Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Please Change The Trait Game Mechanic

I really liked how certain conversation or behaviour options turned you "heartless", "vindictive", or "altruistic".

What I disliked to no end, is the game immersion breaking need to save before conversations and then reloading if you got a trait bonus that you really didn't want, especially with 2 different characters - and on top of that then actually doing in game what you want to do in the first place while both characters get different bonuses.

(It only got better in late game, if you had enough points on a specific trait side, that one or two on the other side didn't matter anymore)

This could be solved by having the trait bonuses not be something like "Bartering +1", "Sneaking +1", "Immunity to fear", "Crafting+1"

Some of these bonuses save you 3-5 skill points. Or to good to true (I'm looking at you immunity to fear versus +1 on loremaster). Either the bonus or the saved skill points are absolutely *crazy* not to have, if you wanted to optimize your party. Or not waste skill points.

To keep this still very cool system of choices having an impact on the world / characters, you could implement :

-that certain NPC's react differently to certain traits, the tone of the conversation
-certain NPC's have different conversation options for different traits, improving replayability (if the different choices have different outcomes)
-follower's or henchmen could voice their opinion with certain traits displayed, good or bad (not that they'd leave you - if you optimized your party and they left you - that would be immersion breaking again, because you'd just load and choose differently)
-and countless other options that I can't think of right now ;) - but nothing that would require an optimized party to save and reload all the time

Just to reiterate, if I wanted to play a good-hearted rouge (in strategic mode for ex.) I would reload every time I lost the "+20% to hit bonus when backstabbing" bonus, and have to be heartless at least more that half the time because of it.
Since this is an RPG, having the role I want to play dictated by the bonus that I will get, is really immersion breaking (and kind of annoying - in a role-playing game).

Agreed that traits should have more of an impact on roleplaying and not just stats, but a simple solution might just be to make all traits at least somewhat valuable to all classes. For example, +1 con vs + 1 speed, +armor vs +elemental resist, +gold found vs +experience obtained, +initiative vs. +starting AP, etc. Of course, some people will always try and min-max and decide one of those stats is better for their character, but something like +1 SPD vs + 1 CON is a much harder choice than +20 backstab hit chance vs. literally anything if you're not a rogue. Most people will just be like "Oh well, Speed and Con are both good, so I'll just go with whatever I get" instead of "Well shit, I'm a rogue, I guess I HAVE to be heartless."

I think this is a good argument for removing the bonuses entirely. How do the bonuses make the traits any more interesting at all?

The point that people have been making is that they don't want to mix the roleplaying and the combat. They don't want to be making a choice while roleplaying that will affect their build in combat. You're essentially arguing the same thing -- you don't want to be prevented from making a choice when you feel the reward is not rogue-appropriate or whatever.

I don't believe that choices should be equally valuable, and I believe that the whole point of having stats is to enable min-maxing. However, this should allow for different choices to benefit different strategies or play styles. Choosing between speed and constitution should be an important choice.

So I think the best solution is to focus on providing roleplaying rewards for roleplaying decisions.

I'm fine with them taking away stat bonuses entirely, and I think you're right that stats don't really make them more interesting, but if they insist on keeping them, DO make them fairly equally valuable so the focus is on the roleplay instead of the stats. Or make the stat bonuses unequal, but as the OP said, make certain traits have consequences, whether they're roleplay only or reward/stat consequences (though as he said, that could ultimately lead to a further min-max focus.)

The decision between Speed and Con is an important choice for sure, but all classes benefit from both. You might prefer, say, Con on a tank, or Speed on a mage, but it's not like Con on a Mage or Speed on a tank is useless. All but the most hardcore min-maxxers are far less likely to redo a situation if they got Con instead of Speed compared to +20% backstab hit chance vs not getting that since that is a large, specific bonus. Point is, at least attempt to equalize them while not necessarily homogenizing them like Obedient vs. Independent.

I think this mechanic should be removed.
Gaining immunities or saving up to 5 skill points for giving one answer in a conversation is too powerful. It is also bad that you get nothing if you have the same amount of answers in opposing traits. This forces you to stick to one side or you end up with nothing at all. This mechanic also encourages save scumming a lot.

The best alignment system I have seen was in Pillars of Eternity. You gain traits like in D:OS, but it changes only how people react to you and what answers you can give in conversations. It does not give any skill, stat or combat related bonus.

Well the trait system never gave you anything really important (though it could save you a LOT of points)... well ok Immunity to fear was nice... and the leadership bonus was good too.

If it was removed the game would have to give you those little bonuses some other way.

If only we had some sort of... racial trait system.

I agree. IDEALLY, what I'd like to see from the Traits in D:OS 2 is that they do nothing in terms of boosting combat ability, but instead if you have the Traits, it opens up different dialogue options that you can't get without that trait. So if you are heartless, you can get a dialogue option to trick that orphan child into giving you his life savings or something. If you're altruistic, you get a different option. If possible, some of these options could be further gated by not just requiring you to have Heartless, but to have Heartless at X points above 0. Any fewer and you are not heartless enough to get that dialogue option.


