Sander and requiem discuss SPECIAL part 2

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Also, the book argument is silly since one of the most useful skills (small guns) also has books for it.

How does that make it silly? For a melee character small guns isn't useful at all.

Also, not every in-game action requires or should require a skill check to perform, you know.

No there's no need for a walking or running skill, or a scratching a butt skill but if the action has a consequence shouldn't there be a skill check?

 

[Sander]

Also, the book argument is silly since one of the most useful skills (small guns) also has books for it.

How does that make it silly? For a melee character small guns isn't useful at all.

Yes, and for a science character gambling isn't useful.
So? That's not the point. You claimed that the books make science a balanced skill, which if true would make small guns horribly unbalanced.

No there's no need for a walking or running skill, or a scratching a butt skill but if the action has a consequence shouldn't there be a skill check?

Not unless there logically should be a skill check. You don't want to go down into roll playing.

 

[Sorrow]

I don't like the notion that all skills should be equal.

 

[Sander]

I don't like the notion that all skills should be equal.

Useful remark there, Sorrow. Care to explain or enlighten us?

 

[Sorrow]

Simply, some skills are basic necessary skills like weapons skills, some are very useful social skills, some are skills that are useful in specific situations (like Science) and some are more for a taste like gambling.

I never had any problems with picking skills because of that.
Of course there are two skills that cause serious problems - Traps and Outdoorsman.
They are underused, but on the other hand if they were used enough to be really useful, they would end up as necessary skills (at least Outdoorsman would).

 

[Brother None]

Simply, some skills are basic necessary skills like weapons skills, some are very useful social skills, some are skills that are useful in specific situations (like Science) and some are more for a taste like gambling.

This is one of the weaknesses of SPECIAL vs. GURPS. I don't know in what way they were implementing GURPS, but GURPS allows for for skills to be classified in "difficulty to learn" from Easy, Average, Hard, to Very Hard (Very Hard only being overpowered skills like Psionics). That way, a useless skill like gambling could be easy to learn and a vital skill like speech could be hard.

It's a good balancing system, a shame they cut it for SPECIAL.

 

[Sander]

Simply, some skills are basic necessary skills like weapons skills, some are very useful social skills, some are skills that are useful in specific situations (like Science) and some are more for a taste like gambling.

And this is an indictment of every skill being equally powerful how, exactly? Yes, every skill has a different use. That's rather obvious. But that doesn't mean that one skill needs to be less applicable in the gameworld than another.

 

[Sorrow]

This is one of the weaknesses of SPECIAL vs. GURPS. I don't know in what way they were implementing GURPS, but GURPS allows for for skills to be classified in "difficulty to learn" from Easy, Average, Hard, to Very Hard (Very Hard only being overpowered skills like Psionics).

That could be interesting. Still it would weird if for example science would be an easy or average skill.

That way, a useless skill like gambling could be easy to learn and a vital skill like speech could be hard.

If I understand correctly, gambling can be used to obtain large amounts of money?

And this is an indictment of every skill being equally powerful how, exactly?

I never said that skills are or should be equally powerful.

 

[Sander]

This is one of the weaknesses of SPECIAL vs. GURPS. I don't know in what way they were implementing GURPS, but GURPS allows for for skills to be classified in "difficulty to learn" from Easy, Average, Hard, to Very Hard (Very Hard only being overpowered skills like Psionics).

That could be interesting. Still it would weird if for example science would be an easy or average skill.

That way, a useless skill like gambling could be easy to learn and a vital skill like speech could be hard.

If I understand correctly, gambling can be used to obtain large amounts of money?

I never said that skills are or should be equally powerful.

Yes, you were arguing that the opposite should be true. Which is why I asked how your point there was an indictment (look up the word, maybe?) of the theory I was arguing.
In other words, I wanted to know how your paragraph there conflicted with the 'every skill should be equally powerful' bit *I* was arguing.

If I understand correctly, gambling can be used to obtain large amounts of money?

Well, yes. Which is somewhat retarded, because gambling in casinos is a pure luck game. And I mean *pure* luck. Even playing at your absolute best, you cannot beat craps or roulette. Blackjack can only be beat by counting cards (and even then, you'll usually be barred from casinos), and isn't even available in the Fallout games.
So hey, there's another skill that should be scrapped, really.

Note that, yes, there are skill games offered in casinos. However, these skill games always involve playing against other casino customers (and sometimes a casino employee to give action), never against the casino itself.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Well, yes. Which is somewhat retarded, because gambling in casinos is a pure luck game. And I mean *pure* luck. Even playing at your absolute best, you cannot beat craps or roulette. Blackjack can only be beat by counting cards (and even then, you'll usually be barred from casinos), and isn't even available in the Fallout games.
So hey, there's another skill that should be scrapped, really.

Then those NMA freaks would complain about the lack of gambling and consequent lack of casinos from the game.

Anyway, stop debating science, they already mentioned minigames for hacking security systems and computers. There will be more minigames, so maybe even lockpick is out. Speech would just mean another line with 7-8 characters in the game.

