Not necessarily. The stat system is both a major oversimplification and a big generalization. Excellent generalship and expert fencing do not necessarily go together in real life. History’s top generals were generally extremely intelligent and often well educated. While an understanding of tactics doesn’t necessarily require much of an education, strategy, and even more importantly, logistics, require greater degrees of education. Futhermore, generals who were as charismatic as they were brilliant built followings capable of deposing kings and emperors. As such, it was by no means unheard of for noteworthy military leaders to be extremely proficient at aspects of all three of these traits.
That said, I’m not knocking the stat system itself. It’s hard to make a stat system for a game that is even remotely realistic without adding a significant amount of complexity that many will think detracts from the game.
Well, there’s the key. There’s much more likely to be finer degrees of success and consequence in future games. For example, Intelligence of 3 may be enough to run a Harrower, but Intelligence 5 may be required to get optimal blood economy when refining the blood - but do you have the Charisma to avoid losing morale from adopting the Thaumatarchy’s methods? When the Alastors come to destroy your Goetic Harrower, do you have the Combat to fight them off, the Charisma to make them switch sides (doubtful if you have the Intelligence to run the harrower…), or do you spend some of the blood you got from the Harrowing to burn them all to the ground?
I don’t expect it. Fine degrees of difference are a waste of effort in a game like this, where every divergent outcome has to be specifically written. Substantially different branches, and larger degrees of success or failure, are better to read and less exhausting to write. Moreover, you’re largely repeating what I described as the ‘trap’ scenario - a couple places where full investment in a stat would get better results, but where doing so would ultimately weaken you for your failure to generalize. Points would be too rare for it to work.
Ultimately, I think I’m actually coming around to Sampl’s view, at least in a sense. Small, discrete levels are nice for immersion, and work well for these first few chapters (or the first book, I suppose) in which those levels are static. But when you’re putting in systems to increase the stats, it makes things…awkward. Because of the coarse granularity of the system, advancement has to be extremely rare, and is necessarily extremely dramatic as well. This also hurts with blending the advancement with narrative in an organic way; essentially, Havenstone would be reduced to putting in a choice along the lines of “over the past year, I’ve really been working on advancing my _____.” And then there’s the big question of how many points to dole out. I obviously feel strongly that giving out one for each time the maximum check increases by one would be insufficient, and my first impulse would be to say that the proper number would, rather, be 1.5, half of the size by which the point ‘bucket’ increases and ideal for maximizing the possibility space - but, of course, this can’t even be done when points are discrete!
If advancement is to take place, I would say that the system would be better off as finer-grained, which would also allow it to occur more organically based on your actions during the story. One of the best mechanical systems I’ve seen in all the choice of games is that in Choice of Robots - four stats on roughly a 1-30 meaningful scale, with slight (or sometimes large) shifts up and down liberally scattered throughout the game, often paired. (That is, a choice would increase one stat, but decrease another - with the decrease being less than the increase, to help keep the reader from feeling cheated)
You are comparing too totally different types of choice games. Also, you are looking this from a pure metagaming value of numbers . There are many people like me who doesn’t care about numbers or the ratio effect of each choice in a fairmath code.
I really would like if you only could improve the stats associated with your choices. That would be an interesting situation I try to do something about that lines in my game.
Imagine my character, charisma is her thing so if she only choose charisma options she couldn’t get the other stat upgrade. I put this : You advance on your personal charisma after so many difficult speeches. However, you didn’t use your other skills who remained the same. Remember trying use them in your game or maybe you would lose your proficiency in them.
If a player use choices from a mixed of stats I let them choose between. I even think about the stat they never use only upgrade if you find a teacher in that field .
However, A title like this with a commercial value I doubt could do something similar. Casual players want felt overpowered and wipe out the balance between stats.
Imagine the rage if suddenly they can’t upgrade any stat even if they never used it.
I totally agree here. Statistical use is essential to every game here but their use has as much influence on the “type” of CoG work as the actual writing of the author does.
Advancement can be done in multiple ways without any inflation within the system taking place - as is the actual quantity of statistics used. I feel @Dominic is getting lost in the forest concentrating on the individual trees. ymmv.
I understand the position, certainly, but the design of the underlying numerical system has an impact, as far as those numbers affect the narrative via ‘checks.’ It bears consideration. One of these games…god, what was it now…Life of a Wizard, I think, suffered substantially for a poorly-designed skill system that effectively punished any attempt to experiment outside of a character’s core skill.
Good writing can mask or cover for poor mechanical design, absolutely, but it’s just as true that the end result is better when both are done well.
Well we don’t know if this are handled well or not yet, You can’t know how it flows through a serie of games. This is not a only volume game. So advance has to be slightly different .
So far Havenstone’s done a good job, even with coarse granularity. INT 1 being needed for the tax raid is a reminder that it’s not just the primary skill that matters. I imagine there will be several occasions in future games where a generalist gets the best outcome, and other occasions where a specialist does. It might be time-consuming, though, for Havenstone to design checks and write choices that take into account the very different possible stat distributions in game 5 (4 Charisma, 0 Combat, 3 Intellect; 0 Charisma, 1 Combat, 6 Intellect; or 2 Charima, 3 Combat, 2 Intellect). That problem’s still a while away, though.