REALISTICALLY, though, that might make quest designers cry.

Ultimately though I'd prefer Traits replaced rather than removed wholesale.

I actually liked the little bonuses along the way.

Yeah, that might be too much to hope for, but if we separate the game into "combat" and "roleplaying", what elements can we fit under roleplaying? Bartering? Pickpocketing? Persuasion? Lockpicking? Looting?

These are all skills you use outside of combat which provide only temporary benefits in combat when you find a good item or persuade someone to drink the kool-aid. (Although being able to pickpocket during combat could blur that line a bit.)

I think there are a decent variety of ways to provide bonuses to RP stats. As I mentioned in another thread, I think they could even dedicate an entirely separate leveling system to the RP aspect of the game, similar to how base-building in XCOM essentially "levels" separately from the individual soldiers.

Further to this, Witcher also avoids the good/bad dichotomy that slightly ruins the choices in games like Mass Effect and Fallout. Fallout 4 still has the awkward design of having "nice" and "mean" responses to almost every dialogue (even though it doesn't keep score), which means that my "good guy" character can turn into a jerk/murderer at any moment. In practice this means that as soon as I've decided that my character should be a "good guy", the "mean" options are completely wasted unless I somehow imagine my character has multiple personality disorder.

Mass Effect turned "good/evil" into "paragon/renegade", when they started to recognise this problem. I'm hoping that with the next Mass Effect, they'll take this a step further, drop the dichotomy and take the 100% grey morality approach from Witcher.

Traits in Divinity are a similar modification to the "paragon/renegade" in Mass Effect. They are specific little decisions that define your character early on, and they are essentially locked in. My experience with them is a little similar to how it works in Fallout and Mass Effect (not good).

I like the fact that Geralt has a personality and my choices in Witcher 3 are generally more about his mood at that particular moment, but occasionally about making difficult moral judgement calls. Either way, I don't feel like I'm ever given options that are not consistent with his personality, and I don't feel like my earlier decisions are forcing me to continue playing in a certain way. I generally play as a "good guy", but there were at least a couple of occasions where I made choices that would have been classed as "renegade" in Mass Effect, because it felt appropriate to me. I definitely don't need the distraction of thinking about whether the decision will affect my ability to backstab. But once again, "RP consequences for RP decisions" (eg not being allowed back into the tavern after picking a fight, or maybe after stealing enough things, people stop letting you walk around their houses unsupervised) feels a lot more acceptable.

Slightly ruins? It has been the everloving blight since Fable popularized that garbagio.

Not that I blame Fable, it did it first and was ABOUT pointless good versus evil.

HECK Divinity is hurt by this because you HAVE to go one way or the other. You don't get any bonuses for being moderate. While at the same time being an evil bastard goes completely unpunished in a world where it

Don't get me wrong it isn't like I dislike moral choices that are binary... but... well...

Fallout 1 and 2 it was all about trying to find the way to do the right choice and at the end they show you exactly what your actions did. While being evil was largely unpunished that is because... It is the post-apocalypse, who is going to stop you? It highlighted not only how terrible things are but why precisely you are so desperately needed.

Mass Effect is about being vicious and evil for no reason then you are a huge ass... With none of your actions really having consequences for either you or the world around you... nor was it particularly tough or rewarding to go for the more angelic or daemonic actions.

While Jade Empire is about a non-sense pseudo-philosophy that makes absolutely no sense if you use your brain for a single moment. On paper it makes sense it is about helping someone versus giving them the opportunity to improve. Yet in game it usually amounts to helping someone who can't help themselves versus "Whelp I hope you don't die or become crippled after I snap your spine in order to teach you martial arts. I sure am making you stronger".

---

I guess it is to say... A lot of modern games are about the "idea" of morality without actually diving in.

Actually, Fable (2004) was preceded by Knights of the Old Republic (2003) which had a "light side/dark side" (and was made by Bioware).

In fact, in Baldur's Gate (1998) you would gain and lose "reputation" depending on your moral choices. Of course, this was a game where moral choices often boiled down to "kiss the baby/shoot the baby". Except I remember I once got "evil points" because a racist, angry mob was trying to burn a black woman at the stake just for being black (ie dark elf) and I felt "Huh, that seems unethical." Apparently this meant I had to slaughter the entire angry mob. Of course, it turned out she was totally evil. Because she's black (purple?).

Anyway, alignments were pretty much brought to the world of video games and made popular by Bioware.

My problem with Fallout is that the protagonist is really bland, so I'm having trouble paying attention to the story. But overall, my feeling is that none of my choices have any weight. I really think Bioware did a great job with Shepard from Mass Effect in terms of balancing customisation with a pre-defined personality. Now Bioware just needs to shake off their baggage and mature into Witcher-style morality and choices.

Yes but Fable popularized it IMO

"Moral choices" have existed since back in the DOS era.