Game News Colony Ship RPG Update #11: Systems Overview

[Major_Blackhart]

I'm legit pumped for this game.

 

[MRY]

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?

Well, one option is to more or less do away with levels, and lock the character into his original choices explicitly. Then you situate progression in somewhere other than munchkinism, such as reputation or influence or unique items.

Or to make skill levels and checks much flatter so that you can be confident that adding "repair" in the late game will still let you do something.

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.

Nah, it really has nothing to do with challenge. "Anticipating in advance the skills you need to unlock the content that interests you later in the game" is a challenge of prognostication, I suppose, but it's not necessary for other kinds of challenge, which are the good kinds. For example, there are high-challenge strategy games where there is no persistence between missions -- every time you get to pick whatever load out you want, within certain specs. In most games, you're able to adjust your strategy midway. It's really only RPGs that lock you into to a particular approach.

As for gamey-ness, I don't think learn-by-doing is realistic. But in any event, I think it's almost always stupid to make gameplay decisions based on realism, especially in RPGs which are absurdly unrealistic in almost every regard. There is a narrow slice of games where realism is important (vehicle simulators?) and then there are some games where fake-but-taxing systems like managing supplies are important (like survival sims) but that's not really a matter of realism so much as a matter of conveying a theme through silly gamey systems ("You need to eat every 15 minutes or you STAAAAARVE!").

That said, if learn-by-doing can be made to make placers less meta-gamey and more likely to accept consequences, great! Not great because of "challenge" or because of "realism" but because getting players to accept the consequences of their choices is great, as I've written about for over a decade.

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.

Yes, I'm a cryptopopamolist. Because everyone knows that learn-by-use games like Dungeon Siege are way less popamole than learn-by-skill-buy games like AOD.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

You will not gain XP for killing, talking, sneaking, picking locks, using computers, fixing mechanical things and such. You will not increase your skills manually. Instead your skills will be increased automatically based on their use.

So hardcore it goes full circle and starts sounding popamole.

So I won't be able to use Cheat Engine to play this game? Vinney does it again.

 

[Lurker King]

Well, one option is to more or less do away with levels, and lock the character into his original choices explicitly. Then you situate progression in somewhere other than munchkinism, such as reputation or influence or unique items.

How does this have anything do with levels? You are just moving the problem from one place to another. Now the player won’t be access the content passed a certain point due to his original choices. The problem is that the player can’t access certain content due to his skills and past choices. Solution: Oblivion school of design.

Or to make skill levels and checks much flatter so that you can be confident that adding "repair" in the late game will still let you do something.

We already discussed this in past threads. If the skill levels and checks have any significant role, the higher is the stake of your choices, the more difficult it should be. If you lower the difficult, you are basically saying that they should be fluffy so that you have the illusion of character building and skill checks. So the “problem” is that you don’t want skill checks to really matter. You want them to be inconsistent and indulgent past a certain point so that the player can do whatever he wants, because doing whatever you want when you want is perceived as good gameplay. If most developers had done their work instead of shameless pandering to player’s ego with make-believe gameplay design, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

In most games, you're able to adjust your strategy midway. It's really only RPGs that lock you into to a particular approach.

Most games aren’t cRPGs, most games have no character building or skill checks, most cRPGs provide the illusion of character building, which is completely fluffy outside the combat, most cRPGs are completely wrong. Your complaints tell me more about your prejudices and unjustified expectations than about any real reason that there is something wrong with it.

As for gamey-ness, I don't think learn-by-doing is realistic. But in any event, I think it's almost always stupid to make gameplay decisions based on realism, especially in RPGs which are absurdly unrealistic in almost every regard. There is a narrow slice of games where realism is important (vehicle simulators?) and then there are some games where fake-but-taxing systems like managing supplies are important (like survival sims) but that's not really a matter of realism so much as a matter of conveying a theme through silly gamey systems ("You need to eat every 15 minutes or you STAAAAARVE!").

And that is the crux of the matter. You have a bunch of unfounded irrationalist preconceptions about how game design should be. You think that denying realism is a strong position, but is not. In fact, is almost impossible to defend. Every little system a cRPG has, from stats and skills, to reactivity and resource management, aim to imitate the reality in an abstract model. They can’t be exactly like the reality, for them they wouldn’t be models, but they should be about the reality in some way. If intelligence doesn’t allow your character to make better decisions, or lack of strength doesn’t affect whether you can use a heavy armor, your system is not working. Of course, popamole players can ignore all this silly realism talk, because for them playing a cRPG is the realm of la-la-la land in which killing stuff and moving from point A to point B is everything that matters. But this vision goes against the very nature that cRPGs pretend to offer. What is worse, the idea the realism is irrelevant can’t be true for any type of genre, because every game is a…. game, and therefore should present a specific type of challenge. If you are implementing a race game you need to imitate reality in some level, otherwise the whole experience is meaningles.

I think it is good we have developers like you here, someone who is are very upfront about what he thinks, but I also hope some players here will have the perception to understand how deeply wrong and misguided your ideas are. Your way of thinking is behind every single popamole feature in the industry, especially in cRPGs.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You heard it here first folks, all RPGs where you adjust the skills yourself are completely wrong.

The correct way is to have the game increase the skills automatically based on the paths the designer allowed you to take.
But sometimes you will die if you make a choice the designer didn't want you to make, therefore it's hardcore, difficult and roguelike.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Most games aren’t cRPGs, most games have no character building or skill checks, most cRPGs provide the illusion of character building, which is completely fluffy outside the combat, most cRPGs are completely wrong

And of course Vinney got it right. It's only a matter of time before other designers start emulating his philosophy.

 

[hivemind]

10 con 10 cha 8 int will be the master race builds

 

[hivemind]

also are you planning on putting various int checks at odd values since you only get an int benefit at even values? and vica versa for cha

 

[screeg]

Too early to say. When the animator is done with the "must have" animations, he'll switch to the "nice to have" animations. I can't say right now how long it would take him to do the must have animations.

I could help with that...

I think MRY eloquently raises some important concerns about the learn-by-doing system, especially the distinction between games where it has worked (JA2, etc.) and games like AoD and CSG. What it sounds like to me is a different sort of abstraction from the traditional that isn't necessarily an improvement. Also, while it *might* work for a 4-person party, will it work for a 2-person party? Can two characters cover enough skills for compelling (or even just successful) gameplay? I've never liked the CHA cap on party members, but especially not when the cap is so damned low. I'd rather you were allowed your 4 maximum people but the stat reflected your ability to manage them or mitigate in-party conflict.