Character skill vs. player skill and character immersion

[EvoG]

This is another thing that doesn't have to be done explicitly. The character's internal monologue can help the player along in the classic hint book style. ie Small Hint then Big Hint then Solution. So if you as the player want to solve the puzzle yourself, because that's part of the fun, you can do that. If you want your smart character to be portrayed as such, the option is there.

Yes exactly! I know you and I are agreeing an awful lot on these things, but as I said in a post above, allowing the player to receive added information due to the characters abilities, in this case intelligence or perception, you give the player more clues as to the solution, but the final solution is never ever given to the player. The player STILL figures it out.

 

[Zomg]

I think the hint structure for smart characters would actually have a kind of paradoxical effect - hints make me, the player, feel stupid, and solving a riddle or puzzle without hints makes me feel smart. So that certain empathic connection with your character actually gets pushed in the wrong direction, assuming such an empathic connection is part of the frisson of RPGs (and I believe it is).

I'm comfortable to simply forfeit problem-solving "intelligence" from the character's domain. It's where the game structure intercedes in the roleplaying. Real-time RPGs go on to forfeit reflexes to the player domain as well.

That's not to exclude simple knowledge or skills from the character - of course those can be executed in a character layer.

 

[EvoG]

I agree Zomg. I deleted your exact sentiment from my last post, thinking it was unnecessary to go on about, but yea ultimately, I'd rather have INT be done away with altogether, with regards to solving puzzles and communicating ideas. It can be cute or funny at times, but either limiting the players options to situations he knows he can solve, or by giving hints the the player is, as you said, still ultimately removing that discovery from the player.

 

[kingcomrade]

I think what you guys are missing is the balance in character selection screen. If I pick int 10, sure, I'm not going to have any trouble at all picking the best dialogue choices, since they're all available to me. But that int 10 comes at a cost. It makes the game easier in that arena, but makes it harder in the rest. Besides INT 10 doesn't do anything but net you a dialogue option from Zax that doesn't change anything. That's all I've noticed, anyways.

Now, as just for puzzles, INT shouldn't have anything to do with it, puzzles are for the player.

 

[Vault Dweller]

See this is very interesting considering I just read debate on adventure games, where someone was defending RESTRICTED, singular solutions to puzzles

And I'd agree with that easily. That's part of the charm of adventure games.

Where's the challenge in creating a character? There's no right or wrong decision or else the game would be flawed.

Why? A player should be given a chance to fuck up his character completely. It doesn't mean that there should be right and wrong skills, but supportive skills should be chosen wisely, increasing strengths and covering weaknesses. The challenge is the understanding of your character(s).

Take my all rogue party example. Clearly, one should have a good understanding of classes, multiclassing, skills, feats, and game mechanics to play with such a party successfully, otherwise you'd get butchered very quickly.

Where's the challenge in guiding the character through a quest or story(or gameworld)? Thats just picking the solution that works for your character. Locked door? Pick it. Bash it. Unlock magic. High perception, use the secret enttrance on around the side. There's no challenge here, just using the best skill you have for a "puzzle" that gives you every chance to pick the skill you want or only can use.

All these are great examples of poor design. From another thread:
.................
The solution to this puzzle (pun intended) is to make a puzzle more complex than a single skill check.

Here I can offer a good analogy with dialogue design. If you are playing a talkative character, and all you do is click on the best line, courtesy of your high INT, and proceed until the next dialogue skill check, then the game is boring. If being able to play as a diplomat requires more than a single high stat/skill, and you need to gather enough information before your uber high INT would piece it together into a winning sentence, than it's more interesting and involving.

So, back to puzzles. A puzzle should involve the understanding of what your character is dealing with and any extra info that may help. Example, you encounter a door leading to something extremely awesome (which is obvious to any good adventurer). There is one problem though, the entire door is one big-ass lock loaded with tiny traps and springs.

You are very smart, but you realize that you have no fucking clue, except for one - the door leads to something extremely awesome and you MUST have it.

So, you go back and start gathering info. You ask locksmiths, and eventually acquire a book written by a student of the one who made that door. You ask adventurers, and eventually acquire a diary written by a lone survivor of an adventuring band that tried to figure out the lock. They all died trying, save one, but now you know what they did, how the door responded, and a few things that did work.

