Oblivion question for MSFD

[galsiah]

"Natural play" is button mashing without much tought of stategy.

I mean to roleplay without thinking about which skill / attribute is "best" to increase next. I would argue that such "natural" play is only possible in Morrowind by ignoring aspects of the game world - i.e. by not roleplaying according to that world, but according to generic conventions / ideas.

Any system requires the user to think how to use it.

That's not true. My mod for Morrowind adapts the system significantly so that choice of initial character build has a great effect, but thereafter attributes go up with skill increases in an order-independent manner. There is no reason at all to think about the workings of the mechanics (which are quite complex), but only to have an intuitve idea what is going on - e.g. use physical skills to get stronger...

I think of it like a physics system. The player has no need to worry about how the physics works, or to solve equations, so long as it all makes sense on an intuitive level. Morrowind's standard system does not - e.g. training, then sleeping can give a different result than sleeping then training if you're about to level up. This kind of counter-intuitive nonsense means that the system cannot be treated intuitively without conscious thought. Either you need to ignore it completely, or to think about the specific mechanics.

Things don't have to be this way though. So long as a system is intuitive and automatic, the player has no need to think about it consciously, or to know how it works behind the scenes - just like the physics: if it looks and feels right, that's all the player needs.

The only requirement for a player to think about the system is where direct, non-intuitive player choice is involved - e.g. assigning attribute points in Morrowind. I don't like this form of player choice. I think all choice should be related to the game world - new abilities should not fall from the sky without explanation. I also think choices should make a large immediate and long term difference. Morrowind fails both these tests. It breaks a player's immersion by providing choice at level up (which I don't like), then makes that choice of little interest in the short term, and meaningless in the long term.
A game like NWN didn't tie in choices in character development with the game world, but at least the choices made a real difference.

No system can please everyone ... if you think otherwise you are a fool.

Again, you are confusing "please everyone" with "be perfect for everyone". Also, I did qualify my remark with: at least more than the current system.

This is not a turn based / real time issue. Most of the supporters of the current system (and I don't mean you here GBG) have little idea what alternatives could be like. They've just seen a few bad alternatives, thought that they suck, and concluded that the current system is great:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This needn't be a TES fanboy vs. codex war. A system could be designed to please both camps at least more than the current system. The main reason I'm confident of this is that the current system sucks so badly - there are so many ways to improve it, it's depressing to think that it's stayed the same.

 

[Nog Robbin]

I was always of the opinion that Daggerfall had too many useless skills. The design focus of Daggerfall was "lots of everything," which doesn't often result in a solid game. The purpose of more skills is to increase options; however, if those are false choices, what's the point? If there's little real in-game impact between the choice of long blade and short blade, then the choice is purely aesthetic. Removing these false choices isn't dumbing down, it's being honest -- and hopefully allows the developers to focus on making the real choices even more involved.

But instead of making the skills useful, they are removed.
Languages for example - suppose language was a developed skill. Without it some items couldn't be read - they would be in a foreign tongue. Maybe you couldn't speak fluently to some people without an appropriate level. No - obviously considered too restrictive?
How about making the enchant skill useful? Give it the ability as you gain in skill to detect enchantments, and have spells for the lower levels to do the same? Hide enchantments from the general character - add value to the enchanter class? No - obviously considered too restrictive.
Then there could have been hunting, tracking, trapping - all of which *could* have had use in the game other than for things to do for RP purposes between quests. No - in this case because I guess it isn't the focus of the action.
Horsemanship? Jousting (scratch that one for obvious reasons). Climbing?
Then you have crafting - including making new weapons/armour as well as possibly altering clothes (imagine a world where not everyone could fit in every item of clothing or armour)
There are a lot of things that could have been done. But haven't been. Each of the above mentioned skills *could* have had use within the game other than just as a sideline - each could have had benefits to a character.

If there's little real in-game impact between the choice of long blade and short blade, then the choice is purely aesthetic

What is the in-game impact between the choice of blunt and blade? Is that not purely aesthetic? It's not like D&D where you need a blunt weapon to deal with skeletons/undead. So it just comes down to what sort of weapon you hold to twat someone with. Of couse, an axe (or mace) is handled very differently to an sword. But then so is a dagger to a claymore. We've covered this already I feel.

