Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

"Characterfag"?

Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
Like a few have stated, the current practice in recent and upcoming RPGs seems to be all builds are viable. I think the last one I read about was Pillars of Eternity. You don't need to min/max yours stats in it because all setups are (theoretically?) viable. While current attempts might be imperfect, it will be perfected with time, and the next step is to allow more player agency in character creation and actions during gameplay. This might satisfy "characterfags". So if you want to conjure a battle axe at the end of a fight and behead your foe then you can.

I think it might require a skill-based system with rapid retraining or something like the system in Diablo 3 or some other MMORPGs I've seen. Basically, you have X slots for "abilities". I put it in quotations because it's termed differently in different games. These "abilities", when combined, define your class's major abilities. They're acquired via loot and rewards and such things. This means you can essentially be any class, if you have the abilities available. Usually there're a lot of abilities, but since you only have X slots, you can't be everything at any single moment. For example, if you're in the midst of a battle as a warrior-ish setup and want to be more like a cleric then you have to switch out some of your current abilities for others.

I say the above because if you want to conjure a battle axe at the end of a fight and behead your foe then it probably has a corresponding skill attached to it. How else will you be able to conjure it? If you want your character to split into 4 mirror images which can fight independently and aide you then that also is probably attached to a skill. If you want to have the flexibility to do anything, maybe at any time, then the system needs to allow you to define your class and hence, your skills. Skill-based systems allow this, but they usually have high retraining costs, meaning you have to know EXACTLY what you want, or you'll spend a lot of time grinding skills. To facilitate more flexibility, they merely need to make retraining cheap. Systems like Diablo 3 might also have constraints, like cool downs and scarce availability. To increase flexibility, reverse these.

Am I right in thinking that the OP wants to be able to do anything and be anything at anytime? I don't think I am. However, I know somewhat where the OP is coming from, maybe. I really liked to play hybrids in Everquest. Why? Because they can do lots of things. The only negative is they were somewhat gimped in groups because specialists were better. I like to have my mind busy. Being focused on something more narrow is usually more boring because the game hasn't developed it enough. In RL, you can focus on something narrow and keep learning and stay interested. In games, when the focus becomes narrow it fails to deliver. It becomes too repetitive. So in this light, I can relate to the OP with respect to wanting to experiment and do lots of things.

In reality, I've no real idea how this will all unfold. I just know there're people like the OP who want more flexibility in defining their character without it also meaning their character is gimped or broken.
 
Last edited:

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,583
Good points, but the goal is really not to make all builds viable -- that dumbs the game down. The freedom to move beyond traditional class archetypes doesn't mean players can do anything they want and still win -- we should still be required to plan carefully and pay heed to the game systems in order to make effective characters.

The problem is, a lot of games -- even some really good ones -- have aspects of their character systems that make the process unnecessarily difficult or even impossible. Stuff like:

- Unevenly powered abilities
- Arbitrary requirements for certain skills
- Skill trees that require you to buy bullshit before you can get to the stuff you want
- Skills that are tedious or difficult to improve relative to others
- Opacity of game mechanics
- Encounter design that heavily favors or ignores certain playstyles

It's rare enough for games to really give us the freedom to create and explore, and I applaud when designers do that -- but for it to really stick, the game needs to be transparent enough so that I can make informed choices, and honest enough so that those choices play out in reasonable ways. If I make a shitty build then I want that to be because I f'd up, not because some part of the game design was poorly implemented.
 

naossano

Cipher
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,232
Location
Marseilles, France
I never/rarelly seen RPG outright impossible if you have the wrong build.
The game might be much harder maybe, but it is usually always possible to win in some way or another.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom