Game News Colony Ship RPG Update #11: Systems Overview

[agris]

It's too early to talk specifics as the answer to your question will be determined by balance and specific design. Obviously getting past an obstacle one way, then turning around and trying to milk it for more XP is a time-honored exploit and you shouldn't be able to do it. At the same time you should be able to reconsider where applicable and combining stealth and combat should be allowed and encouraged.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

Two points. First, this is why the general concept of Underrail's oddity system excels imo. If the same oddity were awarded for the stealth path as well as the combat path, the type of meta gaming that I outlined would be a non-issue, and wouldn't require creative scripting to whisk away enemies to avoid accumulating excess combat LPs. But, don't mistake my suggestion for a desire. While I think the oddity system is good at handling just such 'degenerate' gameplay, gameplay I thoroughly enjoy engaging in, I don't find it very satisfying. This is to my second point- perhaps such meta-gaming could be tacitly supported, but with a twist. The additional LP milked out of my theoretical encounter would make a character stronger relative to one that only picked a single path. But what if the game recognized that you took multiple paths, i.e. are a 'munchkin' or 'powergamer', and made some combats harder as a result. I'm literally suggesting level scaling, but in an intelligent and metered way that is not Level 30 rats. One in which players are rewarded with more challenging encounters for their demonstrated mastery of systems, not HP sponges or DPS battles. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I feel like I'm off the reservation on this issue already, so I'll stop. But I really wish the players that engaged in strategic meta-gaming were rewarded for it ways other than the rest of the game being made easier. If they were 'rewarded' with harder designed encounters, better enemy AI, etc, that would be the ultimate reward. Players who achieve something difficult or demanding don't want the result to be an easier game (imo), but rather do it for the challenge. The fact that most games setup the rewards and encounter system such that those same players will then ROFLstomp game content (due to overleveling, gear, what have you) is a denigration of the original spirit that drives them to attempt the original challenges that empowered them.

Reading what I wrote, I guess I'm advocating for a virtual DM. Shit.

 

[Wizfall]

I was the perfect audience for AoD, i tried the demo but unfortunately i could not stand the view/camera.
Being older, this aspect has become a top priority for me and i got the same issue with W2 (i was able to play it and somewhat get used to the camera as i liked the game quite a lot, i l took a break at the Arizona part though and could never get back to it because i did not have the patience to get used again to the camera/view).
Shadowrun/PoE had perfect view IMO.

Well, all this to ask what kind of perspective will Colony Ship be ?
I love the concept of the game (setting, character development, general design) and it would be very frustrating to me if it's again a rotating 3D camera one.

 

[Ninjerk]

It's too early to talk specifics as the answer to your question will be determined by balance and specific design. Obviously getting past an obstacle one way, then turning around and trying to milk it for more XP is a time-honored exploit and you shouldn't be able to do it. At the same time you should be able to reconsider where applicable and combining stealth and combat should be allowed and encouraged.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

Two points. First, this is why the general concept of Underrail's oddity system excels imo. If the same oddity were awarded for the stealth path as well as the combat path, the type of meta gaming that I outlined would be a non-issue, and wouldn't require creative scripting to whisk away enemies to avoid accumulating excess combat LPs. But, don't mistake my suggestion for a desire. While I think the oddity system is good at handling just such 'degenerate' gameplay, gameplay I thoroughly enjoy engaging in, I don't find it very satisfying. This is to my second point- perhaps such meta-gaming could be tacitly supported, but with a twist. The additional LP milked out of my theoretical encounter would make a character stronger relative to one that only picked a single path. But what if the game recognized that you took multiple paths, i.e. are a 'munchkin' or 'powergamer', and made some combats harder as a result. I'm literally suggesting level scaling, but in an intelligent and metered way that is not Level 30 rats. One in which players are rewarded with more challenging encounters for their demonstrated mastery of systems, not HP sponges or DPS battles. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I feel like I'm off the reservation on this issue already, so I'll stop. But I really wish the players that engaged in strategic meta-gaming were rewarded for it ways other than the rest of the game being made easier. If they were 'rewarded' with harder designed encounters, better enemy AI, etc, that would be the ultimate reward. Players who achieve something difficult or demanding don't want the result to be an easier game (imo), but rather do it for the challenge. The fact that most games setup the rewards and encounter system such that those same players will then ROFLstomp game content (due to overleveling, gear, what have you) is a denigration of the original spirit that drives them to attempt the original challenges that empowered them.

Reading what I wrote, I guess I'm advocating for a virtual DM. Shit.

Is there a single game that has pulled this off (cheezy HP sponge bosses a la Final Fantasy games aside)?

 

[Lurker King]

I love the concept of the game (setting, character development, general design) and it would be very frustrating to me if it's again a rotating 3D camera one.

This. You should sign the petition join this thread, brother. People don't like rotating camera, Vault Dweller. You are losing costumers because of this.

 

[Johannes]

It's too early to talk specifics as the answer to your question will be determined by balance and specific design. Obviously getting past an obstacle one way, then turning around and trying to milk it for more XP is a time-honored exploit and you shouldn't be able to do it. At the same time you should be able to reconsider where applicable and combining stealth and combat should be allowed and encouraged.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

Two points. First, this is why the general concept of Underrail's oddity system excels imo. If the same oddity were awarded for the stealth path as well as the combat path, the type of meta gaming that I outlined would be a non-issue, and wouldn't require creative scripting to whisk away enemies to avoid accumulating excess combat LPs. But, don't mistake my suggestion for a desire. While I think the oddity system is good at handling just such 'degenerate' gameplay, gameplay I thoroughly enjoy engaging in, I don't find it very satisfying. This is to my second point- perhaps such meta-gaming could be tacitly supported, but with a twist. The additional LP milked out of my theoretical encounter would make a character stronger relative to one that only picked a single path. But what if the game recognized that you took multiple paths, i.e. are a 'munchkin' or 'powergamer', and made some combats harder as a result. I'm literally suggesting level scaling, but in an intelligent and metered way that is not Level 30 rats. One in which players are rewarded with more challenging encounters for their demonstrated mastery of systems, not HP sponges or DPS battles. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I feel like I'm off the reservation on this issue already, so I'll stop. But I really wish the players that engaged in strategic meta-gaming were rewarded for it ways other than the rest of the game being made easier. If they were 'rewarded' with harder designed encounters, better enemy AI, etc, that would be the ultimate reward. Players who achieve something difficult or demanding don't want the result to be an easier game (imo), but rather do it for the challenge. The fact that most games setup the rewards and encounter system such that those same players will then ROFLstomp game content (due to overleveling, gear, what have you) is a denigration of the original spirit that drives them to attempt the original challenges that empowered them.

Reading what I wrote, I guess I'm advocating for a virtual DM. Shit.

Is there a single game that has pulled this off (cheezy HP sponge bosses a la Final Fantasy games aside)?

Oblivion

 

[Irenaeus]

Atheist and Libertarian are skills now? Cool, sounds like this is going to be basically ”reddit, the RPG”.

Is that what it says?

No, I was being facetious for (alleged) comedic effects.

I lol'd

 

[Elhoim]

Well, all this to ask what kind of perspective will Colony Ship be ?
I love the concept of the game (setting, character development, general design) and it would be very frustrating to me if it's again a rotating 3D camera one.

This. You should sign the petition join this thread, brother. People don't like rotating camera, Vault Dweller. You are losing costumers because of this.

It will be like in AoD, but "hiding" walls. So you can set it up in a single angle and never move it. Similar to how Firaxis' XCOM handled it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

you're asked to repair an air purifier, if you want to develop your science and tech skills, accept the quest, otherwise skip it

Why would I want to skip it? Free XP right?

It's not as simple as clicking on it to repair it.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

There is a difference between liking a challenge and doing it to get more xp (which makes it a question of balance, which means it will be determined on a case by case basis during implementation).

You can kill them or you can convince them to leave and gain more info in the process. If you talk to them, they leave while in dialogue mode, so you won't be able to start shooting the moment you shake hands.

See above. Why not? That's the moment they have lowered their guard and best moment to attack. Or shoot them in the back. The consequence could be some huge reputation penalty (but that's assuming that someone would manage to escape to talk about it).

Because in a learn by use system it becomes an exploit, a way to "solve" quest twice, basically. Why not sneak past them first, then talk to them, then kill them? Maybe the best way to handle it would be to mark the quest as completed the moment you talk to them, then let you kill them if you wish but give you no XP. Would that be a better solution?

 

[Eyestabber]

Will there be blood this time around? Dismemberment?

 

[agris]

It's too early to talk specifics as the answer to your question will be determined by balance and specific design. Obviously getting past an obstacle one way, then turning around and trying to milk it for more XP is a time-honored exploit and you shouldn't be able to do it. At the same time you should be able to reconsider where applicable and combining stealth and combat should be allowed and encouraged.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

Two points. First, this is why the general concept of Underrail's oddity system excels imo. If the same oddity were awarded for the stealth path as well as the combat path, the type of meta gaming that I outlined would be a non-issue, and wouldn't require creative scripting to whisk away enemies to avoid accumulating excess combat LPs. But, don't mistake my suggestion for a desire. While I think the oddity system is good at handling just such 'degenerate' gameplay, gameplay I thoroughly enjoy engaging in, I don't find it very satisfying. This is to my second point- perhaps such meta-gaming could be tacitly supported, but with a twist. The additional LP milked out of my theoretical encounter would make a character stronger relative to one that only picked a single path. But what if the game recognized that you took multiple paths, i.e. are a 'munchkin' or 'powergamer', and made some combats harder as a result. I'm literally suggesting level scaling, but in an intelligent and metered way that is not Level 30 rats. One in which players are rewarded with more challenging encounters for their demonstrated mastery of systems, not HP sponges or DPS battles. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I feel like I'm off the reservation on this issue already, so I'll stop. But I really wish the players that engaged in strategic meta-gaming were rewarded for it ways other than the rest of the game being made easier. If they were 'rewarded' with harder designed encounters, better enemy AI, etc, that would be the ultimate reward. Players who achieve something difficult or demanding don't want the result to be an easier game (imo), but rather do it for the challenge. The fact that most games setup the rewards and encounter system such that those same players will then ROFLstomp game content (due to overleveling, gear, what have you) is a denigration of the original spirit that drives them to attempt the original challenges that empowered them.

Reading what I wrote, I guess I'm advocating for a virtual DM. Shit.

Is there a single game that has pulled this off (cheezy HP sponge bosses a la Final Fantasy games aside)?

The only example i can think of is the twisted rune encounter in BG2, but the gear it rewards you with has the problems that you quoted in my above post.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

There is a difference between liking a challenge and doing it to get more xp (which makes it a question of balance, which means it will be determined on a case by case basis during implementation).

I fear this deciding case on case will take you more time and resources than making content

Maybe the best way to handle it would be to mark the quest as completed the moment you talk to them, then let you kill them if you wish but give you no XP. Would that be a better solution?

Yes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is a difference between liking a challenge and doing it to get more xp (which makes it a question of balance, which means it will be determined on a case by case basis during implementation).

I fear this deciding case on case will take you more time and resources than making content

All our content is hand-scripted as we don't just place generic enemies on a map. So we'd have to go over each quest aspect, all options, all reactions, etc anyway, which is the best time to decide what you can and cannot do and what the reward is.

 

[Irenaeus]

There is a difference between liking a challenge and doing it to get more xp (which makes it a question of balance, which means it will be determined on a case by case basis during implementation).

I fear this deciding case on case will take you more time and resources than making content

All our content is hand-scripted as we don't just place generic enemies on a map. So we'd have to go over each quest aspect, all options, all reactions, etc anyway, which is the best time to decide what you can and cannot do and what the reward is.

And that's why I love your games :friendly:

 

[Drowed]

You can kill them or you can convince them to leave and gain more info in the process. If you talk to them, they leave while in dialogue mode, so you won't be able to start shooting the moment you shake hands.

See above. Why not? That's the moment they have lowered their guard and best moment to attack. Or shoot them in the back. The consequence could be some huge reputation penalty (but that's assuming that someone would manage to escape to talk about it).

Because in a learn by use system it becomes an exploit, a way to "solve" quest twice, basically. Why not sneak past them first, then talk to them, then kill them? Maybe the best way to handle it would be to mark the quest as completed the moment you talk to them, then let you kill them if you wish but give you no XP. Would that be a better solution?

Or you could only give the "quest complete" XP after they walk away? I mean, you talk, the guys agree to leave. If you attack before they leave the place, then it's the combat XP. When they leave, give the "talk" XP, I guess?

 

[MRY]

Since I am basically a terrible RPG player, you probably shouldn't take my views seriously, but I hate learn-by-use systems. In fact, I'm relatively certain that one of the reasons why I lost interest in Daggerfall and Morrowind was the learn-by-use approach. I'm not sure I've ever completed a learn-by-use RPG, although they're in the minority so it's not that meaningful a claim, and I haven't played that many RPGs anyway.

As I understand it, a major (the major?) argument in favor of learn-by-use systems is "realism," but they're not realistic -- RPG leveling is always absurd because the rate of advancement is so fast. If anything, learn-by-use highlights to absurdity rather than averting it because it falls into the uncanny valley between gamey abstraction (which traditional RPG leveling approaches are) and simulation.

Setting aside realism, it worsens an existing problem with RPG skill progression -- particularly those used for threshold checks rather than percentile success rates -- which is that as the game ramps up skill checks as it goes on, it rewards you for picking a single path at the outset and never diverging from it. That problem is even more pronounced with the learn-by-doing approach because at least, theoretically, a diplomat who wants to become an engineer can gain XP using his speech skill and invest that XP in the repair skill until his repair is somewhat useful.

When the only way to advance Skill X is to use Skill X, then if Skill X is too low relative to where you are in the game, trying to get it caught up will entail crappy gameplay. You say there won't be grinding (good?) but the alternative is just heading back to some incomplete low-level area or, I guess, just keep failing skill checks in hopes you still get some XP.

I think we all think it's bad in an RPG when a player approaches an encounter (or dungeon) with the attitude of "how do I play this encounter to maximize my XP" because this kind of meta-gaming (1) wrecks the fiction of the game and (2) often encourages degenerate strategies like first charming the bandit then killing him so you get XP twice. But the learn-by-use system makes that kind of bad gameplay endemic. A player's choice of what skills to use is always colored by the metagaming goal of figuring out which option most improves the skill he wants to use later rather than choosing which option will allow him to successfully steer the story in the direction he wants (or which will allow him to advance with the lowest cost).

This also (IMO) ruins the realism because outside of eccentric scenarios (e.g., Fight Club), no one approaches a challenge by saying, "Which option will cause me to improve the most?" If the best way through is to fight, you fight; if the best way through is to talk, you talk. And if you can't fight or talk, then you bribe or whatever else. So the advance-by-use system always puts you at odds with the character's thinking, creating a dissonance that outweighs any "realism" gain the system has over more abstract ones.

 

[duanth123]

It's too early to talk specifics as the answer to your question will be determined by balance and specific design. Obviously getting past an obstacle one way, then turning around and trying to milk it for more XP is a time-honored exploit and you shouldn't be able to do it. At the same time you should be able to reconsider where applicable and combining stealth and combat should be allowed and encouraged.