 

[elander_]

I was always of the opinion that Daggerfall had too many useless skills.

The problem wasn't the skills but the lack of mature and complex chars and quests to use them. You can only use a skill efectively and level up with them if the game can provide you with a constant source of quests where you can raise xp on those skills. Skills are strongly tied to the game world and what you can do and how in that world.

In a game world where problems are only solved by hack-and-slash or by limited one word dialog choices the number of skills that exist in Oblivion maybe much more than what is really necessary. They are just there for reviewers to say "hi look theres a speechcraft skill, this game is really mature" when it may be possible that using speechcraft will only get you a discount on buying stuff or for people to tell worthless little secrets but would you rely on it for leveling up? I doubt it. The game world of Oblivion seams to be directed to please a certain juvenile target that doesn't care for a too much mature and complex game world. Remenber games like Planescape and Fallout that required a big effort and were very mature but it had an adverse effect in sellings contrary to what was expected.

Edit: This has reminded me that if Beth is not going give F3 a 18+ rating then it will certainly be made to be a piece of shit.

 

[Thrawn05]

Edit: This has reminded me that if Beth is not going give F3 a 18+ rating then it will certainly be made to be a piece of shit.

Seeing that nudity stopped with DF and BS, I can safely say F3 will be rated Teen for Fantasy Violence. :D

 

[Solik]

Nog Robbin, that is exactly the point. When you try to add a zillion skills, you have a lot of trouble making them all useful and still having a coherent game. Daggerfall didn't succeed at it. It made a valiant effort, but ultimately failed, and I feel Bethesda has learned from that -- don't take on more than you can handle.

What is the in-game impact between the choice of blunt and blade? Is that not purely aesthetic?

I believe they have different movesets in Oblivion, but I'm not entirely sure about that. I hope they do; otherwise, it, too, is a rather useless choice. If the handling is significantly different, it can still make a difference even with the same moves, but your point about claymores vs daggers would stand.

The problem wasn't the skills but the lack of mature and complex chars and quests to use them.

I know. That's why I'd love it if Bethesda got away from the stupid-as-fuck use increase system and moved towards a quest bonus style of system, so that even skills used rarely could increase, and you didn't have to worry about wasting skill slots on things you couldn't use simply because you could never power them up. It's really my biggest criticism with TES, and I'll join you there. Unfortunately, the crowd that believes the existing system is more realistic / better for roleplay and thus superior is loud, and Bethesda sides with them.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Yes I do like that system. However that wouldn't preclude quest rewards - perks would be great quest rewards, or free training sessions. But at its core i very much like the increase through use system, because it gets rid of the arbitrary nature of XP based systems - no conncetion between how you get the XP and how you spend them. In this system you are what you do. I like that.

 

[Solik]

There's ways around it. For instance, you could group experience into three types for the three archetypes, and award it based on the style of quest (or even the method for accomplishing it, if it can be tracked easily enough). Do a quest that requires bashing someone's head in, get fighter experience. Do an assassination quest, get a good bit of stealth experience and a little fighter experience (or magic experience if it detects that you solved it that way instead). Then, you can decide how to allocate your actual skill bonuses. Use increase systems reward repetition, which I really dislike. I'm willing to break a little immersion and realism to solve it.

 

[Abernathy]

Where abouts in NZ are you from Abernathy?

Auckland at the moment - we're planning on moving up north in a few years, keep choocks and bees, grow vegies, etc...

Yerself?

 

[Nog Robbin]

Nog Robbin, that is exactly the point. When you try to add a zillion skills, you have a lot of trouble making them all useful and still having a coherent game. Daggerfall didn't succeed at it. It made a valiant effort, but ultimately failed, and I feel Bethesda has learned from that -- don't take on more than you can handle.

Fair point - too many skills = trouble. Especially if there is no in game way in which you can utilise them to increase and be valid within levelling (more on this later).
However, with skills that *are* used in game, why merge them when they are distinctly different - other than simplifying things?