I believe that @Havenstone has a system in mind, even if he has not yet implemented it. (I have no opinion either way if he has or has not implemented it). I just can not see writing so much without considering this crucial aspect of the game.
The stats and their mechanics is something I only really consider after my initial session as a gamer. I want as pure of a play-session to my intentions as I can get that first session.
So far the importance of my MC’s character seems the important factor in this story.
Again, I realize your experience is different than mine but I do feel a person writing such a CoG by definition has to have a rudimentary system at a minimum worked out before getting this far. This does not mean they are locked into something but I’m not sure we as testers know enough atm to give on-point feedback.
The issue with stat balancing is really a tough line that is and will be hard to walk. It’s problem’s won’t be specific to this game, the same stat system (Excellent, Average, Poor) tends be used for lots of choice script games (even if they are displayed with percentages or give a bit more leeway because of that) and the problems with it tend not to be conceptual but of execution.
It’s certainly possible for any number of problems to occur with balancing the system and choices but you can’t fix any of it till they are written, or more importantly played through and examined. I certainly see @Dominic’s points when talking about adding points to the current setup in future games. It makes the system more complex, without necessarily making it better. Not to say it can’t or won’t, but that it makes it require more attention and care.
@Havenstone Speaking of these types of issues and now that you going back through chapter two, I’ve got a couple things I wanted to point out. There is an inconstancy with the amount of followers who are counted as sick. Your comment mentioned 17 but the code only on gives back 12. Is that because of people who rotate in and out of the Abler’s tent because of half rations or an error? If you steal from helot barns you obviously have problems asking for food after you’ve taken it, but there isn’t any mention of that if you ask for food and then steal it.
My only comments for the new content is that this chapter is an absolute roller coaster of emotion, and it was a little difficult to follow to the conversation with my dad as a helot toward the end.
Well, yes, what he’s already written has certain implications for what sorts of system it would easily fit, as I somewhat implied a few posts ago. Coarseness in measurement implies rare, large advancement, probably taking place at narrative breaks…but whatever he may have in mind, it’s a lot easier to adjust before it’s actually been substantially baked into the code.
For example, even without major changes, a shift to small-scale, interwoven advancement would still be possible using decimals, as I believe the engine fully supports. Give out one or two tenths of a point when you meaningfully make use of magic, combat, or your silver tongue, and allow skills to build up organically…it would take some thought, and tweaking in some places to avoid, for example, incentivising raiding everything just to develop your own skills, but I think that kind of system is ultimately better than one in which you’re handed a development point to spend.
But I also feel like I’ve begun, or maybe more than begun, repeating myself, so I’m going to drop the subject.
I can see this suggestion being passed on because the situation is a bit awkward for bringing it up but I think you should be able to point out to your father, if the MC is an aristo, that you had already intended and somewhat begun courting de Firiac and that you had “intend for you father to act as chaperone but since you insist on behaving like a boor at every turn…”
I thought the waiting for three decades line was a bit long for the “usual” in such a rustic corner of Hegemony.
The implications in the helot dad discussion were a bit hard to follow particularly since it seemed like we were supposed to “get it” out of context. Might need some internal dialogue to 'splain it to the slower folks like me.
I’m surprised at myself for not seeing this before but in retrospect, and should be for intelligent/aristo the MC in context, it is pretty clear Hirion was in for a murderin and it would be pinned on the band. I would like to see an option where they are “detained temporarily for their own safety.” As soon as you can provide an escort and have a reasonable assurance of his safety to his destination you’ll see them on their way. I suspect they’ll see it as kidnapping by another name and that’s fine.
Seconded? I suppose. I have the inkling of a feeling that dad knows abt Breden’s romance because it’s not a recent development like Simon/Suzane and Kalt/Kala’s. But it depends on what Haven thinks is appropriate, seeming as he writes whether, when and where dad stalks us.
I think you can discover that they are on the run if you talk with one of them to some length, so I do see what you mean! Seconded.
Srsly eff The MC father, i slapped him How dare you call MY BREDEN thoose filthy words and me. I tried to be nice and all but when i saw what a prick he was, i restarted and slapped him insted BEST choice ever. I cant wait to just stab him to.
Concerning stat allocation, I think it’s important to note that you may have others in your band who you may end up relying on who have high stats in some areas. If you want to put all your points in one stat to beat the toughest checks, it could be important to predict how best to manage your followers to handle easier checks in other areas. Also, beating every check likely won’t be required as it certainly isn’t now.
I replayed this again. And still feeling the same, my character and my men actually act out of character. My character suddenly lost all her charisma, and my men lost all faith in me. I tried to make them stop my father and no one tried at all. I tried to make him talk to me alone and nothing… My character thinking would be launching him to the fire. Or possibly poisoning him before he dare to dishonor her. Also Where is Breden? I didn’t use her and she totally vanished into air. I chose to think there was a traitor, but no further action possible. Breden just disappears within hint about what happened or when. And There is no Gandhi choice of peacefully let me being captured and ask for a nobility fair trial. But I suspect Karagon is not English empire. But a character who didn’t nothing bad or anarchy could’ve tried.
How dare you call MY BREDEN thoose filthy words and me. I tried to be nice and all but when i saw what a prick he was, i restarted and slapped him insted BEST choice ever. I cant wait to just stab him to. 
