Armchair CRPG designing, the thread

[NotAGolfer]

So I read a couple of rants on Codex lately about what is wrong with modern CRPG design.
Nothing new about that, only this time it actually made me think longer about what I would want a modern game designer to do so his CRPG gets "fun" enough for my taste. It's far from being complete or even coherent, just a few random thoughts.

Everyone feel free to comment or post his own list.

Well, enough chit chat, here's my list:
1. Let the systems create the stories ingame (so create a good stealth mechanic if you want to implement stealth, the AoD approach for example is just lazy imo) instead of being just fluff, time wasters in between story events or only influencing the game's combat.
If your game gets less "epic" due to this then fucking ignore everyone who tells you that's bad. Games are not movies.
2. Make more systems than just RT or TB combat + clicking NPCs on town maps + some dull base building that serves no purpose other than wasting money to make the broken economy look less bad + dungeons filled with nothing but combat and a few simplistic traps + a barebones worldmap with no game mechanic on it whatsoever. I don't really know what kind of interactions I want btw, maybe add some twitchy combat boxing minigame or a race or something like Gwent in Twitcher 3 or whatever. Just make it "fun" and make the char skills matter. RPGs don't always have to be about fighting mobs til they drop dead. Break up the monotony, break the CRPG level grinding loop.
3. Make "quests" less prominent and let the player figure out the stories, possible approaches and their consequences on his own, of course always relative to what this character should be able to pull off. The quest staple has to go away. Seriously, quest objectives in journals plus quest markers are both cancer. I don't necessarily want to return to taking notes on paper so some elegant method to create my own journal and filter the information I collect would be appreciated.
4. Add challenges that are more difficult for some builds to overcome than for others or maybe even impossible for some so it doesn't feel like the char building choices are just window dressing and the difficulty curve is the same for every build.
5. And if someone fails at something add interesting fail states, nearly no game does this.
6. If your game is party-based at least mechanically solve the problem that you have a party covering all the bases but still want the player to think about how to solve problems. If you just let the game check for the char with the highest value in each skill required for a certain situation you can just get rid of Fallout type environment interaction vs char skill C&C alltogether since what's the point, it gets braindead. Same applies to skill point pools, they just don't work.
Dedicated roles in the party augmented by matching equipment choices, the need for the player to choose the character for the action in question, party splitting puzzles where chars are working together each doing what he does best, a dedicated party leader etc, there are lots of examples how it's done right in old CRPGs, let your players think and don't do the thinking for them.
7. Cherry on top for me would be getting rid of the talk your way out of every situation staple for "diplomats" since that doesn't work IRL and shouldn't in games.
8. Oh and add simple adventure style puzzles since why the fuck not, QfG games and Heroine's Quest are awesome. Again (point 2), add some other mechanics besides the obvious stuff, they are all just ways to keep the player occupied anyway and reward him with build-dependent content unlocking and progressing the story.
9. I prefer TB combat but that doesn't mean it's a must for me.
10. Don't do fantasy again, at least if it would just be another Tolkien inspired affair, I beg you. If you don't know how to write a good narrative, then do something low-key and draw inspirations from RL or history. Low-key is always better. Zero to hero is still okay though, there's something satisfying about that sort of story even though it's an old hat.
11. Design it with single player as a priority. I don't play games with my friends or gf, they all think it's gay. And I won't make offspring just to have someone to indoctrinate, no sir.
12. Don't make your game too long, don't go full open world from the start of the game and don't listen to Codex retards... well except for this one here.

 

[Tytus]

4. Add challenges that are more difficult for some builds to overcome than for others or maybe even impossible for some so it doesn't feel like the char building choices are just window dressing and the difficulty curve is the same for every build.
5. And if someone fails at something add interesting fail states, nearly no game does this.

Things is - that approach works only when fail state dosen't equal death or waking up with penalties for defeat. Because it may work during the game. For example you lose some combat or skill check and you get thrown in prison that you have to escape from. Or some content is locked for you that's ok. But I don't want to find out that the build I spent 50 hours making can't defeat the final boss or some important enemy and I will never see the ending of the game/never progress further without restarting.

