583 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Why would they not make sense? I´m calling it from personal preference. I see attributes as one of the corner stones of a rpg. The trend of dropping the attributes is just a symptom of this general dumping down of games since gamers these days are supposed to be so stupid that thinking can actually cause brain damage. More flash, more action, less reading and thinking. Go figure. The system worked, why change it? To be honest I have not played any tabletops without attributes so I don´t know how that works. 

 

To clarify, are you going for not having attributes at all, or just not getting attribute points on level up?

 

A lot of games do the second one, including PnP games. Fallout doesn't give you attributes on level up. If I remember right, AD&D 2 actually didn't give attribute points on level up which is the system that games like Baldur's Gate used. You could assign them at the start of the game, but that was all you got outside of items.

 

Meanwhile, Jade Empire actually did have 3 stats that you could increase with each level with much more action oriented combat. Officially, the game is considered an ARPG.

 

Assuming you meant on level up(since you originally tied it with character leveling) it would seem really strange if you want to call Jade Empire and Diablo 1/2 proper RPGs but not Baldur's Gate.

 

A lot of games do also give you attributes on level up, but you don't get to assign them. Games like Fire Emblem(which is RNG based increases) or even Inquisition which gives you stats when you pick passive talents from the various trees.

 

On a side note I would also add that Origins didn't have a very interesting stat system anyway. 90% of my stats just got dumped into my primary damage dealing stat(or cunning if tank for defense). That's not a whole lot of thought that went into it.

[AlanC9]

If I remember right, AD&D 2 actually didn't give attribute points on level up which is the system that games like Baldur's Gate used. You could assign them at the start of the game, but that was all you got outside of items.

Right. Raising attributes only came into D&D with 3.0, and even then it was only one point every four levels. It's pretty rare to see attribute raising in PnP systems with levels, actually. When the mechanic does appear it's typically in point-buy systems without levels.

[StanojeZ]

What about all the pen & paper RPGs without attributes? Are they not really real for realz RPGs, either?

[NextGenCowboy]

We're going in circles =p

 

I, and some others, brought up the PnP RPGs without stats 10 pages ago. There are whole systems, and games designed around using as few stats and dice rolls as possible, but they're still RPGs. FUDGE, is a cornerstone of the genre, but it wouldn't fit into many people's classifications of an RPG, even though the systems its designed on have been around since at least the 1980's.

[Uccio]

To clarify, are you going for not having attributes at all, or just not getting attribute points on level up?

 

A lot of games do the second one, including PnP games. Fallout doesn't give you attributes on level up. If I remember right, AD&D 2 actually didn't give attribute points on level up which is the system that games like Baldur's Gate used. You could assign them at the start of the game, but that was all you got outside of items.

 

Meanwhile, Jade Empire actually did have 3 stats that you could increase with each level with much more action oriented combat. Officially, the game is considered an ARPG.

 

Assuming you meant on level up(since you originally tied it with character leveling) it would seem really strange if you want to call Jade Empire and Diablo 1/2 proper RPGs but not Baldur's Gate.

 

A lot of games do also give you attributes on level up, but you don't get to assign them. Games like Fire Emblem(which is RNG based increases) or even Inquisition which gives you stats when you pick passive talents from the various trees.

 

On a side note I would also add that Origins didn't have a very interesting stat system anyway. 90% of my stats just got dumped into my primary damage dealing stat(or cunning if tank for defense). That's not a whole lot of thought that went into it.

 

Attributes, especially on level up. Turn based combat. Major issues. Choice and consequence in the RP. DAI does not offer these things.

 

BG did have attributes in the beginning and during gameplay via tomes, though not as extensively as DAO. But it had so much more rpg in it that it gets a pass. I used to play few times on table top but I don´t remember which version. It did have attributes though. 

Some people do not like the attributes in DAO because "I end up pumping all in the same", forgetting that there is the roleplaying option. You can pump all in one or just distribute among the stats so you can wear armor for instance. I go for that kind of playstyle.

I used to play Diablo 1 loooong time ago but I don´t recall any attributes on leveling, might be wrong though. The action hack´n slash had me stop playing the game.

[Lebanese Dude]

Attributes, especially on level up. 