What is the in-game impact between the choice of blunt and blade? Is that not purely aesthetic?

I believe they have different movesets in Oblivion, but I'm not entirely sure about that. I hope they do; otherwise, it, too, is a rather useless choice. If the handling is significantly different, it can still make a difference even with the same moves, but your point about claymores vs daggers would stand.

Ah - but it's just moves. As far as the game is concerned you are hitting someone with something. Surely a dagger wouldn't be used the same as a long sword, let alone a claymore. But as you say, the point about daggers would stand. My point was if you can group things by "type", it may as well be one weapon skill. They have different moves, but the skill is to hit. This is what I wouldn't want to see at all - but I can see people complaining again. I just hope Bethesda doesn't decide to simplify even further should another TES game be produced. Of course, that's likely to be a few years away at least anyway.

The problem wasn't the skills but the lack of mature and complex chars and quests to use them.

I know. That's why I'd love it if Bethesda got away from the stupid-as-fuck use increase system and moved towards a quest bonus style of system, so that even skills used rarely could increase, and you didn't have to worry about wasting skill slots on things you couldn't use simply because you could never power them up. It's really my biggest criticism with TES, and I'll join you there. Unfortunately, the crowd that believes the existing system is more realistic / better for roleplay and thus superior is loud, and Bethesda sides with them.

I must admit, I really don't think the generic experience works. It always bugged me in D&D where you would get experience for killing things and finding gold. Obviously you have gone through a number of things to achieve the aim - but if you have just relied on hitting things, why should you be suddenly better at sneaking, or casting spells? That's where the skills system works. Yes - it can promote treadmilling, but then one of the bonuses (apparently) for TES is you can play it any way. So those that choose to do the same thing repeatedly can do so - those (like you and I) that play the game won't suffer for it.
However, as I mentioned earlier, this does mean not gameplay related skills can not be raised easily. Skills such as languages (which really are learnt through study) would have no in game action to raise them - other than reading books which even I appreciate doesn't represent much gameplay wise. Hunting, tracking, trap making etc. could all have ingame representations for the player to use and therefore improve in. Might not be easy - but I believe it could be done. Likewise with crafting skills - though again, people feel this removes from the "action" side of things - much like armourer which is there only really as a self sufficiency thing and is tolerated as such even though there is no game play to using it.

 

[Solik]

However, with skills that *are* used in game, why merge them when they are distinctly different - other than simplifying things?

General game improvements? I still wish they'd merge Acrobatics and Athletics so I can make an acrobat without jumping all over the damn place, as long as they're going to stick to use improvement anyways. Skill usefulness is another reason of merging. Then there's the whole fit-the-7-3 paradigm, which has valid points to it even though it's arguable. Were I designing the skill system, I would have upped it to 7-4, and made the fourth section "general" skills that everyone could learn equally. I'd put stuff like Armorer and Speechcraft in there, and maybe some new crafts and support skills. But hey, all of us armchair designers could make better games, right

Ah - but it's just moves. As far as the game is concerned you are hitting someone with something.

I really don't think it's quite so simple. If the moves are all that similar, then they're just more false choices. My hope is that you change your tactical approach based on the moves you have. The effectiveness of the implementation is yet to be seen by anyone, really. Claymores and daggers, however, do have the same moves; what change are the speed of execution and the base damage (and possibly the range, but that's rather slight really).

I must admit, I really don't think the generic experience works.

Vanilla experience does have issues and is a rather simplistic way of handling it. See my response to Ghan for my preferred system.

 

[elander_]

I know. That's why I'd love it if Bethesda got away from the stupid-as-fuck use increase system [...]

I don't like Daggerfall char. system much myself mostly because the mix of D&D class ideas with GURPS. The idea of skill increase by usage however is very interesting and it would be a shame to abandon it. In Daggerfall it didn't work very well because of some problems like not taking chalenge level into account and having simplistic skill progression. Incidently GURPS has a way to measure the chalenge of using a skill on a certain scenario that could have been used.Anyway no char sys. is perfect and xp based sys. also have their share of problems. In a pnp a human game master is capable of diferentiating when xp is earned and how to deal the correct bonus. In a computer is much more difficult and human players will allways find a way to trick the computer rules.

