**Question: (to all concerned)...

Am I right in thinking that those in favor of no attributes, look upon their character as a digital costume they get to "wear" in the game world?

Think about this... really consider it a minute. Is this how you play? This method needs no attributes, as the game simply reacts to what you do in it.

Players (some players) that view their character as a unique individual in their own right... a character ~native to that setting... like RobinHood (personally)... These players want (and actually need) character attributes, because for them its not about wearing a "digital wizard suit, and gaining wizard powers", it is about a specific person, with specific personal (pre-existing) abilities and limitations; the game is about what unfolds for that person, with those vulnerabilities and skills.

Personally, I'm keeping the wait and see attitude. It doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea if there's good reasons for doing so (Filtering attributes to Health, Stamina, and Magicka). The new leveling system and perks might have us covered. Who knows?

Until I have full information regarding all those things, I won't make my judgement.

Yeah attributes are not bad... if there wouldn't be 18 other skills that do the exact same things, nearly the exact same way...
In other RPGs mellee damage is purely decided by strength, skill only comes into factor with special moves or attack rolls, but in TES weapon skill also raises the damage done by the weapon, and in much bigger manner than strength itself.

RPG don't NEED attributes, they need ways to differentiate characters and that can be done in many ways, with skill numbers, traits, feats, perks or even inventory, attributes is just one of them but not needed, unless you want a realistic simulator, but then you need more than those simplistic attributes...

Everything you could do with attributes is still in (apparently everything except speed, but that can be debated...) and not just in the 3 stats, but in the 18 skills and the many perks under them.


Yes, and that specific person also needs a specific personality, with specific lines...

...and we would enter the jRPG category...

How is adding to strength any different, than just using a sword and getting better at it?
Why can't you differentiate from your character by using a weapon, doing things, that' preferred by the character, not the player?

Nice to know lol

I'm not sure what to make of this issue just yet. I can completely sympathize with Todd on some points, like his favorite (and only) example of attribute redundancy so far - intelligence affecting magicka. Yet at the same time, I still shudder to think how things like swimming speed and encumbrance will be covered by the perks system. Swinging your sword an arbitrary number of times, and then suddenly being able to magically transport another 100 pounds on your back is what worries me.

Even martial perks such as bleeding/armor penetration that people seem to be so fond of, I definitely hope they have a gradual progression - otherwise the game's pacing will potentially feel way too stiff to me. Attributes made all of those things develop nice and slowly. I don't know about you, but I personally feel a much greater sense of accomplishment watching my character start out as a level 1 constantly missing (MW) or dealing little damage (OB) gradually develop into a killing machine. If the removal of attributes entails things like base damage not changing at all until you pick some magic "I AM SUDDENLY 30% MORE LETHAL" ability by levelling up, it definitely is going to make my connection with the game and my character a lot more impersonal.

We'll just have to wait and see though. Personally however I can already imagine them re-implementing them in TES VI and apologizing.

Sounds like LARP*ing vs. Tabletop RPG gaming to me. LARP rules typically are pretty barebones compared to, say, D&D because it means less dice rolls when running around through the forest smacking each other with padded weapons and beanbag 'spells'. ^^ The first focuses more on -being- the character, while the second focuses more on -playing- a character.

-----

* = Live Action Role Playing.

Which I find to be nuts~and a tad hypocritical, as it implies that one identical weapon does different damage for different individuals ~but... The only way this makes sense, is to assume greater stats, or greater skill, and yet, the game relies on the player to aim... so its not greater character skill; but two characters of equal strength can still do different damage with the same weapon. :confused:

Agree 100%.

From what I keep hearing, they seem to really respect the basic structure Fighter - Mage - Thief or Combat - Magic - Stealth. As long as they make games that cater to those three styles of characters, I don't care how they implement it. Whether it be through attributes or perks within skills, to me, it does not matter, as long as it translates into an added ability (or knowledge) in the gameworld. As long as following a certain path increases the abilities of that path, it's all good.

Actually, I would love to see a RPGame in the future that has no visible "stat numbers" whatsoever. To me there is something ridiculous about knowing that I have "level 42 heavy armor". This is just a remnant of D&D role playing with pencil and dice etc. There is no need for stats in video games. Invisible stats yes, visible stats no.

