Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Shadenuat]

Excidium would like to involve the table on the left as well.

Like it should be in any self-respecting RPG then

Oh? Fallout is primarily a skill-centric game, where the primary function of the stats is applying a modifier to the skills. I'm not sure to what degree Fallout uses the SPECIAL stats directly - can anybody answer this question?

It checked 'em in dialogues very frequently.

 

[Infinitron]

Excidium would like to involve the table on the left as well.

Like it should be in any self-respecting RPG then

Oh? Fallout is primarily a skill-centric game, where the primary function of the stats is applying a modifier to the skills. I'm not sure to what degree Fallout uses the SPECIAL stats directly - can anybody answer this question?

It checked 'em in dialogues very frequently.

Perhaps Sduibek could assist here. How much does Fallout use direct attribute checks and how much does it use skill checks?

Also, is there any perceivable logic determining where the game uses a Speech skill check and where it uses a Charisma check?

 

[Xeon]

There is an option to sleep with Miria or ask Miss Kitty out (Fallout 2) if you had a high Charisma. You don't see these options if your charisma is low. Also hitting crits with the Sniper perk depends on your Luck stat.

I also remember a couple of choices depending on your STR but can't remember if it was in F2 or FNV.

 

[Excidium]

Just follow logic. If I can't use X skill or ability in a situation where it would be very logical to do so, designers failed. CRPGs got a lot better on that over time.

What "logic" is there in numerical skill values that are abstractions of reality? Chris Avellone thinks a Lockpick score of 50 is high enough to open a reinforced door. Nathan Long thinks it's more around 70. Discuss!!

Simple as fuck. Every fucking RPG ever has guidelines to assign difficulty. A table with different types of doors from rotting wood to reinforced with iron bars with a range of numbers is not terribly uncommon. Do the same. Then add circumstances into equation and assign the goddamn skill treshold. I assume they're all designing for the same game using the same mechanics?

Dude that's like every fucking RPG ever. Those two designers are retarded and I hope that isn't the reality in InXile.

The reality at inXile is that they're making an incredibly ambitious yet low budget game in record time and they need to minimize these elements of ambiguity and inconsistency as much as they can.

If you want to call that retarded, then so be it.

You make it sound like the people at Inxile are making an RPG without having ever played one. Because all that seems intuitive to everyone here except you.

 

[felipepepe]

Just follow logic. If I can't use X skill or ability in a situation where it would be very logical to do so, designers failed. CRPGs got a lot better on that over time.

What "logic" is there in numerical skill values that are abstractions of reality? Chris Avellone thinks a Lockpick score of 50 is high enough to open a reinforced door. Nathan Long thinks it's more around 70. Discuss!!

Dude that's like every fucking RPG ever. Those two designers are retarded and I hope that isn't the reality in InXile.

The reality at inXile is that they're making an incredibly ambitious yet low budget game in record time and they need to minimize these elements of ambiguity and inconsistency as much as they can.

If you want to call that retarded, then so be it.

It's not so hard to have a global chart for the designers, with stuff like "Lockpicking 70 = really hard door, use only for end-game/hard optional objectives".

We all hope they are professionals with years developing RPGs, they should have one or two tricks in the bag for making a cohesive game...

 

[Vault Dweller]

But then what's the point of the attribute/skills division in the first place?

Like I said, clarity and consistency of presentation.

Let's say you're in dialogue and you need to persuade somebody. What should be checked? Your Charisma attribute, or your "Kiss Ass" skill?

Kiss Ass obviously. It's the applied use of charisma to persuade through charm. Charisma directly should be used like for an empathy check or something like that, I don't remember if they have a skill like that. BS Detector could be it but seems specific to notice lies.

Let's say you're in combat, slashing at somebody with a machete. What determines how much damage you do? Your Strength attribute, or your "Bladed Weapons" skill?

Strength and the natural damage of the weapon should determine the base damage. Higher Bladed Weapons skill might affect damage indirectly, more regular critical strikes, higher accuracy for striking other body parts that might suffer more damage with aimed attacks.

Congratulations, you've just added a ton of complexity, ambiguity and potential for inconsistency to the game, making life harder for both the designers and the players, in a game that already has an almost unbelievably ambitious scope and low budget.

What complexity? You merely describe what each weapon class does. Coincidentally, that's what I meant by 'designed from the ground-up' in the RPS preview thread.

 

[Shadenuat]

How much does Fallout use direct attribute checks and how much does it use skill checks?
Also, is there any perceivable logic determining where the game uses a Speech skill check and where it uses a Charisma check

It uses INT and PER mostly, sometimes CHA. Maybe STR a bit.
Well, of course - Charisma is to make somebody like you as a person, while Speech is to make a point in a debate. You can't debate somebody into loving you. Charisma is first look persuasion, Speech is diplomacy. That's why high CHA allows you to get more friends in Fallout and Arcanum, and Speech is more about debate/bluff.

 

[Infinitron]

FFS, game design isn't about "intuition". Oh, simulationists. When will you learn?

It's not so hard to have a global chart for the designers, with stuff like "Lockpicking 70 = really hard door, use only for end-game/hard optional objectives".

We all hope they are professionals with years developing RPGs, they should have one or two tricks in the bag for making a cohesive game...

Of course, and that's what they'll do, but the point is, using skills alone is hard enough. Why muddy the waters by adding even more variables into the system?

What complexity? You merely describe what each weapon class does. Coincidentally, that's what I meant by 'designed from the ground-up' in the RPS preview thread.

I was responding to what Excidium said about the dialogue check. Weapon damage is a different matter, since I'm not sure whether the skill is meant to govern accuracy alone or both accuracy and damage.

 

[TheRabbitsGeorge]

I disagree with the notion that strength = brute force.

Brute Force isn't just strength. Endurance is also a factor, as sometimes it takes a long repeated assault on a structural weakpoint to overcome a barrier. There is also the question of the body's ability to withstand trauma. If I slam my shoulder into a door, you better believe i'm going to feel it. Maybe I am strong enough, and can hit the weak point long enough without getting tired, but my body can't take the beating. If I'm using a tool, perhaps my arms can't take the intense vibrations from the feedback anymore. Also, what about the ability to know exactly where to direct my force so that I get the most out of my muscles, or which part of the body/which tool to use, and how?

Strong people aren't always great at being brutes. One guy might be able to bench 450 but he can't take slamming his shoulder against a metal wall for more than a minute. Another guy might be able to only bench 250 but he can slam all day, he loves the pain. So no, strength doesn't make brute force as a skill redundant. This is why having a skill like Brute Force is necessary because it can be governed by a main attribute (STR) and sister attributes (END CON PER what have you).

 

[Excidium]

bla bla

Of course prolonged strenuous activity is the realm of constitution, toughness, what have you. Unless that is all covered by Strength.

 

[tuluse]

I don't know about ambiguity, but InXile has already decided the only way to interact with the world is through skills. This seems like a reasonable abstraction to me.

A lot of angst seems to be coming from the idea that a character with low strength and high brute force could be better at doing strength related activities than than a strong character with low brute force. However, I wouldn't worry. There were hints dropped that 1) brute force isn't going to be much of a bonus on top of strength (ie 5 points in brute strength might be equal to 1 additional strength), 2) there could easily be strength limits imposed on brute force, 3) brute force could have a minimum level based on what a character's strength score is.

This might all add up to it being a meaningless layer of abstraction, or it might mean a character with high, but not super high, or average strength can still be an effective brute forcer, while a low strength character will never be.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't know about ambiguity, but InXile has already decided the only way to interact with the world is through skills. This seems like a reasonable abstraction to me.

I'm actually not entirely sure about that. It probably applies to environmental interactions (Brute Force, Perception) but dialogue might still be using direct stat checks, like Fallout did.

Brother None, can you clarify?

 

[Darth Roxor]

FFS, game design isn't about "intuition". Oh, simulationists. When will you learn?

I wonder if you've ever played any PNP in your life, given how literally every one I can think of uses both attribute-derived skills and attributes in various kinds of rolls.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pretty much. It's a fairly standard and logical design.

 

[Infinitron]

logical

You keep using that word

What's logical about it? Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

 

[NotTale]

Brute force just seems silly to be a skill. What, at low skill you aim for the hinges? And mid skills he kicks at the bottom of the door. Finally, after 10 levels, he has learned enough to bash it near the lock!

Despite my ridiculing, it's easy enough to get over.

It's a skill based system and for that, checks should be on skills. Stat checks can be a thing they just don't need to make a habit of it. Something to do when it's a niche, but obvious, action. There's something awkward when they need three different skills to do similar functions for different archetypes, but I'm struggling to come up with something more elegant that doesn't require special exceptions.

 

[Gurkog]

I disagree with the notion that strength = brute force.

Brute Force isn't just strength. Endurance is also a factor, as sometimes it takes a long repeated assault on a structural weakpoint to overcome a barrier. There is also the question of the body's ability to withstand trauma. If I slam my shoulder into a door, you better believe i'm going to feel it. Maybe I am strong enough, and can hit the weak point long enough without getting tired, but my body can't take the beating. If I'm using a tool, perhaps my arms can't take the intense vibrations from the feedback anymore. Also, what about the ability to know exactly where to direct my force so that I get the most out of my muscles, or which part of the body/which tool to use, and how?

Strong people aren't always great at being brutes. One guy might be able to bench 450 but he can't take slamming his shoulder against a metal wall for more than a minute. Another guy might be able to only bench 250 but he can slam all day, he loves the pain. So no, strength doesn't make brute force as a skill redundant. This is why having a skill like Brute Force is necessary because it can be governed by a main attribute (STR) and sister attributes (END CON PER what have you).

The only thing slamming your shoulder into a door is good for is dislocating it. kick the door near the lock to break the panelling around it, or the center to create a hole. Better yet, use a sledge hammer and a lower STR person can do the same thing with less personal risk.

 

[felipepepe]

Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

Imagine a 10 ST dude and a 4 ST dude, both with 50 points in unarmed combat. On your system, both of them would fight exactly the same way and deal exactly the same damage with a punch. That's illogical.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Brute force just seems silly to be a skill. What, at low skill you aim for the hinges? And mid skills he kicks at the bottom of the door. Finally, after 10 levels, he has learned enough to bash it near the lock!

Well , one of my trainees tried to force open our office door with a shoulder slam nearly 2 months ago.
He still haven't recovered from 5 different broken bones :D

And probably Brute Force will be usefull against doors/barriers without locks.

 

[Infinitron]

Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

Imagine a 10 ST dude and a 4 ST dude, both with 50 points in unarmed combat. On your system, both of them would fight exactly the same way and deal exactly the same damage with a punch. That's illogical.

The guy with 4 ST started with a lower base unarmed combat skill. He had to invest more points in unarmed combat to make up for his strength deficiency, gimping his character in other ways. By involving strength in the accuracy and/or damage calculatio, you're penalizing his character again, making him pay twice.

 

[Vault Dweller]

logical

You keep using that word

What's logical about it? Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

I mean logical from the design point of view. Both stats and skills should be actively used and checked, often simultaneously. The derived effect is very limited, the longer you play, the less it matters.

 

[NotTale]

Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

Imagine a 10 ST dude and a 4 ST dude, both with 50 points in unarmed combat. On your system, both of them would fight exactly the same way and deal exactly the same damage with a punch. That's illogical.

Only because of your assumptions.

Skill is not training, skill is the sum of ability. The 10 ST dude with 50 points in unarmed combat actually has less training than the 4 ST dude with 50 points in unarmed combat, because he required fewer skill raises to reach that value. However, the combination of factors results in them being equal.

 

[tuluse]

I mean logical from the design point of view. Both stats and skills should be actively used and checked, often simultaneously. The derived effect is very limited, the longer you play, the less it matters.

Doesn't that depend on how high you can raise skills? If they can only provide a max of 20% increase to your base abilities then it doesn't matter how long the game lasts.

 

[felipepepe]

Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

Imagine a 10 ST dude and a 4 ST dude, both with 50 points in unarmed combat. On your system, both of them would fight exactly the same way and deal exactly the same damage with a punch. That's illogical.

The guy with 4 ST started with a lower base unarmed combat skill. He had to invest more points in unarmed combat to make up for his strength deficiency, gimping his character in other ways. By involving strength in the accuracy and/or damage calculatio, you're penalizing his character again, making him pay twice.

And why should I not penalize a skinny guy trying to brawl with a guy twice its size? Boxing has different weight categories due the massive difference it makes, why an RPG should consider a punch from a hobbit and a punch from a orc the same thing?

Only because of your assumptions.

Skill is not training, skill is the sum of ability.

Says who? Skills are what your system wants it to be.

The 10 ST dude with 50 points in unarmed combat actually has less training than the 4 ST dude with 50 points in unarmed combat, because he required fewer skill raises to reach that value. However, the combination of factors results in them being equal.

Nope, both of them have fucking 50 unarmed skill, they have the exact same skill. Difference is, the stronger guy had to "train" less due being more skilled at it.

There are people that learn naturally how to draw, there are those that need years just to make a round circle. Do not do the bullshit of saying that taking a untalented guy and making him study a lot will automatically make him better than a talented guy. And RPGs have character creation preciselly so you can make a guy talented in what you want. If you make a retarded brawler and want him to be a neurological, they you WILL need tons of points, not pandering from the GM because your retarded PC really wants to be a doctor...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fact is, if a skill is "attribute-derived" then the attribute is ALREADY being used indirectly in the roll, even if you only use the skill value directly. Why is that not "logical"?

Imagine a 10 ST dude and a 4 ST dude, both with 50 points in unarmed combat. On your system, both of them would fight exactly the same way and deal exactly the same damage with a punch. That's illogical.

More than that - that's bad design.