Armed with both the manual and the diary, and being so fucking smart, you can figure out the pattern, and open the door.
...............

How much skill does it take to choose the right "skill" for any given situation. Whats interesting is you're using words and terms that would denote challeng/gameplay, but in context actually don't. There's no "skillful" way to use a characters skill because there's no challenge in it, you simply choose. Surviving, short of combat, is no more difficult than saving the game before you log off.

Well, it shouldn't be one-dimensional like what you described. There should be different solutions, requiring different skills, and resulting in different consequences, no matter how small. Then you'd have something to think about. The skill is to calculate the outcome and do what would benefit your character the most.

Are you still working on a game? Well, let's say that you are planning to do the shareware distribution, but a publisher approaches you and offers you a deal. Obviously, going with the publisher gets you way more exposure, but you get a much smaller cut, although this small cut maybe larger than what you may make on your own, assuming you won't get screwed, of course. Is it an easy decision to make?

ToEE I'll argue is not a good example simply because its a tactical combat game. Combat is arguably the only place to find challenge in RPG's, though many times it comes down to making sure you have enough buffs, debuffs, healing and offensive capability.

Why should it be that way? Why should combat be a challenging way, and a non-combat way should be all about picking the best dialogue option? Again, you are talking about bad design here.

You're still being too general and reiterating what you wrote above. That what I'm trying to get to the heart of...where is there challenge? You can consider all the options you want, but rarely is there ever a wrong way to do anything, only what is the right way for your particular character.

Again, I'll file under "bad design". Of course, there should be a wrong way, just like there is a wrong way to handle a particular enemy in combat. There should be a way to pick an option and get fucked. What's wrong with that?

Now this, as far as I can tell sounds like a challenge. This is a puzzle (again assuming only from what you've told us), if it isn't clear that its the boss you need to eliminate. This requires "player-skill" to figure it out, and THEN "character skill" to go ahead and choose how to do away with your boss. This is challenge. This is gameplay.

Thank you.

To respond though to what I now understand, if there are multiple solutions to solving the quest for NPC A(your boss), what if you DONT go the the other Faction, so you're never asked to eliminate NPC A(your boss)? What if you simply do NPC A's quest as instructed and the elimination of your boss never comes up? In this case, its not really any different than any other quest. Its only interesting when that circular conflict comes into play. Now, if the only way you even THINK to kill your boss(NPC A) is because you were asked to do so by another faction, then there was never really a challenge to 'figure out' (see my post above) that you indeed DID have to kill him. You were simply asked to...fight ensues.

There is no "instructed way" to do the quest. You are told of the desired outcome, how to get to this outcome is up to you (the challenge, as I see it). You are not told what to do or whom to see, you are told what your "boss" wants. Again, it's not about locating the right NPC, but about figuring out what your character can do and what parties might be interested and motivated to help you, and at what price. And yes, you can try to eliminate your boss or anyone else, but it would be hard to pull off on your own. Faction B are the guards who won't put much efforts into the investigation if you do it for them.

VD, keep in mind that I'm trying to be objective here, or perhaps just a devils advocate.

Sure, sure, it's cool.

The discussion about intelligence in RPG's is actually arbitrary. Games can have puzzles, and as long as the the solution to the puzzle is available through clues around them and empirically(theres that word again), then most people should be able to solve it. If the game is designed for only 'truly smart' people with 'learned' knowledge', then its failing to be a game, at least for anyone that doesn't go to MIT or Harvard.

That's why I prefer to let characters and their stats/skills/learned knowledge to handle those things.

Being able to teach someone how to irrigate their farmland is cute, but gets you what, some coins? Some XP? Pretty soon, the USE INT button removes the player from thinking about solutions to puzzles, because you can just USE INT and its solved...yay.

Well, one-click solutions are as bad as one-strike fights, I'm sure we agree on that. So, the right way is to approach to non-combat mechanics the same way you'd approach the combat ones: more options, more tactics, different defenses against your skills motivating you to develop supportive skills, come up with strategies, etc.

