252 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

A character system need not be complex or abstract, but it needs to take a primary role in how your character is defined, not just be shunted to the background and arbitrarily used as a way of making your damage bigger.

Otherwise, how is that different to an Action Adventure game?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Fallout's SPECIAL system is how to do it right.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 03:36 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...

Their reviews are pretty good. It's the forums that have the baggage and hilarity.

The forums were the ones that made me think they were all nutjobs. Maybe I'll take their reviews more seriously, or at least give them a glance.

mrcrusty wrote...

A character system need not be complex
or abstract, but it needs to take a primary role in how your character
is defined, not just be shunted to the background and arbitrarily used
as a way of making your damage bigger.

Otherwise, how is that
different to an Action Adventure game?

I've said it before and
I'll say it again, Fallout's SPECIAL system is how to do it right.

An action-adventure game need not give you any choice in how  the character you are controlling is designed, or any variation in the plot, by the nature of the genre.

I don't think that, for us to have an RPG, anything needs to be reducible to numbers. I see that only as a consequence of the technology available at the time pen&paper RPGs were being designed. They evolved out of wargames, after all.

Although I do agree with you that the idea behind SPECIAL is great - something to define the set physical characters of a person, along with a series of skills which have a variety of impacts.

Though I would design a system like this: the attributes are fixed, with only small changes after CC, and influence what skills you can have. The skills can be improved externally (learning from books, trainers, and maybe a small experiential compontent that is itself a skill). Then, the actual abilities come from talent trees that are locked, not by level, but by the skill. Few abilities with some upgrades.

It would be pretty intuitive.

Party NPCs would have fixed attributes, so that would limit their development, but you could grow their skills how you see fit.

Modifié par In Exile, 30 mai 2011 - 03:41 .

[MonkeyLungs]

Daveros wrote...

Sidney wrote...

I don't want more complex "roll playing" I want a better "role playing" experience but so many people here are more about the former than latter.

Just about my favourite quote ever; and I agree wholeheartedly.

You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

[In Exile]

MonkeyLungs wrote...
You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

You mean games like Max Payne, Zelda, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear or God of War?

None of these games have dialogue & CC. Some have very mild leveling, but none of them are staistics based and none of them involved party-based controls.

Games like the Witcher 2 aren't action-adventure, but by your definition they would be.

[MonkeyLungs]

I never said any specific game or that said game would have all those elements at once.

Witcher games = action-rpg.

These are like, just my opinions though man. Dude.

[Daveros]

MonkeyLungs wrote...


You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

They're evidentally not mutually exclusive, but some things can be emphasised to too great an extent; that's what I think the quote is brilliant at pointing out.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Their reviews are pretty good. It's the forums that have the baggage and hilarity.

The forums were the ones that made me think they were all nutjobs. Maybe I'll take their reviews more seriously, or at least give them a glance.

Quite a few of the reviews are slanted and bias (especially against Bioware or Bethesda), but as a rule, they are incredibly detailed and provide examples for their arguments. So they are good for getting to the meat of the issues of the game, but they can also be a bit spoiler heavy.

In Exile wrote...
Though I would design a system like this: the attributes are fixed, with only small changes after CC, and influence what skills you can have. The skills can be improved externally (learning from books, trainers, and maybe a small
experiential compontent that is itself a skill). Then, the actual abilities come from talent trees that are locked, not by level, but by the skill. Few abilities with some upgrades.

Sounds like SPECIAL -> Skills -> Perks, to be quite honest.

So, I guess we agree on that.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 03:49 .

[MonkeyLungs]

In Exile wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

You mean games like Max Payne, Zelda, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear or God of War?

None of these games have dialogue & CC. Some have very mild leveling, but none of them are staistics based and none of them involved party-based controls.

Games like the Witcher 2 aren't action-adventure, but by your definition they would be.

A cool action adventure with many rpg type elements is Outcast.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Quite a few of the reviews are slanted and bias (especially against Bioware or Bethesda), but as a rule, they are incredibly detailed and provide examples for their arguments. So they are good for getting to the meat of the issues of the game, but they can also be a bit spoiler heavy.

Spoilers are a definite no for me. It plays havoc with my experience of a game.

Sounds like SPECIAL -> Skills -> Perks, to be quite honest.

