332 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Nope not really, this is just a filter applied on player gaming skills, even if we were to apply level and or stat modifiers to make it more RPG.

Try running and gunning in the original Deus Ex with a player untrained in small arms compared to one that is fully trained.

While player skill still exists, it doesn't matter how good I am at shooters if Denton is untrained with the weapons, I'm not going to be successful.


Keep in mind that I was responding to someone that unequivocally stated that a system like this cannot show that your character is a lousy shot, to which I disagree.

[Wulfram]

It's showing that the character is a crack shot despite being played by me which is the difficult thing

[Realmzmaster]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Have you ever heard of a board game called Dragonfire? Board game geek link
I remember it being really fun, but I have lost the game master pages with all the adventures :/
From what I have read it should play kind of like Hero Quest (not played Hero Quest so can't say for sure)


And  with that I will end on this note: Graphpaper FTW!

-TSD

I played a game called Drakborgen (1985) (called Dungeonquest when licensed to Games Workshop) . boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/472/dungeonquest
Ihe game could be played with 1 to 4 players. Similar mechanics to Heroquest and Dragonfire.

As I have stated before it is easier to describe what one wants in a game than to come up with a definitive definition. Most gamers fall back on D & D because many players back in the day started with that system. D & D was created to add a role playing dimension to the Chainmail combat system. Many gamers see D & D as being the definition of role playing because it is the granddaddy of the genre. 
Even with D & D as a base many early crpgs deviated from it.

[Wozearly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Nope not really, this is just a filter applied on player gaming skills, even if we were to apply level and or stat modifiers to make it more RPG.

Try running and gunning in the original Deus Ex with a player untrained in small arms compared to one that is fully trained.

While player skill still exists, it doesn't matter how good I am at shooters if Denton is untrained with the weapons, I'm not going to be successful.

However, I'd wager you'd still be more effective than someone who is terrible at shooters, even if you gave them Master skill level...

Personally, I'd say that a more striking example of the same principle in effect is Morrowind, particularly with melee weapons. The threshold of player skill is pretty small (pointing at least vaguely in the direction of your opponent, being within range, hitting attack) and the character's stats are the dominant factor in determining chance to hit. Even if you as the player did everything correctly. If your character is useless with the type of weapon they're using, you're not going to hit your opponent very much due to misses or blocks.

Likewise, blocking is automatic - doesn't matter how good the player's reactions might be, the only thing triggering a shield block is the dice roll.


Although I accept that some people really, really, really hate that approach, I've always found that systems which remove the player's ability to rely on their own reactions and force them to rely instead on their decisions about their character's skills make for better RPGs in the round than those which use levelling mechanics to augment or impede the player's own skills, but with the player's ability to play the game remaining the key factor as to whether the character is skilled or not.

[Wozearly]

Wulfram wrote...

It's showing that the character is a crack shot despite being played by me which is the difficult thing

Not necessarily difficult at all, even in a first/third person shooter environment.

If the game uses a forgiving auto-target (or has a difficulty setting which allows it) then provided you at least look broadly in the right direction and press fire, all remaining decisions as to whether you pull off an amazing shot on someone lurking behind cover or miss the side of a barn at 10 paces can be made by mechanics in the background.

The VATS system from Fallout is another way to address a similar problem, as it removes the need for swift reaction times on the player's part.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Nope not really, this is just a filter applied on player gaming skills, even if we were to apply level and or stat modifiers to make it more RPG.

Try running and gunning in the original Deus Ex with a player untrained in small arms compared to one that is fully trained.

While player skill still exists, it doesn't matter how good I am at shooters if Denton is untrained with the weapons, I'm not going to be successful.


Keep in mind that I was responding to someone that unequivocally stated that a system like this cannot show that your character is a lousy shot, to which I disagree.

To the other side of that, though.... if I suck at shooting - as in, as a player, I will shoot myself in the foot if I was aiming for the sky - then Denton is NOT a master small arms, despite the fact that his character sheet looks that way, despite the fact that I want to play him that way.