 

[Sander]

Then those NMA freaks would complain about the lack of gambling and consequent lack of casinos from the game.

No, because casinos and gambling in the game world don't need to disappear just because a skill disappeared. Hell, I'd say that the Luck stat would actually be perfect for gambling.

Also, the lack of a feature from the upcoming game doesn't mean we can't debate the limitations/boons of SPECIAL or what we think should be in the game.

Anyway, stop debating science, they already mentioned minigames for hacking security systems and computers.

Science is in, knowing Bethesda it'll probably rule the amount of tries you get.

There will be more minigames, so maybe even lockpick is out.

Lockpick existed in Oblivion as a skill as well, where it was also a mini-game. The higher your skill, the easier the mini-game became.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Lockpick existed in Oblivion as a skill as well, where it was also a mini-game. The higher your skill, the easier the mini-game became.

And the *point* was...? Why the hell would you waste points in it it you could do it anyway?

Hell, I am not in favour of character limitations like in Arcanum, but c'mon....what other skills would I invest in? Science no, lockpick no, guns no, melee no, then what? Running?

 

[Sander]

And the *point* was...? Why the hell would you waste points in it it you could do it anyway?

Hell, I am not in favour of character limitations like in Arcanum, but c'mon....what other skills would I invest in? Science no, lockpick no, guns no, melee no, then what? Running?

I wasn't saying that it was a good feature, because it certailny isn't, I was pointing out that your 'Hey, those skills aren't going to exist anyway' was false. Which it is.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I wasn't saying that it was a good feature, because it certailny isn't, I was pointing out that your 'Hey, those skills aren't going to exist anyway' was false. Which it is.

I understood what you said, I was just asking rhetorically where the hell are you, the PC, supposed to invest skill points.

As for the 'Hey, those skills aren't going to exist anyway', is false, and is not the statement I wanted to make. You missed a little invisible quoting: 'Hey, those skills aren't going to 'exist' anyway'

Hey, those skills practically aren't even going to affect actual gameplay, why bother with investing skill points in them? Just for another try, or faster LP time? Or quicker targeting? Faster running?

Edit: Faster Loading Times skill? That'd be really lame.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Gee Sander do you like any of the skills? I think you miss the point of role playing, the skills are there to cover possibilities. Not every skill needs to be equally useful but every skill should have a use. Every skill in SPECIAL can be used in Fallout, some not a great deal but that doesn't matter. Sure you can waste skill points, but again that shouldn't matter it's not about power gaming after all. The more choices the better.

I don't send my character into Gizmos to make as much money as I can, I send my character into make up the needed money to buy something, or for some little relaxation (if it's in character). Likewise if they buy a drink from a bar I do it to role play the character. Just because the games used in Fallout rely on luck doesn't mean there's no room for a gambling skill. Even if it's only part of the character's background.

We could merge all the skills together and just have a few skill groups, combat, medical, criminal, technical, and social. Then do away with assigning points as we want and instead have each skill group increase by equal increments as you level. But the skills still wouldn't be equally applicable if the environment didn't allow for even usage.

 

[Brother None]

Why won't you guys stop fighting

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Split it off to the vats then. It'd probably be the only way we'd stop.

I just do not see SPECIAL as so unbalanced that it needs redesigning when most of the balance issues that have been brought up are due to lack of opportunity to use skills. Something I feel should be addressed first in quest design.

 

[Sander]

Gee Sander do you like any of the skills? I think you miss the point of role playing, the skills are there to cover possibilities. Not every skill needs to be equally useful but every skill should have a use.

Explain to me *why*, please? Because, honestly, this makes for an unbalanced system, and an unbalanced system is simply worse than a balanced system. If you can balance the system, then why wouldn't you do this?

Every skill in SPECIAL can be used in Fallout, some not a great deal but that doesn't matter. Sure you can waste skill points, but again that shouldn't matter it's not about power gaming after all. The more choices the better.

Most D&D d20 players would disagree heavily with you. Having more skills *limits* creativity and possibilities in a P&P setting. You don't have the swimming skill? Then sorry, your character can't swim. You don't have the rope climbing skill? Then no, your character can't climb that rope. While if you don't have those skills, then you can actually roleplay and don't need to think ahead for every contingency because a skill for it exists somewhere way back in an add-on book and you should've spent some of your limited skill points on it.

I know, this isn't entirely applicable to Fallout, but it is something you should realise: more skills is not the same as more possible role-playing. It *is* the same as more roll-playing.

I don't send my character into Gizmos to make as much money as I can, I send my character into make up the needed money to buy something, or for some little relaxation (if it's in character). Likewise if they buy a drink from a bar I do it to role play the character. Just because the games used in Fallout rely on luck doesn't mean there's no room for a gambling skill. Even if it's only part of the character's background.