So, I guess we agree on that.

Not quite. I wouldn't actually have skills have any gameplay effect other than talk skills for the PC. I wouldn't, for example, have a skill like mechanic to fix weapons or anything of the sort. Perks are also basic skill modifiers (like + % to health or +dodge) whereas mine would be the DA2 or DA:O skill trees.

So not the same, but similar.

[In Exile]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I never said any specific game or that said game would have all those elements at once..

The thing is, if you like those features, you might want them all in one game. And my question to you is what do you get when you have some simple statics and party based combat like in DA2 (assuming, for a second, it was well-executed).

So long as it is some kind of RPG, Bioware would be fine with that. And Bioware seems to think both DA:O and DA2 are action-RPGs, so make of that what you will.

[MonkeyLungs]

Daveros wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

They're evidentally not mutually exclusive, but some things can be emphasised to too great an extent; that's what I think the quote is brilliant at pointing out.

Once people start talking about how an RPG is just a game where you can play a 'Role' we start down the slippery slope of everything being an RPG.

The 'Role' and the "Roll' go hand in hand. Stats and skill checks, dice rolls over player skill. Character role defined by player choice in stats and skills and often also defined by 'Roll" determing certain values as well. Although the idea of rolling for stats died quite some time ago (in CRPG at least).

[MonkeyLungs]

In Exile wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I never said any specific game or that said game would have all those elements at once..

The thing is, if you like those features, you might want them all in one game. And my question to you is what do you get when you have some simple statics and party based combat like in DA2 (assuming, for a second, it was well-executed).

So long as it is some kind of RPG, Bioware would be fine with that. And Bioware seems to think both DA:O and DA2 are action-RPGs, so make of that what you will.

I think the asymetric ruleset where the GM has one set of rules and the player another set of rules is already detracting from the RPG-ness of Bioware games.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Daveros wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...


You guys are both incorrect. The two go hand in hand. It's what sets RPG's apart from action adventures. Action adventures have levelling up, dialogues and C&C too. RPG's are defined by mechanics which dictate gameplay and are gameplay. In RPG the ruleset is gameplay, it is the game.

They're evidentally not mutually exclusive, but some things can be emphasised to too great an extent; that's what I think the quote is brilliant at pointing out.

That's the point though, treating them as different entities which should be given different amounts of focus. They should be integrated with each other as much as possible. The character system and the ability for roleplaying are linked. Like I said, you don't need a complex system, just one that is able to integrate the character system into as many aspects of the character as possible.

You are playing a character that is defined by the game's character system, not playing a character who just happens to have x stats or y attributes.

In Exile wrote...

Spoilers are a definite no for me. It plays havoc with my experience of a game.

Sounds like SPECIAL -> Skills -> Perks, to be quite honest.

So, I guess we agree on that.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

Not quite. I wouldn't actually have skills have any gameplay effect other than talk skills for the PC. I wouldn't, for example, have a skill like mechanic to fix weapons or anything of the sort. Perks are also basic skill modifiers (like + % to health or +dodge) whereas mine would be the DA2 or DA:O skill trees.

So not the same, but similar.

Well, the Perks were modifiers mainly due to how the universe was set out (post-apoc, not fantasy), but there are ability-based Perks such as extra melee or unarmed moves in the newer games. I personally would like the character system to influence everything you do, but that's just my opinion.

Not in the sense that if you don't have a repair skill you can't repair items, but rather, it modifies your character's abilities in carrying out such an action.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 04:03 .

[the_one_54321]

I declare this thread a great success!

You see what good you can accomplish when you start things off with the intention to gather and spread information and discussion!

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
That's the point though, treating them as different entities which should be given different amounts of focus. They should be integrated with each other as much as possible. The character system and the ability for roleplaying are linked. Like I said, you don't need a complex system, just one that is able to integrate the character system into as many aspects of the character as possible.

The problem comes into the "How much simulation is it going to be?'' aspect of it all. The problem is that, as with combat, there comes a certain level where who the player is just bleeds into the character.

Look at it this way: suppose we say that I want to RP a brilliant detective. But I'm an idiot. My inability might prevent me from fully using this character. In the same way that if I want to RP a brilliant general, the mere existence of combat that doesn't resolve itself inhibits my ability to RP.