You gave an example in one of your earlier posts that that you can either sneak in and fight the army while you try to sneak out or successfully sneak in and out (unless I'm misinterpreting here). But I don't see a reason why I couldn't start a fight once I successfully sneak out, that's my choice, maybe I like the challenge.

Two points. First, this is why the general concept of Underrail's oddity system excels imo. If the same oddity were awarded for the stealth path as well as the combat path, the type of meta gaming that I outlined would be a non-issue, and wouldn't require creative scripting to whisk away enemies to avoid accumulating excess combat LPs. But, don't mistake my suggestion for a desire. While I think the oddity system is good at handling just such 'degenerate' gameplay, gameplay I thoroughly enjoy engaging in, I don't find it very satisfying. This is to my second point- perhaps such meta-gaming could be tacitly supported, but with a twist. The additional LP milked out of my theoretical encounter would make a character stronger relative to one that only picked a single path. But what if the game recognized that you took multiple paths, i.e. are a 'munchkin' or 'powergamer', and made some combats harder as a result. I'm literally suggesting level scaling, but in an intelligent and metered way that is not Level 30 rats. One in which players are rewarded with more challenging encounters for their demonstrated mastery of systems, not HP sponges or DPS battles. It's a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I feel like I'm off the reservation on this issue already, so I'll stop. But I really wish the players that engaged in strategic meta-gaming were rewarded for it ways other than the rest of the game being made easier. If they were 'rewarded' with harder designed encounters, better enemy AI, etc, that would be the ultimate reward. Players who achieve something difficult or demanding don't want the result to be an easier game (imo), but rather do it for the challenge. The fact that most games setup the rewards and encounter system such that those same players will then ROFLstomp game content (due to overleveling, gear, what have you) is a denigration of the original spirit that drives them to attempt the original challenges that empowered them.

Reading what I wrote, I guess I'm advocating for a virtual DM. Shit.

Is there a single game that has pulled this off (cheezy HP sponge bosses a la Final Fantasy games aside)?

Several of the Super Robot Wars games, where if you consistently satisfy additional, difficult objectives (like completing a map within a certain # of turns or keeping units above a certain HP) on each mission, then your game will be elevated to Hard Mode, which often involves more enemy units, sometimes different enemy behavior and so forth.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/582946-super-robot-taisen-original-generation

https://www.gamefaqs.com/ps4/185527-super-robot-taisen-og-the-moon-dwellers

ofc these are not rpgs in the strictest sense, though probably SRPGs

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since I am basically a terrible RPG player, you probably shouldn't take my views seriously, but I hate learn-by-use systems. In fact, I'm relatively certain that one of the reasons why I lost interest in Daggerfall and Morrowind was the learn-by-use approach.

The Elder Scrolls games aren't the only examples. How about Wizardry 8? Darklands? Jagged Alliance 2? Prelude to Darkness? Dungeon Master? Silent Storm? Betrayal at Krondor?

When the only way to advance Skill X is to use Skill X, then if Skill X is too low relative to where you are in the game, trying to get it caught up will entail crappy gameplay.

What does trying to get caught up mean? Let's say you have your main skills and your secondary skills. If the game is well designed, these skills are good enough to get the job done. If you suddenly remembered about some other skill you've been neglecting, it's too late, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think we all think it's bad in an RPG when a player approaches an encounter (or dungeon) with the attitude of "how do I play this encounter to maximize my XP" because this kind of meta-gaming (1) wrecks the fiction of the game and (2) often encourages degenerate strategies like first charming the bandit then killing him so you get XP twice. But the learn-by-use system makes that kind of bad gameplay endemic. A player's choice of what skills to use is always colored by the metagaming goal of figuring out which option most improves the skill he wants to use later rather than choosing which option will allow him to successfully steer the story in the direction he wants (or which will allow him to advance with the lowest cost).

It doesn't have to be this way.

 

[MRY]

The Elder Scrolls games aren't the only examples. How about Wizardry 8? Darklands? Jagged Alliance 2? Prelude to Darkness? Dungeon Master? Silent Storm? Betrayal at Krondor?