 

Present in DAI. Anyone using the "cannot distribute them manually" excuse is clearly being pedantic, because everyone knows that you are ALWAYS forced to take the core attributes if you want to be remotely efficient. There is no real choice, unless you are intentionally gimping yourself. If you didn't take Strength as a Warrior in DAO and especially DA2, you lose out on Attack and damage done to the point of being obsolete. 

 

In DAO you HAD to take the primary attribute to unlock both gear AND skills, making the skill increasing even MORE linear. The "choice" in attributes reduced the "choice" in skills. By the time you overcame the stat limit requirements, you had more skills than you could use.

 

DA2 did it better by relegating the stat requirements only to gear. Even so, the relevance of the main stat was also increased. Good luck hitting anything but 1's if you didn't stack Dexterity early on your rogue until you had enough skills and took the right specializations late into the game to be able to get %Attack elsewhere.

 

Also gear in previous games was MASSIVELY inferior in stat relevance to the player attributes. The best plate gear in DAO (Sentinel) only offered a measly +2 to stats at a time you had 170 strength on your warrior. 

 

By relegating some stats to the armor, which is chosen or crafted by YOU according to YOUR choices, not only are stats more malleable, but they can be altered to suit YOUR needs at any given time.

 

Stats are WAY less constricted now and the number of secondary stats has been dramatically increased. The number of potential builds has skyrocketed. Could you play a crit mage in previous games? Not at all, unless you count a 20+ level mage when you can afford to put points in Dex and Cunning as opposed to Magic (100). At that point, the game's already over.

 

Furthermore, certain armor have NO class limitations, giving you MORE choices for what you wear.

 

So by divorcing character development from the archaic limitations of attribute allocation and requirements, choice in your attribute selection has never been better. 

 

Turn based combat. 

 

 

This doesn't make something an RPG. Such an odd requirement. That's like saying a pause-to-aim system is needed to make a game a shooter. 

 

 

Choice and consequence in the RP. 

 

I lol'd tbh. The irony. Oh the irony. 

[Uccio]

Present in DAI. Anyone using the "cannot distribute them manually" excuse is clearly being pedantic, because everyone knows that you are ALWAYS forced to take the core attributes if you want to be remotely efficient. There is no real choice, unless you are intentionally gimping yourself. If you didn't take Strength as a Warrior in DAO and especially DA2, you lose out on Attack and damage done to the point of being obsolete. 

 

In DAO you HAD to take the primary attribute to unlock both gear AND skills, making the skill increasing even MORE linear. The "choice" in attributes reduced the "choice" in skills. By the time you overcame the stat limit requirements, you had more skills than you could use.

 

DA2 did it better by relegating the stat requirements only to gear. Even so, the relevance of the main stat was also increased. Good luck hitting anything but 1's if you didn't stack Dexterity early on your rogue until you had enough skills and took the right specializations late into the game to be able to get %Attack elsewhere.

 

Also gear in previous games was MASSIVELY inferior in stat relevance to the player attributes. The best plate gear in DAO (Sentinel) only offered a measly +2 to stats at a time you had 170 strength on your warrior. 

 

By relegating some stats to the armor, which is chosen or crafted by YOU according to YOUR choices, not only are stats more malleable, but they can be altered to suit YOUR needs at any given time.

 

Stats are WAY less constricted now and the number of secondary stats has been dramatically increased. The number of potential builds has skyrocketed. Could you play a crit mage in previous games? Not at all, unless you count a 20+ level mage when you can afford to put points in Dex and Cunning as opposed to Magic (100). At that point, the game's already over.

 

Furthermore, certain armor have NO class limitations, giving you MORE choices for what you wear.

 

So by divorcing character development from the archaic limitations of attribute allocation and requirements, choice in your attribute selection has never been better.  

 

Are you serious? Clothes is what makes a man?

 

It is like going to a gym and changing your training pants to lift more.

[StanojeZ]

If those training pants made me stronger? Hell yeah I'd wear them. I'd wear them all the time.

[Il Divo]

 

 

I lol'd tbh. The irony. Oh the irony. 