To a certain extent I think a succesful RPG either becomes a self-running game (because you add things like ''perception'' that point out things in the universe for the player, which essentially amounts to the game playing itself) or you acknowledge that there is a degree of connectedness between the PC and the player and just don't build a barrier between that.

That's not to say I advocate for a self-insert. But I think that to an extent an RPG has to acknowldge the limitations inherent in the medium.

You are playing a character that is defined by the game's character system, not playing a character who just happens to have x stats or y attributes.

But those should be the laws of nature. The character system exists in the first place because the first RPGs were played with nice. Now, these mechanics can be handled by the computer. Old RPGs simulated physics - now computers can actively do this.

Well, the Perks were modifiers mainly due to how the universe was set out (post-apoc, not fantasy), but there are ability-based Perks such as extra melee or unarmed moves in the newer games. I personally would like the character system to influence everything you do, but that's just my opinion.

I never played the original Fallout. 

Not in the sense that if you don't have a repair skill you can't repair items, but rather, it modifies your character's abilities in carrying out such an action.

Well, I would actually say that without a repair skill you shouldn't be able to. I just don't think certain things should be handled by statistics (or, really, be features in the game at all).

[the_one_54321]

Debating what is and is not role playing will get you no where.

I want attribute stats in these games because they set them apart from other games. And I want them to figure into everything the character does, replacing my ability with numerically dictated ability of the character.

I don't care if someone else thinks this is consistent with RPG or not.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

The problem comes into the "How much simulation is it going to be?'' aspect of it all. The problem is that, as with combat, there comes a certain level where who the player is just bleeds into the character.

Look at it this way: suppose we say that I want to RP a brilliant detective. But I'm an idiot. My inability might prevent me from fully using this character. In the same way that if I want to RP a brilliant general, the mere existence of combat that doesn't resolve itself inhibits my ability to RP.

To a certain extent I think a succesful RPG either becomes a self-running game (because you add things like ''perception'' that point out things in the universe for the player, which essentially amounts to the game playing itself) or you acknowledge that there is a degree of connectedness between the PC and the player and just don't build a barrier between that.

That's not to say I advocate for a self-insert. But I think that to an extent an RPG has to acknowldge the limitations inherent in the medium.

Well yes, I agree. It then becomes a matter of how the RPG is designed around such limitations.

To go back to your detective example, let's say he has a list of suspects to accuse for murder, as the player, you are searching for more evidence. But if you had say, high perception, you would be able to collect more evidence than one with zero or low skill.

It doesn't prevent a lowly skilled character with a smart player from solving the case, it just makes it much harder for them to definitively prove that the suspect they are accusing is guilty within the confines of the game. The challenge for the player lies in how to prove their case, rather than solving it. And let's say, this character, regardless of how intelligent the player is, cannot reach the "best" conclusion: life imprisonment for the killer and a raise from your boss.

Likewise, it doesn't stop a character who is highly skilled controlled by a stupid player from accusing the wrong person, but it gives them access to evidence and arguments that would otherwise be impossible for other characters.

So yes, there is a problem in how much of it is simulation vs self insertion, but I think rather than general statements, that's something to look at in a case by case basis.

In Exile wrote...

But those should be the laws of nature. The character system exists in the first place because the first RPGs were played with nice. Now, these mechanics can be handled by the computer. Old RPGs simulated physics - now computers can actively do this.

I'm not saying that characters should break the laws of nature or the limitations of the game's universe or the natural world, but I don't like the idea of stats and character systems being developed as a separate entity to the roleplaying elements of a game. It's central to them.

In Exile wrote...
I never played the original Fallout.

You're missing out.

In Exile wrote...
Well, I would actually say that without a repair skill you shouldn't be able to. I just don't think certain things should be handled by statistics (or, really, be features in the game at all).

I have personally advocated that a player should be able to do anything within the realm of reason within a game's universe, but their success at doing it should be modified or determined by the character depending on the situation. A player initiates an action and the character carries it out. Just my opinion.

There is nothing to stop someone with zero repair skill or experience from attempting to repair an item. It's just that they likely won't be successful.