I want btw, maybe add some twitchy combat boxing minigame or a race

Get out with this ARPG decline.

Races would be ok, if they had more variables than just point and hold a mouse button. You would have to add statistics for different breed of horses/cars/ships. Different persk for different saddles/gear/components. Add some luck factors/rolls for procedural generated events during the race etc. and most importantly factor in the type of the character. More bulky stamina heavy character should be at a disadvantage, smalles dexterity based charater should make a better jockey. If I loose a race, because I suck at racing games, but my character has a backstory of a great horse racer then is just stupid. Every aspect should be more focused on role playing as the character and reliant on his skill not my skills as a player. The larger the part it is of the game the better. But you would have to design a lot of systems just for a side activity not many people would do.

RPGs don't always have to be about fighting mobs til they drop dead. Break up the monotony, break the CRPG level grinding loop.

I agree. But you didn't presented any solutions for this problem.

IMHO one would be giving morale counter for every enemy (not undead obviously) so when let's say 10-20% of their party gets wiped they have to roll for morale with every turn (or every 10-20s the fight goes on). The bigger the losses the harder the check. Also make the combat role playing friendly. If I invested a lot of points into leadership/command/tactics skill. The game should throw clues at me, what action would be the right now or at least the most beneficial by the game standards. Becasue I maybe don't know how to get out of this fight, but my strategic genius character would.

7. Cherry on top for me would be getting rid of the talk your way out of every situation staple for "diplomats" since that doesn't work IRL and shouldn't in games.

I agree to an extent. Not every situation should be this way. But many of them still should. As their are examples in real life to back this up.

For example I was reading a book about a polish traveler that encountered a group of communist rebels during his travels in central and south America. They were prepared to execute him, but because he had a passport with a polish seal (a communist contry at the time) he was able to bullshit his way out of it, saying he was sent by european communists to check up on them and evaluate what kind help they need. They did not only let him go, but also gave him some things (food etc) for the road.

The point I think I'm making is that it should less of a diplomat skill that more of a an actor/liar/bullshiter skill. Becasue yes you can't solve everything diplomaticaly, but you can often lie your way out of things, make false promices, confuse people etc.

10. Don't do fantasy again, at least if it would just be another Tolkien inspired affair, I beg you. If you don't know how to write a good narrative, then do something low-key and draw inspirations from RL or history. Low-key is always better. Zero to hero is still okay though, there's something satisfying about that sort of story even though it's an old hat.

I agree. I would really like to see a game about Zawisza Czarny (the Black). Guy was from poor-ish noble family, that became one of the best knights of his time, was friends with two Kings, knew the Pope personally and was considered the paragon of virtue. He was basically zero to hero type Paladin character. And he fought everybody. The Turks, The Teutons, The Hussites. It would be cool to play as him, or even better a Knight that tries to emulate him.

8. Oh and add simple adventure style puzzles since why the fuck not,

Because this is just as decline like twitch combat mechanics. People complain that fighting in RPG shouldn't be dependant on my own skills but on the skills of the character. If my character has 20 points in stamina and strength and dexterity (or some other corresponding skill) I shouldn't be stuck because my eye-hand coordination is on a level of a retarded goat. Same here. If I put a lot of points into knowledge/wisdom/inteligence/whatever. The puzzle shouldn't be depedant on my skill to solve it. My character would know the solution. So I would be ok with it, if characters with hiigh level in wisdom either solve it automatically or have a visible clues for solution. But that destroys the whole point of puzzles. So there is not point of having them. They only slow things down and take you out of role playing.

 

[AW8]

Well, enough chit chat, here's my list:
1. [...] Games are not movies.

I love those four words.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Make more systems than just RT or TB combat + clicking NPCs on town maps + some dull base building that serves no purpose other than wasting money to make the broken economy look less bad + dungeons filled with nothing but combat and a few simplistic traps + a barebones worldmap with no game mechanic on it whatsoever. I don't really know what kind of interactions I want btw, maybe add some twitchy combat boxing minigame or a race or something like Gwent in Twitcher 3 or whatever. Just make it "fun" and make the char skills matter. RPGs don't always have to be about fighting mobs til they drop dead. Break up the monotony, break the CRPG level grinding loop.

