Characters, high intelligence, psions, etc. (G&T Split)

[Humppa Papan Tappaa]

As in The Real World (TM) a perfect system would punish several types of characters for being, basically, incompetent.

Why?

 

[Sander]

Why?

Because someone who has an IQ of 60, the strength of an ant, but is charismatic as Hitler and lucky as...Lassie or whatever simply won't go far. No matter how you look at it, no sane system will ever let someone like that get far, quite simply because he lacks the capabilities to go far.

A system serves mainly to formalize certain aspects of a character, but saying that a system should allow any kind of character to be succesful is silly. It's just not reasonable, nor is it useful.

 

[Humppa Papan Tappaa]

[
Why?

Because someone who has an IQ of 60, the strength of an ant, but is charismatic as Hitler and lucky as...Lassie or whatever simply won't go far. No matter how you look at it, no sane system will ever let someone like that get far, quite simply because he lacks the capabilities to go far.

I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. He'd be the lovable special needs kid that stumbles through life, tripping over winning lottery tickets and saving the world or whatever by accident. Charisma and luck just need to be equally useful to intelligence and strength.

A system serves mainly to formalize certain aspects of a character, but saying that a system should allow any kind of character to be succesful is silly. It's just not reasonable, nor is it useful.

Those "certain aspects", stats and the like - are arbitrarily chosen, and in a balanced system they would be chosen in such a way that they're all equally good choices, allowing for a multitude of good characters instead of the standard omnicompetent warrior-diplomat and a bunch of watered down variations of it.

You see, it's a game, not a simulator. Allowing a player to make an inherently underpowered character for the sake of "realism" is pointless because no normal player will do that willingly, and if they do it by accident, they'll just quit the game, frustrated, and start over. The option is better off not existing.

What is the big idea here - are you saying that gaming should be an exercise in masochism? Because that's the message I get here: that both balanced systems AND powergaming are bad. It's like the only "valid" character is the one who sucks. Shouldn't things like that be governed by the difficulty setting?

 

[Sander]

I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. He'd be the lovable special needs kid that stumbles through life, tripping over winning lottery tickets and saving the world or whatever by accident. Charisma and luck just need to be equally useful to intelligence and strength.

How about the fact that he's so weak he can't carry anything, including armor, that he will get a lot of antipathy (a la Torr) regardless of his Charisma, and that he won't be able to fight himself out of any scraps he gets into, especially in a hostile, post-nuclear world.

In the SPECIAL system, yes, Charisma and Luck should be equally important, but that doesn't mean that any combination should be a feasible one. Just like having a Luck of 1 won't get you far either, nor will a Charisma of 1, in a right system. You can't just say 'I suck at this, but I am better at that, so I must automatically be a feasible build.'

Those "certain aspects", stats and the like - are arbitrarily chosen, and in a balanced system they would be chosen in such a way that they're all equally good choices, allowing for a multitude of good characters instead of the standard omnicompetent warrior-diplomat and a bunch of watered down variations of it.

Of course. But this is a far cry from allowing any combination to be a valid one.

You see, it's a game, not a simulator. Allowing a player to make an inherently underpowered character for the sake of "realism" is pointless because no normal player will do that willingly, and if they do it by accident, they'll just quit the game, frustrated, and start over. The option is better off not existing

While a game should never be a simulation, it should always have a basis in reality. Players may choose a sucky character, but they will always consciously do it, unless they're idiots. Any sane person can see that creating a dumb character should disallow a lot of dialogue options, or that being weak will not allow you to carry much. And that's also why it often irritates players if these things don't happen.

What is the big idea here - are you saying that gaming should be an exercise in masochism? Because that's the message I get here: that both balanced systems AND powergaming are bad. It's like the only "valid" character is the one who sucks. Shouldn't things like that be governed by the difficulty setting?

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. The fact that I think a balanced system isn't the same as disallowing sucky characters leads you to the conclusion that only sucky characters are good.
Eh?
The game of Fallout is about roleplaying, meaning that you should play a character as a person, that means that you stick by a theme or type of character you play, and not just try to get the most 'power' out of the system.

 

[Humppa Papan Tappaa]

I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. He'd be the lovable special needs kid that stumbles through life, tripping over winning lottery tickets and saving the world or whatever by accident. Charisma and luck just need to be equally useful to intelligence and strength.

How about the fact that he's so weak he can't carry anything, including armor, that he will get a lot of antipathy (a la Torr) regardless of his Charisma, and that he won't be able to fight himself out of any scraps he gets into, especially in a hostile, post-nuclear world.

All of that should be offset by his luck and charisma, were luck and charisma perfectly handled. IN of 1 should have no bearing on peoples' reactions on him, because those reactions belong under the domain of his godly CH.

So he can't fight, but a character like that should not need to ever fight. Everybody except the most heartless bastards should be on his side by default, and he should have no trouble whatsoever recruiting allies to protect him. In the towns even random townspeople should run to his aid, and on the map he should almost never get a bad special encounter.

Likewise, an inverted character would be supremely capable by himself, but universally hated and wracked with a catastrophe after catastrophe.