 

Yeah, I tend to raise my eyebrow whenever I hear old Bioware games and choices/consequences in the same sentence. DA:I does it about as well or as badly as BG1, KotOR, Jade Empire, or Mass Effect 1 do. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

If those training pants made me stronger? Hell yeah I'd wear them. I'd wear them all the time.

But it's hardly character development. If the stats are to affect RP, I would prefer they be an aspect of the character.

I love both DAI and Skyrim, but I think both are diminished by their lack of stat allocation. Yes, we can RP the intelligent but physically weak warrior, but without the stats the game never reacts to it.

Character attributes offer a constant reactivity, where the game both rewards and punishes you for your selections.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Present in DAI. Anyone using the "cannot distribute them manually" excuse is clearly being pedantic, because everyone knows that you are ALWAYS forced to take the core attributes if you want to be remotely efficient. There is no real choice, unless you are intentionally gimping yourself. If you didn't take Strength as a Warrior in DAO and especially DA2, you lose out on Attack and damage done to the point of being obsolete.

I think that's a disingenuous claim. Yes, misallocating points might gimp your character, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that gimping the character was your intent.

I played a gimped character in DAO as a roleplaying exercise (he only put points in Cunning) and it was the most fun I ever had in the game. I loved that guy, right up until Sten killed him in Haven (he was hopeless in that duel). And that's the sort of thing we should be allowed to do.

You HAD to take the primary attribute to unlock both gear AND skills, making the skill increasing even MORE linear. The "choice" in attributes reduced the "choice" in skills. By the time you overcame the stat limit requirements, you had more skills than you could use.

But in DAI, without allocatable attributes, gear can no longer be stat-limited, so now it's class-limited, and that reduces options again.

Being able to allocate stats both gives greater control over our character's development (as a person, rather than just a game piece), and allows the rest of the game's mechanics to make more sense.

Why a warrior can't wear mage robes I will never understand.

Plus, you've ignored the different ways in which characters could be built and still be effective. DAO tanks could be dexterity based rather than strength based. Rogues could use strength, dexterity, or cunning as a primary stat. 2H warriors benefitted considerably from allocating points not to give them greater base damage (strength) but instead seeking greater stamina (willpower).

[Lebanese Dude]

Are you serious? Clothes is what makes a man?

 

It is like going to a gym and changing your training pants to lift more.

 

Are you new to fantasy?

 

Next thing you know they'll tell us that a magic ring has the power to rule everything.

[Lebanese Dude]

I think that's a disingenuous claim. Yes, misallocating points might gimp your character, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that gimping the character was your intent.


Being able to allocate stats both gives greater control over our character's development (as a person, rather than just a game piece), and allows the rest of the game's mechanics to make more sense.

Why a warrior can't wear mage robes I will never understand.

Plus, you've ignored the different ways in which characters could be built and still be effective. DAO tanks could be dexterity based rather than strength based. Rogues could use strength, dexterity, or cunning as a primary stat. 2H warriors benefitted considerably from allocating points not to give them greater base damage (strength) but instead seeking greater stamina (willpower).

 

I don't disagree with your intent. I like allocating stats as well, but I have to insist that DAI makes up for their absence in more ways than one.

 

It's much more disingenous to claim that DAO allows you more options just because you have the option to click + to whatever attribute you want because whatever you do you're effectively limited unless you take your main attribute

 

Maxing Cunning on a Warrior in DAO has no benefit whatsoever. You are extremely limited in your skill usage, do little to no damage since you cannot wield effective weapons, and cannot wear any gear whatsoever. If you found that fun then more power to you. I know some people that find it fun to get punched in the crotch

 

Having no stat limitations gives you more freedom no matter how you try to spin it. It's literally laughable to claim otherwise.

You can wear any gear you want at any level. You can pick a skill at any level. You can build your character in any way and still be effective.

 

It's not like passive stat allocation has been removed entirely. They're still available through picking particular passives. From personal experience, I tend to pick the passives that favor a particular form of gameplay. If I'm playing a two handed Warrior who wants to tank for the team in DAO, I'm going to take some Constitution and defensive abilities. In DAI, I get them as well from taking the defensive passives that have the same effect. There is little difference in how you approach it. It's still a choice, if not as "free".

 

There's literally only ONE limitation to your effectiveness in DAI and that's weapon damage. Even still, there are plenty of ways to get that covered from loot to crafting to buying. 

 

What's funny is that you can wear robes as a warrior in DAI, but you can't do that in DAO and DA2 unless you took magic as an attribute.

 

Also I didn't ignore the off-builds. There are simply far less applicable combinations. Mages can benefit from stacking constitution, as long as they are blood mages., but this applies to all classes. The benefit is minimal unless stacked. Warriors benefit from Dexterity stacking (along with Strength) if they are dual wielders or ranged.. Resource/Resource regeneration is THE only strong stat on gear in DAO and far overshadows that from innate stats (until DAA with the +25 resource skills).

 

I think we've had a similar discussion about something similar before. I'm not saying that it would be bad to pick our own stats and I would definitely be in favor of returning them if there was a choice. I'm simply saying that the current system works as well and has its own set of advantages that traditional methods do not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm simply saying that the current system works as well and has its own set of advantages that traditional methods do not.

That's certainly true. I'd probably enjoy a game that used the best of both worlds.

You were just winning the argument, and I didn't want that to be taken as an indication that DAI's approach was unequivocally better.

I'd like allocatable stats without having stat limitations on gear, but I also don't want class limitations on gear. In a perfect world, I'd like to eliminate the division between warriors and rogues completely, and let you build your characters however you like.

[Cyonan]

Attributes, especially on level up. Turn based combat. Major issues. Choice and consequence in the RP. DAI does not offer these things.

 

BG did have attributes in the beginning and during gameplay via tomes, though not as extensively as DAO. But it had so much more rpg in it that it gets a pass. I used to play few times on table top but I don´t remember which version. It did have attributes though. 

Some people do not like the attributes in DAO because "I end up pumping all in the same", forgetting that there is the roleplaying option. You can pump all in one or just distribute among the stats so you can wear armor for instance. I go for that kind of playstyle.

I used to play Diablo 1 loooong time ago but I don´t recall any attributes on leveling, might be wrong though. The action hack´n slash had me stop playing the game.

 

DA:O doesn't have turn based combat, and there really isn't significant consequences for your choices. BioWare has never really been very good at giving consequences for your choices. Origins has more choices in the sidequests, but the main quest of Inquisition offers some pretty big choices. I'm not really sure what you mean by "major issues" so I can't really say if Origins or Inquisition has them.

 

DA:I has attributes as well via passives. I'm not really sure where the rest of the RPG comes in for BG with your definition as it doesn't have turn based combat either, no attributes on level up, and not a great deal of consequences from what I remember.

 

The first two Diablo games give stat points on level up, but Diablo 2 was even worse than Origins for stat dumping. Anything except Vitality was pretty worthless once you could equip the items you planned on wearing.

 

Being able to equip all armors isn't specific to assigning stats on level up. DA:I actually lets you remove the class restriction through the crafting system.

 

There can be benefits to using a stat system, but not so much when you make it so that 1 or 2 stats stand out well ahead of every other stat for each class.

 

Are you serious? Clothes is what makes a man?

 

It is like going to a gym and changing your training pants to lift more.

 

In the fantasy RPG world, those training pants give +2 strength.

[StanojeZ]

I'm not against assigning some sort of stat increase, but unless the game reacts to it a bit more than the Dragon Age games did I don't see the point of it beyond the tiny endorphin rush of a level-up.

That's something I really liked in Fallout: New Vegas, and I remember some of the Neverwinter modules did it as well. Gating certain dialogue choices and actions behind stat checks, and providing multiple ways of dealing with a situation.

---

On another note, I wonder if any computer RPG will ever completely dispense with a divide between combat, exploration, and social interactions. It'd be interesting to have all these as part of the same system and interface, the ways some pen & paper RPGs handle things.

I already mentioned the Smallville RPG. In that game, you don't have stats like Dexterity or Charisma. You assign points to your values (Truth, Love, Loyalty, Power, etc), your resources (do you have a secret lab? do you know a cop who owes you favors?), and your relationships (how important are the other player characters to you, and how do you see them?). Whether a confrontations is physical, verbal, or otherwise doesn't change the system you use to determine the outcome - what matters is which value pushes you to take this action, which relationship is at stake during it, and whether you have any particular character traits or connections that give you an edge or hinder you.