I'd add that taking inspiration from other genres is also a good idea.

As an example, some blobbers have nicely designed dungeons, but the usual 'checklist' used in their design can get stale after a while. I'd like to see a blobber with a 'jump' mechanic (basically, jumping over the next tile to reach a distant area), or other unusual mechanics that are common, let's say, in action games, just to see how the designers can expand the gameplay and dungeon design with these functions.

 

[Disgruntled]

Some good ideas here, generally anything that makes a crpg world alive rather than waiting for you to beat em would improve them drastically for me. Lets start putting some brains into the AI beyond the combat phase.

One specific issue that always bothers me is the lack of sizeable armies being properly represented as a major force. Im tired of settings that talk about great knights, kingdoms and wars but have you do everything by yourself or with a merry band of rejects. Why is this lowly farmhand allowed to walk around, build on his strengths and solve every problem while 100 000 soldiers, mercenaries, champions and their wise old generals be background fluff or waiting to be killed in convenient small sized portions.

The simple answer is to put it aside as rpg vs strategy, but I dont agree that developers cant do more to incorporate this factor into crpgs. I think the banner saga did a decent job trying to work in the greater battle and its consequences directly with the path of the heroes but it isnt that conventional a game to put up as a standard. AoD tried to kick you in the balls and make you do the leaders bidding but only seeing the powerful really stretch their legs in text cards didnt feel that meaningful. Mount & Blade obviously does it best but its not quite a crpg despite the modding options.

In my opinion, the protagonist(s) have to act as rogues in enemy territory. Any great horde of evil dudes must be reactionary, hunting them down dynamically, forcing more situations where your heroes are hopelessly outnumbered, forced to hide, run, set traps. And with allied forces, if two big groups go against each other but the game cannot play out the big battle, it calculates the appropriate result based on all the variables. The isolated portion of combat conducted by the heroes would determine greater success for victories or being able to survive if the battle is lost.

 

[Sacred82]

1. Let the systems create the stories ingame (so create a good stealth mechanic if you want to implement stealth, the AoD approach for example is just lazy imo) instead of being just fluff, time wasters in between story events or only influencing the game's combat.

your tone is a bit generalizing but I can't agree on the stealth thing. A simple stat check at appropriate times (with the game deciding when it's appropriate) is fine/ better than nothing IMO. Anyone arguing for fewer stat checks in RPG's needs to burn.

2. Make more systems than just RT or TB combat + clicking NPCs on town maps + some dull base building that serves no purpose other than wasting money to make the broken economy look less bad + dungeons filled with nothing but combat and a few simplistic traps + a barebones worldmap with no game mechanic on it whatsoever. I don't really know what kind of interactions I want btw, maybe add some twitchy combat boxing minigame or a race or something like Gwent in Twitcher 3 or whatever.

conductor we have a problem.

 

[V_K]

[snip]

Wow, there must have been a major astronomical event, because that's a post I can fully agree with. Well, except the boxing/racing bit, but that's negligible.

Because this is just as decline like twitch combat mechanics. People complain that fighting in RPG shouldn't be dependant on my own skills but on the skills of the character. If my character has 20 points in stamina and strength and dexterity (or some other corresponding skill) I shouldn't be stuck because my eye-hand coordination is on a level of a retarded goat. Same here. If I put a lot of points into knowledge/wisdom/inteligence/whatever. The puzzle shouldn't be depedant on my skill to solve it. My character would know the solution. So I would be ok with it, if characters with hiigh level in wisdom either solve it automatically or have a visible clues for solution. But that destroys the whole point of puzzles. So there is not point of having them. They only slow things down and take you out of role playing.

Progress Quest should be right up your alley.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Some good ideas here, generally anything that makes a crpg world alive rather than waiting for you to beat em would improve them drastically for me. Lets start putting some brains into the AI beyond the combat phase.