Isn't that, inherently, a problem? Shouldn't I be able to say "shoot at this character" and not have to worry about if I, the player, can it, if my character should be able to without any difficulty? Having mechanics such as auto-aim that kick in while you are playing certainly makes this more difficult... but it is simply making the player better, it is not really reflecting that the character has those skills. 

Its a fine line if you want to incoroporate action into a game, I realize. I just, personally, wish that RPGs would NOT try and make themselves action games. The term Action-RPG is an immediate turn off for me. Either be an action game, or be an RPG. Those who try and be both invariably I find boring.

[Wulfram]

I don't have a problem with Action-RPGs, but Dragon Age games shouldn't be one.

(Some of the pre-release stuff called DA2 an Action RPG but that was marketing. It wasn't. Aside from the annoying necessity to get into silly manual dodging with bosses.)

[Allan Schumacher]

However, I'd wager you'd still be more effective than someone who is terrible at shooters, even if you gave them Master skill level...

This is true, and I don't disagree. But the game has still shown me that a character with Master skill level is more proficient than a character that is Untrained.

To the other side of that, though.... if I suck at shooting - as in, as a player, I will shoot myself in the foot if I was aiming for the sky - then Denton is NOT a master small arms, despite the fact that his character sheet looks that way, despite the fact that I want to play him that way.

The thing is, at no point is the game ever a complete disassociation from the person playing it, unless the game is playing itself.

Even in a game where all combat is handled purely by the game mechanics with "no player skill," the player is still required to make decisions and influence the character. In a game like Baldur's Gate, you're still going to get people that make poor decisions that don't do nearly as well as me or you, even if they're playing characters with near genius level intelligence. Why can my character with 3 intelligence still come up with an optimal attack order that maximizes my combat effectiveness and recognizes that Target A is a more serious threat than Target B?

It's entirely possible for a good player to do better in Baldur's Gate with a Fighter that is 12s in all attributes than a poor player that has a fighter with all 18s.

If a "true RPG" requires that the player's skill not affect the game, then why are we still allowing players to make decisions for the character in our RPGs?

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To the other side of that, though.... if I suck at shooting - as in, as a player, I will shoot myself in the foot if I was aiming for the sky - then Denton is NOT a master small arms, despite the fact that his character sheet looks that way, despite the fact that I want to play him that way.

The thing is, at no point is the game ever a complete disassociation from the person playing it, unless the game is playing itself.

Even in a game where all combat is handled purely by the game mechanics with "no player skill," the player is still required to make decisions and influence the character. In a game like Baldur's Gate, you're still going to get people that make poor decisions that don't do nearly as well as me or you, even if they're playing characters with near genius level intelligence. Why can my character with 3 intelligence still come up with an optimal attack order that maximizes my combat effectiveness and recognizes that Target A is a more serious threat than Target B?

It's entirely possible for a good player to do better in Baldur's Gate with a Fighter that is 12s in all attributes than a poor player that has a fighter with all 18s.

If a "true RPG" requires that the player's skill not affect the game, then why are we still allowing players to make decisions for the character in our RPGs?

Of course this is true, obviously.  But does Intelligence neccessarily equate tactical skill or battle prowess? Certainly, these are skills that are best picked up by a keen mind, but Forest Gump shows us that you can be an excellent soldier and not have the most intellectual of minds.

Tom Hanks analogies aside, I guess my main problem is that knowing to attack a target that is dealing more damage to the party as opposed to attacking a random mook that poses less of a threat is an issue of the player UNDERSTANDING how to play the game... not an obstacle to the player being ABLE to play the game. If I know I should attack a target's eyes to prevent them from being able to snipe my squad from far away, I can do that with a proper character in a system like VATS. I may not, however, be able to take that same-skilled character and perform that shot in an action game. In this case, I UNDERSTAND what I want to do from a tactics point of view and my character SHOULD be able to do it... but my lack of skill as a player with gun control prevents me from succeeding. 