X-Com (and by extension Jagged Alliance) works very differently since all the skills are combat oriented (if I'm remembering JA right; I was more an X-Com man back in the 90s), you have a much large party, you don't face defined "paths" that skills open up (e.g., you aren't cut off from Cydonia because some squaddie hasn't developed throwing skill), and no particular squaddie is "you" (even if we all named a squaddie after ourselves). Learn-by-doing in X-Com is mostly about efficiency (it avoids the headache of micromanaging squad level-ups) and about specialization in the squad. Moreover, X-Com is designed so that you are constantly losing and adding new people and the gap between what a newbie can do and a veteran can do isn't gigantic (as it is in RPGs).

I admire Darklands for a lot of reasons, but the gameplay's execution isn't that great. Dungeon Siege's skill use system is one of the ones I most loathed. I quit Betrayal at Krondor after a few hours. I can't really remember why, but I doubt it was because of the skill system -- something about the game never clicked with me, maybe the world map graphics, maybe the horrible portraits, maybe the setting (which I had already gotten a little bored of from the novels). The other games I've not played.

One thing that pops out to me, though perhaps I'm wrong, is that (other than BaK) none of them are narrative, dialogue-driven games, are they? They're either crawls, X-Com-likes, or sand box games. And while BaK is narrative, my recollection is that the narrative is basically linear with no skill checks along the way.

None of them serves as a good test of how the system will work in a game where a major aspect (the major aspect?) of the game is the gating of content behind skill uses. While I dislike skill progression systems in any game where I am invested in my characters as characters, I think I will especially dislike in a game where I'm making choices that rise above "which attack will I use this round."

I dunno. I just think that this system tends to trap players in ruts and encourage bad gameplay.

What does trying to get caught up mean? Let's say you have your main skills and your secondary skills. If the game is well designed, these skills are good enough to get the job done. If you suddenly remembered about some other skill you've been neglecting, it's too late, but I don't see it as a problem.

I guess I don't entirely get the point of the system. If you just want to lock people into the starting character build choices (which I think is a great idea, actually!), then why not do away with leveling altogether and just use a system more like character attributes for skills?

Generally speaking, RPGs tend to run in that loop anyway (blindly pick the skills you're good at based on what you think might be fun; use the skills you're good at because they're the ones that allow you to succeed; improve the skills you're good at because specialization is key), and I generally think it's pretty lame. I really liked the system in AOD because advancing a skill felt like a meaningful choice and a "chunky" progression. This seems like a step in the wrong direction

Anyway, you're a very good designer and a very experienced RPG player; your intuition is much more trustworthy than mine.

 

[Infinitron]

A player's choice of what skills to use is always colored by the metagaming goal of figuring out which option most improves the skill he wants to use later

My understanding is that Vault Dweller has chosen to use an improve-by-use system for Colony Ship RPG because it better encourages the way he intended that people play Age of Decadence, ie, a pseudo-roguelike style of play where people choose a character concept, see if it works and accept failure without metagaming. The hope is that the sort of "second-order" metagaming you describe here is so unintuitive that most people won't bother to try doing it and will just play the game.

But neither AoD's more traditionally framed system nor this system will really satisfy you if you think Vault Dweller's vision of how an RPG should be played is wrong-headed. Both games are fundamentally trying to achieve the same thing.

What's interesting about CSG is that when players restart the game after failure, rather than playing basically the same way each time but allocating their skill points slightly differently to get past the point of failure, they'll have to make an effort to really do things differently in each new playthrough - which could potentially lead to the game's story taking an entirely different branch than it did before. Of course that can happen in AoD too if the difference in skill point allocation is more than "slightly different", forcing the player to go down a new path, but it's more deliberate here. So this adds a wrinkle to the AoD trial-and-error formula.

 

[Lurker King]

Setting aside realism, it worsens an existing problem with RPG skill progression -- particularly those used for threshold checks rather than percentile success rates -- which is that as the game ramps up skill checks as it goes on, it rewards you for picking a single path at the outset and never diverging from it. That problem is even more pronounced with the learn-by-doing approach because at least, theoretically, a diplomat who wants to become an engineer can gain XP using his speech skill and invest that XP in the repair skill until his repair is somewhat useful.

When the only way to advance Skill X is to use Skill X, then if Skill X is too low relative to where you are in the game, trying to get it caught up will entail crappy gameplay. You say there won't be grinding (good?) but the alternative is just heading back to some incomplete low-level area or, I guess, just keep failing skill checks in hopes you still get some XP.

Ok, but what is the alternative? Should the player be allowed to invest in any other skill late in the game because that is what he wants? Contrary to what you state, your attitude reflects a certain demeanor about the plausibility of certain features in cRPGs (“everything in CRPGs is gamey, I don’t care about that, just give me what makes me feel good”) followed by complete disregard of the importance of challenge (“give me what I want, when I what, otherwise is bad gameplay”), which is in nutshell popamole mentality. The player shouldn’t be good at a certain skill late in the game just because he fancied that.

I think you are wrong about everything. The learn-by-use system will make things less gamey, since you shouldn’t be allowed to become a great mechanic just because you are a diplomat. It makes perfect sense. I think this will diminish the complaints about gated content a bit, because players will have to admit that they didn’t invest in that particular skill most of the time. By the way, Vault Dweller, maybe you could implement a skill bar that pops up every time someone uses a particular skill, just to reinforce the feeling that players should be held accountable for their own abilities.

A player's choice of what skills to use is always colored by the metagaming goal of figuring out which option most improves the skill he wants to use later rather than choosing which option will allow him to successfully steer the story in the direction he wants (or which will allow him to advance with the lowest cost).

That is super-philosophy, MYR. If a munchinkin player wants to metagame everything and lose his immersion, he will do it. The question is whether this particular system encourages it. It doesn’t. Players want to use what they want to use, because they have their own preferences. The system supports that. I think what is really happening here is that you are using this red herring to support popamole prejudices. Your real complaint is that players should be allowed to use whatever skill they want, at any time in the game, and be successful doing it. In other words, popamolism.

 

[Lurker King]

I think we could have books too. They could be rare items, but would improve the player skill a bit.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

I think you are wrong about everything. The learn-by-use system will make things less gamey, since you shouldn’t be allowed to become a great mechanic just because you are a diplomat. It makes perfect sense.

You don't become a great mechanic by fixing just two or three plot-centric machines either, but by doing so with countless of them. Point-buy systems are meant to simulate this distinction: you learn-by-practice, but given that this practice makes for uninteresting gameplay, it is abstracted away into investments in the char screen. The things your character has learnt are then put into practice during the relatively few interesting applications of that skill (the plot-centric machines being fixed).

That's I think why learn-by-use has mostly been used in games where there isn't as much of a gap between rote activities and interesting ones ("walking simulators"), so that practice can itself be a part of the gameplay.

 

[valcik]

X-Com (and by extension Jagged Alliance) works very differently since all the skills are combat oriented (if I'm remembering JA right; I was more an X-Com man back in the 90s)

Medical skill worked in non-combat situations in JA2, also some attributes could've been trained outside of combat - strenght by pry opening locked containers with crowbar, or wisdom by teaching other mercs/training militia for example.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think we could have books too. They could be rare items, but would improve the player skill a bit.

There will be skill "books" and trainers to boost your skills up to a certain level (similar to AoD's trainers).

 

[Irenaeus]

Only GURPS has realistic skill improvement (six months of practice/study for half a point; the higher your skill more points needed to improve - e.g. moving from 15 to 16 may take eight points AND sixteen years), so stop complaining.

Burning Wheel and Darklands' character creation have something similar with the years spent practicing/studying thing.