Development Info Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #20: Attributes and Skills

[Mastermind]

"Expertise" attribute seems bizarre but overall I'm suitably impressed. I'm also surprised that we have designers in this modern era perpetuating the idea that it's ok for some skills to be frequently used whilst others are useful only in a few obscure situations. It's a very retarded idea.

Fixed.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

This doesn't bode well. Slightly modified SPECIAL + no less than 32 skills? This shit is bloated as hell. I foresee fallout like conditions. 3-5 of these non-combat skills are gonna be useful, tops.

 

[Brother None]

This isn't SPECIAL, and this isn't a single-PC game.

Is it really that hard to see why being a 4-PC game changes the balance of what you do in number of skills and their absolute need to see frequent use and be perfectly balanced? Have you guys not played P&P RPGs that have even wider spreads because they're team-based as well, or the party-based cRPGs of yore?

Not meaning to sound belligerent, but there *is* a very obvious difference between single and multi-PC in what you do with skills.

 

[Excidium]

P&P RPGs that have even wider spreads because they're team-based as well

That is a whooole another story. Unless Wasteland 2 comes with a revolutionary GM AI that adapts to the way players build their characters. Not to mention how P&P systems are meant to host a variety of games, so the wide spread of traits make sense. It's a p. different situation from a system designed for a specific game like this one.

the party-based cRPGs of yore?

The ones that only implemented primitive systems or the ones that were horribly designed?

 

[Gord]

How do any of the travel/survival skills work in RoA3? Do you just randomly encounter herbs when walking around outside? (Only have played BoD + Star Trail)

Standard use for herbalism was to go searching for herbs during camping on the overland map. Most others worked similarily.

Toaster repair sounds like a funny name for a general, improvisation-based repair skill.

 

[General Maxson]

This isn't SPECIAL, and this isn't a single-PC game.

Is it really that hard to see why being a 4-PC game changes the balance of what you do in number of skills and their absolute need to see frequent use and be perfectly balanced? Have you guys not played P&P RPGs that have even wider spreads because they're team-based as well, or the party-based cRPGs of yore?

Not meaning to sound belligerent, but there *is* a very obvious difference between single and multi-PC in what you do with skills.

Bro WTF is wrong with you? Even Fallout 1&2 are not good enough for Codexian standards anymore. So even if W2 comes close to those rpgs it will still be shit.

 

[Emily]

to me it seems this is fail,since there is just bloated skill number. Rather then c&c specialization perks.
i am hoping they add more specialization(character defining)and less generic broad skills

 

[Gord]

Bro WTF is wrong with you? Even Fallout 1&2 are not good enough for Codexian standards anymore. So even if W2 comes close to those rpgs it will still be shit.

Word. The only way to be considered at least mediocre is if it's as good as this one rpg with TB combat, deep, well-balanced character system, a great thoughtful story that still managed not to take itself too seriously and stayed low-key enough to not turn into a storyfag game and lots of true, meaningful C&C.
Too bad that we all forgot the name, but we are talking about it constantly it seems. You know which one.

 

[toro]

Expertise and Speed could be combined in one single attribute: Agility.

 

[Excidium]

Yeah...Speed probably only affects initiative and movement anyway.

 

[Brother None]

That is a whooole another story.

It's different, yes, but parallels still exist. You can't just do what you do in P&Ps in cRPGs, but some of the same reasons you're offering a wider array of skills in a P&P still apply, and it being party-based is one of them.

Imagine we're using New Vegas' SPECIAL, with its heavily stomped down and narrowed down skills. How do you even make 4 useful characters in that system with quickly replicating skills and making them interchangeable. A very broad skill system right off the bat helps define your different player characters, and because you have four times as many skill points to check the singular value of investing skill points at level-ups is less of a concern. That's true for any party as a whole, whether it is a cRPG or a P&P game. In a party, I can spare some points to specialize a doctor or an outdoorsman without having to worry about crippling myself for a game, heck, I know I should have some specialization and niche skills because a wide set of skills will see usage of the game and narrowing it down or taking the same skills over and over just narrows down my gameplay experience and options during the game. That's one of the defining differences in party-versus-single. I know it's been a while since we had a lot of party-based game, but that hasn't changed.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Avernum 6 had, what, 30 skills? Including unlocked ones but excluding attributes? Worked a lot better than Avadon's narrowed down, characters-can't-really-be-defined system, even if Avadon's is more balanced and clear. That seems like a poor tradeoff to me though.