The CHOOSING is not the challenge...big deal, anyone can choose what to do...

Technically, yes, anyone can choose what to do. Practically, choosing a better way is the biggest challenge in life, no? Especially if it's not very clear which way is which.

 

[EvoG]

I think what you guys are missing is the balance in character selection screen. If I pick int 10, sure, I'm not going to have any trouble at all picking the best dialogue choices, since they're all available to me. But that int 10 comes at a cost. It makes the game easier in that arena, but makes it harder in the rest. Besides INT 10 doesn't do anything but net you a dialogue option from Zax that doesn't change anything. That's all I've noticed, anyways.

Nope, didn't ignore that fact. (see my giant post )

Sure you may get a greater reward for being a very intelligent character, but to BE that intelligent, you had to sacrifice other skills and abilities, so the reward is proportional.

Now, as just for puzzles, INT shouldn't have anything to do with it, puzzles are for the player.

Yep I of course agree, but I'm getting the distinct feeling people here dont want ANY player challenges at all, and want to use the characters abilities completely. At that point, RPG's come down to being a "choose your own adventure".

 

[Section8]

I think the hint structure for smart characters would actually have a kind of paradoxical effect - hints make me, the player, feel stupid, and solving a riddle or puzzle without hints makes me feel smart. So that certain empathic connection with your character actually gets pushed in the wrong direction, assuming such an empathic connection is part of the frisson of RPGs (and I believe it is).

That's a very good point, and perhaps it is best to forfeit character problem-solving intelligence in preference to player intelligence. Give the player the "tools" that character intelligence dictates, and let them do the actual problem solving. The most basic incarnation of that would be allowing only intelligent characters to recognise that something is actually a puzzle as opposed to a three pronged frisbee rack.

I think it's essential to not allow player intelligence to substitute for a character mechanic, it should only supplement. The classic "how not to" would be KOTOR, with all of it's "what's the next number in sequence" puzzles that allowed a smart player to circumvent the need for character repair/hacking skill and the resources associated.

 

[kingcomrade]

What? How can people who love Fallout feel like their character should be doing all the work. I'm the one who had to figure out how to self-destruct the mutant base (and play through the game enough to find out where it was). Hell, my first time through I never even met the Master, I found the nuke and set it off first.

Actually, my first time through I got so muddled (I first played it a long time before I actually sat down and played it all the way through) and never found the water chip, then the mutants found the vault after I bought water from the merchants one too many times.

 

[EvoG]

Okay I just caught your post VD, and to quickly respond, I think we're on the same page. I wanted to make sure it was agreed that there HAS to be consequences...failure, in anything you attempt. This is player-skill, not character-skill. The player decided to USE his skills, even in a way that got him in trouble, and now has to get out of it.

Having NPC's hate you and refuse any more conversation in KotoR2 is an outstanding example of making dialogue a HUGE part of the gameplay.

Having your thief chose to pick the WRONG door and over stay his welcome in a previously darkened hallway that has torch carrying guards heading his way is a great example of 'fucking up' being a thief.

As you know by now, I've always been adamant about design. People tend to dismiss concepts when in fact it was poor design rather than the concept itself that failed. Design CANNOT be separated from the system or the concept.

Cool.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Agree.

 

[Proweler]

I think the major problem with "acting out a character" in cRPG's is the absense of a flexible dungon master.
With a DM you can elaborate situation so you can still use your character in a cRPG your character already limited by the rules and programming so you just have to hope that the devs provided a solution for your character.

 

[Scars Unseen]

My thoughts on this topic... well a bit of background first.

I have been playing RPGs for about 15 years now. I started with PnP D&D(the original version from the 70s) and have since played Every incarnation of D&D, various White Wolf games, L5R, Dreampod 9's "Sillouette" system, Rifts, Amber Diceless RPG, the Tristat system, and various LARPS. I have played far far too many CRPGs to begin to name(as I suspect most of the posters here have), and have had the mixed blessing of being introduced to MMOs. One area that I cannot claim to have travelled is the realm of MUDs, MUXs, MUSHs and whatever other acronyms those have.

OK, now that's out of the way.

