Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Check here to discuss Torment's gameplay topics. Please avoid spoilers in thread titles.

Moderator: Memovira Goons

User avatar
Aramintai
Scholar
Posts: 199
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 12:15 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Aramintai » June 16th, 2016, 10:42 pm

Well. this game doesn't have GM intrusions, it doesn't give you XP you can use in crises like in original ruleset either, only for leveling up. So maybe adding health bar is a cop out, but if devs make it work right I'm all for it - for a crpg player it's more comprehensible.
Image

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 974
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by kilobug » June 17th, 2016, 12:16 am

Havelok_ wrote:The closest thing we have right now is levelled encounters, and not many people enjoy that.
Indeed, that's one of the things that greatly turned me off in the Elder Scrolls games I tried. It somehow kills the whole of leveling and getting better gear if the enemies get more powerful as fast as you do. On the other hand, when encounters have fixed level, you find an area/quest too hard, you go do something else, and then come back and you can do it - then you really feel you got more powerful.

User avatar
Homer Morisson
Scholar
Posts: 100
Joined: June 11th, 2016, 7:30 am

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Homer Morisson » June 17th, 2016, 12:31 am

kilobug wrote:
Havelok_ wrote:The closest thing we have right now is levelled encounters, and not many people enjoy that.
Indeed, that's one of the things that greatly turned me off in the Elder Scrolls games I tried. It somehow kills the whole of leveling and getting better gear if the enemies get more powerful as fast as you do. On the other hand, when encounters have fixed level, you find an area/quest too hard, you go do something else, and then come back and you can do it - then you really feel you got more powerful.
I agree, I genuinly despise level scaling methods... when SWTOR added that and even tried to make it sound like a good thing, I finally lost what little faith I had left in Bioware since EA took over.

What's the point of levelling up, carefully planning your character progression to reach a certain level of power when even the lowliest sewer rats and street thugs are (almost) as strong as you are and you still have to actually fight them like in the very first minutes on level 1, instead of breezing through the lowlife scum as it should be?

To me, there is nothing more frustrating than having the level up-experience literally devalued.

It's about getting to feel ever more powerful, that's exactly it - and how am I supposed to feel powerful if before the stupid level scaling update I could do a certain mission in SWTOR by pulling about 50 silver and golden (strong and elite) mobs at once and raining down my awesome AoE powers on them, while now I can barely cope with more than 4-5 at a time?

Ever since that update hit, I feel much less powerful than ever before, even though the new gear is much more powerful than ever before.
You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

Create your Star Citizen Account today and get 5000 UEC Ingame Currency for free!
UEE Citizen Record

prodigydancer
Scholar
Posts: 150
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 8:43 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by prodigydancer » July 1st, 2016, 11:35 am

sear wrote:The intent was not to "dumb down" the game for "casuals".
It wasn't the intent but it's the end result nevertheless.

Forgive the lateness of my reply, for I'm writing this post after some careful deliberation. I want to make my point which means I must keep it unemotional. Originally, inXile set the bar for TToN very high, perhaps too high - but there's no crime in that. If you fly too close to the sun, get burned and fall, you're still a hero. You deserve credit for trying. But you only deserve that credit if you get burned by the light of your ideal, not by you own vacillation.

Right now you're trying to weasel out of the challenge you picked. The move from native Numemeran mechanics to generics like HP is merely a sign of deeper, systemic problems plaguing the project. You want to reconcile your elitist - almost arthouse - goals with mundane design and mass-market audience appeal. In practice this means that you sacrifice the former to achieve the latter. You guys lower the bar every time you hit an obstacle of any kind: technical (e.g. only human companions due to "engine limitations"), resource (e.g. underwhelming character portraits) or management (e.g. how you handled the revamp of the prologue).