 

[kingcomrade]

It's not very interesting the way it works right now. Every time you swing your axe or hit an enemy you get a +1 increase to your "blunts" skill? That's pretty lame, and not interesting at all. I remember in Silent Storm if you run your characters in real time back and forth across an empty map, they would gain APs. I mean, I suppose that's like exercise training, but as a game mechanic it's pretty exploitable.

A more interesting way of approaching it would be that you gain points in a skill depending on how you use them to finish quests. You know, as Fallout had typically a combat, diplomatic, and stealth way to finish a quest, if you decided to resolve a quest through combat you might gain a new rank in Small Arms (or whatever), but if you did it diplomatically you would get a new rank in Speech.

 

[galsiah]

...Then there's the whole fit-the-7-3 paradigm, which has valid points to it even though it's arguable. Were I designing the skill system, I would have upped it to 7-4...

This kind of backwards fit-the-skills-to-the-framework design is just not a sensible way to go about things. Design is a complicated business, but the sensible approach here is not hard to see:
(1) Identify the gameplay you want to achieve.
(2) Find a range of skills to support that gameplay.
(3) Construct a framework to support those skills.

The design of Oblivion seems to have been more like:
(1) Construct a simple, symmetrical framework for skills.
(2) Fit as many skills as possible into it - discard / combine those that don't fit.
(3) If the gameplay is no good, repeat stage (2) until it is.

The most important thing is to have a wide variety of interesting skills which support different styles of gameplay. If some of those skills turn out to be better than others, or you end up with more fighter skills than mage skills, that's not important. Decide on the skills first, then adapt the framework to accomodate them. Perhaps it won't be a symmetric framework - you might need different categories of skills with different weightings etc. If skill imbalances would upset your levelling system, perhaps you should change the system to accomodate them (if your current system sucks, then there's no downside here).
The framework should be adapted to the skills, not the other way around.

But hey, all of us armchair designers could make better games, right.

I do wonder somtimes. If the first question a designer asks when deciding whether to include a skill is "Will it fit into my simple 3x7 system?", I can't see how armchair designers could do much worse.

 

[Nog Robbin]

I must admit that I agree that there really is no need to try and fit the skills equally between the designated playing styles (melee/stealth/magic), nor even to try and distribute the skills evenly over the player stats. After all, some stats are easier to improve than others - strength being one of the easiest to improve, speed slightly less so (has tighter contraints - at least for top speed running, though you can run longer at a faster speed with training), intelligence maybe less so, and personality potentially less still. Why they decided on this equality system is beyond me - surely the action of the skill is more important than trying to pigeon hole it. Mercantile = stealth? Speech craft = stealth? I'm sure many traders or politicians do not consider themselves stealthy Those skills really are not the sole province of stealth. Likewise armour is a martial skill - regardless of armour weight. In fact, stealth would technically be left with sneak, security and maybe acrobatics (though again, it's more general than stealth).

@Solik

I disagree that a dagger and a claymore are used the same. The grip alone tends to be different with a dagger held a lot more lightly and flexibly. It is also designed more as a precise thrusting tool, while a claymore is designed more for hacking and slashing (a thrust will not be as precise, and holding it is totally different, two hands used for a start).
This is really where a linked skill tree could be an advantage - we've covered it already, so I won't bother typing it again. Yes - it is slightly more complicated for the user to view, and it is slightly more restrictive (in that they won't be an expert of a similarish weapon - just somewhat skilled), But it does add versatility to characters and allow for genuine and meaningful specialisation.