Edit: I make an exception for abilities, special skills or talents and the like, but general skills should be available to you, even if all you can do is fail. I liked how New Vegas for example, showed you skill checks even when you couldn't pass them and actually had different dialog for failure and success. If you use a mod that removes the [Skill 0/0] tag, that's perfect for me.

To use an example, you can't just use Cone of Cold willy nilly, but you can attempt to persuade and coerce NPCs with hilarious or drastic results if you don't have the skill.

------

Getting back on topic, in terms of "deepening RPG mechanics", I've got another suggestion:

Better integrating the character system into the game. That's the grandaddy of all RPG mechanics.

Also, if Bioware are scared at throwing character sheets at people, how about making character creation more intuitive instead of just removing them or making them mean less?

The question/answer character creation of the old Ultima games, the Elder Scrolls games and the newer Fallout games are perfect examples.

The "here's the tutorial dungeon, we'll setup your stats and skills depending on how you play through it" design of Oblivion is also worth a look at.

Finally, the "here are ready made builds with a small description of it's strengths/weaknesses, pick your favorite" method also works just fine.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 06:10 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Debating what is and is not role playing will get you no where.

I want attribute stats in these games because they set them apart from other games. And I want them to figure into everything the character does, replacing my ability with numerically dictated ability of the character.

I don't care if someone else thinks this is consistent with RPG or not.

My goal isn't to debate what is and isn't role-playing. Rather, it's to debate the sort of mechanisms that would give us deeper roleplay.

For example, someone might say we need something like a staistic for everything, and the game shouldn't allow you to have an action (for example, looting chests) without a corresponding 'shift through mundane crap' skill at Rank 7.

I think that the path to deeper RPG mechanics is different. It's not that I am against attribute stats; to the contrary, I think that they are central. But I think how these stats ought to be implemented is an important question of design, and that relates to how exactly you envision the relationship between the PC and the player.

It's not that I want to derail the thread, and I will certainly make sure to rephrase my statements as being related to core mechanics so there is no confusion.

mrcrusty wrote..
Well yes, I agree. It then becomes a matter
of how the RPG is designed around such limitations.

To go back to
your detective example, let's say he has a list of suspects to accuse
for murder, as the player, you are searching for more evidence. But if
you had say, high perception, you would be able to collect more evidence
than one with zero or low skill.

It doesn't prevent a lowly skilled character with a smart player
from solving the case, it just makes it much harder for them to
definitively prove that the suspect they are accusing is guilty within
the confines of the game. The challenge for the player lies in how to
prove their case, rather than solving it. And let's say, this character,
regardless of how intelligent the player is, cannot reach the "best"
conclusion: life imprisonment for the killer and a raise from your boss.

I can see what you want, but let me show you why I think these mechanics have a limitation by illustrating a debate over the appropriate way to implement persuasion in an RPG.

Position 1: If I choose to be a charismatic character, I ought to be persuasive. This means that when I choose to persuade, I ought to succeed or not based on how arbitrarily good I am at persuasion based on my character concept.

Position 2: Dialogue is like combat - it is a fundamental aspect of gameplay and 'navigating it' is fun. Proper development of your character (in terms of the statistics and abilities side) should increase your ability to succeed, but at the end of the day it is fun and ought to come down to the player skill to succeed.

So this would give rise to two mechanics:

Position 1: The way [Persuade] has worked in RPGs since aeons ago.

Position 2: Improving persuade skills opens up new dialogue options. These options may or may not succeed; it is up to the player to choose the right options for the particular encounter. So for every conversation you might have seductive or expertiese options, but you'd need to choose the right thing to say based on what the NPC thinks, wants, believes, etc.

We'd all agree that combat is part of an RPG, and player skill plays a role in it. Undeniably so. It's not twich, but character development, tactics, builds, proper use of abilities, etc. all plays a role.

To go back to your example, what you're saying is close to position 2. I agree with that.

But someone could always come back and say that allowing player skill to such an extent to influence the mechanic actually is poor execution. As the player, they are not supposed to solve the mystery; the character is. And the character should not be held back by the deficit of the player.

It comes down to saying what mechanic actually tears down walls between the player and the fantasy game world.

mrcrusty wrote..
I'm not saying that characters should break
the laws of nature or the limitations of the game's universe or the
natural world, but I don't like the idea of stats and character systems
being developed as a separate entity to the roleplaying elements of a
game. It's central to them.

It's not that I'm saying they're separate. Rather, I'm saying that I think the ideal implementation of an RPG will exclude some things from the ruleset and rather make them behave as if we were simulating physics.

So I would say real-time with pause, for example, allowing for the computer to simulate physics to a greater extent, would provide a deeper RPG experience.

Though for the record, I actually really dislike real-time and prefer turn-based, like Heroes of Might and Magic or Dragon Age Journeys (I'd pay for a full version of a game with those mechanics).

You're missing out.

Are there mods that remove the timer? I know Fallout 1 has a timer and I'd never play it for that reason.

I have personally advocated that a player should be able to
do anything within the realm of reason within a game's universe, but
their success at doing it should be modified or determined by the
character depending on the situation. A player initiates an action and
the character carries it out. Just my opinion.

There is nothing
to stop someone with zero repair skill or experience from attempting to
repair an item. It's just that they likely won't be successful.
[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Edit:
I make an exception for abilities, special skills or talents and the
like, but general skills should be available to you, even if all you can
do is fail. I liked how New Vegas for example, showed you skill checks
even when you couldn't pass them and actually had different dialog for
failure and success. If you use a mod that removes the [Skill 0/0] tag,
that's perfect for me.

To use an example, you can't just use Cone
of Cold willy nilly, but you can attempt to persuade and coerce NPCs
with hilarious or drastic results if you don't have the skill.

The problem would be implementation. I think to be done right, failing has to be more than just not succeed at the skill check and getting the consequence thrust on you.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Getting back on topic, in terms of "deepening RPG mechanics", I've got another suggestion:

Better integrating the character system into the game. That's the grandaddy of all RPG mechanics.

Also, if Bioware are scared at throwing character sheets at people, how about making character creation more intuitive instead of just removing them or making them mean less?

That's my goal with the tiers. To mimic learning and intuitive theories about abilities as closely as possible.

The question/answer character creation of the old Ultima games, the Elder Scrolls games and the newer Fallout games are perfect examples.

If we go with a SPECIAL type system, it works very well, because you can just ask these questions outright (e.g.if you had to rank these traits, how important are they to you, then go Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility and Luck).

This would be how I favour it, because I think it also encourages new players to connect to their character, and that's the bread and butter of an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

If we go with a SPECIAL type system, it works very well, because you can just ask these questions outright (e.g.if you had to rank these traits, how important are they to you, then go Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility and Luck).

This would be how I favour it, because I think it also encourages new players to connect to their character, and that's the bread and butter of an RPG.

I love this idea.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

I can see what you want, but let me show you why I think these mechanics have a limitation by illustrating a debate over the appropriate way to implement persuasion in an RPG.

Position 1: If I choose to be a charismatic character, I ought to be persuasive. This means that when I choose to persuade, I ought to succeed or not based on how arbitrarily good I am at persuasion based on my character concept.

Position 2: Dialogue is like combat - it is a fundamental aspect of gameplay and 'navigating it' is fun. Proper development of your character (in terms of the statistics and abilities side) should increase your ability to succeed, but at the end of the day it is fun and ought to come down to the player skill to succeed.

So this would give rise to two mechanics:

Position 1: The way [Persuade] has worked in RPGs since aeons ago.

Position 2: Improving persuade skills opens up new dialogue options. These options may or may not succeed; it is up to the player to choose the right options for the particular encounter. So for every conversation you might have seductive or expertiese options, but you'd need to choose the right thing to say based on what the NPC thinks, wants, believes, etc.

We'd all agree that combat is part of an RPG, and player skill plays a role in it. Undeniably so. It's not twich, but character development, tactics, builds, proper use of abilities, etc. all plays a role.

To go back to your example, what you're saying is close to position 2. I agree with that.

But someone could always come back and say that allowing player skill to such an extent to influence the mechanic actually is poor execution. As the player, they are not supposed to solve the mystery; the character is. And the character should not be held back by the deficit of the player.

It comes down to saying what mechanic actually tears down walls between the player and the fantasy game world.

Lol. You got me pegged on dialog. That's exactly what I want. That rather than the traditional skill check method that's been in RPGs forever, I don't like the "Use [Persuasion], character is successful" type method, I want a persuasive line to lead into more dialog where I have to persuade the NPC to actually give me something I want. I want conversational skills to be a gateway to new avenues of conversation that would otherwise be impossible for less skilled characters.

This could also be adapted for general skills or knowledge. For example, having a high Merchantile or Barter skill may open up conversations may open up dialog with the local merchant. Without the skill, you never see it. The end goal is a discount, but instead of a top down skill check, you actually convince him to give you a discount through arguments about the local economy or finance, which are given to you by a high enough skill, or by talking to various NPCs in the area who can give insight.

IMO, it would do wonders for storytelling and give designers a chance to showcase depth with the player characters and NPCs.

Dare I say it, it's how I want the genre to "evolve".

I get what you mean. But I still think they should move in that direction.

In Exile wrote...
It's not that I'm saying they're separate. Rather, I'm saying that I think the ideal implementation of an RPG will exclude some things from the ruleset and rather make them behave as if we were simulating physics.

So I would say real-time with pause, for example, allowing for the computer to simulate physics to a greater extent, would provide a deeper RPG experience.

Though for the record, I actually really dislike real-time and prefer turn-based, like Heroes of Might and Magic or Dragon Age Journeys (I'd pay for a full version of a game with those mechanics).

Are there mods that remove the timer? I know Fallout 1 has a timer and I'd never play it for that reason.

Oh, agreed. Using physics would be nice. It's already in the Elder Scrolls and new Fallout games with some of the weighted traps. I think the "jump from high distances and get damaged + cripple legs on landing" count as well.

As for Fallout 1, patch 1.1 extends the time limit for the second objective (the more important one) to 13 years. The first time limit is easy achievable without rushing things and the second one basically makes it unlimited.

Or you could just play Fallout 2.

The Exile...

The problem would be implementation. I think to be done right, failing has to be more than just not succeed at the skill check and getting the consequence thrust on you.

Lol, regardless of the design, the problem is always in the implementation.

In Exile wrote...

That's my goal with the tiers. To mimic learning and intuitive theories about abilities as closely as possible.

You mean the Attribute -> Skills -> Abilities tiers you talked about?

Attributes are your baseline physical/mental character concept, Skills represent areas of expertise or specialities and abilities represent the actions your character is able to do as a result of that expertise.

I could totally get behind that.

In Exile wrote...

If we go with a SPECIAL type system, it works very well, because you can just ask these questions outright (e.g.if you had to rank these traits, how important are they to you, then go Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility and Luck).

This would be how I favour it, because I think it also encourages new players to connect to their character, and that's the bread and butter of an RPG.

That was also the goal of question/answer type character creation, to help define and connect with their character in the form of roleplaying.

In terms of how they handled SPECIAL though, that was still manually done, although to make it less "daunting" or numerical, they accompanied each stat level with an exaggerated description of how powerful that stat would be. For example, 1 in STR would be "Wet Noodle" and 10 in STR would be "Hercules' Bigger Cousin".

The Skills and Specialities (tagged skills) were determined by a question/answer session.

But I think too that they should use this method. Well thought out situational questions are able to gauge what kind of character the player would prefer to play.

I think Fallout 3's GOAT wasn't an ideal way to go about it, but I loved the concept and would be especially good for those... afraid of a character sheet...



It not only determined the skills of the character, but allows the player to also craft and hone in a character personality through the questions.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 07:12 .

[centiumcuspis]

What I want is to feel hate for my enemies, love for my friend and a variety of ways to express those emotions. Whether I shoot and arrow/bullet into my enemy's head, or rescue the damsel in distress.

combat is in its essence a puzzle on a timer with multipule outcomes and sequences and when I want to act I want it to be consistant when it should and change as my character changes, when somthing p***es me of I want it to suffer for it, Mechanics, lore, characters all change but we can't lose sight of what we want. We want to feel somthing bad followed by somthing great. so with that in mind....

