Include Perks/Feats

[Zombra]

You know what, I like Perks and Feats in games that have them, but actually I would prefer Wasteland 2 to not use them. The first Wasteland was really about Skills. I would much rather just have them focus on that. I don't need special secret headshot moves or three-bullet combos when my Clip Pistol skill reaches a certain level; I should just be better at hitting things and do more damage to represent fewer "winging" shots. I don't need to be able to pick locks standing on my head or turn invisible when I do it; I should just be able to open them faster and more reliably as my skill level increases.

The "little superpowers" are cool, but even in the somewhat silly world of Wasteland, they would feel out of place to me. Skills, not Perks.

[CaptainPatch]

The first Wasteland was really about Skills. I would much rather just have them focus on that.

I vastly prefer that character development to be about Skill selection rather than Attribute building. In the original WL, ALL Skills were derivatives of the PC's IQ score. Secondarily, many Skills were contingent on the PC having certain Attributes to be at least some minimum value. I can see the latter aspect but not the first. The PCs start at a max of 18 IQ, but by game's end, their IQ was around 40-50-60. That means either they started as retards/mentally deficient or they end up as "super-geniuses", just over the course of one mission. If "super-genius" would be >100 IQ, then what they are starting as would be "borderline vegetables". Or else "IQ" doesn't mean "Intelligence Quotient", like it should; in which case drop the "IQ" and just go with "Skill Points". Maybe make INTelligence be an entirely separate Attribute that affects cerebral Skills only.

Overall, I really, really think that all Attributes should be capped at 20 or so. Otherwise it keeps coming back to just how woefully pitiful the starting PCs are -- even if they had 18 in every single Attribute.

[Lucius]

The first Wasteland was really about Skills. I would much rather just have them focus on that.

I vastly prefer that character development to be about Skill selection rather than Attribute building. In the original WL, ALL Skills were derivatives of the PC's IQ score. Secondarily, many Skills were contingent on the PC having certain Attributes to be at least some minimum value. I can see the latter aspect but not the first. The PCs start at a max of 18 IQ, but by game's end, their IQ was around 40-50-60. That means either they started as retards/mentally deficient or they end up as "super-geniuses", just over the course of one mission. If "super-genius" would be >100 IQ, then what they are starting as would be "borderline vegetables". Or else "IQ" doesn't mean "Intelligence Quotient", like it should; in which case drop the "IQ" and just go with "Skill Points". Maybe make INTelligence be an entirely separate Attribute that affects cerebral Skills only.

Overall, I really, really think that all Attributes should be capped at 20 or so. Otherwise it keeps coming back to just how woefully pitiful the starting PCs are -- even if they had 18 in every single Attribute.

I'd agree a cap on attributes would be appropriate, but I'd say more around 30. Also instead of points only coming from INT they could have points come from every attribute, but you can only use those points to purchase skills in that attributes family so to speak. So wanna learn a new gun skill? Gotta get a point from a DEX increase, Medic? That would be INT etc.

[Zombra]

In the original WL, ALL Skills were derivatives of the PC's IQ score.

Not exactly ... you could buy skill levels with IQ, and you did have to "open" skills this way, but once you had a skill, it increased through use. But I agree that IQ was way too important.

Overall, I really, really think that all Attributes should be capped at 20 or so. Otherwise it keeps coming back to just how woefully pitiful the starting PCs are -- even if they had 18 in every single Attribute.

You're assuming a ramrod-straight linear scale, which is a big assumption. A 20 IQ does not mean "twice as smart" as a 10 IQ; it just means 10 points farther along a totally abstract and arbitrary curve.

As a counterexample, in the HERO System, 5 stat points represents a doubling of ability. So a guy with 15 STR can bench twice as much as a guy with 10 STR, and a superhero with 30 STR can bench eight times as much as the guy with 15. Under this system, what stat numbers "really mean" is sharply defined; not so in Wasteland.

As far as we know, a guy with a 200 IQ in Wasteland is maybe only slightly smarter than a guy with a 5 ... he just knows lots more skills.

[CaptainPatch]

You're assuming a ramrod-straight linear scale, which is a big assumption. A 20 IQ does not mean "twice as smart" as a 10 IQ; it just means 10 points farther along a totally abstract and arbitrary curve.