One specific issue that always bothers me is the lack of sizeable armies being properly represented as a major force. Im tired of settings that talk about great knights, kingdoms and wars but have you do everything by yourself or with a merry band of rejects. Why is this lowly farmhand allowed to walk around, build on his strengths and solve every problem while 100 000 soldiers, mercenaries, champions and their wise old generals be background fluff or waiting to be killed in convenient small sized portions.

The simple answer is to put it aside as rpg vs strategy, but I dont agree that developers cant do more to incorporate this factor into crpgs. I think the banner saga did a decent job trying to work in the greater battle and its consequences directly with the path of the heroes but it isnt that conventional a game to put up as a standard. AoD tried to kick you in the balls and make you do the leaders bidding but only seeing the powerful really stretch their legs in text cards didnt feel that meaningful. Mount & Blade obviously does it best but its not quite a crpg despite the modding options.

In my opinion, the protagonist(s) have to act as rogues in enemy territory. Any great horde of evil dudes must be reactionary, hunting them down dynamically, forcing more situations where your heroes are hopelessly outnumbered, forced to hide, run, set traps. And with allied forces, if two big groups go against each other but the game cannot play out the big battle, it calculates the appropriate result based on all the variables. The isolated portion of combat conducted by the heroes would determine greater success for victories or being able to survive if the battle is lost.

Sounds great, but I fear the dumb "AI" algorithms we have today won't let it get much better than what M&B already did. Competing adventuring parties or even whole armies are nice and all but secondary imo. Just making the ingame NPCs react properly to your actions is already a high bar that's rarely overcome. There are usually only a couple of NPCs acknowledging what you did per quest and it all feels too static too often. One of the reasons why I'd love to see the concept of quests to go away, since that would force designers to make much bigger and more complicated mindmaps about the possible interactions with the game world (instead of just thinking "quest xy added, check, now let's add a few connections to other quests and be done with it" - take away the compartments they are used to think in) or make them rely more on systems for some of that instead of handcrafting everything. If those systems alone are not good enough to keep the player engaged so you absolutely need to have those aweshum cutscenes as a reward then that might be a warning sign that the systems suck.
Oh and if the game narrative escalates so quickly that it would seem adequate if the whole ingame world or the mightiest NPCs in it react to your actions then I think something already went wrong narrative-wise btw. The save everyone and their mother and later the whole world quests in most CRPGs are another thing that I'd like to see disappear rather sooner than later. Without them you don't even need mechanics for armies or political leaders reacting to your actions all the time because they don't give a shit about you. The local sheriff will put you in your place and if not then there is always Pinkerton. So no need for the mighty ones to even lift a finger. As it should be.

1. Let the systems create the stories ingame (so create a good stealth mechanic if you want to implement stealth, the AoD approach for example is just lazy imo) instead of being just fluff, time wasters in between story events or only influencing the game's combat.

your tone is a bit generalizing but I can't agree on the stealth thing. A simple stat check at appropriate times (with the game deciding when it's appropriate) is fine/ better than nothing IMO. Anyone arguing for fewer stat checks in RPG's needs to burn.

I never argued for fewer stat checks. I want both, stat checks and gameplay systems that are in themselves fun to play.
As V_K pointed out, that player vs char skill dichotomy is bullshit and leads to games consisting of a char creation part followed by railroaded degenerate shit as it was parodied in Progress Quest.
The RPG is just the frame, there has to be some other kind of game inside or I won't care for it, sorry. Let it be an adventure (QfG), a tactical squad game (every TB CRPG with a combat map where you move your units), a real time action game (Gothics did that right) or whatever, but there has to be something. And better more than one thing because different roles/builds ask for different sorts of mechanics.
As I said, I'd love to have variety in gameplay modes in a game as huge as you typical CRPG, so as long as the subgames the RPG includes are still partly relying on skill checks (but punishing ones, not like that lockpicking minigame in Skyrim where you could open every lock with no skill investment ... although that minigame was shit anyway) and as long as the subgame (I try to avoid the word minigame since that has negative connotations and is misleading anyway, since I want more effort put into those subgames than in typical minigames) is well designed I'm happy with it.

 

[Sacred82]

I never argued for fewer stat checks. I want both, stat checks and gameplay systems that are in themselves fun to play.
As V_K pointed out, that player vs char skill dichotomy is bullshit and leads to games consisting of a char creation part followed by railroaded degenerate shit as it was parodied in Progress Quest.

there is no reason in the world why stat checks that don't depend on player skill necessarily lead to railroading; quite the contrary, it's much more effective in a sandbox, where you have some control over which situations to get into and which to avoid.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Races would be ok, if they had more variables than just point and hold a mouse button. You would have to add statistics for different breed of horses/cars/ships. Different persk for different saddles/gear/components. Add some luck factors/rolls for procedural generated events during the race etc. and most importantly factor in the type of the character. More bulky stamina heavy character should be at a disadvantage, smalles dexterity based charater should make a better jockey. If I loose a race, because I suck at racing games, but my character has a backstory of a great horse racer then is just stupid. Every aspect should be more focused on role playing as the character and reliant on his skill not my skills as a player. The larger the part it is of the game the better. But you would have to design a lot of systems just for a side activity not many people would do.

Fully agree on all of that except for the end. You say that if my char's backstory makes it necessary to win I should be guaranteed to win. WTF. That's not how games work. This is supposed to be a game, there has to be some sort of challenge on top of picking the right background or stats for your chars. I mean you agree that in TB combat CRPGs the tactical combat subgame has to be challenging (at least occasionally, maybe he can take on mobs that weaker char builds could never dream of fighting) even if the background of your char tells you that he's the greatest warrior of all time, right? Because else minute to minute gameplay would just get very boring. No fucking difference to the race example.

RPGs don't always have to be about fighting mobs til they drop dead. Break up the monotony, break the CRPG level grinding loop.

I agree. But you didn't presented any solutions for this problem.

I didn't? Well, I suppose I didn't spell it out and you thinking that the RPG should play itself except for minor CYOA like decisions like which approach to pick in which situation makes it difficult to communicate it anyway.
For a puzzle solving adventure-like subgame an option would be lore skill or intelligence checks for your char to see if he can make sense of the problem to solve. If he's just too dumb give feedback in form of amusing descriptions about how he doesn't understand the purpose of the device you want him to use or whatever, if he is smart enough or succeeds the lore check the player gets rewarded for both the right char build choices for that situation and him being clever enough himself to figure out the puzzle.
... Hey, that's an interesting idea, since the player characters are just tools in your hand anyway their char skills are not deciding the outcome of challenges on their own, but are limiting factors for you, the player. If your char is too dumb or clumsy to solve that puzzle, well, you're out of luck. If not, good for you and long live the solid RPG under the hood of that game. But wait, lazybones, you still have to solve that puzzle.

 

[CryptRat]

NotAGolfer That's a very good list. So let's discuss about the details .

2. Make more systems than just RT or TB combat + clicking NPCs on town maps + some dull base building that serves no purpose other than wasting money to make the broken economy look less bad + dungeons filled with nothing but combat and a few simplistic traps + a barebones worldmap with no game mechanic on it whatsoever. I don't really know what kind of interactions I want btw, maybe add some twitchy combat boxing minigame or a race or something like Gwent in Twitcher 3 or whatever. Just make it "fun" and make the char skills matter. RPGs don't always have to be about fighting mobs til they drop dead. Break up the monotony, break the CRPG level grinding loop.
3. Make "quests" less prominent and let the player figure out the stories, possible approaches and their consequences on his own, of course always relative to what this character should be able to pull off. The quest staple has to go away. Seriously, quest objectives in journals plus quest markers are both cancer. I don't necessarily want to return to taking notes on paper so some elegant method to create my own journal and filter the information I collect would be appreciated.
[...]8. Oh and add simple adventure style puzzles since why the fuck not, QfG games and Heroine's Quest are awesome. Again (point 2), add some other mechanics besides the obvious stuff, they are all just ways to keep the player occupied anyway and reward him with build-dependent content unlocking and progressing the story.
[...]12. Don't make your game too long, don't go full open world from the start of the game and don't listen to Codex retards... well except for this one here.