Some of these stats need to be visible somehow (a good example is precisely Health, Magika, and Stamina) but others need not be visibly quantified. Idealy I would like to see games that find better ways of representing these stats visually without showing a precise quantity. I mean if my speed stat is high, I am faster in the gameworld... that's proof enough! Why do I need a number telling me that I'm fast. The same goes with most (if not all) stats.

The stats are probably all still there, but they are behind the scenes (as they should be).

Let the "dungeon master" (ie computer) handle all the stats, there is no need to see all these numbers.

Hi Bill and welcome to the forum!

Here are my thoughts on the points you raised:

Strength, to distinguish the max carry weight between a powerful but physically weak Mage and a hardy Warrior.
If you want to play a very strong character, you can select a carry weight perk, as well as perks related to poweful 2-handed attacks and heavy armor, etc.

Willpower, to pick up magic regeneration rate?
If you want to role play a character with high willpower, there will most likely be a perk related to magicka regeneration, as well as other perks to customize your character in this way.

speed, to give rogue-like characters a running-speed advantage that their character build needs?
There will be perks related to increased base movement speed, faster sprint speed, faster stamina regeneration (when you "sprint" in Skyrim, it will deplete your stamina), as well as a dragon shout that enables you to sprint very quickly (Whirlwind Sprint)

Agility, to help the thieves take less damage from blows, also a necessity for that build (since their health isn't too high).
There will be perks that allow you to deflect arrows, also there is a skill for Light Armor, and other perks helpful for roleplaying a very agile character, such as silent running, etc.

Attributes are as equally worthless as all the other things you mentioned. It all just depends on how much of a point you give them. Beth has decided to take the lazydev route and just cut them rather than give them an actual point.

Glad it's gone because attributes are just a mini game in all other elder scrolls. They really don't say much about your character like the skills do.

Also attributes didn't define races well either. I could understand the grief on this point if there was an attribute cap for a race but all races could reach 100 in all attributes. Races were defined by the bonuses and weaknesses because nothing stopped Bethesda from having dangerous Redgard casters or Altmer warriors. But you know that Altmer is weak against magicka and can exploit that.

So your guy swings an axe all over the place? We know he is strong and does more damage with 1h or 2h accordingly. You cast magicka all the time? Can you really afford to put more points into health and stamina over magicka if you are going the pure mage route? A warrior who ignores his magicka skills but puts points into mana is going to tire faster and die quicker than a better built warrior.

When you consider the above you can really see how attributes don't have a place.

Also no attribute directly effected how much damage you took. You need the appropriate skill first for attacks and damage reduction, which proves that the elderscrolls has always been more based off of the skills than the attributes except mana, stamina and health.

Yeah, well they could've also cut out half of the skills, or just make them perks only without any number behind them.

That would make attributes matter more...

I think when Todd says they included attributes in the early Skyrim builds but everyone found them to be redundant, he's talking about combining Oblivion's attribute and skill system with perks.

If there is a perk for increased carry weight, then that aspect of Strength is quite redundant, the same goes for lots of other perks, some of which were already in Oblivion, but simply mapped to increased attributes or skills.

Okay, and?



Problem is why would you create a perk that makes an attribute redundant, when it should actually be the other way around. Encumbrance should be derived from attributes. Not some perks you pick that arbitrarily raise your encumbrance level to whatever level Beth or whoever else deems fit. Same thing for other things that should be governed by attributes and/or skills.

Perks shouldn't be something that says "Pick this and you get 50 extra magicka!" or "Pick this for +5 Sword Damage!" they should be something that says "Pick this and you can perform a special move with your sword with a chance to score a critical hit because your attributes and skills have reached a point that makes such a move possible!" Fallout 3 had the best perk system and if they fleshed out attributes and skills more we could have had a really good system.

Attributes didnt hurt me at all and if they were still there it wouldnt bother me .I just think the new way is better overall and will make more diverse charicters which is what i wanted from attributes anyway .If we had all the perks and the new armor effecting speed more than a speed attribute which makes more sense to me .Attributes on top of it may be counter productive and they would pobably be redundant just my opinon but i havent playedso i could be wrong .Its not about attribute hate more about i think the new system will probably encompass these things and add to them even more.