Evaluating someone's Intelligence is a rather peculiar methodology. There is a body of knowledge, creativity, and problem-solving tasking that the overall population is tested against. Scoring everyone's results consistently generates a bell curve of results. The precise Average of all of those scores places the "IQ = 100". "Genius" is defined as nothing more than "the top 2%" on the right side of the bell curve. [That breaking point value usually falls in the 130-135 range.] The higher the IQ -- 140, 150, 160, etc. -- the faster the percentage of the overall population can score that high diminishes. For example, while 2% of the population scores higher than 130 ("genius"), those that score >140 are themselves a very small percentage of that top 2% of the overall population. By the time you get to 160, less than 2% of that top 2% can score that high. The percentage of the overall population that could score a 200, for instance, would be less than 0.000...0001%

Since the max that PCs can start at is 18 IQ, but there is no upper limit thereafter indicates that the PCs start on the IQ bell curve waaaaayyyyy the hell to the left of the "genius" breaking point. But during the mission, the PC can pile on the IQ points, theoretically making the PC "smarter" (able to grasp new knowledge that turns into additional Skills). The aspect that Skills, ONCE ACQUIRED, increase with hands-on experience, is beside the point. To even initiate the new Skill absolutely requires more IQ points. Some of the new Skills absolutely requires IQ values that are a significant percentage higher than the PC's max starting value. For instance, PC max start is 18. Some Skills (like Energy Weapons, if I recall correctly) requires an IQ of 24 -- which is 33% higher than a PC's max start value. To get a second high-level Skill requiring an IQ of 24, the PC needs another 3 Skill Points -- which are equal to the IQ increase. That means that the second IQ 24 minimum Skill needs the PC to increase IQ to _27_.

My thought is that if a PC is smart enough = has a high enough IQ to learn a Skill, then ALL of the Skills that require that amount of IQ should be learnable at the same time _without_ increasing IQ any further. This suggests that IQ and Skill Points need to be separated into two distinctly different Attributes. Similarly, this would affect ALL of the Attribute-scaled Skills. Need more DEX? Spend some Skill Points. Need more CHA? Spend some Skill Points. Further, allow that a new Skill can be started with Skill Points alone (provided Attribute minimums are observed). This would eliminate the need to increase any Attributes to insane levels beyond the start Attribute max values.

Much like how buying initial Skill values had an escalating Skill Point cost -- 1, 2, 4, etc., or 2, 4, 8, etc. -- increasing Attribute values should have a similar pricing structure: +1 costs 1 SP. +2 costs 2 SP. +3 costs 4 SP. +4 costs 8 SP. Etc. This would reflect how moving to the right on the bell curve should get harder and harder. It would also make increasing Attributes so expensive, it creates a self-imposed cap.

[Zombra]

Since the max that PCs can start at is 18 IQ, but there is no upper limit thereafter indicates that the PCs start on the IQ bell curve waaaaayyyyy the hell to the left of the "genius" breaking point.

No. You're missing the point of an abstract scale. Wasteland IQ does not have a direct and defined correspondence to real world IQ.

Let's use "real life IQ" as a separate metric and chart the two values.

Wasteland IQ
3 <--------------------------------------------------------> 200 billion
Real life IQ
100 <------------------------------------------------------> 101

No one is stupid, and no one is a genius. Everybody is pretty much "normal". Some dudes just know more skills than others.

This is one possible and completely plausible interpretation of the IQ value in Wasteland.

What's that? You say you have to be pretty smart to learn Clone Tech? Fine, we can revise the scales:

Wasteland IQ
3 <-------------------------20---------------------------> 200 billion
Real life IQ
100 <----------------------130--------------------------> 131

This is another totally possible interpretation of IQ values. Everybody starts off normal, then they become pretty darn well educated, and then they don't get smarter at all; they just learn more skills.

Again: the curve is completely abstract and does not imply anything "out of this world" because the abstract values are never defined in real world terms. Starting characters are not described as submorons, so there is no reason to believe that they are submorons unless you slavishly insist on a linear scale and direct correspondence that actually doesn't exist.

[Woolfe]

I always sort of justified it in my head similar to Zombra, in that it is not actually getting smarter per se, but more like thinking about things more....