 

[Data4]

If you still have a map (like in Morrowind) which pinpoints your location, then it's pretty fucking difficult to get lost, compass or no compass.

maybe because of speedstree, it could be very hard to find your way.
I won't be surprised if you not find a small dungeon entrance when I see these screenshots :

http://www.elderscrolls.com/images/art/ ... liv18B.jpg
http://www.elderscrolls.com/images/art/ ... obx02B.jpg

in the same way, to find an amulet in this dark dungeon could be tricky :

http://www.elderscrolls.com/images/art/ ... liv23B.jpg

...while those of us with basic cognitive skills, and the ability to reason inquisitively would like to be able to think "Hmm... that looks like a good place for a cave. I think I'll check it out". Thanks to the compass, it's been reduced to "Hmm.. cave. Whatever."

-D4

I didn't know there are good or bad places for dungeons entrance.
so for you in order to find alone the dungeon entrance you need some special frightening music alerting you you are trespassing some dungeon areas or maybe once you will see some dead trees with fog you will think "Hey man, it is a good place for a dungeon. Woaw I am so smart, I didn't need a compass to find the entrance, I made this logical conclusion alone if there is a weird music and a weird atmosphere it is only because there is some dungeons over here.... I can't believe how clever I am, I am sure it is because I am a member of the RPG Codex Forum!!!!"

You are fucking moron, aren't you? I'm talking about the free sense of adventure in a game that lets you explore without telling you exactly where something is. You know, being able to find stuff on your own?

My god you're an idiot.

-D4

 

[Solik]

NR - I was referring to the Oblivion implementation, not reality. In reality, even two forms of the same weapon type, such as two different axes, or long dagger vs stiletto, could be used radically differently.

Galsiah, there's other angles to view that from. One angle could be, "Okay, I want to have three main types of gameplay -- one for melee fighting, one for spellcasting, and one for stealth/diplomacy. I want each of these to have an equal amount of skill options so they all get the same attention. We'll do our best to make each skill as equivalent in usefulness as possible so that every single skill choice is vital. We're going to tie these skills to stats, so if they're going to be roughly equivalent in power and usefulness, then each stat should have the same number of skills, or else some stats will be overpowered, making races / spells / powers that improve those stats also overpowered. The stat list we've been using has worked pretty well, but we've never really had a skill system that's worked out for us, so let's tweak those. With our new combat system, we're probably going to have to remove several weapon types if we want to implement them well, so let's stick with the core ones. Since players will choose fewer total skills, we'll need to combine a couple weapon types; otherwise, players would usually be forced to choose only one weapon type since they can't afford to throw away primary skill slots. It's better in our games to stick with one weapon type anyways because of how skill improvement works, and we don't want to tweak that too much in this game..." and so on.

It's extremely arrogant -- and amazingly short-sighted -- to think that the way you approach game design is the only good way to go about it.

 

[OverrideB1]

It's extremely arrogant -- and amazingly short-sighted -- to think that the way you approach game design is the only good way to go about it.

But isn't that exactly the way it is being approached? Not only by Bethesda, but by every single software company out there?

Every designer feels that their approach to a gameplay element is highly original and the very best possible method of doing it. It's only after the event, when the smoke clears and bits have stopped falling off with amusing "sproing"-sounds, that a developer will grudgingly - and with much bad grace - admit that there might possibly have been the tiniest little flaw in their design and that, maybe, given a decade or two to have worked on it some more it would have been perfect.

 

[galsiah]

Galsiah, there's other angles to view that from. One angle could be, "Okay, I want to have three main types of gameplay -- one for melee fighting, one for spellcasting, and one for stealth/diplomacy.

An over-simplified and restrictive starting point. It's fine to identify three main gameplay types, but they should not be used as hard restrictions later in the design.

I want each of these to have an equal amount of skill options so they all get the same attention.

Why? What is the justification for these three types all getting the same attention? I thought Oblivion was aiming for 100000 (???) character builds - not three. By all means make sure they all have quite a bit of attention, but striking a "perfect" thief/mage/fighter balance is not necessarily too important - the important thing is that the majority of character builds that players use provide entertaining gameplay.
Taking a complete balance of thief/mage/fighter as some sort of hard premise / target will not allow a system to be as versatile as it could be. [For instance you might end up doing something like throwing out perfectly good skills to fit into a rigid 3x7 system].

We'll do our best to make each skill as equivalent in usefulness as possible so that every single skill choice is vital.