I'd regroup all these points : the game must be presented like an adventure game or an investigation game or "search for the 5 statues" where the world is fully opened or logically opens itself by keyitems/puzzles/obstacles or dialogs about new locations (I personally prefer if it's fully open or fastly becomes very large) with a large relatively open main quest. Serpent in the Staglands, and Blade of Destiny does this very well.
I don't think a checkpoint simulator is the good way to go and even when it is it mustn't be presented with "CHAPTER 2" (it can be used if the world changes for example "this night..." or "2 years later..." but not to indicate you've advanced in the main quest) or other useless intrusive checkpoint indication thrown at your face. For the same reason "THIS IS A QUEST" is not an elegant way to present side quests.
And I really think it's for a large part a matter of presentation, many games have items that used by themselves, riddles with dialogue wheels instead of typing (I know that's a critical issue because of dead end possibility but they're possibilities to do something between these two systems, with good clues, a keyword system, or making riddles side content, you can even make the answer options optional).

Point 2. is solved by elegant interactions with the environnements and with NPCs. You need to choose the skills to use (spells in particular) by yourself most of the time, not just meet automatic skill checks.
I like side minigames (Arcomage) but even if I probably like minigames more than the next guy, I'm not sure that minigames for keypoint game mechanics are such a good idea.

9. I prefer TB combat but that doesn't mean it's a must for me.

The real cancer of combat system is party-based games with AI controlled companions. I'm fine with most combat systems with full party control,
for example classic TB (tactical or blobber-style) or one-shot almost-TB alternatives like what you find in Eternal Sonata, Valkyria Chronicles or Resonance of Fate (yes, these games are JRPGs, sorry ).

10. Don't do fantasy again, at least if it would just be another Tolkien inspired affair, I beg you. If you don't know how to write a good narrative, then do something low-key and draw inspirations from RL or history. Low-key is always better. Zero to hero is still okay though, there's something satisfying about that sort of story even though it's an old hat.

Anything Sci-fi/Horror/Investigation/fantasy but not english medieval is fine. I like magic/occultism/science. Besides interacting with the environnement via magic/science/occultism/... (whatever how it's called in a given context) is very fun and in my dreaming game it's an important part of the gameplay.

- One thing you don't talk about is full party creation. I really prefer full party creation. I don't like pregenerated PCs and moderns RPGs tends to go with pregenerated PCs while older ones tended to have full party creation, even if it's not a so important tendency.

- Another thing I also have in mind is the "settings menu". I don't think it's costly to make enlightening keyword in a discussion optional, making quest markers optional, ect...It's normal that all players don't want to play the game the same way. I'm far from talking about any RPG here, indie full party creation RPGs with large party and a big amount of skills or adventure/RPGs can be marketed as hardcore or cinematic FPSs with RPG elements marketed as meanstream but they're a lot of RPGs which are between these two categories and could relatively satisfy both kind of players (I'm thinking of D:OS for example).

 

[NotAGolfer]

I never argued for fewer stat checks. I want both, stat checks and gameplay systems that are in themselves fun to play.
As V_K pointed out, that player vs char skill dichotomy is bullshit and leads to games consisting of a char creation part followed by railroaded degenerate shit as it was parodied in Progress Quest.

there is no reason in the world why stat checks that don't depend on player skill necessarily lead to railroading; quite the contrary, it's much more effective in a sandbox, where you have some control over which situations to get into and which to avoid.

"Stat checks that don't depend on player skill"?
Well of course they don't depend on it. What are you even talking about?
And by railroading I meant that there isn't much gameplay left when you take away player skill dependence. Only char creation+development and then picking the right option for that build in each situation and maybe avoiding some situations alltogether. Not my idea of fun gameplay and sounds a lot like a CYOA even in a sandbox. There it would be some kind of CYOA book series equivalent I suppose.