Its hard to explain, mostly because I don't particularly like the methodology behind it. But its a bit like the HP concept. Where rather HP just being a straight representation of your "health" IQ or Strength or whatever is not a straight representation of the attribute.

So Agility for example, is a combination of the raw ability to do a somersault and land on your feet, with the experience learned to take into account the external elements that might affect it, plus the discipline, and knowledge of exactly when and where it is best to twist to get your feet back under you etc, plus more nebulous bits like luck etc.

IQ is something similar, maybe its the ability to remember stuff better, or a technique for improving learning quickly, or similar sorts of things. So its not really improving the "Raw intelligence" but one of the elements around it.

Does that make sense?

[CaptainPatch]

Let's use "real life IQ" as a separate metric and chart the two values.

Wasteland IQ
3 <--------------------------------------------------------> 200 billion
Real life IQ
100 <------------------------------------------------------> 101

If you are assuming that the scaling from 3 (minimum possible value to whatever (reached after character creation) is the same scale used by ALL of the Attributes then look at STR to see just what each additional point gets you. Specifically, how much weight the PC can carry is affected, point by point. ("Character must have a STR of ___ to use this item.") Each of the other Attributes have similar "weight-carrying" effects as the Attribute increases or decreases. Even within IQ, incremental changes have noticeable limitations: At IQ 5 you can't throw a knife; at IQ 6 you can. At IQ 8, you can't use an assault rifle; at IQ 9, you can. But at IQ 9, you _still_ can't attempt anything Acrobatic, but at IQ 10 you can. If those hard breaks are there between 3 and 24, it stands to reason that beyond 24, the PC's abilities would improve incrementally with each Attribute point of increase.

What you are actually steering towards (according to my perception) is something more like "Anything past ____ has no effect on performance related to that Attribute. What it gains the PC is a wider range of things that he or she can do." For example, closer to Real Life, an IQ of ___ allows the ability to learn a foreign language. Having a higher IQ value allows the person to learn additional languages. That means that the person doesn't necessarily need to be any smarter than what it takes to learn a foreign language. All he actually needs to do is spend the study time (Skill Points) to learn that additional language. One foreign language or seven of them, the IQ score doesn't change.

[Zombra]

If those hard breaks are there between 3 and 24, it stands to reason that beyond 24, the PC's abilities would improve incrementally with each Attribute point of increase.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

What you are actually steering towards (according to my perception) is something more like "Anything past ____ has no effect on performance related to that Attribute. What it gains the PC is a wider range of things that he or she can do."

Yes, that is one interpretation. If you get that, then hopefully you get the bottom line: stats do not mean anything other than what they define (which isn't much in Wasteland). 20 IQ is not 2x smarter than 10 IQ. Starting PCs are not drooling vegetables. And 60 IQ endgame PCs are not omniscient.

Look to see just what each additional point gets you.

This is key. What you "get" per stat point is the ONLY meaningful way to define that stat. You can say that low IQ characters are too dumb to tie their shoes if you want, but since shoe-tying is not part of the game, that would be a meaningless assertion. What you "get" with more IQ is more skills. That's it.

And, for the record, ST in Wasteland has nothing whatsoever to do with carry weight. The "weakest" character can carry eight suits of power armor in his backpack; the "strongest" can't carry so much as an extra feather. All it has to do with is breaking down doors and melee damage. One could easily say that ST has nothing to do with muscle mass at all, but rather a knowledge or intuition of structural weak points.

The names of stats are not English words; they are symbols denoting specific functionalities.

[CaptainPatch]

The names of stats are not English words; they are symbols denoting specific functionalities.

Sort of makes having numbers associated with labeled Attributes rather meaningless then, doesn't it? If there is no enhancement between 3 and 30, why have numbers at all? It seems to me that the fact that a larger number gets you more oomph than a lower number is inherently implied. Especially when consistently a a given number, the PC can't do something, but at a higher number, the PC can perform that task.

[Drool]

If there is no enhancement between 3 and 30, why have numbers at all?

Because "some", "a little bit more", "more than some but not as much as a lot" would make for a pretty clunky system?

[Ronin73]

These debates about stats make anxious to know what InXile have in mind for character development for WL2.