(Oh, and ST 1 is still plenty for wearing armor and wielding melee weapons.)

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. The fact that I think a balanced system isn't the same as disallowing sucky characters ...

What, pray tell, is your definition of a balanced system then, an ideal, perfectly balanced system, if not one where all options are equally good?

The game of Fallout is about roleplaying, meaning that you should play a character as a person, that means that you stick by a theme or type of character you play, and not just try to get the most 'power' out of the system.

Yet you think the system should be built in such a way that people are penalized for trying to play anything except one of the few character concepts that work.

A system that promotes roleplaying is a system where you don't need to worry about whether your character is good enough. Doing that isn't a problem with the players, it's a problem within the game.

 

[Sander]

All of that should be offset by his luck and charisma, were luck and charisma perfectly handled. IN of 1 should have no bearing on peoples' reactions on him, because those reactions belong under the domain of his godly CH.

Based in realism: bull. Most people will have a reaction along the lines of 'What an idiot', his charisma making it a 'What a really likeable moron'. Whoop-di-doo.

So he can't fight, but a character like that should not need to ever fight. Everybody except the most heartless bastards should be on his side by default, and he should have no trouble whatsoever recruiting allies to protect him. In the towns even random townspeople should run to his aid, and on the map he should almost never get a bad special encounter.

Considering the fact that raiders are always abound and that they have rather little regard for Charisma, I call bull.
As is the case with many other scenarios, people seeing him as a rival will not care for his charisma but have him killed, and intelligent people won't really let him do anything because he's too dumb.

(Oh, and ST 1 is still plenty for wearing armor and wielding melee weapons.)

No, not really. It's about enough to start swinging things, but without much force, and hence with little destructive power.

What, pray tell, is your definition of a balanced system then, an ideal, perfectly balanced system, if not one where all options are equally good?

A perfectly balanced system would be one where all attributes that have interchangeable 'points' have approximately an equal worth within the game. This is NOT the same as saying that every build is a viable one, since this doesn't discount needing all of the attributes.

Yet you think the system should be built in such a way that people are penalized for trying to play anything except one of the few character concepts that work.

What? No I don't. I am promoting a system that doesn't reward playing moronic builds. There is a huge difference between themed builds, and moronic builds. A themed build would be a sneak, or a pacifist who tries to talk his way out of every fight (or run away), or an evil villain, or the dumb strong-arm.

A system that promotes roleplaying is a system where you don't need to worry about whether your character is good enough. Doing that isn't a problem with the players, it's a problem within the game.

No, a system that promotes roleplaying is one where you can design a character as how you'd like it, accompanied by a game that allows you to play it, and, most importantly, that all choices are accompanied by their consequences. This includes choices made in the character system.

 

[Humppa Papan Tappaa]

Based in realism: bull.

Stop right there. Real life is NOT an example of a good, balanced game. It's unfair, badly designed and less fun than advertised.

Considering the fact that raiders are always abound and that they have rather little regard for Charisma...

An example of CH being handled badly. Charisma's ONLY purpose is to make people like you, to influence them. It's very definition is "the stat that measures your ability to make people like you". If you have CH 10, it should matter F.A. what your other stats are: one way or another people just like you, period, end of argument, and if they don't? Then you don't have a high charisma.

Intellect does NOT enter the equation at any point. If you desperately need a real-world connection, assume that CH encompasses the necessary parts of those brands of intellect that help you socially, but kindly do not argue further that a character with a maxed-out CH should rightfully have any trouble making friends.

(Oh, and ST 1 is still plenty for wearing armor and wielding melee weapons.)

No, not really. It's about enough to start swinging things, but without much force, and hence with little destructive power.

The effect of ST in melee damage is miniscule and, once you get the upper tier melee weapons, irrelevant. But that's off-topic.

A perfectly balanced system would be one where all attributes that have interchangeable 'points' have approximately an equal worth within the game. This is NOT the same as saying that every build is a viable one, since this doesn't discount needing all of the attributes.

So you basically say that only a certain subset of available options should be balanced. I don't see how that can be justified.

Yet you think the system should be built in such a way that people are penalized for trying to play anything except one of the few character concepts that work.

What? No I don't. I am promoting a system that doesn't reward playing moronic builds. There is a huge difference between themed builds, and moronic builds. A themed build would be a sneak, or a pacifist who tries to talk his way out of every fight (or run away), or an evil villain, or the dumb strong-arm.

Yes you do. There is no intrinsic difference between what you label as "moronic builds" and "theme builds", except that you approve of one pile and not of the other. What makes you think you should be any more successful playing your villain or sneakster or dumb ox, than our example above, Timmy the Lovable Retard? One player's "theme build" is another's "moronic build". Who are you to decide which is which?

The first character I made, all the way back in FO1, I imagined as a quick, slick gunslinger. I gave him Fast Shot, Kamikaze, AG 10, the works, perfectly reasonable in my mind - and it of course sucked terribly. I had to use up my initial ammo on the rats in the starting cavern. Only after abandoning my vision and creating a character that was mechanically good instead of conceptually good did I have any success, and no, that's not okay.