I cannot speak for everyone but personally I would prefer to see a game both great and greatly flawed (if being greatly flawed is the price of greatness) rather than a well-made nothing special.
Last edited by prodigydancer on July 1st, 2016, 11:57 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
anonymous6059
Adventurer
Posts: 786
Joined: January 5th, 2016, 6:45 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by anonymous6059 » July 1st, 2016, 11:47 am

prodigydancer wrote:
sear wrote:The intent was not to "dumb down" the game for "casuals".
It wasn't the intent but it's the end result nevertheless.

Forgive the lateness of my reply, for I write this post after some careful deliberation. I want to make my point which means I must keep it unemotional. Originally, inXile set the bar for TToN very high, perhaps too high - but there's no crime in that. If you fly too close to the sun, get burned and fall, you're still a hero. You deserve credit for trying. But you only deserve that credit if you got burned by the light of your ideal, not by you own vacillation.

Right now you're trying to weasel out of the challenge you picked. The move from native Numemeran mechanics to generics like HP is merely a sign of deeper, systemic problems plaguing the project. You want to reconcile your elitist - alsmost arthouse - goals with mundane approach and mass-market audience appeal. In practice this means that you sacrifice the former to achieve the latter. You guys lower the bar every time you hit an obstacle of any kind: technical (e.g. only human companions due to "engine limitations"), resource (e.g. underwhelming character portraits) or management (e.g. how you handled the revamp of the prologue).

I cannot speak for everyone but personally I would greatly prefer to see a game both great and greatly flawed (if being greatly flawed is the price of greatness) rather than a well-made nothing special.
You've really got quite a talent for getting your point across. I can't say that I'm totally sure you're right though. Why does it have to be either "well-made nothing special" or "great and greatly flawed"? Isn't the best option somewhere in the middle? I don't think anyone will be happy at either extreme. A game that is "well-made and Good" or "slightly flawed and very good" would be real winners here right? Of course they are going to have to make some sacrifices. I'm not saying that this specific one was the right one. I'm just not so sure you're being fair here. Your standard seems a little too high. Although I must say you do have a way with words. I was almost ready to storm the gates with you.

Dark_Kain
Initiate
Posts: 17
Joined: December 18th, 2015, 2:26 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Dark_Kain » July 1st, 2016, 1:43 pm

anonymous6059 wrote:You've really got quite a talent for getting your point across. I can't say that I'm totally sure you're right though. Why does it have to be either "well-made nothing special" or "great and greatly flawed"? Isn't the best option somewhere in the middle? I don't think anyone will be happy at either extreme. A game that is "well-made and Good" or "slightly flawed and very good" would be real winners here right? Of course they are going to have to make some sacrifices. I'm not saying that this specific one was the right one. I'm just not so sure you're being fair here. Your standard seems a little too high. Although I must say you do have a way with words. I was almost ready to storm the gates with you.
For me it's part of the Torment legacy.
It was a deeply unique game, that tossed a lot of RPG conventions aside, that hardly accepted any compromise in being more simple for the sake of becoming more accessible. In fact the additions and modification to the base system (such as Morte's taunt or Nameless Ones abilty to freely swap classes) made the game system more complex than the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset it was based on.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 974
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by kilobug » July 2nd, 2016, 12:28 am

prodigydancer wrote:Forgive the lateness of my reply, for I'm writing this post after some careful deliberation. I want to make my point which means I must keep it unemotional. Originally, inXile set the bar for TToN very high, perhaps too high - but there's no crime in that. If you fly too close to the sun, get burned and fall, you're still a hero. You deserve credit for trying. But you only deserve that credit if you get burned by the light of your ideal, not by you own vacillation.
Well, you're more of hero if you succeed in a slightly lower, but still impressive, goal rather than if you fail in a goal you couldn't reach anyway. Gagarin is more of hero for achieving orbit and back than he would have for trying to go to the Moon and failing, while Armstrong and Aldrin are more heroes for walking on the Moon that they would have been for aiming for Mars and failing.
prodigydancer wrote:Right now you're trying to weasel out of the challenge you picked. The move from native Numemeran mechanics to generics like HP is merely a sign of deeper, systemic problems plaguing the project. You want to reconcile your elitist - almost arthouse - goals with mundane design and mass-market audience appeal. In practice this means that you sacrifice the former to achieve the latter. You guys lower the bar every time you hit an obstacle of any kind: technical (e.g. only human companions due to "engine limitations"), resource (e.g. underwhelming character portraits) or management (e.g. how you handled the revamp of the prologue).
I understand why you could see things that way, but I feel you're reading way too much in a few unrelated decisions. It is very hard to transpose to a computer, with no GM to adjudicate, rulesets made heavily with a GM in mind like Numenéra ones. A human GM will automatically make some adjustements on how players play the game, and on how depleted their current stat pools are. Only to a point of course, if the players decide to rush into an area they know to be dangerous with depleted stats pool, well, too bad for them. But if the GM initially prepared a surprise encounter when the PCs enter the local village, but the PCs arrive much more tired than initially planned, the GM might very well (for the fun of the game, and serving the story) delay the encounter to the next morning, if it makes sense, for example. A computer game can't do that.

That's how inXile explained adding Health, it makes such kind of "balancing" much easier to do. That's a fully valid explanation to me, that has nothing to do with "weaseling out" but with adapting a pen-and-paper ruleset to a computer game, palliating for the absence of a human GM.
prodigydancer wrote:I cannot speak for everyone but personally I would prefer to see a game both great and greatly flawed (if being greatly flawed is the price of greatness) rather than a well-made nothing special.
I would personally prefer something great but not too flawed, even if it means watering down a bit (but only a bit) the greatness - like PST ;)

prodigydancer
Scholar
Posts: 150
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 8:43 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by prodigydancer » July 2nd, 2016, 3:45 am

kilobug wrote:Armstrong and Aldrin are more heroes for walking on the Moon that they would have been for aiming for Mars and failing.
By that logic Armstrong could keep adjusting until his goal would be to climb a hill near his house for a Saturday picnic. It's still something, isn't it?
kilobug wrote:But if the GM initially prepared a surprise encounter when the PCs enter the local village, but the PCs arrive much more tired than initially planned, the GM might very well (for the fun of the game, and serving the story) delay the encounter to the next morning, if it makes sense, for example.
A game doesn't have to be benign, whether it's GM-controlled or not. Much depends of the setting, of course. In D&D you can hope for a friendly atmosphere in FR but you expect to be pushed to your limits and beyond in Dark Sun or Ravenloft. Planescape is mostly indifferent. It won't really try to kill or corrupt you if you're smart and cautious but a careless misstep can easily get you in a huge trouble and very few will be willing to go out of their way to save you.
A computer game can't do that.
A good CRPG can be rather unfriendly. Look at Age of Decadence, where you need to pretty much give up on non-combat stuff to become a skilled fighter. If you invest heavily in social skills and then try to solve something via combat, chances are you'll die swiftly and horribly. Note that some optional situations don't even have a non-combat solution. When you follow a much too friendly stranger to a dark alley, you'd better be prepared for a skirmish.

I don't see why Numenera (and by extension TToN) should be player-friendly. You opt for combat after having spent your pools elsewhere? Face the consequences! The absolutely worst thing that can possibly happen is that you spend too many points on optional things and get stuck. Well, welcome to Failtown!

In Wasteland 2 you could fail by doing stupid things or making wrong choices. Why shouldn't the same be possible in TToN?

retroquark
Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: June 22nd, 2016, 1:46 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by retroquark » July 2nd, 2016, 8:20 am

sear wrote:I'll note that stat pool damage is something we are considering including for certain enemies or special attacks, but it probably won't be a universal thing.
..you mean, so you could combine an inconvenience with a contrivance, to get the worst of both systems? To really make all role-playing choices either pointless on easy difficulty, or extremely gated to the point of removing them all on hard difficulty? Great idea! :lol: I can see the relationship between Obsidian's PoE project and Tton is close!

Seriously, though - please consider looking into balancing the light characters with increased speed and intellect dodge bonuses, damage treshold limiters, etc. While giving the might-based characters either rescue rolls when the last intellect points are spent (to reduce damage received and take physical damage, etc), or a resilience bonus to avoid getting knocked out before doing anything. While letting combo characters consider increasing edge in low-stat pools for defense purposes over having to fill speed pools and then spam rest constantly to have a chance, and things like that. And then imagine that expending effort beyond your limit can be recovered from more easily in the domain you've chosen to be strongest in, just like protecting yourself from attacks you are weak against should become a priority early on and a strategic choice to improve on later.

I mean, be honest here - the problem you really got was that a super-specialized character had trouble surviving a particular attack that was specifically going to bypass their defenses early on. And because this type of player "intuitively" expects their character to gradually transcend to demigodhood for whacking things randomly on the head for hours without aim - they are never prepared for even the low-level crises, no matter how long they play, as long as that specific attack they are weak against happens.

So you added a stat that helps idiots who don't learn survive no matter what. And in the process also end up making the stat-pools and the choices you make almost purely cosmetic, and at the very least completely disconnected from the game-mechanics. Rather than adding a way to use other pools to dodge or rescue against lethal damage early on. And then balancing against longer encounters of different kinds (that focus on particular strengths), letting the player pick those encounters they feel they may be able to control. While also making sure that the AI doesn't simply constantly pick the lowest difficulty target for their attack, as if they can smell your weaknesses like a disgruntled beta-tester aiming to agitate for a stupid solution by invoking words like "accessibility" and "popularity".

It's lazy, it's bad design, it's disregarding more convenient balancing methods tied to encounter design. And you're going to regret this manual "balancing" process you've inserted bitterly until the point where you decide to simply declare it's good enough. Which will be at about the same time people stop playing the game, or resign and simply turn the difficulty settings off altogether so they can get through the story, without being interrupted by some irritating GM temp who thinks their purpose is to make the game last for as long as possible.

But whatever. Are you absolutely sure you shouldn't just add more stat-points and more buttons to press, though? Along with a minimum limit you can't go below, just in case you start fiddling around too much and potentially are unable to defeat the first monster with any weapon, any tool, and any method in general? You know, to "balance" the game so even the most careless gamer will never, ever, run into any difficulty?

Just saying. After all, making bad choices and getting punished for it is clearly the antithesis to ANY GAME EVER DESIGNED since the beginning of history. In fact, why not put in an automatic playing mode where you can make a skill-check on the first turn to insure victory, based on your strongest stat-pool? That'd solve all your problems immediately!

spost
Initiate
Posts: 1
Joined: July 4th, 2016, 12:55 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by spost » July 4th, 2016, 12:57 pm

Literally registered just to comment in this thread.

Holy shit the salt. This would be hysterical if it weren't legitimately sad.

retroquark
Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: June 22nd, 2016, 1:46 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by retroquark » July 4th, 2016, 6:44 pm

It's just that I've just seen another promising project (PoE) tweaked in about the same way. Adding new linear systems to make balancing individual encounters easier, towards an expected level progression.

It's not a ridiculous suggestion, given certain preconditions. And people who tweak gameplay wants something to do anyway. And it allows the dev to respond to user-feedback, and adjust the game based on that. So there's no problem, right?

The problem is that no one plays the "optimal" path through the game. Some don't like the companions, some pick a companion with the same class as them, some skip quests, some miss quests, etc. So on one side, people who don't level enough have to turn the combat difficulty down at some point(before going through any number of meta-trickery to avoid breaking immersion). And the ones who rake the levels for xp don't get the challenge they want. Meanwhile, the order you have to tackle the quests becomes dependent on what the devs balanced the system for - or, you have to play the game in the exact way the devs did, to get the "optimal experience". Worse than that, you also have to be playing with the same party setup, or you're going to have either difficulties, or very few difficulties respectively.

Further problems arise, and there's a lot of time until release, so clearly more balancing has to be done. So let's start figuring out how the different groups and party make-ups might affect difficulty. And we've already chosen this linear balancing model, so let's start finding the optimal answer by induction. This will eventually work perfectly, the community guys say, because the more we tweak, the closer we are to perfection.