Screenshots be damned! give me some game mechanics details!

*Shakes Iron Fist of Pledging at the development team*

[paultakeda]

These debates about stats make anxious to know what InXile have in mind for character development for WL2.

Screenshots be damned! give me some game mechanics details!

*Shakes Iron Fist of Pledging at the development team*

i'm with you there. The vision doc lays out a stylistic sensibility that means screenshots are just candy. The meat of it is in the WL2 RPG mechanic, which I euphemistically called WL-MSPE v.2 as I want it to be a natural evolution of the system used in the original Wasteland.

As such, the idea of perks and feats may or may not fit, depending on how that system is developed from the WL-MSPE base.

The Kickstarter project guarantees that a unique and quirky skill (that does not affect gameplay) will be awarded to funders, so this already begs the question: skill? or more perk or feat?

I liked the trait mechanic in FO as part of character creation. Perks and feats as part of leveling? Undecided. I'm thinking that the accumulation of certain skills at certain levels would equate a freebie perk/feat; it may even have detrimental qualities.

For instance, multiple gun skills with an aggregate skill point total over 10 signifies a characters who isn't concerned with hand-t0-hand and thereby suffers a penalty on melee rolls that is a factor of ranged gun skill points over 10. Ex: Pistol 4, Rifle 4, Shotgun 4 = 12 = 2 over 10, which yield a -2 on all saving throws involving melee. However, 2 over 10 gun skill yields a bonus to-hit of +2 on any gun skill, including gun skills that have not been trained (ex: Sniper Rifle 0).

This builds in perks as part of the skill tree. It rewards and punishes specialized characters and streamlines the process into something more intuitive than just selecting perk for the hell of it.

Expanding on this, and say certain perks show up when certain attribute/skill combos are achieved. A Ladykiller/Confirmed Bachelor perk, to use one from FO3, is not selectable but is automatically applied when a character has a combined CH, IQ and hand-to-hand combat skill aggregate of 50. No detriment except for spending a lot of points on these buckets.

[Zombra]

If there is no enhancement between 3 and 30, why have numbers at all? It seems to me that the fact that a larger number gets you more oomph than a lower number is inherently implied.

Of course a higher number is better, or at least not worse. What you refuse to recognize is that the PROGRESSION OF A STAT IS NOT NECESSARILY LINEAR. The difference between 1 and 2 isn't necessarily the same as the difference between 3 and 4.

[Zombra]

Let me put this another way. You yourself have stated that attributes have no upper limit in Wasteland. Yet you insist that the available spectrum (1 through ∞) represents the full spectrum of human ability, from endpoint to endpoint. Therefore 1 represents the stupidest person possible, and ∞ represents the smartest person possible, with a linear progression from one end to the other. The median intelligence or average person would therefore be at the midpoint of this spectrum, or ½∞ ... which is also equal to ∞. Since no one can reach ∞ or even ½∞ or even ¼∞, every single character must be judged as way below average; infinitely below, in fact, since any finite IQ score can be divided into ∞ an infinite number of times. This is the result of insistence on strict, linear mathematical interpretation of the system, yet it leads to the absurd conclusion that anyone with a finite IQ score is infinitely stupid and totally nonfunctional as a human being. Since this is obviously not the case, a strict linear interpretation is clearly not a reasonable model for valuing "Wasteland IQ" in terms of real world intelligence.

[Sushewakka]

Well, most modern PnP games that use Perks/Feats have a PX cost associated to them (So it's a choice between upgrading your skills or buying perks). That, however, works on the assumption that Wasteland 2 will have a point-buy leveling system (which I would personally prefer, and it is usually a better, less arbitrary method than random level ups: It disseminates character progress just enough that there's always something new to try out/upgrade regardless of play session length).
So, if the game progression is point-buy based, perk/feats can fit in without much hassle.

[CaptainPatch]

Let me put this another way. You yourself have stated that attributes have no upper limit in Wasteland. Yet you insist that the available spectrum (1 through ∞) represents the full spectrum of human ability, from endpoint to endpoint.

You're making me dizzy!