Why? This is not supposed to be TES IV: Morrowind Slightly Adapted.
There is no reason to stick to the same skill / attribute mechanics or levelling mechanics. Not every skill choice needs to be equal. Skills can be differently weighted. Starting values can be different according to a skill's usefullness. There is no need to stick to a choice of major skills.

Again - forget Morrowind. Start from the ground up. Not all skills are equal. That needs to be accepted and built into the framework, not ignored. If each skill can be made to have the same value, that's nice. If not, the framework should be adapted. Skill inclusion should be based on its value to a possible gameplay experience. If that means you actually have to think hard about the rules for a good system and spend more time thinking about balance, then fine.

We're going to tie these skills to stats, so if they're going to be roughly equivalent in power and usefulness, then each stat should have the same number of skills, or else some stats will be overpowered, making races / spells / powers that improve those stats also overpowered.

This is just not true. That is one way to do it. Of course using Morrowind's system but with one skill for one stat and six for another won't work. So don't use Morrowind's system.
Do skills need to be tied to attributes? Not necessarily.
Do all skills need to be equally effective? Not necessarily.
Does each skill need to affect precisely one attribute? Not necessarily.
Does each skill need to have the same level of influence on attributes? Not necessarily.
Does each skill need to have the same effect on attributes for all characters? Not necessarily.
Does each attribute need to be equally useful? Not necessarily.
...
I could go on, but it would just get more annoying :D.

I really can't emphasize enough, Oblivion is not Morrowind II. There is no reason to keep any aspect of the system the same if it has undesirable consequences - e.g. throwing out skills that would have improved the gameplay.

The stat list we've been using has worked pretty well, but we've never really had a skill system that's worked out for us, so let's tweak those.

You're exactly right - the skill system wasn't good. That means you re-evaluate and redesign the system. Perhaps the problem was the individual skills, perhaps not. You need to look at the whole system.

With our new combat system, we're probably going to have to remove several weapon types if we want to implement them well, so let's stick with the core ones.

I'm not a rabid spear supporter, so I don't object to this sort of decision - if it was motivated by a lack of time for implementation... I'm objecting to decisions made to fit an arbitrary framework. Choosing skills on the basis of gameplay is fine. The decision itself is debatable, but I have no problem with gameplay / implementation based decisions.

Since players will choose fewer total skills, we'll need to combine a couple weapon types; otherwise, players would usually be forced to choose only one weapon type since they can't afford to throw away primary skill slots.

This is true only if you're sticking with a slightly adapted Morrowind system. There is no reason to do this - it wasn't even a good system. Picking a few skills as majors isn't the only way to do character generation.
This is again fitting the skills to the system, rather than the system to the skills.

It's better in our games to stick with one weapon type anyways because of how skill improvement works, and we don't want to tweak that too much in this game...

It is a new game. The design should be done before "skill improvement works" at all. There is nothing to "tweak". This is not Morrowind II.

If they have time to write a new game engine with a new AI system, better graphics, include physics... they have enough time to re-design and reimplement the character progression. If this is necessary to support a wide array of skills, then it should be done.

It's extremely arrogant -- and amazingly short-sighted -- to think that the way you approach game design is the only good way to go about it.

It's also a little silly to assume that designing Oblivion by tweaking Morrowind is a good idea.

I'm not requiring Bethesda to do things the same way I would. I'm requiring them to be open-minded and to have some sense. Designing a game backwards is stupid. Deciding on skills by fitting them to some arbitrary system, without thinking to adapt that system, is stupid.

 

[Nutcracker]

Claymores and daggers, however, do have the same moves; what change are the speed of execution and the base damage (and possibly the range, but that's rather slight really).

Utter bullshit.

 

[Claw]

But at its core i very much like the increase through use system, because it gets rid of the arbitrary nature of XP based systems - no conncetion between how you get the XP and how you spend them. In this system you are what you do. I like that.

At the core, I very much like that system too. Or "theoretically" rather. Now I am waiting for an implementation I like. Unfortunately Bethesda decided to stick to their abomination.