Currently, every possible build other than the basic Omnicompetent is penalized, in varying degrees, by them being less good than it at everything. They are the current "moronic builds". If instead of this there would be, let's be generous, ten equally viable builds, there would still be thousands of builds left that get penalized, every one of them somebody's "theme build". The only way out is to make it impossible, or at least so difficult that you'd have to consciously try, to make a bad character.

Once more for the road; I see no rational reason (other than that min-maxing can be fun) why the game should allow the player to accidentally make a bad character. A character that needs to be used differently, yes; a character that sucks no matter how you use it, NO. The character creation system isn't a part of the game; the game is where you go around and do things.

No, a system that promotes roleplaying is one where you can design a character as how you'd like it, accompanied by a game that allows you to play it, and, most importantly, that all choices are accompanied by their consequences. This includes choices made in the character system.

You do realize that by that definition, every system imaginable is roleplaying-friendly as long as it allows many options, even if all of the options except one suck completely? "You chose to play a druid, now deal with the consequences!"

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Based in realism: bull. Most people will have a reaction along the lines of 'What an idiot', his charisma making it a 'What a really likeable moron'. Whoop-di-doo.

Right, and the whole concept of mutant-ridden post-nuclear wasteland is highly realistic.

What Humpa is proposing is some kind of an "indigo child" archetype. While most people wouldn't give a damn about the the PC, a few bastards would want to rape him and/or sell him into slavery, but for every such bastard there would be at least one kind person who wants to help him, either because they are just plain generous or because they see him as the second coming of Christ. His high luck would ensure that the latter are always around to protect him from the former.

Considering the fact that raiders are always abound and that they have rather little regard for Charisma, I call bull.
As is the case with many other scenarios, people seeing him as a rival will not care for his charisma but have him killed, and intelligent people won't really let him do anything because he's too dumb.

Your lack of imagination amazes me.

No, not really. It's about enough to start swinging things, but without much force, and hence with little destructive power.

Good thing Humpa's character doesn't need to swing anything, ever.

A perfectly balanced system would be one where all attributes that have interchangeable 'points' have approximately an equal worth within the game. This is NOT the same as saying that every build is a viable one, since this doesn't discount needing all of the attributes.

Correct, in order for every build in the system to be viable, the game which utilizes the system needs to be balanced for every build - something which has never been accomplished in a CRPG.

What? No I don't. I am promoting a system that doesn't reward playing moronic builds. There is a huge difference between themed builds, and moronic builds. A themed build would be a sneak, or a pacifist who tries to talk his way out of every fight (or run away), or an evil villain, or the dumb strong-arm.

And you are some kind of an authority on which build are "moronic" and which aren't? I really don't see what makes a "charismatic and lucky retard"-build more moronic that "dumb strongarm"-build. The only moronic build is the one which purposefully violates the ruleset by neglecting legitimate bonuses to character stats (a character who takes no perks, for example). But if we go with your reasoning and declare the "charismatic and lucky retard" build "moronic", then why stop there? Why not declare the pacifist moronic as well? We are talking about a post-apocalyptic wasteland, an environment where, realistically (because you seem to be strongly in favor of realism), a person has no virtually chance of survival without getting their hands bloody every now and then. Why not - along a similar line of thought - declare *evil* character builds moronic, something BioWare apparently did when designing every game prior to KotOR? See how easy it is to disembowel a CRPG? All you need to do is arbitrarily label legitimate features as "moronic".

No, a system that promotes roleplaying is one where you can design a character as how you'd like it, accompanied by a game that allows you to play it, and, most importantly, that all choices are accompanied by their consequences. This includes choices made in the character system.

Even if the game becomes impossibly difficult and completely devoid of fun because of shitty balancing? According to your reasoning, Diablo II can easily pass for a CRPG, seeing as people have managed to beat it with unarmed fighters, spellcasting barbarians and pacifist characters (who evaded all enemies but bosses).

No, I don't think so. A CRPG needs to be designed in such manner that all character builds permitted by the ruleset are at least remotely playable.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Because someone who has an IQ of 60, the strength of an ant, but is charismatic as Hitler and lucky as...Lassie or whatever simply won't go far.

Unless you count becoming the president of the United States as "far"...

 

[Per]

If you have CH 10, it should matter F.A. what your other stats are: one way or another people just like you, period, end of argument, and if they don't? Then you don't have a high charisma.

I think you have a good point, although you take the argument a bit far (a lot of people in the wasteland would respond to your guy's charming smile with a punch in the teeth). Saying that one stat should potentially outweigh all others is nonsensical even compared to the current IN/AG paradigm.

The system should be designed so that char points invested in different stats are somewhat equal; it shouldn't try to trick you or reward foreknowledge of how just many spike traps there are gonna be or whatever. However, I agree with Sander that this doesn't mean that all builds are or should be equal. Ideally, synergies should arise naturally from an impartial framework of stats and characteristics. If all builds were truly equal, it'd be somewhat less interesting for the optimization-minded of us, and frankly I don't think that could be done anyway.