Yes, I noted that in WL there was no upper limit. However, I also suggested that there should be a cap, so the infinity part of your argument does not apply. Yes, there is a linear progression: 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2, 4 is better than 3, etc. What I'm trying to say is that 1) There is an absolute cap in all Attributes. Regardless of how much a man works out, there will never be a normal man that can dead lift 4,000 pounds. Scale that down to what you think is possible and there's your cap; now just decide what that number is and calculate just what each point equates to. 2) Building up an Attribute is very much subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns: It takes more of whatever is invested in the development to achieve the next level. The graph is a rising curve that becomes a nearly vertical line as you get closer to the absolute maximum value. The same goes for IQ: the number of people that are able to produce a more capable mentality drops off rapidly once you cross the "genius" threshold. For all practical purposes the max IQ score is about 200. About one person in a million might be able to score that high. [There have have been some assertions of some person or another having an I.Q. of 220 or so, but for all practical purposes, there is no discernible difference in performance between someone with a stipulated I.Q. of 200, or 210, or 220.]

The Attribute values in WL were predicated on a 3D6 (D&D terminology). [What that means for those that aren't familiar, is: random number from 1 to 6, plus random number from 1 to 6, plus random number from 1 to 6.] That yields a value from 3 to 18 -- with the probabilities being subject to a bell curve. There are a possibilitity of only 216 different die roll outcomes. The odds of scoring an 18 (or a 3) is only _1_ in 216. Conversely, the odds of scoring a "Average" 10 or 11 is 27 out of 216 for each. A 17 (or 4) would be 3 in 216, and a 16 (or 5) would be 6 in 216.

If getting a higher value is NOT supposed to be increasingly difficult, why start with a bell curve distribution in the first place? From having a distribution that mirrors the human population bell curve, why start piling on Attribute points in a linear fashion? And so many points as to make that initial bell curve thoroughly, totally, and completely meaningless? For the way the enhancements work, instead of a 3D6, they should have programmed in a 1D20. Further Attributes that are used to describe a human being's physical and mental potentiality MUST be capped -- otherwise you end up with a weightlifter that could carry the Moon on his back. ["Dumb as a brick, but, boy, can that man lift some serious weight!"] If the contention is that after a certain value, there is NO discernible difference in capability, then that certain value IS the cap -- and the player should know what that value is so he stops putting Skill Points into it. If there is no such cap, then you're back at the man-that-can-lift-the-Moon possibility.

And if the numbers do NOT reflect a linear enhancement of capability, then why use numbers at all? If there is no discernible performance difference between 10 and 11 (or 20 and 21, or 30 and 31) then _stop_ at 10 (or 20 or 30). If there are "breaking points" at 5, 10, 15, 20, etc., then say so. Otherwise people will reasonably assume that higher numbers have a discernible superiority over lower numbers.

[Zombra]

Yes, I noted that in WL there was no upper limit. However, I also suggested that there should be a cap, so the infinity part of your argument does not apply.

OK ... so you're either talking about the system that actually existed, or a made up system that didn't exist ... or some phantasmal combination of both ... I'm confused.

If getting a higher value is NOT supposed to be increasingly difficult, why start with a bell curve distribution in the first place?

No special reason. There's also no special reason not to start with a bell curve distribution. Why not? A character starting out with an 18 DEX was still gifted and had a jump on a guy with a 10. What's wrong with that? I see what you're saying about the open-endedness making a 8-point difference of vanishing significance, but every point still counts ... all the way to infinity.

Further Attributes that are used to describe a human being's physical and mental potentiality MUST be capped -- otherwise you end up with a weightlifter that could carry the Moon on his back.

Again, stats do not describe what you say they do. There's a difference between Wasteland IQ and the English word for Intelligence. ST and strength are two different things. To repeat: every weightlifter and every 6 year old child could not only carry the Moon on his back ... he could carry the Moon and 7 other planetary objects - provided that they are defined as objects that have the property of "liftability". Under this system, there's still no such thing as a superman with the wisdom of God - just a guy who knows lots and lots of skills.

If the contention is that after a certain value, there is NO discernible difference in capability, then that certain value IS the cap -- and the player should know what that value is so he stops putting Skill Points into it. If there is no such cap, then you're back at the man-that-can-lift-the-Moon possibility.