Allen.... I feel I have to ask here... given that it is past midnight in your neck of the woods on a school night , do your bosses ever give you grief if they see you've been posting on your work site until the wee hours of the night... or is that brownie points?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I like to think of it as the player deciding on a course of action, and the character stats determining how successful that action is.

Personally, I don't think there's a harsh cut-off between player skill and character skill. As long as one doesn't contradict the other outright, there's no issue with having both be part of the equation. This tends to happen more in Action RPGs, but I do think there are some that manage the balance well. Others, not so much.

In regards to the scenario Allan has put out there, I'm pretty sure a guy like Sylvius will respond along the lines of intentionally making suboptimal decisions according to the character concept and stats.

Stats, character systems, et al are ultimately abstract concepts that help to define characters. In the case of the example above, you open up tactical options (skill points, spells, feats, etc) the higher your Intelligence.

The idea is that, even if the player isn't able to utilise the best strategy, the character is aware and capable of them. Whereas a lower INT character may be able to execute certain tactics better as a result of a smart player, but the character itself is not able to recognise more than the basics.

Admittedly, I don't think AD&D (or D&D as a whole for that matter) translates well to cRPGs, so the logic behind the abstract systems lose something in the translation from PnP. But I do think in the case of Dragon Age, it's much easier to avoid these issues since it's a homebrew system. Not to mention the tactics system, which I believe has a lot of untapped potential as an interactive roleplaying mechanic.

All it requires is an understanding of why stat systems/character systems are integral to RPGs and the capability to implement it well in respect to the gameplay and narrative.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 13 août 2012 - 07:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I would argue that most if not all can eventually figure out things based on logic, as opposed to twitch gameplay--some people aren't going to be good at it, no matter how long they try. It puts them at a disadvantage, while anyone can utilize logical thinking.

I'd argue that, barring actual physical disability, most people can learn "twitch" skills as well. The biggest advantage logic/understanding has is that it's easier for someone to solve the issue for you. If you're stuck in combat in BG2, someone can tell you a strategy. If you're stuck in combat that's more player driven, you can't really give a strategy for aiming in most cases. It just comes down to practice.

I guess my main problem is that knowing to attack a target that is dealing more damage to the party as opposed to attacking a random mook that poses less of a threat is an issue of the player UNDERSTANDING how to play the game... not an obstacle to the player being ABLE to play the game.

I don't think they're that different. One is a cognitive skill and the other is a physical skill, but ultimately both are still skills that people develop.

For me it just represents a diversification of the RPG genre, and I don't think that that is a bad thing. It'd be suboptimal if all RPGs required physical player skill for combat, just as it'd be suboptimal if all RPGs made physical player skill irrelevant.

Some may say "Well you can go play some other game to satisfy your "twitch" skills, but sometimes I want "the whole package" in one game. It's probably no surprise that I love games like Deus Ex, Vampire: Bloodlines, and Fallout: New Vegas. I think they are games that merge the twitch and cerberal aspects of gaming quite well.

The thing I find interesting, though, is that the only aspect that ever seems to come up are the physical limitations. A game like Baldur's Gate only utilizes Intelligence for combat purposes, but my Int 3 character can still happily go around solving complex logic puzzles yet it's often held up as being one of the pinnacles of RPG gaming in large part because it's "character driven" rather than "player driven."

Allen.... I feel I have to ask here... given that it is past midnight in your neck of the woods on a school night smilie, do your bosses ever give you grief if they see you've been posting on your work site until the wee hours of the night... or is that brownie points?

I'm typically an "in bed by 1 or 2" type, and I am heading to bed after this message haha. None of my bosses has ever made a comment on me posting here though. I did let Mike and Mark know (of my own volition) that I had decided to post on the forums, and they were quite supportive of the idea. I know some were concerned my job would be in jeopardy when I was posting on ME3 forums back in April, but for the most part I'm here because I gain some level of enjoyment out of it

[Allan Schumacher]

Personally, I don't think there's a harsh cut-off between player skill and character skill. As long as one doesn't contradict the other outright, there's no issue with having both be part of the equation.

THIS is something that does bother me. IIRC Morrowind was a game where I could straight up hit someone with a bow, but whether or not I did damage was based on my character's skill which was just confusing and frustrating IMO.

In regards to the scenario Allan has put out there, I'm pretty sure a guy like Sylvius will respond along the lines of intentionally making suboptimal decisions according to the character concept and stats.

I can see this. It's more difficult to make decisions on behalf of someone that is magnificently more intelligent than I am though

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Morrowind was actually the example I had in my head when I was typing that. That's how not to do things. Player skill is contradicted outright by character skill.

It less of an issue if there were more audio and visual cues to go along with the mechanic like a quick dodge animation, but without anything like that, it was certainly frustrating.

But that's not even the worst of it:

Modifié par CrustyBot, 13 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allen Schumaker wrote...

I know some were concerned my job would be in jeopardy when I was posting on ME3 forums back in April, but for the most part I'm here because I gain some level of enjoyment out of it  

And we get plenty of enjoyment out of it as well! Its nice to have a member of Bioware on here posting consistently, because if DG or Mike were to try, they'd get swamped with a million and one questions about TNBT. You have the air of being an inside source, but we know as a QA Analyst, asking if Sten is going to make a comeback in the next game is probably not in your purview of knowledge to answer with certainty.

Plus your convos are always really interesting.


Back on topic, what if I were to phrase this discussion in a silly, but analogous way?

When we play a game with guns, we use shooting mechanics to simulate gameplay. If a player is good at shooting, then the character makes the shot most of the time.

Let's go to another genre outside of RPGs, one that uses statistics as much (if not more, <gasp!>) than RPGs... sports games.

If I play NBA2K12, my skill at dunking is never called into play. If I have the ball, and am in range for my character's stats to dunk, I press a button and it happens.

You would never say "what, you can't dunk in real life? Well, practice. Then maybe you can pull it off in game." The same can be said of Madden and not being able to throw a perfect spiral football, or hockey in not being able to skate.

I know it is a flimsy argument, to be sure. But these games result in more of a causal effect based on your stats rather than your skill. If you try and hit the dunk button from the half court line, your character will instead likely shoot (and miss) a three point shot. If your hockey character has low skating skill, they may be slower and less mobile on the ice, but they would rarely just fall flat on their face and fail terribly.

But when you make a game where a player has to aim a gun at a target, the player can be terribly bad. They CAN aim at the floor. They CAN be staring at a wall instead of facing the enemy, or utilizing cover. Granted, many sports games use player skill as well, such as Tiger Woods mimicking a back swing with the analog sticks, or Fight Night basing the punch strength and direction off of player timing, so its not a flawless genre to pull examples from. But most of the time, it is simply "press X to pass, press Y to steal, press A to shoot." And while skill definitely comes into play, there is no option to fail terribly. You can't dribble the ball off of your foot. You can't shoot at the other team's goal. You can't jump in the air to dunk and not get high enough off of the ground. In a shooter RPG, you CAN shoot completely off base of an enemy, you CAN throw a grenade at your own foot and you CAN fail at pulling up a menu to get your healing packs while trying to back pedal away from an enemy.

A system like VATS, where you can say "Shoot this guy twice, then shoot this guy, then shoot this guy in the arm" that is based on your stats as to how many actions you can queue up at once and how successful they would be, is a really good idea. In a group RPG, however, it is much more difficult, since you are not just playing one character. If an enemy lays down an AOE attack and you don't manually move your players out of the way because they just sit there and take it, that's tactics. But if an enemy pops up behind you and you can side step their attack if you, as the player, have twitchy enough reflexes, then that's action gameplay. And, to quote Casey Hudson, that's too video game-y.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2012 - 07:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Morrowind was actually the example I had in my head when I was typing that. That's how not to do things. Player skill is contradicted outright by character skill.

It less of an issue if there were more audio and visual cues to go along with the mechanic like a quick dodge animation, but without anything like that, it was certainly frustrating.

But that's not even the worst of it:

<pic snipped>

Ugh. Cliff Racers. God d***ed Cliff Racers! Those things were, hands down, the hardest part of Morrowind's combat, completely unintentionally.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The thing is, at no point is the game ever a complete disassociation from the person playing it, unless the game is playing itself.

Even in a game where all combat is handled purely by the game mechanics with "no player skill," the player is still required to make decisions and influence the character. In a game like Baldur's Gate, you're still going to get people that make poor decisions that don't do nearly as well as me or you, even if they're playing characters with near genius level intelligence.

That's why the game is pausable.  By giving the player more time to make decisions, he can make better decisions.  The character might be able to make really good decisions quickly, but if the player can't, he needs to be given more time.

Why can my character with 3 intelligence still come up with an optimal attack order that maximizes my combat effectiveness and recognizes that Target A is a more serious threat than Target B?

That's not a problem I've yet seen solved.  BUt the thing I'm complaining about here is where the character should be better at something than the player is, but a twitch-mechanic prevents that from being possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd argue that, barring actual physical disability, most people can learn "twitch" skills as well.

Players get injured.  Should their characters suffer as a result?

You said "barring actual physical disability" - that's part of the problem  There should be no need to explcude the pjhysically disabled.  It's always been my standard that any roleplaying game should be playable by a quadriplegic - playable slowly, but playable.

If I can play a tabletop roleplaying game, I should be able to play a computer roleplaying game.

The biggest advantage logic/understanding has is that it's easier for someone to solve the issue for you. If you're stuck in combat in BG2, someone can tell you a strategy. If you're stuck in combat that's more player driven, you can't really give a strategy for aiming in most cases. It just comes down to practice.

Practise shouldn't be necessary.  If I build a character who;'s good at shooting things, I shouldn't need to be good at shooting things.  The whole point of roleplaying games is playing characters who are different from us, not characters who suffer from the same limitations we do.

Some may say "Well you can go play some other game to satisfy your "twitch" skills, but sometimes I want "the whole package" in one game. It's probably no surprise that I love games like Deus Ex, Vampire: Bloodlines, and Fallout: New Vegas. I think they are games that merge the twitch and cerberal aspects of gaming quite well.

The new Fallout games are a terrific example of games that offer both styles of gameplay.  You can play them with twitch combat, but you can also use VATS for everything and completely eliminate the twitch component.

I hold strongly that the twitch element can never be mandatory in a roleplaying game.  Optional, sure.  It's optional in FO3.  It's optional in Mass Effect.  It should be no surprise to anyone that I paused to aim for nearly every shot I ever took in Mass Effect.  That was a great feature.

The thing I find interesting, though, is that the only aspect that ever seems to come up are the physical limitations. A game like Baldur's Gate only utilizes Intelligence for combat purposes, but my Int 3 character can still happily go around solving complex logic puzzles yet it's often held up as being one of the pinnacles of RPG gaming in large part because it's "character driven" rather than "player driven."

You're applying the limitations backward.  The problem isn't that the player is better than the character, but that the character is better than the player.  If the character is less skilled than the player, then the player can downgrade his own skills to match.  But the player can't be better than he is to match the character's supposed skills.

If some player wants to break his game by playing better than his character should be able to, I'm not going to stop him.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 août 2012 - 06:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Back on topic, what if I were to phrase this discussion in a silly, but analogous way?

When we play a game with guns, we use shooting mechanics to simulate gameplay. If a player is good at shooting, then the character makes the shot most of the time.

Let's go to another genre outside of RPGs, one that uses statistics as much (if not more, <gasp!>) than RPGs... sports games.

If I play NBA2K12, my skill at dunking is never called into play. If I have the ball, and am in range for my character's stats to dunk, I press a button and it happens.

You would never say "what, you can't dunk in real life? Well, practice. Then maybe you can pull it off in game." The same can be said of Madden and not being able to throw a perfect spiral football, or hockey in not being able to skate.

I know it is a flimsy argument, to be sure. But these games result in more of a causal effect based on your stats rather than your skill. If you try and hit the dunk button from the half court line, your character will instead likely shoot (and miss) a three point shot. If your hockey character has low skating skill, they may be slower and less mobile on the ice, but they would rarely just fall flat on their face and fail terribly.

But when you make a game where a player has to aim a gun at a target, the player can be terribly bad. They CAN aim at the floor. They CAN be staring at a wall instead of facing the enemy, or utilizing cover. Granted, many sports games use player skill as well, such as Tiger Woods mimicking a back swing with the analog sticks, or Fight Night basing the punch strength and direction off of player timing, so its not a flawless genre to pull examples from. But most of the time, it is simply "press X to pass, press Y to steal, press A to shoot." And while skill definitely comes into play, there is no option to fail terribly. You can't dribble the ball off of your foot. You can't shoot at the other team's goal. You can't jump in the air to dunk and not get high enough off of the ground. In a shooter RPG, you CAN shoot completely off base of an enemy, you CAN throw a grenade at your own foot and you CAN fail at pulling up a menu to get your healing packs while trying to back pedal away from an enemy.

I find it interesting that you bring up NBA 2k12 since I happen to really enjoy that game too.  And you're correct in that it takes into account player ratings to determine success.  Though I think your analogy is invalid.

When I mention "practice" I'm not talking about going to a firing range and learning how to fire a gun.  I'm talking about moving the mouse and pointing and clicking.

That I am not able to dunk a ball has no bearing on whether or not I think player skill should be taken into account, and unfortunately I find NBA 2K12 to be a game that requires rather exceptional player skill in order to be good at.  Both cognitively (recognizing the play as it develops) and physically (accurate thumbstick movements, especially for the dribble moves, and knowledge of the controller in a real time environment).  In order to be good at the game, you're definitely going to need to spend a lot of time just practicing.  Once you get good though, woo it's a lot of fun to do a double crossover into a jab step for a pull up jumper with time expiring to knock your opponent out of the playoffs!


There's no expectation that the game player should know how to fire a firearm before playing a shooter RPG.  I have killed probably millions of virtual characters in shooters and the first time I fired a pistol I jammed it because I didn't know how to shoot it properly.

So much like how the baseline basketball player doesn't dribble the ball off the foot, even with poor stats, in a shooter RPG it's not like the "untrained" firearm guy is jamming his pistol while firing, stumbling about trying to figure out where the safety catch is, or the how to change a magazine.  I don't have to account for the physical requirements of making sure I'm holding the gun properly for recoil reasons and so forth.  Typically all "untrained" means, is that my character is less accurate with the gun, and perhaps the weapon does less damage and it reloads slower as well.


When I practice NBA 2k12, I'm not outside working on my jumpshot.  I'm in the gym in game practicing the thumbsticks and improving my skills within the game.  When I say that all it takes is practice for a shooter RPG, barring disability I'm referring to the ability to move and click a mouse and perhaps coordinate with your other hand to move your character.  All very "computer focused" skills.  Not going out to a firing range and shooting a real firearm.

In a shooter RPG, you CAN shoot completely off base of an enemy, you CAN
throw a grenade at your own foot and you CAN fail at pulling up a menu
to get your healing packs while trying to back pedal away from an enemy.

In Baldur's Gate you can misclick (or intentionally...) and fireball your own party to death with a single blast, or use the wrong potion, or click the wrong ability, and so forth.  Both games require player skill.  When I first played Baldur's Gate it was way too difficult for me and I didn't get far past Beregost.  After playing with a friend several months later, I learned how to play the game better.  I grew my skill at Baldur's Gate.

In NBA 2k12 I can attempt to do a behind the back but fail at the input and do a crossover instead, exposing the ball and getting it stolen.  Heck, sometimes I can just plain ol' hit the wrong button and jack up a shot instead of passing.  So while Fast Jimmy's personal skill at dunking is never in play, Fast Jimmy's skill at playing the game so that he can get into a position to actually dunk the ball is always in play.

[Allan Schumacher]

Practise shouldn't be necessary. If I build a character who;'s good at shooting things, I shouldn't need to be good at shooting things. The whole point of roleplaying games is playing characters who are different from us, not characters who suffer from the same limitations we do.

This argument is just plain false. You're not actually shooting a gun, nor firing a bow, nor swinging a sword. You're pressing a controller button or a key on a keyboard or a mouse button.

At no point in any of these games is your ability to do any of these actions actually called into play. So when you say "characters who suffer from the same limitations we do" you're actually creating a strawman argument that doesn't reflect the reality of skills being called into question. Unless you're playing a game where you take control of someone that is playing a video game, the argument falls apart.

In fact, the ONLY thing that draws a parallel is the cognitive aspect. That I'm swinging a sword in a fantasy world already wholly satisfies your RPG requirement of "The whole point of roleplaying games is playing characters who are different from us" regardless of whether or not I need to actually move my mouse and click a mouse button to fire my gun.

Practise shouldn't be necessary.

Practice is required to become good at all games. I'd wager that you're actually quite practiced at a game like Baldur's Gate and would do significantly better than someone that has picked up the game for the first time and has no experience playing similar types of games.

The only way to have a game that is devoid of any player skill is to have a game that plays itself without requiring any form of player input.

[Sad Dragon]

How about this then, if we are talking about shooter mechanics.

Take the skill system from the original Deus Ex in which even a skilled FPS player would have problems hitting the broadside of a barn with a weapon they were untrained in. Couple that with a V.A.T.S System and you now have a system were players skilled in FPS games and players unskilled in the genre both gain something from skilling up that weapon skill.

You could replace the V.A.T.S system with a lot of different systems:
Pause and aim: Mass Effect let you do this.
Dead Eye painting the targets: Read Dead Redemption
Autolock: Metroid Prime

Personally I prefer one of the last two as they allow the all players to feel awesome while using them. Autolock for instance lets experienced FPS players and non-FPS players alike move around dodging like there is no tomorrow, potentially allowing for very dynamic fights.

Aids for Shooter-mechanics are however easy to implement without taking away anything from the player. Implementing something that aids in tactical gameplay is harder. You can add a pause function with info about the different monsters (total life, life left, how much damage they do, are they healers, etc.) but beyond something like that I cant think of anything, atm, that is unintuitive. Though I'm sure there are many good suggestions how this could be done.

-TSD

[Realmzmaster]

If I build a character who is magnificent at archery that character should not be hindered by my lack of being able to aim. The gamer should be able to point out the target to attack and let the archer character do so. The archer should miss on occasion due to the enemy's ability to dodge , or line of sight is obscured. It should not be because I as a player cannot aim. My character is the one doing the aiming and attacking. I tell them what to attack and what ability or tactic to use. That is where in my humble opinion player skill should come in.

I am a big proponent of accessibility in games. Certain games are very good at it (most of Bioware games fall in this category), Many other games suck air in this regard.

If I design a character say with INT of 3 then no it should not be able to solve that complex puzzle and the designer needs to provide an alternate way of getting around the puzzle or make sure that the player cannot create a character that stupid or have the puzzle kill the character with a message stating the character's lack of intelligence has doomed it. The puzzle can also be optional.