They were going in the right direction with SPECIAL as intended: CH was supposed to affect reactions, and IN your options given the situation. Some people would have sets of good or bad or neutral options depending on reaction; some would just have bad ones (haughtily ask for directions? Punch in the teeth. Talk about the weather? Punch in the teeth. Smile the best smile ever? Punch in the teeth). However, the reaction system was badly designed and the dialogue trees weren't constructed with reaction in mind, so CH didn't mean squat in the end anyway (in Fo1).

Here I almost started going on about Arcanum and its theoretically wonderful wonderful wonderful make-a-thousand-builds-and-do-whatever character system and how it fell a bit flat, but let's not go there.

"You chose to play a druid, now deal with the consequences!"

But druids are overpowered in 3.5.

there would be at least one kind person who wants to help him, either because they are just plain generous or because they see him as the second coming of Christ. His high luck would ensure that the latter are always around to protect him from the former.

Christ would be around to protect him from kind people? What?

 

[Humppa Papan Tappaa]

If you have CH 10, it should matter F.A. what your other stats are: one way or another people just like you, period, end of argument, and if they don't? Then you don't have a high charisma.

I think you have a good point, although you take the argument a bit far ... Saying that one stat should potentially outweigh all others is nonsensical even compared to the current IN/AG paradigm.

Only considering that one aspect of the game, of course.

Saying that things other than CH should affect how well liked you are (to the point of nullifying a maxed out CH, says Sander) is like saying things other than ST should affect your carry weight, melee damage and weapon reqs to the point of nullifying a high ST, given that literally the only thing CH is even supposed to be good for is making friends.

 

[Per]

Saying that things other than CH should affect how well liked you are (to the point of nullifying a maxed out CH, says Sander) is like saying things other than ST should affect your carry weight, melee damage and weapon reqs to the point of nullifying a high ST, given that literally the only thing CH is even supposed to be good for is making friends.

Behaviour and benevolence are two quite different things.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

See above. I see it as consequences of a balanced system, really.
For instance, let's look at a science boy, a nerd if you wish. Knowing beforehand that you're going to be running into a wasteland with almost only broken technology and quite little you can go fix, and that you're going to have to go out into a barren wasteland which is probably rather hostile and not too populated with intelligent, let alone friendly, life, how smart would it be to go out into the wasteland knowing almost nothing about fighting, but knowing a lot about physics? It'll logically make your life a lot harder than choosing someone who knows how to fight and can talk a bit.
Of course, in a balanced system, the science skills will be just as important as the fighting skills, but, and this is a major 'but', this means that the system should be adjusted for the playing world to make this so.

Very well, let's expand on your example and assume that a player has designed a pacifist character with tagged science, repair and doctor, and invested most points in non-combat attributes. In a well balanced CRPG, the player should be able to beat the game without undergoing excruciating frustration and difficulty. Though I agree that certain parts should inevitably be more difficult for this player than for someone who plays a character with good fighting abilities (simply because if a fight is forced on the science character, he is more likely to get killed - this would hold true for any RPG, not just a post-apocalyptic one), to label the science design as "moronic" or "unviable" is to completely miss the whole point of roleplaying. In P&P roleplaying you have a DM, and if said DM is any good, he will find a way to make the game experience accessible and enjoyable for all kinds of characters. In computer roleplaying, the game is an automated DM, and as such it must accomodate player characters of all profiles, regardless of whether they can fight or not.

Concerning your "science boy" example: what kind of an inbred moron wouldn't want a person who can repair stuff and heal people in his company? At worst, this person would be captured by a vicious band of raiders and made their slave, but more likely he would make a living travelling the wasteland in company of hired guards or caravans and placing his skills at disposal of those who require them. I'd say the "science box" would have equal - if not better! - chances of survival than a skilled gunman. In the wasteland everyone and their mother has a gun and a bad attitude, but few know how to perform a surgical bypass.

Things that aren't made to be realistic should have a tie in realism as to not annoy people. How would you like it if you discovered suddenly that rocks floated in Ultima? Say 'Ah well, magic wasn't realistic anyway?' It's things like that that kill immersion.

I agree, but I am talking about different categories of realism. Remember, Fallout is a game. If in this game a piece of technology in a high-tech underground fallout shelter can malfunction and a wandering doctor can stumble upon vats filled with a highly mutagenic virus, triggering a chain of events that could change the face of the entire post-apocalyptic world, then I don't see why you are bothered by the prospect of a charismatic, lucky idiot becoming the main protagonist and savior of humanity, because all of those occurences are pretty damn unlikely in the real world.

Found this in the world the kid would be living in: a hostile, post-nuclear world where most people are more inclined to kick you in the head than ask what you're doing in their house in the wasteland.

How hard is it to understand that people of the wasteland wouldn't react to such a kid in the same manner as they would react to someone else? And in the unlikey event they aren't influenced by his *extreme* charisma, he still has *extreme* luck to bail him out. And if that fails, the player can do something even the most badass fighter character resorts to from time to time - reload the game.