By the time the game should launch, a lot of encounters are either removed or scripted to happen after certain other events. There's no longer any possibility of ending up with a too weak group unless you walk straight past certain companions, etc. And they get mystical gear that somehow is essential to beating a specific stat in the following fights. Encounters are balanced in such a way that no team make-up has a possibility of failing completely. And the rules are changed so that the governing stats always will be high enough to beat defenses, etc. The path you travel is also tweaked so that level progression has to go over a certain level before you enter a specific area (with some exceptions).

And yet, after the game launch approaches, the tweaks seem to mysteriously not end up creating a perfect game for everyone. Curses! How did this happen! The guys on the PoE team still don't seem to understand that balancing a linear system requires people to play the game in exactly the same way every time for it to not be unbalanced.

So they tweak some more, and add more stuff. And the end product is a system that, of course, is still not going to predict the future. And in addition also has become extremely rigid where player choice has become largely cosmetic. While the way you play and what you put on of equipment is crucial, and pretty much the same regardless of what class you're playing as. So that there's no link between your class in battle, your stats, and how you roleplay.

And the game, in spite of now being utterly boring, still doesn't solve the "balancing issues".

If that's not a problem for the Tton team and their game, I see no problem with that. They could with complete right argue that the main focus of the game is the writing anyway, and not the fighting. So if removing possible avenues of total failure can be done by simply adding a gradually increasing health-stat. And.. tweaking any number of abilities into that stat. And changing the entire rulesystem on the fly in the time between now and the delayed launch, etc. And adding healing sprayflesh as the most important resource in the game, up to the point where you win all fights by showing up. Until you reach the boss that required "special strategies" that you of course have now not been introduced to. Then by all means go ahead. It's their money and time, after all.

But if there was a solution available that was more subtle. That accounted for henchmen with no fighting ability. That allowed you to act during a fight much in the same way you role-play the game otherwise. Where tweaking the encounters could be done with an algorithm combined with a satisfying narrative component (i.e., as simple as that a migh character can bash their way through some mech-warriors, while a super-clever nano would go for an indirect approach - and you could add these to the encounter designs rather than sit and scratch your head over which numbers to turn up and down for eternity). And it really only required a few additional rescue-options for people with low stats, while making a more narratively pleasing AI (such as making the opponents not necessarily attack the biggest weakness in the party within reach every time, or for example be unable to simply swipe past powerful fighters without a movement penalty. Or that nasty things have to use active abilities to warp past defenses, giving you time to respond to what would otherwise be a first and final attack against your puny might or intellect, etc). Then wouldn't that be something to consider first?

I'm just making the suggestion, because as convenient as adding a linear system to the mix seems, it's going to mean a lot of work before it doesn't look like something put in to deliberately break immersion. And in the end it's still not going to actually solve the problem with people ending up having to adjust the game's difficulty to fit their playing style half-way anyway. Unless, of course, you just put the difficult down so far that you cannot die from one fight if you at all fight back, and so removing all tension from the game. And you essentially just force people to fedex to the rest sites whenever you do anything at all. And so on.

Also seen that other people have already suggested adding more tutorial content instead. Which seems reasonable. And whatever your opinion is, if you can save the team from spending many, many hours on changing game-content (that eventually is going to involve having to structure and script when encounters happen, as well as rewrite abilities for them to at all matter in the game) rather than focusing on changing things that really could be improved (such as pathfinding, how the UI works, how text is scrolled, finding graphics problems to sort out, testing different resolutions - stuff that also would be on that same team's plate anyway) -- then isn't that something to consider?