we talk of plot twists I want combat twists, I want to be in a fight that I know I will soon lose if somthing doesn't change and then it does change. deperation turns to fear only to have hope break through the darkness. I don't care how they run the camera so long as I can see everything I want to see ( everyone goes on about the camera). I find it useful in combat puzzles to control my companions though I don't find it neccisary though I am very happy when they prove to contain compatent AI. Good characters are puzzles with thier own traps and pitfalls and I always love exploring archetypes and finding deviations, those golden nuggets of character I love. As for my character well if it is supposed to be a reflection of me then I want full controle of diolauge, accent, facial features, and anything else if the character is a developed entity then I want to explore just who this is, controle becomes less importaint depth and development is the issue like watching a movie only one manipulates the sequence of events (I think one of the issues with DA2 is that many expected an immersive character and got a developing character, I enjoy both but see them as polar oppositses that should not be mixed). I don't like repeating maps I already explored it once I don't enjoy going back unless it has changed alot. Compainion Armor, I think should be based on thier personality but with varieties to chose from ( the perfect solution nightmare for programers is to make a large selection of specialized armors for each compainion) though I don't find this area to be a big issue. Something I would like to see more of is weapons that develop alongside thier owners (like fable 3 but with useful weapons) keep using them a certain way and they change acordingly but is not a major issue just an idea.

so to sum it all up I want a game that's mechanics won't get me permanatly stuck and provide mental challenges like puzzles and a story that sparks emotion (though I don't know exactly how it works), choices are importaint (to me) for replay purposes, so I don't have to reapeat things just like before (Say what you will the only thing I truly hated in DA2 was all the repurposed inviroments). Story and character development are vital but I don't feel I have to controle them to enjoy them but if I can't controle them then replayabiliy is destroyed ( if ME only went the Paragon route I would still love the story but I would have no reason to play again)."skill building" is ok if it is not repetitive ( I HATE monotomy). thats all for now my later mood my change opinions goodbye.

[KennyKwan]

Rich stories as in we need to find more golds.
Deeper RPG mechanics as in we will have 4 attribute points each level.
More choice 1.good 2.funny 3.bad 4.kitty
Even more epic = more body exploded

[Dundalis]

AFAIC genuine role playing games should have customisation. The more customisation the deeper the role playing experience.

The more you can create your character into the character YOU want the deeper the rpg experience. Of course making choices through the story is important, but it starts with being able to customise your character. It extends to your companions too, the more you can customise them, the better you can role play as a group.

That's what rpg is, role play. Playing a role with your characters. It's kinda hard to do that when your character is set in stone and you have practically no customisation options over your companions. You are basically playing a role someone else set for you. Aint no rpg.

Modifié par Dundalis, 30 mai 2011 - 10:42 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

There are games out there with preset characters, such as PS:T that are excellent roleplaying games. Also, almost all roleplaying games have some sort of backstory or elements that are completely out of the player's hands, making it harder for meaningful customisation outside of stats and the character system. There's cosmetic customisation too, I guess.

You are always a Courier, Bhaalspawn, Revan w/ Amnesia, an Academy Recruit and so on.

I think that for all the mumbling about how Dragon Age 2 was unique or evolutionary and that Origins was traditional and old, Origins was a more groundbreaking game than Dragon Age 2 simply because of the Origin stories.

It's pretty rare to find an RPG which lets you pick a backstory and then allows you to play through it. Excellent form of tutorial from a roleplaying perspective.

As for companion customisation, that's really iffy area too. Many RPGs don't utilise companion customisation. Hell, a lot of RPGs don't have companions at all. I think a nice balance would be companions who have their own sets of equipment that continuously upgrade but change at frequent intervals based on your decisions, reputation, etc.

Say for example, you find yourself in a typical Mage/Templar conflict quest and your apostate Mage companion with positive rep wants you to wipe out all of them. If you do so, you get some friendship points and their equipment upgrades to something favoring an offensive Mage build. You solve it with diplomacy, you get rival points (though still positive overall) and their equipment upgrades to something with a more defensive slant.

For negative or rival relationships, the opposite could be true, too. If the Mage hates you and you side with the Templars over Mages, they could get incredibly powerful offensive based upgrades, but with a negative aura that weakens the party.

Or something like that.

Another way would just have separate equipment sets that only work for your companions, but a system like that would be pointless imo.

Be nice if a dev came in here and/or responded though. Lost of good ideas in this thread. Very little Witcher 2 whining. Lol

Modifié par mrcrusty, 30 mai 2011 - 12:18 .