I realise *why* you do those things. But the *lack* of a gambling skill does not in any way prevent the game from actually having the possibility to gamble. Similarly, the lack of a traps skill does not prevent the game from having traps. The lack of an outdoorsman skill also doesn't prevent the game from having characters avoid encounters sometimes.
Besides which, the gambling skill is essentially impossible, but that only goes for that one specific skill.

We could merge all the skills together and just have a few skill groups, combat, medical, criminal, technical, and social. Then do away with assigning points as we want and instead have each skill group increase by equal increments as you level. But the skills still wouldn't be equally applicable if the environment didn't allow for even usage.

Ehm, indeed. So...why do you bring this up? This is about as applicable to my point as using SPECIAL in a football game is.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Explain to me *why*, please? Because, honestly, this makes for an unbalanced system, and an unbalanced system is simply worse than a balanced system. If you can balance the system, then why wouldn't you do this?

Stop with the system is unbalanced please! The system is balanced! SPECIAL treats each skill equally, it allows you to build a character how ever you want, it's the game that limits the usefulness of the skills. SPECIAL isn't in balance with it's environment if you like, but give me more to do don't take away skills.

I know, this isn't entirely applicable to Fallout, but it is something you should realise: more skills is not the same as more possible role-playing. It *is* the same as more roll-playing.

In a computer game more skills does equate to more possible role playing. I agree about in p&p less is more, but computers are limited, if it's not already there you can't do it. By wanting to take out less useful skills or wanting to merge lesser skills together, so you don't waste points on a skill that might be applicable only once or twice, you are in fact the one advocating roll-playing.

I realise *why* you do those things. But the *lack* of a gambling skill does not in any way prevent the game from actually having the possibility to gamble. Similarly, the lack of a traps skill does not prevent the game from having traps. The lack of an outdoorsman skill also doesn't prevent the game from having characters avoid encounters sometimes.
Besides which, the gambling skill is essentially impossible, but that only goes for that one specific skill.

I think professional gamblers might disagree with you there. But if there was no skill you'd reduce disarming traps to the level of throwing a light switch and how do you differentiate between a character who is meant to be an expert in their field and a novice?

Ehm, indeed. So...why do you bring this up? This is about as applicable to my point as using SPECIAL in a football game is.

I thought that was what you wanted to do, reduce the skills to the most efficient level, which I'm saying still wouldn't provide a balanced system unless you could use every skill as a possible way to complete every event.

 

[Sander]

Stop with the system is unbalanced please! The system is balanced! SPECIAL treats each skill equally, it allows you to build a character how ever you want, it's the game that limits the usefulness of the skills. SPECIAL isn't in balance with it's environment if you like, but give me more to do don't take away skills.

And its environment is what it was built for.
As I've noted time and time again: any system can have an environment crafted for it in which it is balanced, but if the environment it was created for does not work with the system in a balanced way I don't consider it to be balanced. As I've also noted time and again, you can either balance the system or the environment. Both are equally valid. You have not given a single valid reason as to why this would not be the case.

In a computer game more skills does equate to more possible role playing. I agree about in p&p less is more, but computers are limited, if it's not already there you can't do it. By wanting to take out less useful skills or wanting to merge lesser skills together, so you don't waste points on a skill that might be applicable only once or twice, you are in fact the one advocating roll-playing.

Possibly, but I doubt it. I don't see how removing gambling, or merging first-aid and doctor precludes you role-playing, really.

I think professional gamblers might disagree with you there.

No they won't. Not when it comes to casino house-games. Those games are unbeatable. That's what they're designed for. Unless you have an insanely huge bankroll in respect to your inital bet and infinite opening hours at the casino, then you can set up a system to win that initial bet every time you play by doubling the bet every time and stopping immediately when you win that one bet.
And as I noted, there is another way to beat the casino involving counting cards. However, none of those games are actually offered in Fallout (for as far as I can see) and will get you barred from casinos as well.

Professional gamblers work largely based on informed sports betting, not on casino gambling because the latter is exactly that: gambling. Pure luck. Anyone claiming to have beaten the casino is a liar (or ignorant and not aware of his run of luck), or counting cards at blackjack or a similar game.


There are also, of course, professional poker players but they work based on the weaknesses of their opponents, who are not the casino and can hence be beat. And again: this form of gambling isn't offered in Fallout.

But if there was no skill you'd reduce disarming traps to the level of throwing a light switch and how do you differentiate between a character who is meant to be an expert in their field and a novice?

You don't. You don't need to, either, unless there's a serious need for it in the game. With the limited use of traps in the games, that isn't really the case, for instance.
Yes, I know, balancing the environment vs. balancing the system. See my note above.

I thought that was what you wanted to do, reduce the skills to the most efficient level, which I'm saying still wouldn't provide a balanced system unless you could use every skill as a possible way to complete every event.

No, that's bullshit. I never said that, nor ever claimed that. I said that every skill should be equally useful, that means that there should be equal opportunity for every skill (combat skills perhaps excluded, because those can be used near infinitely) to be used, not that every skill should be usable at every opportunity.