Over adding something to the game that really doesn't add anything, other than solve a narrow problem in the short term. I mean, just saying. :lol:

Anyway, have fun. Sorry I don't have confidence in much else than the Tton team's writing skills, and I sure will learn to avoid helping kickstart projects based on the initial proposal for simple but interesting rulesets in the future - but that's how that is. And there is a perfectly good example available nearby (PoE) to demonstrate exactly how this process works and where it leads. So please consider not copying that. And things.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Zombra » August 6th, 2016, 11:31 am

Did something new happen in the last month to rustle your jimmies all over again Harv? Or are you just drunk? :o
Image

Dark_Kain
Initiate
Posts: 17
Joined: December 18th, 2015, 2:26 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Dark_Kain » August 7th, 2016, 3:37 am

It's probably the heat.
I also would like to scream my insufferance toward this choice occasionally, but I have too much self-control.

Jokes aside, it is clearly because of the recent announcement about the console version of TTON. (that was published a few days ago https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/in ... ts/1647389)
In the announcement is stated that this will not affect the actual game and I'm not going to claim that this isn't true.

It is however quite the coincidence that just after the version that indeed added health to the game, changing drastically the core Numenera system to a more casual health system, came the annuncement for the console version.
So expect "casual gamers" haters pointing to the possibility that the health system was added to cater the casual console game community.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Zombra » August 7th, 2016, 12:37 pm

Ah, you are smart, Kain; thanks. I guess he just posted in the wrong thread instead of this one where his righteous screaming belongs.

Whatever, carry on people. ;)
Image

prodigydancer
Scholar
Posts: 150
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 8:43 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by prodigydancer » August 7th, 2016, 9:53 pm

Dark_Kain wrote:It is however quite the coincidence that just after the version that indeed added health to the game, changing drastically the core Numenera system to a more casual health system, came the annuncement for the console version.
Yes, pure coincidence.

/facepalm

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 974
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by kilobug » August 8th, 2016, 12:27 am

Dark_Kain wrote:It is however quite the coincidence that just after the version that indeed added health to the game, changing drastically the core Numenera system to a more casual health system, came the annuncement for the console version.
Except it was clearly stated that the main reason behind introducing Health was to make balancing encounters, in the absence of a human DM, possible.

Now sure you can always dwell into conspiracy theory, rather than accepting the straight-forward and perfectly valid explanation.

As for "changing drastically the core Numenera system" it always makes me laugh to see people outraged when a "spiritual successor" of PST doesn't fully respect that pen&paper rules of the game it's based on. Among all the (A)D&D video games I played, PST was the one that broke and changed the *most* the rules, and they were right to do so. The system should serve the story and the gameplay, not the other way around. If the system goes in the way of the story you want to tell, or the way you want to tell, tweak it !

Dark_Kain
Initiate
Posts: 17
Joined: December 18th, 2015, 2:26 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by Dark_Kain » August 9th, 2016, 10:49 am

kilobug wrote:
Dark_Kain wrote:It is however quite the coincidence that just after the version that indeed added health to the game, changing drastically the core Numenera system to a more casual health system, came the annuncement for the console version.
As for "changing drastically the core Numenera system" it always makes me laugh to see people outraged when a "spiritual successor" of PST doesn't fully respect that pen&paper rules of the game it's based on. Among all the (A)D&D video games I played, PST was the one that broke and changed the *most* the rules, and they were right to do so. The system should serve the story and the gameplay, not the other way around. If the system goes in the way of the story you want to tell, or the way you want to tell, tweak it !
Except that, while PS:T changed the rules, it didn't change the CORE rules of AD&D 2nd edition.
Thac0 was there, lower (and negative) numbers of Thac0 and AC being better than bigger was there, the vancian magic system was there.

