Eternity Josh Sawyer reflects on his failures with Pillars of Eternity

[Lacrymas]

I'd remove stats for video games entirely and focus all character advancement through leveling on feats/skills. Let's face it, stats in 99% of video game RPGs are math simulators which have a right and wrong answer.

 

[biggestboss]

I'd love it so much if RPG systems designers featured more Featchads.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I'd remove stats for video games entirely and focus all character advancement through leveling on feats/skills. Let's face it, stats in 99% of video game RPGs are math simulators which have a right and wrong answer.

That applies to character advancement in general. Might as well have extra layers of complexity to muddle the waters, particularly in itemization.

 

[Lacrymas]

You could have feats that don't add flat +damage or whatever, and allow for specialization and diversification. Stats on the other hand always add flat numbers. If all RPGs are like Fallout and AoD, where the stats influence everything a character can do, then sure, stats are awesome, but we know reality isn't like that and I'm sure you can add the same thing with feats. What feats don't allow is an easy gradient to simulate the "not enough CHA for the 18 CHA skill check, but enough for the 16" you'd need a bunch of feats that are an upgrade to a previous one.

 

[Roguey]

To be honest, part of the problem is a long ridiculous tradition in Western RPGs of having preset characters that suck. Maybe that tradition has come to an end, but I got wise to absurd premade parties that had fighters with 15 strength or whatever, and having thus been trained, now don't trust any preset or autoleveling.

Sawyer's opinion on this is that it doesn't matter how good the character options are, people would much rather make their own.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You just described point-buy D&D from 3E onwards

Wait D&D allow you to imrove attributes after level up?
Because I don't remember if it's true at all.

It does since the 3rd edition. It gives you an attribute point every 3 or 4 levels. Those points can be used to improve your basic stats over usual limits. They are usually used to improve what character does best rather than cover for his flaws. E.g. rise fighter's STR form 18 to 20 rather than improve one of his dump stats a bit.

 

[Xeon]

I kinda dislike stats gain after level up, would rather have stats gain by doing something or finding a unique items like in BGs or sacrificing stats for other stats or something. For Classless I probably prefer DOS's version of respec so you can change pretty much everything including your stats to spice up your game and try other things or fix mistakes if you don't want to start over or something.

 

[user]

I'd remove stats for video games entirely and focus all character advancement through leveling on feats/skills. Let's face it, stats in 99% of video game RPGs are math simulators which have a right and wrong answer.

Why not have both? Having a right and wrong answer isn't a bad thing. Many decisions in a game have a right and wrong answer. And you do get an extra sense of progression when that +1 point of strength offers you that +1 dmg/hit, in combination with the feats. May be flat and not so interesting but you still can have feats for more interesting bonuses. Plus stats are great for "visualizing" the strengths and weaknesses of your character and opens up an extra layer of customization for RP like stat checks or e.g. the dumb dialog in fallout.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

you can change pretty much everything including your stats to spice up your game and try other things or fix mistakes if you don't want to start over or something.

We've already had a similar debate on PfK back when it released, but this approach - with or without classes - removes your freedom under the guise of enhancing it. If you can change your character's build as to suit the situation, you end up devaluing the concept of a build in the first place. Player agency is removed in favor of a design philosophy in which your character has to be defined by the situation within the game and not by your character defining the experience and overcoming the situation with varying degrees of difficulty based on your build.

In games like PfK (or the BG series), after a first playthrough based around trial and error, you must tactically plan your build based around what sort of experience you'd like to have: do you prefer to have a stronger character early on and gimp yourself near the endgame or maybe instead you'd like to have a harder challenge in the earlier part, but have a minmaxed character by the end. And this is only in terms of the difficulty curve as a whole, but you could as well build your character for specific situations within the game.

Even Sawyer's system of balanced classes is better, since it at least gives you the illusion of player agency even when there's not that much of it due to build differences being for the most part removed in favor of just the difference between the main combat archetypes of tank, buffer and what not.

 

[Lacrymas]

Why not have both? Having a right and wrong answer isn't a bad thing. Many decisions in a game have a right and wrong answer. And you do get an extra sense of progression when that +1 point of strength offers you that +1 dmg/hit, in combination with the feats. May be flat and not so interesting but you still can have feats for more interesting bonuses. Plus stats are great for "visualizing" the strengths and weaknesses of your character and opens up an extra layer of customization for RP like stat checks or e.g. the dumb dialog in fallout.

We've had both and stats work for basically nobody apart from the nostalgia-blinded and in very specific cases like Fallout and AoD (like I mentioned). Having a right and wrong answer in this specific context makes the whole system pointless, nobody who understands the system is going to go for sub-optimal stats unless he wants to intentionally gimp himself, but not using the system to your advantage is not a virtue of the system. And it just becomes a math simulator after that. Character strength visualizations are trivial in comparison to the elegance of the design.

When the stats represent the innate/current abilities of the character and you plan your class/build around that, then the stats start making a huge amount of sense. The system should be designed for you to conquer its challenges, not for it to bow down to your every wish.

 

[Trashos]

I'd remove stats for video games entirely and focus all character advancement through leveling on feats/skills. Let's face it, stats in 99% of video game RPGs are math simulators which have a right and wrong answer.

I have one word for you, just one word:

Spoiler

Underrail

 

[Galdred]

To be honest, part of the problem is a long ridiculous tradition in Western RPGs of having preset characters that suck. Maybe that tradition has come to an end, but I got wise to absurd premade parties that had fighters with 15 strength or whatever, and having thus been trained, now don't trust any preset or autoleveling.

The whole problem with 15 STR fighters is that you were supposed to roll stats and then choose a class based on the result. When you do it that way, the whole system makes a looooooooot more sense. When you have like 15 in STR, 14 DEX, 18 CON, 10 INT, 12 WIS, and 10 CHA, you are gonna go with a Fighter. I don't know when this system got perverted to 18/18/18/min/min/min, but it causes no end of problems.

Also it made Paladins work better, as they were reserved for people who had rolled a lot of very high stats.

 

[Lacrymas]

I have one word for you, just one word:

Spoiler

Underrail

I haven't played UnderRail in a while, but I vaguely remember the stats being there mostly so you can color inside the lines to get the specific feats you want. But even if there's a ton of reactivity and the stats work amazingly, it's just going to be added to those 1% alongside AoD and Fallout.

 

[Quillon]

I'd remove stats for video games entirely and focus all character advancement through leveling on feats/skills. Let's face it, stats in 99% of video game RPGs are math simulators which have a right and wrong answer.

It'll be a God Howard system but more advanced! :D

 

[Trashos]

I haven't played UnderRail in a while, but I vaguely remember the stats being there mostly so you can color inside the lines to get the specific feats you want. But even if there's a ton of reactivity and the stats work amazingly, it's just going to be added to those 1% alongside AoD and Fallout.

Partially. They also affect skill improvement speed, carry weight, what armors and weapons you can use, HP, psi regeneration, ability to open stuff, mental toughness, ability to find secret passages, and I am probably forgetting several other things they affect.

The most interesting thing is that there are several ways to about them even within a specific build archetype. But even for feats alone, I find such a system much more interesting than feat trees. It allows *me* to create my own feat tree.

 

[Lacrymas]

Pure number bonuses can be relegated to items (in addition to other things an item might offer), especially since a lot of RPGs struggle with itemization and finding a use for items. Things like bonuses to HP or psi regeneration, carrying capacity or lockpicking and so on can be feat choices or can also be affected by items. The problem with stats is that you always, always max the ones which help your build, there is no point in not maxing them and stuff like Fighter companions with 15 STR start to look really weird and sub-optimal. We know this, we've played enough RPGs to instinctively put 18/18/18/min/min/min for a Fighter, or put enough into WIS to enable us to dual-class later. It's a non-choice, the real choice in this context is the class you want to play, stats are an awkward middleman when not used how it was originally intended.

 

[Trashos]

Again, I will be focusing on the Underrail system.

Some things can be relegated to items, but then all different builds start looking the same, don't they? So having different abilities assigned to stats instead of items is fundamental to differentiating among builds.

Then, when you have skills to develop (as in Underrail or Fallout), having the skills improvement pace depend on stats (as happens in Underrail, but not in Fallout) creates interesting tradeoffs (I don't need DEX for combat, but I need it for lockpicking!), which is what character creation should be all about.

Lastly, feats tied to stats is actually a pretty good system, as Underrail does it. In my builds, there are always various feats that I really want to have, but I have to sacrifice some to get others. For example, the Blitz feat requires maximum Agility, but if I want to max Agility then I have to subtract points from another stat and lose some other great feat.

Such a design sometimes does not work in other games because developers are pussies and want us to be able to have everything so that our feelings are not hurt. But that's a problem with developers, not with the system. Underrail did it right.

Class systems are of course a bit different, but I don't see why such solutions cannot be used there as well.

 

[Lacrymas]

Except you can't wear more than however many items, so you can't wear everything and have all builds be the same. You can change items, but that's easily rectified by them giving (more) bonuses to specific feats (which you have to choose) as opposed to something else. As for the other two points, you always, always have a trade-off when choosing which feats to get each level, so you don't lose that dimension. You can easily balance very strong feats by having other requirements, like other feats, although this still promotes coloring in the lines. I'm pretty sure a very good system can be thought up that won't have this downside while still remaining somewhat balanced and fair, perhaps having only a few very, very powerful feats that require other feats, or maybe depend on an item which can be reached only by having specific feats so it's not so game-y, etc.

 

[Prime Junta]

Except you can't wear more than however many items, so you can't wear everything and have all builds be the same. You can change items, but that's easily rectified by them giving (more) bonuses to specific feats (which you have to choose) as opposed to something else. As for the other two points, you always, always have a trade-off when choosing which feats to get each level, so you don't lose that dimension. You can easily balance very strong feats by having other requirements, like other feats, although this still promotes coloring in the lines. I'm pretty sure a very good system can be thought up that won't have this downside while still remaining somewhat balanced and fair.

