damage of spells, but nobody would want their spells to fail in a pitched battle.
You know an awesome way to implement wizards that will a) do them justice as wielders of the arcane and b) make them fairly balanced? Have spells fail in various ways, and have spell success tied to int - while making spells more powerful. Spells can fizzle out, they can backfire on the party, etc., but the higher the int stat, the higher the success rate. It even has a built in internal logic to it - smarter wizards will be better at casting spells.
You know an awesome way to implement wizards that will a) do them justice as wielders of the arcane and b) make them fairly balanced? Have spells fail in various ways, and have spell success tied to int - while making spells more powerful. Spells can fizzle out, they can backfire on the party, etc., but the higher the int stat, the higher the success rate. It even has a built in internal logic to it - smarter wizards will be better at casting spells.
How does that solve the problem? It would make INT a no-brainer stat, since not only would it increase damage of spells, but nobody would want their spells to fail in a pitched battle.
why would int increase the damage of spells? That makes no sense.
Note - my statements aren't in relation to this PoS abomination that you all insist on discussing. I'm above that. Rather, I'm just talking about the function of the int stat in general. Complaining about dump stats is fucking retarded, and INT Barbarians are a fucking stupid implementation and just another example of why this game will undoubtedly come out to be shit. Carry on.
You know an awesome way to implement wizards that will a) do them justice as wielders of the arcane and b) make them fairly balanced? Have spells fail in various ways, and have spell success tied to int - Spells can fizzle out, they can backfire on the party, etc., but the higher the int stat, the higher the success rate. It even has a built in internal logic to it - smarter wizards will be better at casting spells.
How does that solve the problem? It would make INT a no-brainer stat, since not only would it increase damage of spells, but nobody would want their spells to fail in a pitched battle.
Note - my statements aren't in relation to this PoS abomination that you all insist on discussing. I'm above that. Rather, I'm just talking about the function of the int stat in general. Complaining about dump stats is fucking retarded, and INT Barbarians are a fucking stupid implementation and just another example of why this game will undoubtedly come out to be shit. Carry on.
Dump stats in a party-based RPG is the equivalent of implementing useless skills in a Falloutesque RPG. It's bad design in both cases. Of course, one can certainly disagree with a specific method of removing dump stats, which is what's happening in this thread.
Dump stats in a party-based RPG is the equivalent of implementing useless skills in a Falloutesque RPG. It's bad design in both cases. Of course, one can certainly disagree with a specific method of removing dump stats, which is what's happening in this thread.
Is this some Sawyerism or something? Dump stats aren't "bad design", trying to make all stats have meaning for each class is bad design. There is no logical reason a Barbarian in a fantasy setting would be more intelligent than a wielder of elemental forces. Trying to force this concept of all stats must have meaning for all classes/characters isn't much different than giving participation trophies out for the last place team in your rec basketball league. Poor character building (i.e. INT on a Barbarian/STR on a Wizard, etc.) punishes the player for being a fucking retard. Not every combination should be viable - instead players should be able to fail.
Dump stats in a party-based RPG is the equivalent of implementing useless skills in a Falloutesque RPG. It's bad design in both cases. Of course, one can certainly disagree with a specific method of removing dump stats, which is what's happening in this thread.
Is this some Sawyerism or something? Dump stats aren't "bad design", trying to make all stats have meaning for each class is bad design. There is no logical reason a Barbarian in a fantasy setting would be more intelligent than a wielder of elemental forces. Trying to force this concept of all stats must have meaning for all classes/characters isn't much different than giving participation trophies out for the last place team in your rec basketball league. Poor character building (i.e. INT on a Barbarian/STR on a Wizard, etc.) punishes the player for being a fucking retard. Not every combination should be viable - instead players should be able to fail.
It doesn't punish anything because everyone and their mother knows the basic paradigm of assigning stats in an RPG (STR for physical classes, INT for magic, etc.). And again, I wasn't championing INT for barbarians, but rather the general concept of having stats be meaningful for all classes in some way.
Poor character building (i.e. INT on a Barbarian/STR on a Wizard, etc.) punishes the player for being a fucking retard. Not every combination should be viable - instead players should be able to fail.
ITT people fighting to preserve fantasy tropes like supersmart wizard genius and drooling barbarian idiot while using words like "logic." Keep fighting the good fight guys.
I like Mangoose's idea of giving constructive feedback but as they seem to be polishing/balancing now I can't help feeling that it's probably too late for feedback for PoE. Once we've all played PoE there will be a lot of feedback for them to hopefully fine-tune things for PoE2.
I'm still looking forward to PoE, haven't played a game of this style for a while and I'm sure it'll be enjoyable. But like many here I do find some of the design decisions a bit strange:
I think most people agree that Sawyer is obviously a smart guy who knows a lot about game design, but I sometimes wonder about his priorities. He's played so much pnp and spent so much time working on game design that I'm not sure he can relate to the tastes of the average gamer on the Codex, let alone the wider audience who will play IE-style games. His comments on not liking the mage duels in BG are an example, most people I know who played a bit of BG seemed to have fun with them, a designer like Sawyer looking in detail at possible system flaws and the effectiveness of different builds would probably view them differently.
I have to agree with Hobo Elf here, this whole debate on the Intellect / Might attribute obviously stems from his fixation with making viable builds of 'smart but relatively weak' fighters and 'physically strong but mentally deficient' wizards. So we end up with might affecting spells and intellect affecting all AoEs. Is enabling someone to play a retarded bodybuilding mage and not feel underpowered worth ending up with a system like this? Just because a couple of people in his pnp sessions wanted the build?
I'm sure there are other ways to make an INT Barbarian "viable" if it really had to be done, not that I'm bothered with sub-optimal characters anyway if I insist on designing them that way. It's too late to change PoE but a few random ideas:
- There's the option of intellect affecting weapon specialisation and skills, as you can quickly mentally adapt to different fighting styles. Have a very low int fighter? Chances are he's going to go through most of the game just with his battle axes or face penalties with other weapons. Meanwhile a 'smart' fighter with more focus on intellect than strength could master many weapons quickly, easily load and use different missile weapons and would be the goto guy when you need to use eg: a halberd with huge bonuses against dragons. Yes, this would mean a more detailed weapon specialisation system than PoE currently has.
- It could also make sense for Intellect to help you level-up slightly quicker, as you learn new skills faster.
- PoE and many other systems make mental abilities relevant for defense against magical charm/domination or psy attacks. So using Intellect as a dump stat would mean you often ended up fighting your own barbarian. PoE already does this as intellect affects will, just mentioning it in terms of the 'dump stat' argument.
I don't have much sympathy for the idea of a physically strong, mentally challenged character who decides to become a wizard. Let him become a pack animal with a couple of spells who swings a quarterstaff quite powerfully. But even there you could perhaps have a school of spells which take a physical toll on the body and require a minimum amount of strength to start with. (eg: necromancy spells, maybe each cast would drain a few points from strength/might until rest).
These are just a couple of random ideas of the top of my head, not saying they're perfect. I just really can't understand how this current system is favoured by someone like Sawyer. I guess his system is clean and balanced in a mathematical / structural sense, with everything affecting the same number of stats, every possible character equally awesome. Perhaps that was the priority.