The change imposed to the Numenera game system by adding this healtbar is far, FAR, bigger than removing the vancian magic system from AD&D 2nd edition.
So, to be frank, I find your comparison lacking.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 974
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by kilobug » August 9th, 2016, 10:57 am

Dark_Kain wrote:Except that, while PS:T changed the rules, it didn't change the CORE rules of AD&D 2nd edition.
Thac0 was there, lower (and negative) numbers of Thac0 and AC being better than bigger was there, the vancian magic system was there.
What's "core rule" is highly subjective - but "you don't gain ability score when leveling up", "once you've chosen your class(es) it's forever" and "if you change your alignment, you get huge penalties" are very much core rules of AD&D2 to me, much more than purely mechanical aspects such as "reverse" THAC0 and AC (that armor changes your chance to hit, not the damages done is core rules - the but THAC0/AC in AD&D2 or BAB/AC in D&D3+ that's purely mechanical not really important).
Dark_Kain wrote:The change imposed to the Numenera game system by adding this healtbar is far, FAR, bigger than removing the vancian magic system from AD&D 2nd edition.
So, to be frank, I find your comparison lacking.
It's much, much lower than gaining ability scores when leveling up or free switching between classes were for AD&D2.

User avatar
anonymous6059
Adventurer
Posts: 786
Joined: January 5th, 2016, 6:45 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by anonymous6059 » August 9th, 2016, 4:04 pm

Dark_Kain wrote:
kilobug wrote:
Dark_Kain wrote:It is however quite the coincidence that just after the version that indeed added health to the game, changing drastically the core Numenera system to a more casual health system, came the annuncement for the console version.
As for "changing drastically the core Numenera system" it always makes me laugh to see people outraged when a "spiritual successor" of PST doesn't fully respect that pen&paper rules of the game it's based on. Among all the (A)D&D video games I played, PST was the one that broke and changed the *most* the rules, and they were right to do so. The system should serve the story and the gameplay, not the other way around. If the system goes in the way of the story you want to tell, or the way you want to tell, tweak it !
Except that, while PS:T changed the rules, it didn't change the CORE rules of AD&D 2nd edition.
Thac0 was there, lower (and negative) numbers of Thac0 and AC being better than bigger was there, the vancian magic system was there.

The change imposed to the Numenera game system by adding this healtbar is far, FAR, bigger than removing the vancian magic system from AD&D 2nd edition.
So, to be frank, I find your comparison lacking.
I agree. They obviously made a major change to the "Core" rules. Adding a health bar is just about the most drastic change you could make to the Numenera rules. Its getting to the point that this isn't even a Numenera game at all.

1. The most fundamental of the cypher system rules has been abolished.
2. Almost none of the creatures are from the bestiary.
3. None of the companions are visitants or other optional races.

They have certainly taken some liberties that's for sure.
Still, I don't think any of those things by them self will determine whether or not the game is good or bad. Its a video game and not a table top game so I personally don't mind it. I do think its a shame though. The cypher system was supposedly the easiest system to translate into a video game. So I am surprised they had to make such a drastic change. Well, I was surprised until I found out this was going straight to console. Now its just another Journal update.

User avatar
anonymous6059
Adventurer
Posts: 786
Joined: January 5th, 2016, 6:45 pm

Re: Making Health its own stat is an excellent move.

Post by anonymous6059 » August 9th, 2016, 5:49 pm

kilobug wrote:
Dark_Kain wrote:Except that, while PS:T changed the rules, it didn't change the CORE rules of AD&D 2nd edition.
Thac0 was there, lower (and negative) numbers of Thac0 and AC being better than bigger was there, the vancian magic system was there.
What's "core rule" is highly subjective - but "you don't gain ability score when leveling up", "once you've chosen your class(es) it's forever" and "if you change your alignment, you get huge penalties" are very much core rules of AD&D2 to me, much more than purely mechanical aspects such as "reverse" THAC0 and AC (that armor changes your chance to hit, not the damages done is core rules - the but THAC0/AC in AD&D2 or BAB/AC in D&D3+ that's purely mechanical not really important).
Dark_Kain wrote:The change imposed to the Numenera game system by adding this healtbar is far, FAR, bigger than removing the vancian magic system from AD&D 2nd edition.
So, to be frank, I find your comparison lacking.
It's much, much lower than gaining ability scores when leveling up or free switching between classes were for AD&D2.
What other change to the Cypher system could they of made that would of been a more significant change to the rules? I can't think of a bigger way for them to stray from the Cypher System rules then adding a health bar can you? If you can I'd love for you to list a few.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest