Putting points in something lets me pass relevant checks, while not putting enough points means not passing
"Reward" or "punish"? DISCUSS!
neither, it's just a chore.
I don't want to do too much injustice to AoD as its flaws turned me off before I could see all there is to see, but this was exactly the impression I got. "Put points into X to proceed along the pre-ordained path, sorry sucker, not enough points there lul". No thought or creativity required - or rewarded - on the player's side.
The one thing that demanded thought and analysis was, ironically, the combat system, not anything else. Which is fine and dandy if you're playing a freeform tactics game, not an RPG.
Ultimately it seems AoD fell prey to a lack of clear vision. The old RPG disease.
I guess this might come from the way Vince understands RPGs - what they're all about, what the ideal RPG should be, etc. There've been plenty of discussions about how RPGs should be designed in regards to character skill vs player skill on the Codex in the past (like pre-2010), and I seem to remember Vince being on the side of "character skill trumps player skill". Now I don't remember where exactly Vince was on the spectrum, but some radicals on the Codex argued that the character you've built should be a lot more important than the player's own input during the later game. They argued that if your character is smart, the smart options should be presented to you openly rather than requiring the player to figure out the solution (since it's the character who's supposed to be smart, not the player). If your character is dumb, no smart solutions should be presented to him even if the character's other stats could theoretically allow for it (like a side entrance existing which can be lockpicked, but the 1 INT character with 30 lockpick can't use the side entrance because he's too dumb to think of it).
Vault Dweller please tell us where your position is on the axis of player skill vs character skill, from the way AoD presents its choices I'd wager you're very far towards the character skill end of the axis.
Essentially, in the pure character skill game, a sneaky assassin would come up with the idea of using the balcony as a backside entrance on his own. No need for the character's player to figure this out, the game just presents the option to the player because the character thought of it - that's essentially what AoD does. If you have the appropriate skills, you can do it. You don't need to investigate a situation yourself and wonder "okay, which are the possible approaches here?" Instead all possible approaches are listed, and you pick the one most appropriate for your character build. The focus is wholly on the character, not as much on the player.
But there's also a different school of thought, one that demands more involvement from the player. Yes, your character might be a genius with 20 INT but if you don't come up with a clever solution as a player, your character won't come up with it either. It's the oldschool D&D way of things. Gary Gygax intended for the player to be as involved in the game as the character. Yes, a low int char wouldn't be able to translate an ancient inscription on a wall. When a high int char is about to do something stupid like touch a red-glowing sphere with his bare hands, the DM might say "You don't think this is such a good idea and get second thoughts about it. Still wanna do it?" Things like that.
But Gygax loved to design dungeons which required heavy experimentation and application of character skills
by the player. The Tomb of Horrors is a great example. A lot of players would just use their character skills, then do stupid things and get themselves killed because they purely trusted in their character skills and didn't apply their player skills. The big stone face with the annihilating sphere in its mouth is a great example. Thieves use their detect traps skill, clerics use their detect traps spell. Nobody detects a trap. Players put a hand in the mouth, the sphere of annihilation destroys their hand, now they're one-handed. "But how can it be?!" asks the angry player. "My character didn't find a trap!"
"It's not a fucking trap you dingus," says the DM. "Traps are things that are hidden and activated by accident. A trapped door, a trapped chest, a hidden floor plate that makes the ceiling fall on your head when you step on it. This is an open hole with a sphere of annihilation in it. There is no trap. If you put your hand in it you're a retard and brought your misfortune upon yourself. It's your own fucking fault. Think more about what you're doing next time instead of blindly trusting what the skill checks tell you!"
In the classic Gygaxian style of game design, players are confronted with a situation, and it's up to them to come up with a solution on their own. Often, Gygax would design things specifically so generic skill checks didn't work, demanding from players to think outside the box, and not merely trust into the skills and spells of their character, leaving all the thinking aside in favor of just saying "yeah my cleric has a detect traps spell and he's a level 20 cleric so of course he always detects traps if there are any, no thoughts required on my part because my character solves it on his own". Gygax specifically designed his harder moduels to counter this kind of gameplay approach because he found it boring.
Meanwhile in AoD, the brunt of the effort is put on the character build. It's the character that figures things out based on his stats and skills. The player only has to pick the option that he wants to try, which might end up succeeding or failing - but it's not the player's job to come up with the solution in the first place. The solutions are already presented to you. You only have to let your character attempt one of them.