I'd regroup all these points : the game must be presented like an adventure game or an investigation game or "search for the 5 statues" where the world is fully opened or logically opens itself by keyitems/puzzles/obstacles or dialogs about new locations (I personally prefer if it's fully open or fastly becomes very large) with a large relatively open main quest. Serpent in the Staglands, and Blade of Destiny does this very well.
I don't think a checkpoint simulator is the good way to go and even when it is it mustn't be presented with "CHAPTER 2" (it can be used if the world changes for example "this night..." or "2 years later..." but not to indicate you've advanced in the main quest) or other useless intrusive checkpoint indication thrown at your face. For the same reason "THIS IS A QUEST" is not an elegant way to present side quests.
And I really think it's for a large part a matter of presentation, many games have items that used by themselves, riddles with dialogue wheels instead of typing (I know that's a critical issue because of dead end possibility but they're possibilities to do something between these two systems, with good clues, a keyword system, or making riddles side content, you can even make the answer options optional).

Well I don't really trust in open world simulations anymore, too many disappointments, you know.
Storywise BoD was a really simple game at its core, same goes for Serpent in the Staglands. So if someone wants to create a game with a story that's a bit more ambitious maybe chapters are better since easier to handle? I dunno, it is certainly possible to make a more complex narrative work in an open world game, but chapters make it so much easier and imo they don't take away too much.
Also I already sound like an entitled cunt with all these demands I made in the OP so open world on top of all that? Didn't want to go overboard.

One thing you don't talk about is full party creation. I really prefer full party creation.

Yeah, as I said, random thoughts.
I agree, full party creation is better. When I think about companions you meet half way like in the IE games that's just a pita when you try to build a well balanced evil party covering all bases or want 2 or more of the more interesting classes in the same playthrough. But I guess that's what single multiplayer is for.
Then again I don't really like ADnD in the IE games anyway, too constrained char development and everything revolves around combat performance. Meh.

 

[Sacred82]

I never argued for fewer stat checks. I want both, stat checks and gameplay systems that are in themselves fun to play.
As V_K pointed out, that player vs char skill dichotomy is bullshit and leads to games consisting of a char creation part followed by railroaded degenerate shit as it was parodied in Progress Quest.

Are you arguing against gameplay that doesn't depend on player skill at all? If so, what examples do you have for that?

 

[V_K]

There are two problems with skill checks in my opinion:
1) They are braindead - you just get a list of options and pick the one with your best skill attached. And no, hiding the check doesn't solve this problem as you choice still doesn't matter, only the skill level.
2) They are arbitrary - one point on the 100-scale may decide whether you succeed or fail.
As an example of skill checks done right, consider Dragon Wars. In that game:
1) You don't get a dialog prompt, but must use skills in adventure style fashion: figute out which one you need and manually "use" it on the encounter.
2) There's very little differentiation, just having the skill is enough for most situations and very few challenges require skill levels above 3-4.

For a puzzle solving adventure-like subgame an option would be lore skill or intelligence checks for your char to see if he can make sense of the problem to solve. If he's just too dumb give feedback in form of amusing descriptions about how he doesn't understand the purpose of the device you want him to use or whatever, if he is smart enough or succeeds the lore check the player gets rewarded for both the right char build choices for that situation and him being clever enough himself to figure out the puzzle.

An arguably better application was suggested in the blobber thread: make intelligence/lore provide clues.
Although, frankly, this whole thing about character intelligence affecting puzzle-solving stikes me as rather disingenuous. Because when it comes to combat no one says "My character is so intelligent, he should figure out how to best defeat those baddies on his own, without my input", do they?

 

[NotAGolfer]

I never argued for fewer stat checks. I want both, stat checks and gameplay systems that are in themselves fun to play.
As V_K pointed out, that player vs char skill dichotomy is bullshit and leads to games consisting of a char creation part followed by railroaded degenerate shit as it was parodied in Progress Quest.

Are you arguing against gameplay that doesn't depend on player skill at all? If so, what examples do you have for that?

I'm arguing that such gameplay doesn't exist. Games are always about player skill. Well, maybe except for larping faggotry and stuff like that, but one could argue that even they make their games demanding to play by making up stories on the fly while playing. CYOA books are just books, not games imo.

 

[Sacred82]

There are two problems with skill checks in my opinion:
1) They are braindead - you just get a list of options and pick the one with your best skill attached. And no, hiding the check doesn't solve this problem as you choice still doesn't matter, only the skill level.
2) They are arbitrary - one point on the 100-scale may decide whether you succeed or fail.

2 is only true for skills on a 1-100 scale that are increased by 1 point increments, and where only absolute values count. There's no reason this should be the case.

My fav example is running from the nightwatch in Darklands - based on the Agility of your party members you may or may not even get this option, and even then dice are rolled. I have no idea how much Agi I actually need or what the modifiers are, but as a rule, with low Agi parties, I just tend not to wander around the city after curfew. Due to the sandbox nature of the game, this isn't simply a dead end and not an example of choose your skill.

 

[V_K]

2 is only true for skills on a 1-100 scale that are increased by 1 point increments, and where only absolute values count. There's no reason this should be the case.

It's not about scale, it's about justification. The only scale where you can justify 1-point difference being a matter of success or failure is 1-3 one, 1-5 at most, but that's stretching it.

Skillchecks somewhat work in Darklands because of the game's roguelike-ish nature. It simulates a fuckton of stuff that is highly abstracted and basically boils down to a succession of semi-random events with semi-random outcomes. Combined, variety, simulation and radomness somewhat compensate for arbitrariness, but it would still be better, gameplay-wise, to have an actual city with actual guard patrols at night.

 

[Sacred82]

Combined, variety, simulation and radomness somewhat compensate for arbitrariness, but it would still be better, gameplay-wise, to have an actual city with actual guard patrols at night.

Did I question that? Nop.

Oh, I forgot about the armchair part. Carry on.

 

[V_K]

So what is your point then?

 

[Sacred82]

My point is that some simple checks are preferrable to not having a system in place at all (sticking with my example, not having the option to run away or it always succeeding). Of course a deeper, more complex implementation is superior, but it's not something I'd want to throw after (indie) devs setting out to make a game.

 

[V_K]

My point is that some simple checks are preferrable to not having a system in place at all (sticking with my example, not having the option to run away or it always succeeding). Of course a deeper, more complex implementation is superior, but it's not something I'd want to throw after (indie) devs setting out to make a game.

If we are talking about dialog checks (i.e. those presented as multiple-choice questions), than I'd have to kindly disagree. A game with two fully developed system is always better in my book than a game with one system and a ton of dialog checks, even if nominally the latter allows for more alternative paths through the game. But what I was trying to say by citing Dragon Wars (another good example would be Quest for Glory games) is that it's quite easy to make skillchecks themselves into a sort of system - by wrapping them in Adventure-style puzzles. Just make the player figure out what skill to use on their own, don't give them all the options on a silver plate.

 

[FeelTheRads]

(so create a good stealth mechanic if you want to implement stealth, the AoD approach for example is just lazy imo)

But unique animashuns!!! Fallout could do all skills with just 1 animation, but not AoD!

Superior RPG by superior number of animations!

 

[V_K]

(so create a good stealth mechanic if you want to implement stealth, the AoD approach for example is just lazy imo)

But unique animashuns!!! Fallout could do all skills with just 1 animation, but not AoD!

Superior RPG by superior number of animations!

Well, I had a rather enlightning conversation with Elohim in another thread, who told me that for much of the development process the dialog editor was the only tool that worked reliably, so I don't hold that against AoD anymore. Another thing he told me is that they're remaking the thief path in a more point-and-click fashion for the next update, so there's hope for AoD still. Now, if only they did the same for loremaster path...

 

[Turrul]

Stuff

You could've saved your time and just write "Something like NEO Scavenger".

 

[V_K]

Stuff

You could've saved your time and just write "Something like NEO Scavenger".

That's an interesting conundrum. NEO Scavenger does indeed fit everything NotAGolfer said, but while I agree with his post, I found NS absolutely not my type of game. Probably because it's too much of a roguelike and its RPG elements are too light.