The point we have been trying to get across is that charisma and luck need to be as potent in the game world as, for example, agility and strength - something you constantly refuse to accept. See, a character with high agility and good combat skills can overcome any obstacle in the game world, because he is successful in what is invariably the last possible resolution of any situation - combat. What I am trying to explain is that the game should be designed in such manner that any situation either has enough possible resolutions to accomodate characters of *all* profiles, or can be avoided altogether by characters of those profiles which lack the abilities necessary to achieve either implemented resolution without being overly handicapped by experience lost. Because *that* is one of the major points of roleplaying.

Oh, I can think of many scenarios in which the child would be saved, but to have those scenarios occur every single time the kid would get into trouble would be bullshit. High Luck and high charisma are no guarantees, they only make things more likely. The same should go for the other attributes, really, to make the system balanced.

This is a roleplaying game. A fucking *game*. It can and *should* be designed so that such scenarios can occur at every obstacle the kid encounters. And if they don't, there is always the reload option.

I seem to remember putting in the clause 'design a character as how you'd like it'
If the only options are the ones of Diablo 2, this obviously does not hold for that game, eh?

Consider it a simplified model.

 

[Sander]

Very well, let's expand on your example and assume that a player has designed a pacifist character with tagged science, repair and doctor, and invested most points in non-combat attributes. In a well balanced CRPG, the player should be able to beat the game without undergoing excruciating frustration and difficulty. Though I agree that certain parts should inevitably be more difficult for this player than for someone who plays a character with good fighting abilities (simply because if a fight is forced on the science character, he is more likely to get killed - this would hold true for any RPG, not just a post-apocalyptic one), to label the science design as "moronic" or "unviable" is to completely miss the whole point of roleplaying. In P&P roleplaying you have a DM, and if said DM is any good, he will find a way to make the game experience accessible and enjoyable for all kinds of characters. In computer roleplaying, the game is an automated DM, and as such it must accomodate player characters of all profiles, regardless of whether they can fight or not.

Yep, if the game is well-balanced, then a character like a science boy could be very viable. However, this is entirely dependent on the designers of the game, not the designers of the system. Simply because they determine how a game is played. This has nothing to do with the balanced system, however, because in a balanced system every attribute would be equally important, which would imply that, for the system, the value of a science skill is equal to the value of a combat skill. This does mean that the system should be adjusted for the game it is designed for, for instance in a hostile post-apocalyptic world, several science skills should be lumped into one and perhaps combat skills seperated into different skills, to make sure that every skill point spent is equally important.

However, again, this does not mean that every character

Concerning your "science boy" example: what kind of an inbred moron wouldn't want a person who can repair stuff and heal people in his company? At worst, this person would be captured by a vicious band of raiders and made their slave, but more likely he would make a living travelling the wasteland in company of hired guards or caravans and placing his skills at disposal of those who require them. I'd say the "science box" would have equal - if not better! - chances of survival than a skilled gunman. In the wasteland everyone and their mother has a gun and a bad attitude, but few know how to perform a surgical bypass.

Give me a break, Ratty. A science boy may be useful, but by the time most raiders (for instance) would find about it he'd be dead.

I agree, but I am talking about different categories of realism. Remember, Fallout is a game. If in this game a piece of technology in a high-tech underground fallout shelter can malfunction and a wandering doctor can stumble upon vats filled with a highly mutagenic virus, triggering a chain of events that could change the face of the entire post-apocalyptic world, then I don't see why you are bothered by the prospect of a charismatic, lucky idiot becoming the main protagonist and savior of humanity, because all of those occurences are pretty damn unlikely in the real world.

That's a pretty dumb comparison. A piece of technology malfunction is not unlikely at all, especially not in a time-span of some 100 years. As for the wandering doctor: the scenario is more likely than you make it seem. The wandering doctor was seeking out the source of a lot of problems with an entire company of armed pals, they came across the vats as the source of problems, and he fell in. The fact that he then went insane and was intelligent enough to realise a lot of things is also well-explained in Fallout, making it a lot likelier.

The fact that a Lucky, Charismatic but incredibly weak and retarded kid can make it is a lot more unlikely. That's not to say that it can't happen, but the odds are just as likely as it happening at all in the current Fallout 1 game. Which is about right, I'd say.

Now, I want to end this Indigo Kid thing right now. It was an example, and picking that one example apart on extreme cases (as in: it is theoretically possible...but etc.) isn't proving anything. The point I have had here is that a balanced system does not mean every build is a viable one, but that every attribute should be equally important.
Which would mean in the SPECIAL system that a Strong, Intelligent but completely unsympathetic and extremely unlucky character should be just as unviable as that Indigo Kid.
Again: this is just an example, one that probably illustrates that SPECIAL isn't all that balanced when combined with the way Fallout has been constructed.

How hard is it to understand that people of the wasteland wouldn't react to such a kid in the same manner as they would react to someone else? And in the unlikey event they aren't influenced by his *extreme* charisma, he still has *extreme* luck to bail him out. And if that fails, the player can do something even the most badass fighter character resorts to from time to time - reload the game.

How hard is it for you to understand that within the setting of the wasteland, this just ain't gonna happen. Full stop.
Think about it: in an environment where everyone is willing to talk, and doesn't need to constantly think about their own survival, yes, this would be a lot more likely, but this is a wasteland, as hostile and desolate as it gets.

Besides that, your theory would consequently have to mean that any attribute at 10 should solve almost all situations, meaning that 10 EN would mean 'invincible', 10 AG would be unhittable, 10 PE would be unable to miss, 10 ST would be having the strength of Atlas.
Think about it, having those things happen is just as much bullshit.

The point we have been trying to get across is that charisma and luck need to be as potent in the game world as, for example, agility and strength - something you constantly refuse to accept. See, a character with high agility and good combat skills can overcome any obstacle in the game world, because he is successful in what is invariably the last possible resolution of any situation - combat.

Eh? Rat, you should start reading my posts, because I've said all along that a balanced system is one where all attributes are equally important. Meaning exactly what you just said, that charisma and luck should be just as potent as agility and strength, within the SPECIAL system. So don't say that I'm refusing to accept that, because you're the one refusing to actually read those lines in my posts, Rat.

What I am trying to explain is that the game should be designed in such manner that any situation either has enough possible resolutions to accomodate characters of *all* profiles, or can be avoided altogether by characters of those profiles which lack the abilities necessary to achieve either implemented resolution without being overly handicapped by experience lost. Because *that* is one of the major points of roleplaying.

Again: that's the responsibility of the game, not of the system.

Besides that, a game simply cannot accomodate for everything, mainly because that's much too much work for just too little result.
And one of the a lot more important foundations of roleplaying is the principle of 'choice and consequence'. And choices made when designing a character and build also hold consequences. And any DM would agree on that point; no DM would ever be able to let the Indigo Kid participate just as much in a game as the more reasonable builds, and still let him survive. He can't talk, so interaction is practically impossible, fighting is out of the question, so all the 'interaction' he'd be getting is running around having people help him out. Whoop-di-doo. Again: this is only one example, but this goes for a lot of possible builds.

This is a roleplaying game. A fucking *game*. It can and *should* be designed so that such scenarios can occur at every obstacle the kid encounters. And if they don't, there is always the reload option.

Yes, Rat, *can* occur, not should also occur at every one of those paths.

Consider it a simplified model.

You provided a counter-example to counter my point, I proceeded to show you that it was an inapplicable counter-example. So come up with something better, don't just say 'simplified', I can't argue against 'simplified'.

EDIT: Heh, what the hell, I'll just kick around your previous example some more. I was talking about a balanced system, never did I say anything about CRPGs, so yes, for all the intents Diablo 2 was made for, it utilizes a balanced system.
Besides that, you also mentioned, for some reason, that a game could become unfun because of 'shitty balancing'. How would this be different from your point that a game should be viable with every possible build? How does that somehow make it impossible to make a game unfun because you balanced it shittily?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Yep, if the game is well-balanced, then a character like a science boy could be very viable. However, this is entirely dependent on the designers of the game, not the designers of the system. Simply because they determine how a game is played. This has nothing to do with the balanced system, however, because in a balanced system every attribute would be equally important, which would imply that, for the system, the value of a science skill is equal to the value of a combat skill. This does mean that the system should be adjusted for the game it is designed for, for instance in a hostile post-apocalyptic world, several science skills should be lumped into one and perhaps combat skills seperated into different skills, to make sure that every skill point spent is equally important.

Yes, that is a good point. Not every system is suited for every game. But if you ask me, SPECIAL is adequate for a PA RPG, it just needs changes to certain aspects (skills, for example) to be more suitable.

Give me a break, Ratty. A science boy may be useful, but by the time most raiders (for instance) would find about it he'd be dead.

In a proper CRPG, combat is avoidable.

That's a pretty dumb comparison. A piece of technology malfunction is not unlikely at all, especially not in a time-span of some 100 years. As for the wandering doctor: the scenario is more likely than you make it seem. The wandering doctor was seeking out the source of a lot of problems with an entire company of armed pals, they came across the vats as the source of problems, and he fell in. The fact that he then went insane and was intelligent enough to realise a lot of things is also well-explained in Fallout, making it a lot likelier.

Yeah? I haven't heard of any other vaults that had their water chip malfunction, even though I have been led to believe there are hundreds of them throughout USA. Or any other vaults that didn't receive a spare one. To make the irony even greater, the vault which experienced water chip malfunction was Vault 13. Yep, that's *totally* likely to happen.

Now, I want to end this Indigo Kid thing right now. It was an example, and picking that one example apart on extreme cases (as in: it is theoretically possible...but etc.) isn't proving anything. The point I have had here is that a balanced system does not mean every build is a viable one, but that every attribute should be equally important.
Which would mean in the SPECIAL system that a Strong, Intelligent but completely unsympathetic and extremely unlucky character should be just as unviable as that Indigo Kid.
Again: this is just an example, one that probably illustrates that SPECIAL isn't all that balanced when combined with the way Fallout has been constructed.

There is nothing deeply wrong with SPECIAL. I don't claim that. SPECIAL is good. SPECIAL supports crazy character builds like the indigo child, and supports them well. The problem lies with Fallout and the way it was designed. Fallout isn't very "indigo child-friendly", and I argue that it should be.

