318 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

I would like RPGs to start moving away from "stat" systems entirely. Or at least try to show it differently.

There must be other ways to provide an abstract representation of a character's skills. Let's get a bit more creative.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 mai 2013 - 03:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Games like Deus Ex offers speech as an alternative, you could speak to the guard to gain access or sneak in undetected and go about just as easily. It's usually never influencing major plot decisions or success rates of missions. The only time the game truly faults your decisions are if you get caught or go in guns blazing.

One of my big problems with DE:HR is that, with nearly zero effort at all, I could (and did) make a character that sneaks into through the roof of the police station, hacks every available computer/pass key, pickpockets all possible items and codes, saunters up to the front desk and bluffs my way past the guard (after I'm already in the building, mind you) and then, out of boredom, shotguns the entire department without breaking a sweat.

That kind of over-powered, ham-fisted approach is indicative of two things - a system that allows for a combination of player skill AND stats (which makes for a wholly boring experience for the well-initiated) and a system where multiple approaches/gamestyles are possible, but where every player encounters enough XP/skill points/Praxis/what-have-you to embrace all of them to a high degree.

As stated earlier, combat and speech don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive... but it is a rare balancing act to have said systems, allow the player to pursue both, and NOT have the game feel like it was handing everything over to player on a silver platter.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

I would like RPGs to start moving away from "stat" systems entirely. Or at least try to show it differently.

There must be other ways to provide an abstract representation of a player's skills. Let's get a bit more creative.

Such as what? Stats are values. Any other system of progression would just be using a different value. 

I'm not sure, exactly, how one levels something up through experience without using some metric, number or value to show that progression. 

Unless you wanted to start using irrational values? Like i cubed?

[BlueMagitek]

I would not mind a rework of DA2's system. Make it reputation based, and if the Inquisitor is famous (infamous) enough, then their branch of the wheel may yield a positive outcome.

This reputation is not settled through words, but actions, so you can keep the ability to RP and avoid the ME2 dilemma. It should also fix the complaint about the computer judging your actions a certain way; these are characters living in the game world. If you choose to spare X, even if you're doing it to blackmail him, it isn't unheard of to assume that you're more diplomatic, for example.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I would like RPGs to start moving away from "stat" systems entirely. Or at least try to show it differently.

There must be other ways to provide an abstract representation of a player's skills. Let's get a bit more creative.

Such as what? Stats are values. Any other system of progression would just be using a different value. 

I'm not sure, exactly, how one levels something up through experience without using some metric, number or value to show that progression. 

Unless you wanted to start using irrational values? Like i cubed?

Or not use any values at all. Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

I don't know what's possible. I don't work in games, I'm not even particularly good at math. But I'll be satisfied as long as I see an effort being made to break away from the same system RPGs have been using to guage skill progression since the freaking 70s.

[KiwiQuiche]

Greylycantrope wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Different checks- Like being a warrior you could beat someone for info (Or warrior-Templar is better at getting info from other templars or mages would refuse to co-op with a Templar pc), or being a Blood Mage you can wring it out of their minds. I wouldn't mind limitations to class in terms of persuasions; it would really encourage re-plays and trying different classes and talent trees.

I like this concept but the class option just being there by default seems a little too easy.

could be like Fallout NV where you fail unless you have the correct skills/level? Try to threaten someone with 8 strength and they are like "lol due whatever" or being a Blood Mage who only just unlocked that skill tree and when you try to mind break someone you fail.

[Enigmatick]

Plaintiff wrote...

Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

That sounds like an incredibly boring game. Even most non-RPGs that have characters with a set of abilities level them and change after a while 

[Dave of Canada]

Plaintiff wrote...

Or not use any values at all. Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

Doesn't work well for party-based RPGs.

[Knight of Dane]

Enigmatick wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

That sounds like an incredibly boring game. Even most non-RPGs that have characters with a set of abilities level them and change after a while 

I could imagine it being done differently. Elder Scrolls used to have star signs as an indicator of skill progression or extra abilities, perhaps that could be used.
Different stars meant progression in different "invisible" stats where you get a hint in short descriptions.
"You were born under the bright blue Helendarr Star, a symbol of wisdom and cunning you have smarts and cunning to boot" or something like that.

Abilities could be learned through specialists, NPC's like Isabela (DA:O) or companions. They could also be tied to weapon of choice like in Guild Wars two where you unlock certain abilities after using a certain weapon for a certain amount of time.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote..
This is the real rub. If you can't talk you way past a situation, then it is not very worthwhile. If your speech skill results in combat under the same circumstances as someone with zero speech skill, then what's the point?

The two don't have to be mutual exclusive, but if you can talk your way past anyone and then also easily blast past anyone who puts up a fight, then where's the challenge? Where's the struggle?

Speech is a hard skill to do where it has worth in enough situations, but it also doesn't become overpowered. It also has to be balanced out where you shouldn't be able to have both skills at equal levels in tandem, where killing someone or talking past them is a flip of a coin, instead of a decision of gameplay decision.

As actually fun gameplay, I totally agree with you - combat and non-combat have to counterbalanced if they're not equivalently challenging. But think about an analogy to DX:HR. You could have a combat or stealth build, and yes, they traded off against each other, but each were also valid ways of playing the entire game (boss fights being the exception in the vanilla game). 

But a game where it's totally viable to have a pure dialogue oriented character and play it in "dialogue" mode (like via stealth) suddenly gives you a more unique approach to the game - it's not that you're just choosing to gimp yourself in the gameplay to get a better story outcome, but that you have two valid gameplay approaches.

Ideally you'd branch your story so that certain outcomes can only come about via combat - save Val Royeaux by pushing back a demon horde - while others come about solely by dialogue - like ending the mage templar conflcit via having built a political alliance. 

In short, I agree with you that there has to be a challenge and actual gameplay. But I think the correct answer is to turn dialogue into fun gameplay constantly, rather than just have it as some super costly WIN STORY button (or series of options).

[In Exile]

KiwiQuiche wrote...
could be like Fallout NV where you fail unless you have the correct skills/level? Try to threaten someone with 8 strength and they are like "lol due whatever" or being a Blood Mage who only just unlocked that skill tree and when you try to mind break someone you fail.

That's still an I-WIN button. It just has more prerequisites until you can click I-WIN. 

[chuckles471]

Plaintiff wrote...

I would like RPGs to start moving away from "stat" systems entirely. Or at least try to show it differently.

There must be other ways to provide an abstract representation of a character's skills. Let's get a bit more creative.

Maybe like CJ from San Andreas getting more muscular as he gets stronger.  Actually show the physical changes from getting better at skill e.g like zoom in on the characters hands and show them getting more callouses as the get better at lockpicking, maybe show like an effect behind a mages eyes as they get better at magic, have a rogue's stance become better as they become better at dodging, maybe scars for toughness etc. etc.  (Yes, I know these are just "hidden" stats).

Modifié par chuckles471, 10 mai 2013 - 05:05 .

[The Spirit of Dance]

mickey111 wrote...

Kill it with fire. Or just hide it and make us figure out how to influence people the old fashioned way. You know, the way that involves each players comprehension of social interaction. The old Fallouts did something like that, you may have heard of them.

[MerinTB]

A blend of DX:HR and Alpha Protocol, without a wheel or timer.

A persuasion skill or stat is nice, for harder checks or keeping certain options locked from the less charismatic characters.

But I'd really like part of the persuasion being picking the right thing to say, not just a skill check. The skill check can make it easier, or allow you to do HARDER challenges... but it should still be possible to say the WRONG thing with a high persuasion skill, and most of the time say the RIGHT thing without a persuasion skill.

[ObserverStatus]

I think that persuasion should involve the murder knife more often in DA:I.

[ObserverStatus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
I think that persuasion should involve the murder knife more often in DA:I.

I actually think it would be great if your character could be more proactive in dialogs that degrade into combat. The murder knife is an excellent idea. Don't quote that out of context, lol.

No, I mean, maybe the Inquisitor could persuade people to do what he wants by murder knifing their associates right in front of them or something.

[ObserverStatus]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Yeah I didn't figure you meant what I meant. I was taking your comment and making a tangent.
But, in response, that sounds...extreme.

I know right, it sounds, like, GOTY extreme!

[Twisted Path]

Alpha Protocol style. If you went the extra mile in a quest or did a very optional seeming sidequest it can open up extra options later, either through extra information that you have or respect/hatred an NPC you're talking with has for you.

[ObserverStatus]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Though I was recently playing DA:O and on a whim had my Warden kill the man in the prison in Ostagar, and the sying soldier in the Korcari Wilds. It was hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing.

Poor Alistair, he was like "Oh noes, the new recruit has gone full stupid evil but I'm going to have to put up with him for plot reasons!" He should have said "Damn it PC, there's no Renegade bar in this game! You don't have to do this crap!"

Modifié par bobobo878, 10 mai 2013 - 06:19 .

[KiwiQuiche]

In Exile wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...
could be like Fallout NV where you fail unless you have the correct skills/level? Try to threaten someone with 8 strength and they are like "lol due whatever" or being a Blood Mage who only just unlocked that skill tree and when you try to mind break someone you fail.

That's still an I-WIN button. It just has more prerequisites until you can click I-WIN. 

:| So is being the main character.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I hate it when I need to reference other works in what I would like to see, but in all honesty, they should make it like DE:HR's normal conversations. Having the persuasion option opens up the route for new dialogue options to attempt, and that is a key word, attempt to persuade someone into doing what you want. It's not about using a high persuasion skill to create an I win button and trick the person into doing what you want in a single choice.

Make it a three or four option sequence event, where you need to figure out the best way to go about negotiating with this person so it feels like we had to work hard to get the outcome we wanted, and not just have a shortcut presented.

If that makes any sense.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 10 mai 2013 - 06:38 .