Baldur's Gate PoE vs IE: Do wizards need to have more stuff to do in combat? DISCUSS!

[Raghar]

This is true but on the other hand, if you want to be completely simulationist, you can say that about almost every attribute. Why does dexterity affect both hand-eye coordination and agility? Some people have great hand-eye coordination but are completely not agile. Some people are agile but have bad hand-eye coordination. Why does Constitution affect your physical toughness and your stamina? Being able to take a hit without falling down doesn't mean you can run a marathon (I am an example of this). And a high Constitution also defends against stuff like poison and disease. But being physically tough or having great lung capacity doesn't necessarily mean your immune system is strong. And Resolve? Just because I am a disciplined/determined person doesn't mean I'm good at lying to people.

You could take some additional penalties, for example: sickly, antisocial, bald, no foreskin, poison weakness, information overload. Look at GURPS they have a lot of additional +- stuff that can flesh its 4 attributes.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Cop out. When you have to write new laws of physics to justify your pet gameplay design ideas, it's a sign your ideas might not be too good.

So...like any kind of magic in general?

Not really, no. It's the difference between writing a fantasy situation that could only occur if magic exists and creating a half-assed ruleset and defending it with "because magic". One adds something of value, the other is an excuse for for a poorly thought out idea.

 

[Zombra]

We were talking about gaming systems but now its about how those systems fail to reflect muh own philosophical prejudices, and how the game ought to be post-modernistic or some shit. That's your argument? Really?

There's nothing post-modern about using words as symbols to represent concepts. I think that's been around for a little while.

There's also nothing new about getting so caught up with the symbols that one forgets the concepts that they are supposed to represent.

We all agree that "Intellect" is a stupid label for the ability to affect a larger radius with super powers.

So what should we fixate on?

Should we change the label to something that makes more sense, since AOE radius is an important part of the game systems?

Or should we throw out AOE radius since we can't think of a pretty word to hang on it, trash the system in place, and instead try to build mechanical systems that track character memory, govern the ability to process complex information, adjust character response time to unexpected information, and force correct or incorrect decision-making based on stat value? Cause, wow, THAT sounds like a fun game and a great use of dev resources.

Is the label really so important that we have to trash good game mechanics just to try to meet its common English definition? Is the name of something really more important than what it does?

 

[Mangoose]

This is true but on the other hand, if you want to be completely simulationist, you can say that about almost every attribute. Why does dexterity affect both hand-eye coordination and agility? Some people have great hand-eye coordination but are completely not agile. Some people are agile but have bad hand-eye coordination. Why does Constitution affect your physical toughness and your stamina? Being able to take a hit without falling down doesn't mean you can run a marathon (I am an example of this). And a high Constitution also defends against stuff like poison and disease. But being physically tough or having great lung capacity doesn't necessarily mean your immune system is strong. And Resolve? Just because I am a disciplined/determined person doesn't mean I'm good at lying to people.

You could take some additional penalties, for example: sickly, antisocial, bald, no foreskin, poison weakness, information overload. Look at GURPS they have a lot of additional +- stuff that can flesh its 4 attributes.

Still not good enough to simulate me.

 

[Lyric Suite]

We were talking about gaming systems but now its about how those systems fail to reflect muh own philosophical prejudices, and how the game ought to be post-modernistic or some shit. That's your argument? Really?

There's nothing post-modern about using words as symbols to represent concepts. I think that's been around for a little while.

There's also nothing new about getting so caught up with the symbols that one forgets the concepts that they are supposed to represent.

We all agree that "Intellect" is a stupid label for the ability to affect a larger radius with super powers.

So what should we fixate on?

Should we change the label to something that makes more sense, since AOE radius is an important part of the game systems?

Or should we throw out AOE radius since we can't think of a pretty word to hang on it, trash the system in place, and instead try to build mechanical systems that track character memory, govern the ability to process complex information, adjust character response time to unexpected information, and force correct or incorrect decision-making based on stat value? Cause, wow, THAT sounds like a fun game and a great use of dev resources.

Is the label really so important that we have to trash good game mechanics just to try to meet its common English definition? Is the name of something really more important than what it does?

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.

 

[Zombra]

So to you the label is more important than what it represents. OK! Have fun with that!

 

[Lyric Suite]

You keep sounding like somebody who has just read about nominalism but hasn't really understood what any of that shit actually means, or why it is actually wrong. The "label" is not the object, but you still need the label to indicate the object. You cannot have an object without having a fucking name for it. Words aren't meaningless dude.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Technically, the best way to resolve all this and keep Sawyer's system would be to do what they sort of did with strength/might and just change the name. In fact change all the names. Might becomes "soul power" and INT becomes "soul control"/

But they won't do that because it interferes with Sawyer's vision of 'a stupid mage with big muscles', which as we all know is essential to the RPG experience. :/

Words aren't meaningless dude.

~WORDS ARE WHATEVER WE BELIEVE THEY ARE~
IT'S THE POWER OF LOVE

 

[Lyric Suite]

The best way to resolve all this is to beat Swayer over the head with a two by four repeatedly and hope he starts getting some sense into his head before the skull cracks open.

 

[Rake]

Zombra You and Lyric Suite are approaching this issue from a completely opposite standpoint. You see the system in a vacuum and the attributes as marely game fanctions (blue stat, pink stat) and the labels just a cover for that.
He sees the stats as in game representations of living character traits. And no, DPS, AC and AoE aren't character traits.
He sees the system as a tool to represent the reality of the game's world, while you see it as something autonomus.
And from the two approaches, i agree with Lyric Suite's

Lambchop19 Yes, that would be ideal, but it won't happen because Sawyer feels they need to be as close to D&D as posible. Same as he wanted the magic in PoE to be soul themed and fit with the narrative, but it didn't feel D&Dish enough....sigh
I think this is idiotic as his system doesn't plays similar with AD&D, but he somehow feels that the D&D paintover (attribute names, classes names) are necessary

 

[Raghar]

Why would he want to blindly copy DnD? It's outdated system anyway.

 

[Rake]

Why would he want to blindly copy DnD? It's outdated system anyway.

Not blindly copy. In fact, i'm saying that since he changed the game too much from AD&D, he should go all the way and scrap it altogether. Rename the classes to something more original that is actualy closer to how they play, instead of having WoW DPS "rogues", rename the attributes, change the spells so they fit the themes of YOUR WORLD instead of Forgotten realms etc.

 

[Lhynn]

Why would he want to blindly copy DnD? It's outdated system anyway.

Fuck you.

 

[Zombra]

The "label" is not the object, but you still need the label to indicate the object. You cannot have an object without having a fucking name for it. Words aren't meaningless dude.

The part you can't seem to get past is that when something is mislabelled, you don't throw it away; you change the label. Words aren't always engraved in titanium. You're apparently married to the word Intellect, regardless of whether there is meaningful application of that word to the game's systems. Instead of fixing a typo, you want to change the whole book so that the typo is actually correct.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Why would he want to blindly copy DnD? It's outdated system anyway.

Fuck you.

He's right. DnD fucking sucks.

 

[Lyric Suite]

So if i use the word dog but actually refer to a cow, i don't replace the cow with an actual dog so as to have consistency in my definitions, i just drop the label altogether so henceforth cows can be referred to using some non-descriptive neologism or another. After all, it is not the word that the defines the object right? Trololo.

Here's a novel idea, just correlate the right object to the word used. Jesus Christ.

 

[Lhynn]

Why would he want to blindly copy DnD? It's outdated system anyway.

Fuck you.

He's right. DnD fucking sucks.

No, you suck.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

You could take some additional penalties, for example: no foreskin

 

[Zombra]

So if i use the word dog but actually refer to a cow, i don't replace the cow with an actual dog so as to have consistency in my definitions, i just drop the label altogether so henceforth cows can be referred to using some non-descriptive neologism or another. After all, it is not the word that the defines the object right? Trololo.

Hahaha. If you point to a cow and say, "dog", I will say, "Wait, you mean 'cow', right?" I don't expect you to lead the cow back to the barn, run to the farmhouse, get the dog, bring him back, and triumphantly cry, "dog!" I expect you to say, "Oh, right; cow." When the symbology fails to represent the desired concept, one does not throw away the concept; one adjusts the symbology.

Here's a novel idea, just correlate the right object to the word used. Jesus Christ.

That would have been nice, and obviously this whole discussion would have been unnecessary if Obsidian had used terms that matched the concepts. Since they didn't, do we throw out the labels, or the concepts they represent? Do we rebuild the whole fucking game because of a misused word? Do we drag the cow to the barn, run to the farmhouse, and rewrite the book because of one typo? Or do we just go, "Oh, wrong word" and make the correction?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Cop out. When you have to write new laws of physics to justify your pet gameplay design ideas, it's a sign your ideas might not be too good.

So...like any kind of magic in general?

Not really, no. It's the difference between writing a fantasy situation that could only occur if magic exists and creating a half-assed ruleset and defending it with "because magic". One adds something of value, the other is an excuse for for a poorly thought out idea.

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"?

 

[Zombra]

It's the difference between writing a fantasy situation that could only occur if magic exists and creating a half-assed ruleset and defending it with "because magic". One adds something of value, the other is an excuse for for a poorly thought out idea.

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"?

Eh, it's a question of presentation. It could be done with a light touch or a heavy one. Seeing a flash of yellow soul light when tripping a wolf leads me to feel that touch a bit on the heavy side - like blue whale heavy.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Hahaha. If you point to a cow and say, "dog", I will say, "Wait, you mean 'cow', right?" I don't expect you to lead the cow back to the barn, run to the farmhouse, get the dog, bring him back, and triumphantly cry, "dog!" I expect you to say, "Oh, right; cow." When the symbology fails to represent the desired concept, one does not throw away the concept; one adjusts the symbology.

Except what Obsidian is doing here is actually trying to force the object cow to fit the word dog. In which case you are basically bound to go fetch a dog and show them what the word dog actual means. It is not sufficient to say: "ho, you meant 'cow', right?", because they'll just say: "no, i mean dog", while still pointing to the fucking cow. The problem isn't that they are using the wrong word to refer to a particular thing, but that they seem to think the meaning of words is not important. Indeed, i'd like to retract this analogy because what Obsidian has done here is create a mechanic that doesn't even reflect or correlate to anything in particular, but still want to retain the label so they have added a function which does in fact correlate to the object indicated by the label. The stat which adds AoE effects to spells or skills and increases the duration of abilities also influences dialogue responses which are based on logic and reason, 'cause why not, right?

The problem with your solution is that you are not just throwing away a particular label, but the very necessity to have labels in the first place, under some confused notion that a label doesn't define an object (even though the object and the label are actually correlated to one another, so that to use a particular word is to imply a particular object, one doesn't just use a word because whatever) and the mistaken assumption that the mechanic actually comes before the "label" in the first place, and thus why even call it anything? But see, that's fucking bullshit because the mechanic is supposed to emerge from a starting concept which has a well defined meaning to it and exists precisely because it has a meaning. In itself the mechanic has no meaning. The derp stat that increases spell duration is just some random shit that serves no clear purpose unless you correlate it to something that makes sense. The reason why i asked if you understood what an RPG is is that you seem to think that the "rules" and "mechanics" used on those games define what those games are. Rather, those games are defined by a plethora of starting ideas and concepts which are then translated in a system which simulates those concepts and ideas by the use of certain mechanics governed by specific rules. Now you cannot have a simulation without having a well defined definition of what it is that your system is a simulation of. If you start with the assumption that you want to represent specific personal traits in a game, you cannot create a mechanic which doesn't translate the trait in question at all, and than try to excuse yourself by asking: "what's in a trait?". Well, for starters, your god damn representation.

What adds insult to injury here is that i don't see how this system is better than what we had in DnD in the first place. Big muscled wizards? Who the fuck ever asked for that shit? "Having big muscles makes muh fireballs stronger". This makes sense because "soul power". Am i really getting this system right? Because so far this sounds really dumb to me. But see, it sounds dumb because the concept is dumb, demonstrating what i mean when i say the starting point cannot be the mechanic.

 

[Starym]

The actual problem here (from the game's perspective, not the cow/dog intellectual brawl that's going on) is that the stats actually ARE soul power, soul AoE etc, but Obsidian chose to use more "traditional" and "wrong" names for them for 2 reasons:
1. To more closely resemble IE games (stupid reason)
2. So they can also be used in dialogue as stat checks. See this is the one that kinda makes sense from a design perspective but creates all this other crap - you can't really require "Soul AoE 18" in order to use the really smart reply in dialogue because that's actually more stupid than using Intellect to affect AoE.

The solution they went with isn't optimal but since they decided to go for balanced stats that all classes can make use of relatively equally (which I think is a good design direction) this is really the only option other than to remove or completely redesign the dialogue system as I don't think they'd be able to find good enough terms to describe both the "combat" stat the attribute affects as well as the dialogue option it enables.

I can't say whether there was a better solution to this particular problem but I'm definitely more interested in a more balanced stat distribution across the classes with weird names than just copy/pasting D&D again and having large amounts of dump stats as well as basically class-exclusive stats (and I actually like D&D), if nothing else because this is interesting - we know how the old stats system worked, we've had tons of games with it. Maybe this one will suck, and then they can go back to the old one but I'd rather they try this than just default back to the standard.

 

[Lhynn]

The actual problem here is that LS is doing his best to explain something that is fucking elemental and people are acting like hes talking nonsense. Is he that fucking unlikeable?

 

[Zombra]

The problem isn't that they are using the wrong word to refer to a particular thing, but that they seem to think the meaning of words is not important. What Obsidian has done here is create a mechanic that doesn't even reflect or correlate to anything in particular, but still want to retain the label so they have added a function which does in fact correlate to the object indicated by the label. The stat which adds AoE effects to spells or skills and increases the duration of abilities also influences dialogue responses which are based on logic and reason, 'cause why not, right?

Completely agree that this is silly ... "AOE Stat" and "Logic/Reason Stat" are combined here for no good reason ... they're just grasping the label as tightly as you seemed to be earlier.

The problem with your solution is that you are not just throwing away a particular label, but the very necessity to have labels in the first place, under some confused notion that a label doesn't define an object (even though the object and the label are actually correlated to one another, so that to use a particular word is to imply a particular object, one doesn't just use a word because whatever)

Sure you can. We don't bring chocolate and flowers to a tennis match in the expectation of finding "love" there. There is such a thing as a game term. That's why I encouraged the abandonment of loaded English words in favor of more abstract labels. If I say that Stat #4 governs AOE radius, there's no room for confusion or disappointment.

and the mistaken assumption that the mechanic actually comes before the "label" in the first place, and thus why even call it anything?

Well ... if what Athelas said is true, then that's exactly what happened. They built the combat system, broke out some stats for it, and then named the stats.

But see, that's fucking bullshit because the mechanic is supposed to emerge from a starting concept which has a well defined meaning to it and exists precisely because it has a meaning. In itself the mechanic has no meaning.

"Supposed to"? According to who? You? There are plenty of abstract games out there. What is the "meaning" of catching a ball? What is the "meaning" of offsides? What is the "meaning" of double-dribble? These are all abstract rule systems designed to make interactions interesting, challenging, etc. They're game rules that simply don't represent anything else.

The derp stat that increases spell duration is just some random shit that serves no clear purpose unless you correlate it to something that makes sense.

Sure it does. A wizard whose effects last longer has an advantage over the other guy. The gameplay benefit is obvious. It's basic to the conflict. It doesn't need an explanation that it's because he's smarter or handsomer or knows more pixie doodles on Facebook. His stuff just lasts longer for whatever reason. For the purposes of game design, that's all that's important. That stat can be called "Effect Duration" and we now know everything we need to know about it.

The reason why i asked if you understood what an RPG is is that you seem to think that the "rules" and "mechanics" used on those games define what those games are. Rather, those games are defined by a plethora of starting ideas and concepts which are then translated in a system which simulates those concepts and ideas by the use of certain mechanics governed by specific rules.

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.

Now you cannot have a simulation without having a well defined definition of what it is that your system is a simulation of. If you start with the assumption that you want to represent specific personal traits in a game, you cannot create a mechanic which doesn't translate the trait in question at all, and than try to excuse yourself by asking: "what's in a trait?". Well, for starters, your god damn representation.

Sure you can. Again: the list of traits you wrote on day one isn't engraved in titanium. The concept of a project can change as it develops.

What adds insult to injury here is that i don't see how this system is better than what we had in DnD in the first place. Big muscled wizards? Who the fuck ever asked for that shit? "Having big muscles makes muh fireballs stronger". This makes sense because "soul power". Am i really getting this system right? Because so far this sounds really dumb to me. But see, it sounds dumb because the concept is dumb, demonstrating what i mean when i say the starting point cannot be the mechanic.

No argument here - there were a lot of pretty goofy ideas when cooking this sucker up, all explained by soul energy BS. As I said upthread, I'm hoping the game will be fun despite some of the silly base concepts.