That's something I'd really like to see done in a computer RPG.

[Uccio]

Are you new to fantasy?

 

Next thing you know they'll tell us that a magic ring has the power to rule everything.

 

Let´s see, I read the LotR about 30 years ago first time. So no, I guess not. 

 

But, Sylvius the Mad waltzed in and made a eloquent post saying exactly what I had in mind. So thank you for that Sylvius.

 

I don´t say the current system doesn´t "work" in game. I just don´t consider it a rpg feature. If you have a system that works why change it completely?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not against assigning some sort of stat increase, but unless the game reacts to it a bit more than the Dragon Age games did I don't see the point of it beyond the tiny endorphin rush of a level-up.

The reaction I like, and we see it in both DAO and D&D, is that the stats limit your access to skills and abilities.

But that work even better if we tied it to non-combat skills as well.

[Cyonan]

Let´s see, I read the LotR about 30 years ago first time. So no, I guess not. 

 

But, Sylvius the Mad waltzed in and made a eloquent post saying exactly what I had in mind. So thank you for that Sylvius.

 

I don´t say the current system doesn´t "work" in game. I just don´t consider it a rpg feature. If you have a system that works why change it completely?

 

Well, what some people are saying is that we don't think the stat system in Origins worked well because it encouraged dumping 90% of your stat points into whatever the primary stat for your class was.

 

Not that I think the Inquisition stat system works great either, since it's just automating dumping 90% of your stat points into whatever your the primary stat for your class is.

[AlanC9]

Attributes, especially on level up. Turn based combat. Major issues. Choice and consequence in the RP. DAI does not offer these things.

Bio's never offered turn-based combat. BG kind of faked it with auto-pause settings, but their engines have always been RTWP. Technically, this was a problem for NWN and KotOR, since the original systems were turn-based in a way that AD&D is not.

What's good about raising attributes on level-up, anyway? It always struck me as being a weird CRPG thing that D&D 3.0 adopted for no good reason.

[Lebanese Dude]

Well, what some people are saying is that we don't think the stat system in Origins worked well because it encouraged dumping 90% of your stat points into whatever the primary stat for your class was.

 

Not that I think the Inquisition stat system works great either, since it's just automating dumping 90% of your stat points into whatever your the primary stat for your class is.

 

 

I'd like allocatable stats without having stat limitations on gear, but I also don't want class limitations on gear

 

I think the ideal situation is to keep the changes made in DAI, while returning to the manual allocation of stats.

 

I also think that they took a good first step in removing class limitations on gear when crafted with particular materials. 
 

Perhaps for the next game they could remove the limitations on armor entirely, except for particular unique sets like Ancient Elven robes.

 

Weapons are still in an odd area as long as unique classes exist. I don't think they'll ever remove the warrior/rogue divide though.

[AlanC9]

I'm OK with doing stat changes through talent picks. If we need to have stat changes at all, that is. I'm still not sold on the value of having them in a levelled system. I'd prefer important chargen stat allocation choices.


I see there's an issue with everyone equipping heavy armor if we want to preserve the traditional mage and rogue looks as a common thing, but D&D handles that without referring to stats.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think they'll ever remove the warrior/rogue divide though.

They did a good job of minimizing it in DAO. But they've gone in the wrong direction ever since.

[Uccio]

Bio's never offered turn-baeed combat. BG kind of faked it with auto-pause settings, but their engines have always been RTWP. Technically, this was a problem for NWN and KotOR, since the original systems were turn-based in a way that AD&D is not.

What's good about raising attributes on level-up, anyway? It always struck me as being a weird CRPG thing that D&D 3.0 adopted for no good reason.

 

Because it makes me feel I am in control of the level up and not the game? Nor my pants?

[doc_shank]

this topic seems beaten to death but I have a simple definition of RPG which is that you have lots of customization both in your own character and your progression so it is unique depending on how you play, which it seems to me that the SP of this game fits perfectly.