Is it bad design to allow a player to create a nonviable character? (Age of Decadence)

[Tavernking]

In VTM Bloodlines, if you only focus on social skills and don't put any points into combat or stealth, you could render the game nearly non-completable because combat is mandatory in many parts of the game.

AoD is much more brutal, and it practically forces you to start savescumming early on. You could render the game ENTIRELY non-completable if you refuse to revert to an earlier save to remedy your mistakes.

Do you think it's bad design to allow players to create failed builds?

 

[BANANA CONDUCT]

No.
I, as an RPG player, retain my right to go full retard

 

[nobre]

No.

Git gud or die trying

 

[Dyskolos]

Depends on the game. It would be shitty - because inconsistent - in something developers aim at a general audience and otherwise account for retarded playstyles by keeping easy and dumbed down. But it feels within design consistency in something built to be tough and that expects player competency for success.

And in the end real life mostly yields failed builds so why shouldn't games.

 

[Gerrard]

If you make a 20 hours long game and for 15 hours you can talk/stealth/whatever through just fine, and then suddenly some arbitrary bullshit prevents that and makes it impossible to finish, do you think that's not bad design?

 

[Vault Dweller]

With freedom of choice (i.e. a skill-based system that doesn't hold your hand the way class-based systems do) comes the freedom to make mistakes.

 

[sser]

Should ask your mom.

 

[frajaq]

no, let the devs do whatever the fuck they want

 

[Chippy]

Helps to go full retard from the get-go so that you become a god-like character with character in the end game.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

no, let the devs do whatever the fuck they want

 

[Atrachasis]

Should the game designer guarantee that every player, on every playthrough, will reach a victory condition?

I think not. Failure conditions have always been a part of gaming, and in almost every game invented prior to the advent of computers. Why should single player computer games be any different?

Failed character builds are just one way of many in which the player may fail, nonetheless be entertained by the game up to a certain point, and restart with a better build.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes as long as lethal game ending mistakes are reasonably avoidable.

This is the problem with lazy skill check centered design in games like AoD.

I blame Fallout for the utter degeneration of non-combat gameplay. It's easy to mock bethesda or bioware for their dialogue wheel retardation but the seeds were sown much earlier.

 

[Big Wrangle]

With freedom of choice (i.e. a skill-based system that doesn't hold your hand the way class-based systems do) comes the freedom to make mistakes.

Depends on what one means by mistake. There is certainly fun in finding yourself in a rough situation requiring you to do some serious improvisation to get out of. Such situations can end up being more memorable than the "viable" route.

But if it's just "You literally cannot access anything" then yeah, not that interesting.

 

[Vault Dweller]

With freedom of choice (i.e. a skill-based system that doesn't hold your hand the way class-based systems do) comes the freedom to make mistakes.

Depends on what one means by mistake.

I recall an old drama on the Interplay forums. Someone bought was Fallout, got all excited about exploring the post-apocalyptic world and made a character specializing in outdoorsmanship, barter, and stealth. Naturally, he didn't enjoy the experience. Was it the developers' fault for not ensuring that any randomly-picked skills would allow him to beat the game? He seemed to think so because the skills were there and he was free to pick them ignoring the other, more useful skills.

 

[Silentstorm]

Depends, but if there is a build that makes the game unwinnable after several hours because the developer didn't give me any other way then i would say it's a game i don't want to play.

I remember being really annoyed at Sierra games for doing that and those games were much shorter, i hate the very idea of replaying a whole game from the start and doing 10 to more hours again with a different build even if i try something different just because the developer didn't account for anything.

That wasn't that bad when i was younger, but nowadays that really doesn't fit my idea of fun at all.

 

[Salvo]

No. If every build is able to clear everything, then what's the point of character building? Just make a visual novel, no?

 

[FeelTheRads]

No.

However, in AoD it's not about the ability to create non-viable characters. It's about only being able to play what the developers allowed you to.
Which somehow is made to look by VD and his ass-kissers into the ultimate choices game. Hey, either play what VD wanted or fail is a choice, no?

 

[mondblut]

Affirmative action RPGs FTW!


Srsly, without larping fruitcakes who ragequit RPGs after realizing their mute half-orc wizards and str 3 gnome barbarians just don't cut it, how do we define who is gud at RPGs?

 

[Mustawd]

I’d say it isn’t bad design. But it’s good design if you give the player information on how skills interact with the world without having to get to the end of a playthrough where you realize you can no longer progress.

 

[nobre]

There is an ongoing debate going on on player skill versus character skill, with player skill being defined as a sound tactical mind, fast reflexes, or what have you. Much has been said whether this belongs in CRPGs or not. Some would say that character skill is way more important. I can only agree up to a point. That is because building a good character is fundamentally a player's skill, which comes with reading the manual, experience, intelligence, attentiveness, and so on.

 

[Tacgnol]

I’d say it isn’t bad design. But it’s good design if you give the player information on how skills interact with the world without having to get to the end of a playthrough where you realize you can no longer progress.

Yeah, I think you should give players plenty of information about how skills/attributes (w/e) work, but ultimately if they want to go full retard that's their choice.

Also some people enjoy playing really sub-optimal characters.

 

[JarlFrank]

With freedom of choice (i.e. a skill-based system that doesn't hold your hand the way class-based systems do) comes the freedom to make mistakes.

Depends on what one means by mistake.

I recall an old drama on the Interplay forums. Someone bought was Fallout, got all excited about exploring the post-apocalyptic world and made a character specializing in outdoorsmanship, barter, and stealth. Naturally, he didn't enjoy the experience. Was it the developers' fault for not ensuring that any randomly-picked skills would allow him to beat the game? He seemed to think so because the skills were there and he was free to pick them ignoring the other, more useful skills.

To be fair, if you're a newbie who doesn't know Fallout's systems yet, you might think that outdoorsman, barter and stealth are useful skills to have in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

But at least the skills do something, so they're not entirely useless.
Some older DOS games that copied a pen and paper system and just put in all the skills from the P&P without actually giving them any purpose in the game... yeah. Those sucked.
Realms of Arkania and Megatraveller were notorious for this, iirc.

 

[a Goat]

I'd say the more reasonable middle ground would be to design the game with the mindset that retardedly bad builds should be punished in first hour or two of the game, so you think again and reroll.

 

[Shadenuat]

With freedom of choice (i.e. a skill-based system that doesn't hold your hand the way class-based systems do) comes the freedom to make mistakes.

Depends on what one means by mistake.

I recall an old drama on the Interplay forums. Someone bought was Fallout, got all excited about exploring the post-apocalyptic world and made a character specializing in outdoorsmanship, barter, and stealth. Naturally, he didn't enjoy the experience. Was it the developers' fault for not ensuring that any randomly-picked skills would allow him to beat the game? He seemed to think so because the skills were there and he was free to pick them ignoring the other, more useful skills.

To be fair, if you're a newbie who doesn't know Fallout's systems yet, you might think that outdoorsman, barter and stealth are useful skills to have in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

That's actually a decent enough combo for pacifist run. Maybe add lockpicking/pickpocket, 10 DEX to run away and you might finish the game.

Outdoorsman+Stealth allow you to avoid combat in random encounters and on actual maps & Barter has some game breaking potential when it comes to buying books and stimpacks.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I think there should be failsafes in place to make sure no nonviable characters are made. I know that sounds dumbed down, and in the past I'd probably go the hardcore route, but no one wants to play for 15 or 20 hours and hit a wall where you can't progress. Maybe class choices should limit what skills you can invest in and make sure there's enough skill checks for different builds to get through, or alternate ways to get through the game. Just my 2.