The ones that only implemented primitive systems or the ones that were horribly designed?

That's not my point though, is it? They still showed you do things differently for party-based cRPGs for a reason.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

How do any of the travel/survival skills work in RoA3? Do you just randomly encounter herbs when walking around outside? (Only have played BoD + Star Trail)

Standard use for herbalism was to go searching for herbs during camping on the overland map. Most others worked similarily.
Toaster repair sounds like a funny name for a general, improvisation-based repair skill.

I thought RoA 3 had no overland map, being confined to one city and its environs.

 

[Excidium]

That is a whooole another story.

It's different, yes, but parallels still exist. You can't just do what you do in P&Ps in cRPGs, but some of the same reasons you're offering a wider array of skills in a P&P still apply, and it being party-based is one of them.

Imagine we're using New Vegas' SPECIAL, with its heavily stomped down and narrowed down skills. How do you even make 4 useful characters in that system with quickly replicating skills and making them interchangeable. A very broad skill system right off the bat helps define your different play characters, and because you have four times as many skill points to check the singular value of investing skill points at level-ups is less of a concern. That's true for any party as a whole, whether it is a cRPG or a P&P game. In a party, I can spare some points to specialize a doctor or an outdoorsman without having to worry about crippling myself for a game, but instead knowing I should have some specialization and niche skills because a wide set of skills will see usage of the game and narrowing it down or taking the same skills over and over just narrows down my gameplay experience.

That's how I see it, anyway.

The way I see it, if you want to offer a variety of build choices for a party-based game, than do it like most good rule systems nowadays and implement an extra layer of customization like feats/perks/talents/etc. That helps with defining roles a lot more than just adding a bunch of situational skills.

 

[Brother None]

The way I see it, if you want to offer a variety of build choices for a party-based game, than do it like most good rule systems nowadays and implement an extra layer of customization like feats/perks/talents/etc. That helps with defining roles a lot more than just adding a bunch of situational skills.

Also a valid option, though wouldn't those a) take a while to kick in for character definition when it comes to perks and b) largely be upgrades of existing skills or abilities rather than situational events where it feels nice to have a character who invested in a particular skillset so he can face a particular situation. If not, then what's the difference between defining a character by picking the perk "animal handling" or investing in the skill "animal handling"? In either case you are foregoing investing in an ability or upgrading an ability that may see more frequent use. Unless you're proposing making all feats/perks/talents situational-type stuff, but then wouldn't the player be disgruntled coz his only upgrade options in that field are "gimmicky"?

It's imperfect either way. I get your preference, I think, it's certainly a valid way of doing it, but I don't see how a wide skill-base with situation skills is *wrong* for a party-based game, as others have implied here. It it has drawbacks and advantages, just like any other option.

 

[Gord]

How do any of the travel/survival skills work in RoA3? Do you just randomly encounter herbs when walking around outside? (Only have played BoD + Star Trail)

Standard use for herbalism was to go searching for herbs during camping on the overland map. Most others worked similarily.
Toaster repair sounds like a funny name for a general, improvisation-based repair skill.

I thought RoA 3 had no overland map, being confined to one city and its environs.

Sorry, had missed the three. In case of RoA3 I'm not sure at the moment either, admittedly.

 

[Excidium]

The way I see it, if you want to offer a variety of build choices for a party-based game, than do it like most good rule systems nowadays and implement an extra layer of customization like feats/perks/talents/etc. That helps with defining roles a lot more than just adding a bunch of situational skills.

Also a valid option, though wouldn't those a) take a while to kick in for character definition when it comes to perks

Yes if it's a system like the one in Fallout, but it doesn't need to be.

b) largely be upgrades of existing skills or abilities rather than situational events where it feels nice to have a character who invested in a particular skillset so he can face a particular situation. If not, then what's the difference between defining a character by picking the perk "animal handling" or investing in the skill "animal handling"? In either case you are foregoing investing in an ability or upgrading an ability that may see more frequent use. Unless you're proposing making all feats/perks/talents situational-type stuff, but then wouldn't the player be disgruntled coz his only upgrade options in that field are "gimmicky"?