Oh, btw.. this looks fitting somehow:

 

[galsiah]

Oh, btw.. this looks fitting somehow:

To be fair, I think that is one area Bethesda have tried to improve - the way individual actions effect skill increase. There is context sensitivity in the magic skills at least. Perhaps this will be true more generally.

I'd guess that grinding still works, but is not the best way to raise skills - e.g. if melee attacks take damage (or opponent??) into account, then using strong attacks will increase skill as fast or faster than using weak attacks. This should make the most reasonable action the most effective way to increase melee skills.

If skill increase is generally more context sensitive, then that is something to be happy about at least.

 

[VenomByte]

Personally, I much prefer the 'skill gain by usage' system than an XP based one. It just feels more believable to me.

Where the difficulty lies, is in building this system so that it does not necessarily reward grinding.

Some possibilites could include:

Have a 'cap' on the amount a player can learn in a given day, or in a given skill on a given day. This doesn't need to be a hard cap but could be a polynomial curve. In this way, the more you grind the less you get for your efforts.

Difficulty-based increases and failure-based increases.

How much you learn should depend on how difficult the task was for you as well as whether you suceeded or failed. You're not going to get better at using a claymore by hitting a chicken, but you might just learn a thing or two in combat with a Deadra - even if you don't hit him.

I did a similar thing in Morrowind with my own personal modification of Magicka-based skill progression. The result was that at 100% chance of casting a spell, the experience gained was normal, at 50% chance it was over double, at 10% nearer x5, and so on. Likewise, at 150% chance to cast the experience gains were virtually nil.

I think I've gone off at something off a tangent... so I'll wrap up here

 

[franc kaos]

If you don't like the removal of choice, then using GCD with another mod could give you more interesting choices. If lack of versatility is the trouble, then I agree GCD isn't going to please everyone in this regard. If it's something else, then please let me know. I like to know why people don't like GCD as well as why they do.
I'm aware that you don't need a GCD-like system to enjoy the game, but what offends you specifically?

I used GCD from the moment I discovered it, but the one thing I didn't like was that level up screen going; where you, the player, distributed those few points. I can't really explain why very well, but the sense of accomplishment at going up another level and deciding for yourself where to reward your character is very strong.

Other than that, one of my top ten favourite mods (alonside the Herbalism, BB, retextures and the Underground).

@ Solik, Excrement etc: They have dumbed down Oblivion, doesn't mean the game isn't going to be excellent, but repeating the same statement about the compass over and over again isn't going to make it be any less true. Todd Howard himself said there was more handholding in the game. Just think about who's hand you hold, babies and idiots who get lost in a crowd (and if you say your girl/boyfriend, I'd retort it's only because they think you'd get lost if they let go).

 

[Abernathy]

The result was that at 100% chance of casting a spell, the experience gained was normal, at 50% chance it was over double, at 10% nearer x5, and so on. Likewise, at 150% chance to cast the experience gains were virtually nil.

I think I've gone off at something off a tangent... so I'll wrap up here

No, I think you're bang on topic, and I agree totally - you learn by your mistakes, not your successes. Being successful where you failed before is just proof of the learning, no extra knowledge or 'points' should be gained this way - which I think is a failing in most RPG games, personally.

Sounds weird to reward failure, I know, but in reality, that's how you learn, innit?

 

[Nog Robbin]

The result was that at 100% chance of casting a spell, the experience gained was normal, at 50% chance it was over double, at 10% nearer x5, and so on. Likewise, at 150% chance to cast the experience gains were virtually nil.

I think I've gone off at something off a tangent... so I'll wrap up here

No, I think you're bang on topic, and I agree totally - you learn by your mistakes, not your successes. Being successful where you failed before is just proof of the learning, no extra knowledge or 'points' should be gained this way - which I think is a failing in most RPG games, personally.

Sounds weird to reward failure, I know, but in reality, that's how you learn, innit?

Well yes, and no. You learn more by your first success than continued failure - succeed once and you know what do do.
But it's not just about success/failure. You do get better at something by doing it - you get more precise, more efficient. Each time you do it could be classed as a success, just not as successful as later successes. If you see what I mean.