I have always viewed roleplaying as having little or nothing to do with combat. In PnP, you have far more control over the flow of combat than you do in CRPGs. This is due, as has been said before, to the greater medium of communication between the player and the one running combat. That said, combat always handled by a core mechanic. It is typically what a gaming system is built around. With that in mind when it comes to people that try to set themselves up for victory in RPG combat(not all gamers care enough about combat to do this) there seem to be two sorts of people. First, there are those that look at the stats and skills that determine the outcome of combat and try to get the best combination to withstand whatever they come against. This type of player is generally known as a min maxer. Secondly, there is the type of gamer that studies the system itself and tries to manipulate them to his best advantage. At his most extreme, this sort of player is known as a rules lawyer.

Both of these types translate into CRPGs as much as they do in PnP. The min maxer favors a game where he can influence the outcome of things most by having the best stats... the best equipment. The rules lawyer prefers prefers a game where he has greater control over the system so as to use his own skill and/or wits to "beat the game."

Now anyone that has PnP'd for any amount of time would likely point out to me that these are not the only types of players out there and are often viewed as some of the less desirable elements of the RP community. Well first, I would point out that most players(at least that I've come across) have one of those mentalities to a certain degree. Very few have it to a noticable extreme, but when a system is built, people examine it. That said, i would remind you that I did say that I believe combat has little to do with roleplaying. The above is all about powergaming.

In my mind, roleplaying is akin to freeform acting. You are either given a role, or you create a role, and then you run with it to the best of your ability. If that means making the decision you know is going to get you in trouble because your character knows no such thing, so be it. If it means being absolutely worthless in combat because you thought it would be interesting to play a blind seer(I did this once, only it was a blind child Malkavian vampire seer), so be it. The system is nothing. Whether you are rolling dice, describing actions(in a diceless system), moving a mouse, or swinging a foam padded piece of PVC pipe, combat, puzzles, and any other devices used are nothing but tools to further roleplay. They are not the point of roleplay.

Now don't get me wrong. I do enjoy a hack and slash adventure every now and then. But such things will always pale in comparison to a good roleplay session that was well prepared by the one setting it up, and well played by all the roleplayers involved.

And so when it comes to the question of character skill vs player skill, I must confess that I do not care. A game will allow me to play the role I set forth to play or it will not. Whether combat is resolved because I manipulated the system or because I set up stats a certain way is unimportant to me. But I will say this. If a game is going to be a certain way, then be a certain way. If you are going to make me swing my sword, then let HOW and WHEN i swing it important. If stats and how they are used is what is important, then just go ahead and swing my sword automaticallly and let me focus on the strategic qualities of a game. That is why Diablo gets criticized over Baldur's Gate. The one your time is wasted on mindless and repetitious clicking and the other you are allowed to step back and control the flow.

To call some of the modern CRPGs influenced by FPS and action games would not be inaccurate. However this point is rendered impotent if one is not willing to acknowlege that old RPG combat systems are derived from wargaming, which has a as little to do with roleplaying as Quake. Personally I can live with the existance of both.

 

[kingcomrade]

rules lawyer = munchkin

 

[Scars Unseen]

rules lawyer = munchkin

Well as far as that goes, I disagree. Munchkinism is powergaming coupled with DM neglect. A munchkin is typically not a rules lawyer, as he is more likely to break the rules than manipulate them, and while some munchkins are min maxers, most munchkins just max and skip the min. Again, this type of play style only exists in the prescence of either a DM that does nothing to stop it, or a game engine flaw, in which case munchkinism is generally called bug exploiting.

But I only used the term in a possibly long winded contribution to the topic, not as an attempt to drail it. Therefore I will now attempt to gently guide the thread back onto it's rails at this time.

 

[Solik]

Excellent thread.

I don't think the view of RPGs as "design a character and let it go" are very accurate. The original concept of an RPG was to take on a role for yourself. Sure, you created the character, but you also became that character, acting out its dialogue, stating its actions, and intimately controlling its development. Roleplay became coupled with random rolls determining outcomes because dice rolls were the most fair way to handle things in the days before computers and realistic video games. Player skill was required in the social aspects -- you had to think on your feet when communicating with someone, and you had to be capable of ad-libbing suitable dialogue for your character at the same time.