If you made a genuinely item-based system, it would also make sense to restrict where you can swap out which parts of kit. For example, you can change your hat or coat anywhere, but can only change clothes/armour in camp. That would make picking your outfit more strategic.

(And yes, it would be a bad idea for most systems out there.)

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I have one word for you, just one word:

Spoiler

Underrail

I haven't played UnderRail in a while, but I vaguely remember the stats being there mostly so you can color inside the lines to get the specific feats you want. But even if there's a ton of reactivity and the stats work amazingly, it's just going to be added to those 1% alongside AoD and Fallout.

Not a coincidence that these are all classless single character games. Stats are not redundant in these games. Stats + skills + perks/feats works fine.

It's a non-choice, the real choice in this context is the class you want to play, stats are an awkward middleman when not used how it was originally intended.

There are definitely times when stats and classes are redundant features in CRPGs, but in 3.x and its variations you can multiclass every time you gain a level. A reasonably good implementation of this system gives you a very wide selection of potentially viable builds. So they’re not redundant in something like Kingmaker, they’re just extremely metagamey, which is a separate issue.

I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, it depends on what kind of game the developers want to make. Kingmaker is clearly a CRPG by metagamers for metagamers. The rewards for mastering the system are enormous. That’s not everybody’s cup of tea, but at least the rewards line up with the incentives.

In something like Deadfire, which gives you nearly 400 class/subclass/multiclass options right from the start, I agree with you. They would’ve been better off scrapping the attribute system and rolling it into your choice of class.

 

[Lacrymas]

If you made a genuinely item-based system, it would also make sense to restrict where you can swap out which parts of kit. For example, you can change your hat or coat anywhere, but can only change clothes/armour in camp. That would make picking your outfit more strategic.

(And yes, it would be a bad idea for most systems out there.)

Restrictions like that have 2 problems, the first being is that it only rewards metagaming because you aren't psychic and wouldn't know what you'll need in any specific dungeon. The second is kind of an extension of this, they depend on not being able to return to your camp at any time to change items because if you do, you'll just waste time by going back and forth in a dungeon (you know people will do this, PoE proved it). And again, this restriction has the same problem of only rewarding metagaming unless the game somehow communicates what you might need in any given dungeon.

 

[ItsChon]

Lacrymas is trying so hard to change a system that isn't broken. Literally nothing is wrong with stats, even in the IE games. Why are we acting like there is something wrong with pure number bonuses? Every skill or feat doesn't have to be some awesome amazing thing that drastically changes how you play the game or adds a ton to your build. This isn't Diablo or Path of Exile. I'm not trying to build my character around the items I pick up.

 

[Prime Junta]

Restrictions like that have 2 problems, the first being is that it only rewards metagaming because you aren't psychic and wouldn't know what you'll need in any specific dungeon. The second is kind of an extension of this, they depend on not being able to return to your camp at any time to change items because if you do, you'll just waste time by going back and forth in a dungeon (you know people will do this, PoE proved it). And again, this restriction has the same problem of only rewarding metagaming unless the game somehow communicates what you might need in any given dungeon.

Yes, the restriction would have to mesh with the rest of the systems. Day-night cycle, only allowed to camp at night, in-game time with events proceeding which discourages just wasting time, and definitely it would have to be fair about communicating what to expect.

Metagaming though, since when is that a bad thing?

 

[Lacrymas]

Metagaming though, since when is that a bad thing?

Because you also have to think about a first playthrough, unless you are ok with a game locking you in a dungeon with no way out because you didn't know what you'll need before that and you either have to start over or load a save. How would that work in a PnP campaign? You are locked in the dungeon, everyone dies of thirst, let's start a new campaign? It's clunky and video-game-y at best. At least in a PnP campaign the DM can prepare everyone beforehand.

Why are we acting like there is something wrong with pure number bonuses?

There is nothing "wrong" with them in the sense of hindering anything, but it is superfluous when there is a right answer, you can just bake the bonuses into the feats and/or classes to save us a few clicks. It's vestigial and inelegant in the way it has been implemented in 99% of RPGs.

 

[Lacrymas]

There are definitely times when stats and classes are redundant features in CRPGs, but in 3.x and its variations you can multiclass every time you gain a level. A reasonably good implementation of this system gives you a very wide selection of potentially viable builds. So they’re not redundant in something like Kingmaker, they’re just extremely metagamey, which is a separate issue.

How does the ability to multiclass change the picture? You still allocate your stats for the build you have in mind, so it's literally only unnecessary clicks when you've done the math. If you are thinking about balance (*gasp*), there are other ways to balance classes with each other, like requiring specific feats when a class isn't your first. And I'm sure people like Prime Junta won't want any kind of restrictions and would want to be able to pick and choose whatever class they want whenever.

There is also the possibility of removing any kind of damage scaling and number bonuses, and have other ways to increase damage, like more attacks per round, more AP to use only for standard attacks and so on. When this is tightly controlled, the entire system can be compact and not have exponentially climbing numbers which I hate. And the progression will depend on what your characters can do, rather than some numbers going up.