How hard is it for you to understand that within the setting of the wasteland, this just ain't gonna happen. Full stop.

How hard is it for you to understand that you aren't a game designer and therefore don't get to decide what is and isn't possible within the setting of the wasteland?

Besides that, your theory would consequently have to mean that any attribute at 10 should solve almost all situations, meaning that 10 EN would mean 'invincible', 10 AG would be unhittable, 10 PE would be unable to miss, 10 ST would be having the strength of Atlas.
Think about it, having those things happen is just as much bullshit.

I'm clearly not implying that, and that clearly doesn't hold true for any RPG. What I'm saying is that the player character should be able to deal with any situation using the approach he excells in. So, if a character with ST 10 gets to kick the crap out of his enemies, I don't see why a character with IN 10 shouldn't be able to defeat them by outwitting them, or why a character with CH 10 shouldn't be able to charm them into leaving him alone. I want equal opportunity for everyone, that's all.

Eh? Rat, you should start reading my posts, because I've said all along that a balanced system is one where all attributes are equally important. Meaning exactly what you just said, that charisma and luck should be just as potent as agility and strength, within the SPECIAL system. So don't say that I'm refusing to accept that, because you're the one refusing to actually read those lines in my posts, Rat.

Of course. I'm not talking about the system itself, but rather how it is implemented in games.

Again: that's the responsibility of the game, not of the system.

Which is precisely what I was talking about. Go figure.

Besides that, a game simply cannot accomodate for everything, mainly because that's much too much work for just too little result.
And one of the a lot more important foundations of roleplaying is the principle of 'choice and consequence'. And choices made when designing a character and build also hold consequences. And any DM would agree on that point; no DM would ever be able to let the Indigo Kid participate just as much in a game as the more reasonable builds, and still let him survive. He can't talk, so interaction is practically impossible, fighting is out of the question, so all the 'interaction' he'd be getting is running around having people help him out. Whoop-di-doo. Again: this is only one example, but this goes for a lot of possible builds.

A valiant and imaginative DM can do just that, and more.

You know, from now on I'll be playing an indigo child in all games out of spite.

Yes, Rat, *can* occur, not should also occur at every one of those paths.

Then the player should be able to avoid that path altogether without suffering too much, experience-wise.

EDIT: Heh, what the hell, I'll just kick around your previous example some more. I was talking about a balanced system, never did I say anything about CRPGs, so yes, for all the intents Diablo 2 was made for, it utilizes a balanced system.
Besides that, you also mentioned, for some reason, that a game could become unfun because of 'shitty balancing'. How would this be different from your point that a game should be viable with every possible build? How does that somehow make it impossible to make a game unfun because you balanced it shittily?

There seems to have been a bit of miscommunication on our parts. What I implicitly tried to explain was that all this claptrap about "balanced system" is meaningless if a game fails to incorporate it properly. All my points are related to game design, not RPG ruleset design, and I really don't give two shits if SPECIAL needs some more polishing before it is entirely suited for a PA CRPG. I claim that lack of balance in Fallout (and just about every CRPG) stems not from the character system, but from game design imperfections. Look at, for example, Planescape Torment and Neverwinter Nights to see two implementations of the same system that drastically differ in quality. An analogous comparison would be that of Fallout and Lionheart. SPECIAL, in its present form, is a *pretty solid* system. After all, it lets you create an indigo child. However, it is up to designers to make such a character build viable within the context of the game.

 

[Sander]

Yeah? I haven't heard of any other vaults that had their water chip malfunction, even though I have been led to believe there are hundreds of them throughout USA. Or any other vaults that didn't receive a spare one. To make the irony even greater, the vault which experienced water chip malfunction was Vault 13. Yep, that's *totally* likely to happen.

There were three Vaults in Fallout 1. In Fallout 2, there was only one more. Making a total of four, and you don't know anything about those other vaults whatsoever. Furthermore, not every Vault was as dependent on their water chip as was Vault 13. Necropolis, for instance, also had the water pumps.
The fact that it was Vault 13 isn't unlikely either: it had to happen in a Vault, didn't it?

There is nothing deeply wrong with SPECIAL. I don't claim that. SPECIAL is good. SPECIAL supports crazy character builds like the indigo child, and supports them well. The problem lies with Fallout and the way it was designed. Fallout isn't very "indigo child-friendly", and I argue that it should be.

well, then that would be a problem in the implementation of SPECIAL within Fallout.

How hard is it for you to understand that you aren't a game designer and therefore don't get to decide what is and isn't possible within the setting of the wasteland?

Hah. Fallout's designers are game designers, so by your logic, they should decide. Which means that an Indigo Child is not possible within the setting of a wasteland.
Besides that, I'm arguing on logic that an Indigo Child, while theoretically possible, is not likely whatsoever.

I'm clearly not implying that, and that clearly doesn't hold true for any RPG. What I'm saying is that the player character should be able to deal with any situation using the approach he excells in. So, if a character with ST 10 gets to kick the crap out of his enemies, I don't see why a character with IN 10 shouldn't be able to defeat them by outwitting them, or why a character with CH 10 shouldn't be able to charm them into leaving him alone. I want equal opportunity for everyone, that's all.

Hm, difference. I'd say that you're describing equal importance of each attribute, not equal opportunity for everyone.

However, I'll also say that this is silly. Not everything can be solved with every random attribute, mainly becausenot every attribute can be applicable in each situation.

A valiant and imaginative DM can do just that, and more.

You know, from now on I'll be playing an indigo child in all games out of spite.

Have fun with not doing much, then, Ratty.
And yes, a DM *can* do that, but at some point he'll stop doing it because it'll start to be so unlikely that it's killing immersion and pissing off the other players because the Indigo Child doesn't actually have to do anything.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Hah. Fallout's designers are game designers, so by your logic, they should decide. Which means that an Indigo Child is not possible within the setting of a wasteland.
Besides that, I'm arguing on logic that an Indigo Child, while theoretically possible, is not likely whatsoever.

The only reason why indigo child doesn't work too well in Fallout is because a character with very low intellect is automatically barred from a large number of quests, yet isn't offered any additional quests to compensate for missed experience. Also, charisma and luck are underpowered attributes in the game - which is entirely designers' fault. Though perhaps I am being too hard on poor Fallout, since it is likely the only CRPG which lets you play a "dumb" game.

Why are we calling the lovable retard an indigo child, anyway? Aren't indigo children supposed to be autistic geniuses or something?

Hm, difference. I'd say that you're describing equal importance of each attribute, not equal opportunity for everyone.

However, I'll also say that this is silly. Not everything can be solved with every random attribute, mainly becausenot every attribute can be applicable in each situation.

...except agility, perception and intelligence, right? Because as it stands, those attributes suffice in 99% of situations.

Have fun with not doing much, then, Ratty.
And yes, a DM *can* do that, but at some point he'll stop doing it because it'll start to be so unlikely that it's killing immersion and pissing off the other players because the Indigo Child doesn't actually have to do anything.

Remember the retarded kid from the movie Cube? Everyone thought he was just a useless moron, yet he almost saved them all because he could factorize numbers quickly. I say "almost", because some psychotic policeman (who probably put all his points to agility, perception and strength like the predictable jackass he is) went apeshit and killed everyone but him.

Moral of the story: my character would survive the Cube and yours wouldn't.

 

[Sander]

The only reason why indigo child doesn't work too well in Fallout is because a character with very low intellect is automatically barred from a large number of quests, yet isn't offered any additional quests to compensate for missed experience. Also, charisma and luck are underpowered attributes in the game - which is entirely designers' fault. Though perhaps I am being too hard on poor Fallout, since it is likely the only CRPG which lets you play a "dumb" game.

How, pray tell, should they have devised quests for someone who can't speak and can't fight?
Yes, Charisma is underpowered (Luck arguably isn't, although its effect is not as obvious), and that should be changed. Making the indigo child reasonably playable is too much effort for too little result, really.

Why are we calling the lovable retard an indigo child, anyway? Aren't indigo children supposed to be autistic geniuses or something?

Because I tired of typing loveable retard, and you started calling him an indigo child.

...except agility, perception and intelligence, right? Because as it stands, those attributes suffice in 99% of situations.

Not on their own they don't. I've never used Intelligence to kill raiders, for instance, or agility and perception to win a fist-fight.

Remember the retarded kid from the movie Cube? Everyone thought he was just a useless moron, yet he almost saved them all because he could factorize numbers quickly. I say "almost", because some psychotic policeman (who probably put all his points to agility, perception and strength like the predictable jackass he is) went apeshit and killed everyone but him.

Moral of the story: my character would survive the Cube and yours wouldn't.

Except that mine would be the psychotic policeman. Or something.
Never saw the movie, but the fact that he can factorize numbers quickly implies a high intelligence, really. So there.
But, again, as I said, it *can* happen, but the likeliness of it happening should be really low, because stretching reality that far really kills immersion.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Not on their own they don't. I've never used Intelligence to kill raiders, for instance, or agility and perception to win a fist-fight.

Don't be a nutjob. With a high intelligence you can avoid almost every gunfight (unless you go around fishing for random encounters with raiders or something). My point is - intelligence and agility/perception don't complement each other, but are interchangeable. My original point is - all attributes should be interchangeable, not just those two or three overpowered ones.

Except that mine would be the psychotic policeman. Or something.
Never saw the movie, but the fact that he can factorize numbers quickly implies a high intelligence, really. So there.

Nope, the kid was retarded through and through, he just had an inexplicable ability to factorize numbers faster than humanly possible. It's not as far-fetched as you think, there has been a number of recorded cases of people who are severely mentally handicapped, yet possess some preternatural talent, mostly mathematical.

But, again, as I said, it *can* happen, but the likeliness of it happening should be really low, because stretching reality that far really kills immersion.

Well, if you think the reality is stretched too far, you can simply play the game with an alternate character (and in case of P&P roleplaying, the DM can ban such characters if he wishes). The rest of us can enjoy being lovable retards.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

The rest of us can enjoy being lovable retards.

New Sig.