Technological advancement now allows for RPGs to be realized in a multitude of different forms. Random rolls are no longer the only way to handle event resolution. They are not inherently superior, either; indeed, from a standpoint of immersion, they are inferior to giving the player some type of direct control.

It is also a mistake to classify games that require direct input as "twitch." Twitch implies hitting buttons really fast with no thought behind it. I can only think of two such games I've ever even played; Dynasty Warriors' resolution of what happens when two characters attack at the exact same time, and way back with Mortal Kombat (the first one) when you pounded buttons to try to break wood / stone / whatever. Dexterity is not really required to play fast-paced games. Instead, you have to have the ability to think on your feet. Slow-paced planning is replaced by fast-paced tactical thinking. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about each style, although some people naturally prefer one or the other (I like both myself, depending on my mood). Most importantly, however, neither have anything to do with roleplay.

You do not need to be good at swordfighting to roleplay a swordfighter in an action-based RPG. You are not required to lift and move a sword around. You do, however, have to be able to evaluate the current situation and respond to it quickly enough to keep from losing. Similarly, you do not need to be good at swordfighting to roleplay a swordfighter in a tactical-based RPG. You merely need to be able to determine the sequence of actions that give you the best chance for survival, given the circumstances.

Yes, both do indeed rely on some type of player skill. However, if no player skill was required to overcome the challenge, then it would not be a "game" (thus invalidating the G in RPG). Moreover, there would be such a staunch disconnect from your character that you'd hardly even be playing a role anymore (thus invalidating the RP).

Because of this, roleplaying games, by nature, are a compromise of two separate things. The character envisioning, creation, and guidance is most often implemented through a character creation system involving statistics and appearance, a "go-anywhere-do-anything" game environment, and dialogue choices of some kind. The game part is implemented through either strategic or tactical gameplay in combat, stealth, and other challenges. How much one or the other is emphasized is indeed a continuum, but any game implemented well should be quite enjoyable regardless of where exactly it falls on the continuum -- provided it avoids either extreme.

 

[EvoG]

And and excellent reply Solik...

How much one or the other is emphasized is indeed a continuum, but any game implemented well should be quite enjoyable regardless of where exactly it falls on the continuum -- provided it avoids either extreme.

...and this sums it up. This is exactly how I feel about any discussions over a particular type of gameplay or style or genre. If the game is fun to play and was executed with consistency and production value, its a good game. Of course people have their tastes in what they like, and you can't deny them that, but every game has its place.

I know this may not be a terribly satisfying reply to your rather long post Solik, but I agree with everything you said, so. :D

 

[Zomg]

Because of this, roleplaying games, by nature, are a compromise of two separate things. The character envisioning, creation, and guidance is most often implemented through a character creation system involving statistics and appearance, a "go-anywhere-do-anything" game environment, and dialogue choices of some kind. The game part is implemented through either strategic or tactical gameplay in combat, stealth, and other challenges. How much one or the other is emphasized is indeed a continuum, but any game implemented well should be quite enjoyable regardless of where exactly it falls on the continuum -- provided it avoids either extreme.

I hit on this obliquely with my earlier post, but one thing I would point out - in many cases "gameplay" and "roleplaying" are tightly intertwined. Take some of the scenes in Fallout, where you're able to talk your way out of an inevitably deadly fight. The dialogue and even the goal are linked to roleplaying a certain character (say, a cowardly diplomat, as opposed to a combat wombat who might be able to simply blast his way free), but you're also gaming at the same time, trying to find the combination of actions and dialogue that will allow you to escape destruction, no different from dodging enemies in Galaga. I would go so far as to say that such tight intertwining is an unqualified good, because it unifies the character and player experience.

 

[Levski 1912]

For some reason, I've always found that talking my way out of a fight in a game is infinitely more rewarding than blasting my way out of it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Great post Ghan. You've illuminated a distinction that's been tripping me out for a long time. I could never quite express it as eloquently as the difference between an actor playing a role on a stage and a person moving a game piece around in a game world, but for me, that's EXACTLY how it is.

I got started on Final Fantasy. I never had any roleplaying issues with those games, understandably, because the character roles were defined, and even if I was given an option, I didn't risk anything by picking the choice that I, Lord Chambers, personally would like to see.

Later on I got a computer and started playing these different kinds of RPGs, where you created a character, or party of characters, from scratch. In theory this was awesome, I could create characters without any of the annoying aspects, for instance, Cyan from FF3 (US nomenclature) having a mustache and pony tail. Is this an 80's detective? My swordsmen either have beards or they're clean cut, dammit.

In practice things weren't quite so peachy. In a game like Arcanum or Fallout there are opportunities for many types of characters, and as such the narrative path is looser, so a character could never really have details that were outside of the gameplay. Like, you make your stealthy diplomat, and he is a stealthy diplomat, but he doesn't have a brother he's always competing against for the affection of his father like Edgar and Sabin in FF3. Brotherly rivalry is not an aspect of either game's plot or gameplay, and if you take this kind of limitation to the extreme eventually all your chracter really is is a person who happens to solve quests a certain way. Hard to give a shit about someone just because he solves quests in a stealthily and diplomatic way. Hard to identify with that. Arcanum and Fallout weren't that limiting to though, so lets suppose there was some sort of brotherly rivalry plot development revealed about your character over the course of a game. Well, it's unlikely that the fact he's a stealthy diplomat has any impact on said development. The choices you made to be that stealth diplomat are independant and disconnected from the fact that the plot tells you he has a brotherly rivalry. A better example of this is the fact that you're always the Nevernarine in Morrowind, and no amount of unNevernarine-like behavior will make anyone not think you're the Nevernarine. Thus it's challenging in a character-created RPG for you to ever identify with your character, since the gameplay doesn't flesh out features of the character other than how he solves quests. Usually.

The other issue I had with games like Arcanum and Fallout is that the loser narrative path, or even the manual, reveals there are other playing styles to try out, and for some reason that'd kill me. I might be playing as a paladin archetype, but constantly seeing the "theif" solution to a quest made me very badly want to play a thief. And so with Arcanum, I ended up creating several characters to fill the niches in the game, and never getting far enough with any to get sucked through the game by the plot developments. Now, I realize this is a personal issue more than a problem with the game.

In these player-created-character games I was always approaching the roleplaying from a distance. As a mover of the game character in the game world, as you said Ghan. By contrast, I played Gothic 2 and had really the only "successful" RPG experience of my past few years. The pivotal moment for me was when I got to the first town, and realized I was going to have to choose a job to apprentice in. Not only did the town look large, and thus the potential endless, but my goal of getting into the upper section of town had a clear choice of solutions that would define my character in the process. And it was fun as hell, because I got to be me, Lord Chambers, and pick what I wanted to do (I chose to hunt the first time around), without risking any part of my character in the game. In other games, that was always my creedo, to act as my character would want to act. Well that gets tiresome after awhile, especially when I really want to do that thief solution to a quest, and with the way Gothic 2 was set up, I didn't have to deal with that again.

I hate to say this since to me it sounds intellectually weak, but apparently its a challenge for me to just play a character to the conclusion, if the game gives me too many options not to. Gothic 2 had somewhat of a more limited scope, but most importantly, it didn't make me decide everything about my character at the creation screen, and for me I guess that's a good thing. Playing Gothic 2 defined my character instead of me defining my character and trying to play that character, with varying degrees of success (stealthy diplomats in Morrowind = unsuccessful).

 

[Atrokkus]

Great discussion of the core question of CRPGs.

Sure, you created the character, but you also became that character, acting out its dialogue, stating its actions, and intimately controlling its development.

.. in terms of your character. That is, if you play a dumb orc, you couldn't go on arguiing with a sorcerer about the potency of his spells, that would be considered OOC. You would act out his dialog in accord to his stats, and the DM would calculate the result, if any speech skills are involved. However, as compared to a CRPG, a PnP game grants the player with more control over his character in that he has seemingly unlimtied choices in a conversation, albeit limited by his stats. In a CRPG, due to technical reasons (no proper language recognition yet), you have to make do with only so many options as provided by the developers. However, the mechanic is the same nevertheless: you select from several predefined answers. You cannot come up with random conversation choices in your head, that's physically impossible for your brain to do. Hence the core mechanics of CRPG and PnP are absolutely identical. That is, the balances of player and character skills in CRPG and PnP are equal.