The difference is that skills require regular investment to be useful, and perks are usually one-time picks. Once you have the Animal Handling perk it works in all situations where it can be applied, meanwhile with just 15 in the Animal Handling skill you won't do much, so either you have an useless skill or waste points in a heavily situational one.

By the way, does this game use rolls or tresholds for skill checks?

 

[Murk]

to me it seems this is fail,since there is just bloated skill number. Rather then c&c specialization perks.
i am hoping they add more specialization(character defining)and less generic broad skills

Are you... just... throwing out buzzwords?

On the topic of broad skills and customization -- having a variety skills, even if useless in some cases, should be present. Obviously combat and certain survival skills are more important than more niche skills but, as BN pointed out, having a party allows you to have a specialized-with-more-important-skills spread around for certain classes (melee, support, healer, etc.) and also spread out some niche skills that, add some flavor and allow for some additional customization (sniper who can make fake money, doctor who is charming, etc.).

I look at something like D&D 3.5, lots of skills that are interval-point upgrades and feats that provide either one time bonuses to skills, attributes, derivations (hit, DC checks, etc) or allow for completely new abilities.

Still, having more skills, even if used infrequently, is better than not having those skills. Ideally, all skills will be important but eh, ideally a lot of shit will blah blah.

 

[Excidium]

I look at something like D&D 3.5, lots of skills that are interval-point upgrades and feats that provide either one time bonuses to skills, attributes, derivations (hit, DC checks, etc) or allow for completely new abilities.

How's that anything like the situation here?

 

[Murk]

Not a direct comment on Wasteland 2, just chiming in with my 2 cents on the topic of variety of skills and character customization. Regardless, if I cannot have things like feats/perks then more skills itself is better than less skills.

 

[almondblight]

Bro WTF is wrong with you? Even Fallout 1&2 are not good enough for Codexian standards anymore. So even if W2 comes close to those rpgs it will still be shit.

A good game does not mean a flawless one. And saying that a game could or should be improved doesn't mean you'll dislike it if its not.

 

[Excidium]

Not a direct comment on Wasteland 2, just chiming in with my 2 cents on the topic of variety of skills and character customization. Regardless, if I cannot have things like feats/perks then more skills itself is better than less skills.

And I agree, but the point is the way they are doing it isn't very interesting.

It is also stupid to make attributes into passive effects and then adding skills that could be perfectly handled by attribute checks. People are being paid to design this.

 

[tuluse]

"Outdoorsman" suggests a Fallout-like travel system?

I believe and over land travel map has been confirmed.

I will call this game utter shit if you can't find at least 10 distinct and relatively important uses for any given skill or if the skills don't have any potential for general utilisation in the system without over-reliance on one-trick-pony scripted sequences.

Small guns only has one use, shooting guns. Fallout is utter shit.

And I agree, but the point is the way they are doing it isn't very interesting.

It is also stupid to make attributes into passive effects and then adding skills that could be perfectly handled by attribute checks. People are being paid to design this.

Since skills are derived from attributes what difference does it make?

 

[General Maxson]

Bro WTF is wrong with you? Even Fallout 1&2 are not good enough for Codexian standards anymore. So even if W2 comes close to those rpgs it will still be shit.

A good game does not mean a flawless one. And saying that a game could or should be improved doesn't mean you'll dislike it if its not.

Bro, I'm just joking. But let's be realistic here. If W2 comes on par with Fallout 1&2 I'd be fucking thrilled and my mind would explode. I can't even imagine what would happen if it becomes even better. It will be a cult classic for generations. But that's already probably too far fetched.

 

[Excidium]

And I agree, but the point is the way they are doing it isn't very interesting.

It is also stupid to make attributes into passive effects and then adding skills that could be perfectly handled by attribute checks. People are being paid to design this.

Since skills are derived from attributes what difference does it make?

It's awful design? The only reason a skill like Brute Force even exists is because they decided attributes are going to be for derived stats only for some reason. How's that even a skill. What practice or training does it require?

 

[Grunker]

Did something say they would have been better off with picking a pre-designed, tested system?

I thought so