Lifting is an inapplicable example, but regardless, there is no cap. You can have a character who knows every skill at the highest level, or a guy with +100000 melee damage bonus.* It might take a while to level a guy that far, but it can be done. Assuming a finite limit on an infinite system is silly.

*And note ... a guy with a titanic damage bonus can't punch the planet in half, because the planet is not an attackable object. He can kill just about anything in one hit, but there are plenty of martial arts experts who can do the same thing. "Hit Points" are another abstract system and a guy with a billion hit points doesn't necessarily imply superpowers either.

And if the numbers do NOT reflect a linear enhancement of capability, then why use numbers at all?

For the nth time, because linear progression is not the only numerical pattern in existence.

[CaptainPatch]

*And note ... a guy with a titanic damage bonus can't punch the planet in half, because the planet is not an attackable object.

Which is an artificial constraint. The ONLY reason he couldn't crack the planet is because he isn't allowed to attack the planet. If he is capable of dealing X damage, the potential to do that much damage to anything he strikes is there. But the potential remains, awaiting only the programming to permit such an attack. Which is the crux of my "unlimited development" argument. Either the PCs are starting as outstanding wimps and then "muscling up", or they are starting off as normal human beings and becoming demi-gods. If EVERYONE in the world develops the same way, then they are wimps at the beginning. If EVERYONE else is not given the same development opportunity, they become demi-gods.

And if the numbers do NOT reflect a linear enhancement of capability, then why use numbers at all?

For the nth time, because linear progression is not the only numerical pattern in existence.

Then what you have are NOT numbers. They are, as you say, symbols: ! @ # $ % ^ & *. Using numbers as symbols is (understandably) misleading and confusing.

[Zombra]

But the potential remains, awaiting only the programming to permit such an attack. Which is the crux of my "unlimited development" argument. Either the PCs are starting as outstanding wimps and then "muscling up", or they are starting off as normal human beings and becoming demi-gods. If EVERYONE in the world develops the same way, then they are wimps at the beginning. If EVERYONE else is not given the same development opportunity, they become demi-gods.

Still nope. The PCs start off as average to talented, and go on to become ... some amount above average. They never perform feats of superhuman power; thus there is no basis for the assertion that high stats represent superhuman ability. They are also able to perform perfectly well as normal human beings from the start - walking, talking, feeding themselves, lifting heavy objects, and maintaining their firearms; thus there is no basis for the assertion that starting characters are subfunctional.

Then what you have are NOT numbers. They are, as you say, symbols: ! @ # $ % ^ & *.

Correct! They are not numbers in the traditional sense of direct measurement. That is the meat of the disconnect we are having. A 13 Strength doesn't mean you have 13 muscles, or that you can lift 130 pounds, or anything like that. It just puts you at a point on a chart between guys rated 12 and guys rated 14. A guy with a 60 Speed in Wasteland can't run six times as fast as a guy with a 10 Speed.

However, the use of numbers instead of random strings of letters is still useful, because statistics do represent ascending measurements of ability. It's just that the rate of capability increase does not always have a direct correlation to the rate of statistical increase.

Using numbers as symbols is (understandably) misleading and confusing.

Cheerfully conceded, but you have to understand that RPGs have been doing it since ... well, since RPGs.

Just look at Marvel Super Heroes (1984) for one example. A Feeble person can get a white shift (crappy) result 60% of the time, whereas a Class 1000 (insanely powerful) person can get a crappy result a full 5% of the time. That's 1/12, although mathematically you'd expect it to be 1/500. Direct math does not apply!

Better yet, let's go back even farther to Dungeons & Dragons (1976). Check out those different variables, and how NONE of them are based on direct mathematical derivation. If a 16 Strength gets you +1 damage, then how can an 18 give you +3? You should need a freakin 48! Nope, that's just how it is. Shouldn't a guy with a 15 have five times the chance to break open a door as a guy with a 3? Well, he doesn't; he has twice the chance. And what about those parenthetical values like 18(25) or 18(99)? How can a damage bonus go from +3 to +6 all within a single point of stat value? It just does.

The point of all this is that RPG stat systems are arbitrary, and they only mean what they are defined to mean. There may be some systems where every stat is a direct, linear measurement of some aspect of a person, but many systems do not operate that way. Wasteland does not operate that way.

I hope this has been informative.