I feel the need to defend the concept of shifting this balance, and creating hybrids of certain kinds. For instance, I feel that perfectly acceptable for an RPG to be an RPG even if the combat is "hybridized": reliying both on character's stats, and on player's skill/reflex (like in Gothic, although I would like to see a more complex approach, with more modifiers and moves), while everything else follows the classic model (dialogs purely stat-driven, etc). It would be perfectly equivalent to the classic approach of tactic-TB combat. Why? Because the correlation between char's and player's skills are equivalent with that of classic model-RPG.

Personally, I like both approaches (TB and action-based), and I don't think we could draw a line between them, in terms of player/char balance.

 

[Section8]

Wow, some great additions to the discussion for you newcomer/delurking types. At risk of sounding solicitous, I'd appreciate your input into this thread/discussion, since you almost certainly have views that aren't affected by the many previous Codex discussions of similar concepts.

Okay, now that I feel like a cheap pimp, on with the thread!

 

[MrBrown]

I think the opening post (OP) is mixing a completely different issue with the character skill vs. player skill one.

It seems to me that the OP is talking about the difference between (for a lack of better terms) coflict resolution method and conflict resolution agenda. The method would be the way the PC solves a problem, while the agenda is either the reason the PC is solving the problem or a specific resolution the PC wants for the problem.

Example:
The Vault Dweller runs into a bunch of mutants while traveling the wasteland. The pacifist VD doesn't want to kill anyone, so he'll try to get past them without combat. The kill-all-mutants VD will want to take them out, one way or another. These are both agendas.

Methods for the pacifist could include persuasion, stealth, bribery or even combat in the form of a smoke grenade or such (though one would question the pacifism in that). The kill-all methods could be direct combat, planting bombs, setting up traps or even fooling them to their certain death somewhere else. Or any combination of the various methods for both agendas.


What the OP seems to be saying is that he cares alot more about how he can play out his character's agendas, rather than the character's methods. In that case, the point he is trying to make is somewhat tangential to player skill vs. character skill, as that is all about methods, not agendas.

Assuming I understood what he's trying to say, I do agree that his is a very viable approach to RPGs.

I think the challenge for future CRPGs is to develop games that have both several methods and agendas represented, and are equally rewarding for all.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

rules lawyer = munchkin

I had always heard that rules lawyers are extreme simulationists, munchkins are extreme gamists and extreme narrativists are theatre fags.

 

[Kairal]

I think I more agree with Ghan. In my view role-playing is much more interesting when i'm given more choices. To take a vice example my character is a strong knight with the vices "macho man" and "terrified of goblins". Lets say my character's exploring some random dungeon with his party and they've finished the quest and are leaving. However a group of goblins has camped up ahead. There's no way around. So my character being a Macho man and playing the role cannot tell the party he's terrified of goblins. The party attacks and my knights panicks and runs for the hills. Eventually after mastering his fear he returns to find that one of the party has been killed because of his cowardice and several party members leave in disgust. This is what happens when I'm forced to play a particular role.

I think it would be significantly more interesting if my character could choose instead to tell the party about his weakness before the attack. As such the party leaves him behind and manages to defeat the goblins, however due to him having broken his Macho Man role the party loses all respect for him and leaves.

The point of this long winded example is that I prefer to have options with consequences for breaking my role rather than just being forced into it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think it would be significantly more interesting if my character could choose instead to tell the party about his weakness before the attack. As such the party leaves him behind and manages to defeat the goblins, however due to him having broken his Macho Man role the party loses all respect for him and leaves.

The point of this long winded example is that I prefer to have options with consequences for breaking my role rather than just being forced into it.

First, I think that an option where someone got killed because of your weaknesses, potentially affecting you and maybe increasing your fear threshold due to paying such a price for it, is way more interesting that dumb - my apologies - " my party left me now because they all hate me" option.

Second, nobody forces you to run into goblins and then run away screaming. You may scout the exit carefully, notice the goblins, and return to your party to discuss the situation with them.