Perks and attributes are not mutually exclusive, the only reason they got rid of them was so there would be less choice you'd have to make at character creation. Since their denouncement, Ive advocated a 1-10 attribute system chosen at character creation similar to Fallout's, this would however require choices at creation, which Beth is against for some reason.

So if they would simplify skills instead that would be better?

Is this just attributes for the sake of attributes, if so, it's meaningless.

Attributes are a 'classic' part of roleplaying games, but are NOT necessary.

Many will stop reading at this point.

But hear me out: role-playing games, both western and eastern, are about the stories, lands, and characters in the games. Attributes serve the game as guidlines, rules by which to determine success or failure and a way to measure one's abilities.

For many people, this is not true; a roleplaying game is simply another game with a lot more numbers to optimise. I pity those people.

Many people inherent dislike any simplification of anything at all; others are simply wary of changes to a standard forumula. No matter what, if you can't bring yourself to HONESTLY give the game a chance, if you can't get over the fact that this game doesn't have 'str, dex, cha, boring stat #6, #51, #2' then you won't ever be able to get as much enjoyment out of Skyrim as someone who accepts the changes.

I'm not saying 'like', I'm saying 'accept'. 'Tolerate' would be another word. You don't have to like a crying baby on the bus, but you must tolerate it to get to your destination. If you don't tolerate it, you'll be kicked off the bus and never reach the destination. Your destination is fun. The Bus is Skyrim's UI, Statistics, and Menu System.


tl; dr:

Health= Endurance
Magicka= Willpower, Intelligence
Stamina= Agility, Strength

Not in reality, but in concept. Give the game a chance, and try to appreciate what it does right and the good changes that it brings. Whether this be the many professions, the redone crafting skills, or simply the ability to have a character with facial hair.

No? Where the hell are you getting this from? Nothing should be simplified. They should be expanded.

Except we don't know if this is true. "Perks will fix everything" (see #2 below) seems to be the main argument for the removal of attributes, but it is unfounded and naive.

That aside, this discussion is really, really old. If you want to start it again, expect to see the following arguments from supporters of the removal repeatedly.

#1 Argument from redundancy: We don't need attributes because the effects are redundant.
>They are not redundant when you implement them in a meaningful way. Also, redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing when it increases complexity and options.

#2 Argument from effects: The effects are still there!
>The Argument is not that effects have been removed, but that they are not portrayed in a realistisc and complex manner. Also it is argued that a skill tree (perks) can not replace attributes satisfactory.
>Update: We now even know that not all effects are still there, with running speed solely depending on your equipment for example.

#3 Argument from previous systems: In Morrowind/Oblivion attributes were this or that, thus they should go.
>We don't want the old system back.

i dont mind the change, I'll see how it goes,

Attributes seems to be another subject I'm changing my mind on. The attributes system in the old games svcked and I'm not sad to see it gone, but when I formed that initial opinion it was under the impression that everything they governed would still be in the game, and that's clearly not the case after all. Speed is constant between characters, modified by encumbrance and equipment. I have no clue whether Magicka will have any effect whatsoever on your ability to resist magic, or what aspects of your character determine your chance to resist staggering, etc.

I don't mind simplification, but only if it doesn't come at the cost of variety.

A carry weight perk would seem to imply a person that knows how best to use what strength they have, rather than that they are physically stronger.

IMO it would be an awful shame if that's all that character will power was used for in the game.
I would certainly prefer it if Magicka was derived (or even just partially derived) from willpower, but not actually be one in the same thing. This would preclude a character that was possessed of an indomitable will, but without much Magicka... Like a crusader (or inquisitor) for instance. :shrug: Merging this stuff leads to generalized character builds IMO ~same as a generic Sword skill leads to lithe stealthy thieves that use foils, but are equally skilled with a http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Dark_Knight_Flamberge_L_20-ics010.jpg.

First perk I've seen that actually sounds appropriate as a perk IMO.

Not a real concern for me. Besides, any properly optimized character would have pretty much all of them maxed in the end anyways.

I dont really see anything wrong with it i like it better this way because now i can increase my magicka and health faster