Game News Colony Ship RPG Update #3: Development Timetable, Systems Changes

[Athelas]

The fact that you assume that every cRPG should be like FO suggest how your view of the world is egotistical and limited.

Truly, the breakthrough that clinical psychology needed was including questions about the patient's favorite cRPG's in their preliminary diagnosis.

 

[orcinator]

Shit because you didn't like AoD combat or shit because you think that this combat will be worse?

Actually it's mostly because I saw you say Wasteland 2's combat was acceptable.

 

[Zed]

I felt like AoD was a step down from FO because it was less open (i.e. it's more linear), and for the same reason (and many others) PoE was a step down from BG2. It feels like a key "big RPG" design component being discarded in many otherwise C&C-heavy games.

That is an unfair and simplistic comparison. Obsidian took players money with the promise of delivering a spiritual successor of BG2 with better writing. Instead, they delivered an uninspired husk with popamole combat system. Iron Tower Studio never promised to make a spiritual successor of Fallout, neither took players' money with this promise in mind. It was their first game, based on VD’s view and inspired by many different sources, from Darklands and FO, to Prelude to Darkness and Gothic. The fact that you assume that every cRPG should be like FO suggest how your view of the world is egotistical and limited. Moreover, less exploration doesn’t mean more linearity. Skyrm has more exploration than both FO1 and FO2 combined, but is linear. AoD has less exploration than FO, but is much more reactive.

I think we're both just throwing around words with more than one specific meaning. Taking your example and applying my meaning, Skyrim is far from linear. I didn't explain this very well (because I was at work, tired), but I meant everything in an exploratory sense. Visiting areas back-and-forth, and being able to visit different areas at the same point in the game VS. going through areas in a linear fashion. I didn't mean linear story progression.
And yes, my view of the world is egotistical, because I know best.

 

[Lurker King]

I think we're both just throwing around words with more than one specific meaning. Taking your example and applying my meaning, Skyrim is far from linear. I didn't explain this very well (because I was at work, tired), but I meant everything in an exploratory sense. Visiting areas back-and-forth, and being able to visit different areas at the same point in the game VS. going through areas in a linear fashion. I didn't mean linear story progression. And yes, my view of the world is egotistical, because I know best.

If you have twenty locations to explore, but they are just there so that you can accept more quests and kill more things, you are not really exploring anything, are you? Besides, your criticism doesn’t make any sense here. I thought that the problem was that AoD was gating content behind different choices and backgrounds, which means that you will not have a linear playtrough even if you wanted too, because different choices and stats results in different areas.

 

[thesheeep]

I'm not sure I like the usage-based system. I really like to make choices and think about what I do when I get character levels.
Not sure if feats/abilities are enough to keep level-ups interesting enough for me.

Also, having a usage-based system removes the possibility to fuck up the character build, or not?
An interesting character system implies (at least IMO) that you can screw up, so better think about what you are doing.
No feeling of achievement if every choice is awesome.

Honestly, I'm just way less hyped about this than I was before.

 

[Excidium II]

I'm not sure I like the usage-based system. I really like to make choices and think about what I do when I get character levels.
Not sure if feats/abilities are enough to keep level-ups interesting enough for me.

Also, having a usage-based system removes the possibility to fuck up the character build, or not?
An interesting character system implies (at least IMO) that you can screw up, so better think about what you are doing.

Honestly, I'm just way less hyped about this than I was before.

If feats that have big impact on how character plays can't keep level ups interesting for jew I don't know how minor increments via skills would help.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also, having a usage-based system removes the possibility to fuck up the character build, or not?

I don't see how it removes it. I have a feeling that some people read "increase by use", think Oblivion or other uninspiring examples where skill use is an unlimited resource, and assume it will be shit because Oblivion was shit. Increase by use doesn't mean that all your skill go up magically and you become the master of all trades.

You'll still have to develop your character, think of what you're doing, handle choices, etc. And I'm not even talking about feats here.

 

[Zed]

If you have twenty locations to explore, but they are just there so that you can accept more quests and kill more things, you are not really exploring anything, are you?

Twenty areas to explore sounds like a lot of exploration to me. Areas with architecture, nature, culture, people... Discover more about the world.
Not everything has to be tied to the main story. See FO ending slides. Or AoD for that matter. That's the C&C money shot, even if they have minuscule connections to the main story.

Besides, your criticism doesn’t make any sense here. I thought that the problem was that AoD was gating content behind different choices and backgrounds, which means that you will not have a linear playtrough even if you wanted too, because different choices and stats results in different areas.

Yeah, you're right. Though, again, "I didn't mean linear story progression".

 

[thesheeep]

I don't see how it removes it. I have a feeling that some people read "increase by use", think Oblivion or other uninspiring examples where skill use is an unlimited resource, and assume it will be shit because Oblivion was shit. Increase by use doesn't mean that all your skill go up magically and you become the master of all trades.

Don't worry, I guess most people here assume that you can come up with something less silly than Oblivion

But even with skill use being a limited resource it makes it impossible to screw up a character. Just assume a character that always fights.
He will be a great fighter by the end of the game, no matter what you do, or not? Remember, I'm only talking about the character build aspect, not the actual combat with tactics where you can still do things wrong.
In Arcanum, for example, you could still screw up a combat character by investing into nonsensical skills along the way.

Honestly, skill use being unlimited doesn't really change much.
The only thing that unlimited skill use changes here is that you'll eventually be (or can be if you invest the time) a master of everything instead of master of just one thing.

Of course, you could argue that there is no difference between someone always investing into combat skills and combat skills being invested in automatically based on what the player uses.
But still, the first one involves (minor) choice that you can think about - even if it becomes an automatism eventually.

In any case, I'm willing to try it out. There are truly more important things about the game as a whole than how skills level up.
As long as there are skills, I'm fine

 

[Vault Dweller]

But even with skill use being a limited resource it makes it impossible to screw up a character. Just assume a character that always fights.
He will be a great fighter by the end of the game, no matter what you do, or not? Remember, I'm only talking about the character build aspect, not the actual combat with tactics where you can still do things wrong.

How's that different from putting all your points into combat skills? If you're saying some people are incapable of doing that, I don't think it's a good example of screwing up.

In Arcanum, for example, you could still screw up a combat character by investing into nonsensical skills along the way.

Same here. The more non-combat things you do (to avoid combat), the lower your combat skills will be.

Besides, it's not a game where you fight your way through hordes of space zombies. You make a dumb fighter, you'll endgame options will be very limited.

 

[Ismaul]

Kinda goes against the core design, no? I mean why bother with the gated content if we give the player means to circumvent it via boostable stats/skills or 'effort' or 'fate' points a-la Arcanum?

That's why I feel that 'increase by use' is the best fit that removes the urge to meta-game and makes it easier to accept your character's limitations.

Well, it would be a resource, like bolas and nets. There could be too many, and then there would be no point to gate content, or there could be too little, but with iteration you can make it right. Or you could go further and make the skills or attributes themselves be the pool points. For exemple if you have 7 Persuasion (or Charisma), then you have 7 points in your Persuasion pool and you've got those points to spread around in skill checks, so you could pass a 6 Persuasion skill check and a 1 Per, or a 4 Per and 3x1 Per. The pools refresh at level up or via some other extra way. So by spending your pool you choose which paths to open, but that doesn't mean you can open them all.

Still, learn by use sounds simpler and is more realistic, so that could just do the trick. (Not arguing against that here at all, just analyzing AoD's flaws.)

The meta-game that is a design "problem" and could be improved upon is more of a "I have an archetype I want to be able to roleplay but what stats do I need?" meta-game...

Roughly you need 3-4 skills or 2 if you aren't sure. Weapon/Defense or Weapon/Defense/Crafting or Alchemy/CS. Persuasion/Streetwise or Persuasion/Streetwise/Impersonate/Etiquette/Trading/Lore. Our non-combat checks give you plenty of room (basically expected level for your character type minus 20%, so if we expect you to have 7 in Persuasion, we'll check for 5, etc. Plus in most cases we do check for the sum of two skills, so it doesn't matter if you have 7 and 6 or 6 and 7. In general, very few people (maybe 5% at most) complain about the talker being unable to progress.

I appreciate that you did all that could be done with AoD's skill system to reduce the problem, with synergies, combined skill checks and always having a path to progress in even in failure. But even if you planned for expected level - 20%, the problem is still there, because that's designer knowledge, that the player is unaware of. We don't know how you balanced the thing, the target numbers, etc. beforehand. Even if you the designer did your due diligence, the player is still left to allocate skill points in near total ignorance. It becomes an "anticipate the designer's vision" meta-game. That "feels" bad, from a player perspective, like you're playing the designer's game rather than having full agency. Which is why I prefer something that is more in the control of the player, such as a spendable pool. The player then makes the choice to open or close a path at that time instead of during character level up, knowing which path is closed off or opened, rather than thinking "ok so I want to be a slimey bastard do I up my Streetwise or my Disguise?" only to realize that the situation you're in 1h later requires Steal.

The goal is not to make those choices trivial, or to remove them by removing gated content, but rather to give the player a chance to choose knowingly instead of in the dark.

Even if we go with 1-3 skill system and label them "you suck; half way there, buddy; you did it! yay!" but lock content behind checks, someone will still want to know if he should raise this skill to 3 or the other one.

Exactly my point.

I'd even go as far to say that I'd rather character development doesn't happen on level up in the character screen but when you make choices, which then define you, so you know what's at stake when building the character. But then that is very close to a learn by usage model... Two ways of solving the same problem, even if we don't agree on what it is heh.

I'll enjoy seeing what you'll do with it.

 

[Elhoim]

I'd even go as far to say that I'd rather character development doesn't happen on level up in the character screen but when you make choices, which then define you, so you know what's at stake when building the character. But then that is very close to a learn by usage model... Two ways of solving the same problem, even if we don't agree on what it is heh.

This actually came up when talking about AoD. Basically, since players hoard the SP, try a check, fail, re-load, distribute, pass it, we thought about the check seeing if you have enough SP, applying it to the checked skill and succeed. Which would kill the whole distribution of SP character building aspect. That's when we came up with the increase by use idea coupled with a very well developed feat system. Skills are increased by your decisions, while feats are a character development choice.

About AoD, we are planning to allow SP spending during dialogue. It makes sense, as you can spend SP during combat, plus removes the reloading aspect, making the flow of the game much better. It would be optional, of course.

 

[orcinator]

Shit because you didn't like AoD combat or shit because you think that this combat will be worse?

Actually it's mostly because I saw you say Wasteland 2's combat was acceptable.

But also both.


Really I don't have much faith in your capability when it comes to combat design, but I hope you at least manage to make it much faster paced than AoD.

 

[Excidium II]

Basically, since players hoard the SP, try a check, fail, re-load, distribute, pass it, we thought about the check seeing if you have enough SP, applying it to the checked skill and succeed. Which would kill the whole distribution of SP character building aspect.

Josh would've endorsed it.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, it would be a resource, like bolas and nets. There could be too many, and then there would be no point to gate content, or there could be too little, but with iteration you can make it right. Or you could go further and make the skills or attributes themselves be the pool points. For exemple if you have 7 Persuasion (or Charisma), then you have 7 points in your Persuasion pool and you've got those points to spread around in skill checks, so you could pass a 6 Persuasion skill check and a 1 Per, or a 4 Per and 3x1 Per. The pools refresh at level up or via some other extra way. So by spending your pool you choose which paths to open, but that doesn't mean you can open them all.

Vancian dialogue system, characters can only talk [charisma] times per day before they must rest to spend the night practicing in front of the mirror



More seriously, though, that would be utterly horrible.
Extremely gamey with no basis whatsoever in any setting. So abstract it would probably ruin the game for some.
I think a good system must at least fit into the setting and the world somewhat... and how would you explain such a thing to the player?
Vancian magic system is already extremely gamey and barely makes any sense once you think about it. But when you apply that to obviously repeatable stuff like talking or lockpicking (where you can't pull the "it's magic" excuse out of the hat), it really falls apart completely.

Improve-by-use on the other hand is pretty easy to get across.

 

[Infinitron]

Basically, since players hoard the SP, try a check, fail, re-load, distribute, pass it, we thought about the check seeing if you have enough SP, applying it to the checked skill and succeed. Which would kill the whole distribution of SP character building aspect.

Josh would've endorsed it.

It's a bit similar to how a "spending effort" system would play, except that the "effort" would be applied to your stat permanently.

 

[Excidium II]

The last thing the world needs is CRPGs taking inspiration from numanara mechanics.

 

[Infinitron]

I'd be surprised if the idea of spending points to achieve a task was invented by Numenera.

 

[Excidium II]

I'd be surprised if the idea of spending points to achieve a task was invented by Numenera.

It's not. But the way it works in numanara is terrible. Like everything else in that system.

Ripoff Deadlands instead. inb4 Darth Roxor

 

[Ismaul]

That's when we came up with the increase by use idea coupled with a very well developed feat system. Skills are increased by your decisions, while feats are a character development choice.

Great! Sounds like a well thought out system. Now I'm hyped!

About AoD, we are planning to allow SP spending during dialogue. It makes sense, as you can spend SP during combat, plus removes the reloading aspect, making the flow of the game much better. It would be optional, of course.

That's a good fix for the AoD system, without changing much. I did actually suggest it in the release thread, but I guess it was too early to decide on it.

 

[Ismaul]

Vancian dialogue system, characters can only talk [charisma] times per day before they must rest to spend the night practicing in front of the mirror

More seriously, though, that would be utterly horrible.
Extremely gamey with no basis whatsoever in any setting. So abstract it would probably ruin the game for some.

Let's not forget that the traditional skill system itself is very abstract, except it has become a second nature since we learned it playing previous RPGs. Same with HP, armor, every fucking thing man. Sure, you could say, all unfamiliar systems have a higher barrier of entry for the player (which is why we always get the recycled fantasy stuff), but that doesn't by default make the "effort" / "skill pool" system bad.

Still, you might be right afterall, "effort" / "skill pool" systems might not be good, or maybe only good for certain type of RPGs / a certain type of gameplay. I was just brainstorming some ideas, I've never played any system like that before, only the usual Savage Worlds / Fate fare that hands 3 points per game to re-roll or get a boost, and in my experience there has always been a problem as to when to refresh the points. I agree that those type of systems might just be a patch to the traditional skill system that has its share of problems, which is why we might be better served by something that changes the system instead, like what VD and Elhoim intend to do.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Use skill to improve it systems always seem too gamey for me. I don't remember an rpg that has perfected the system enough for it to be an marked improvement of traditional spend x points to improve y skill.

 

[Telengard]

Learn By Doing will always seem gamey, because it is the definition of gamey. Because the vast majority of people do not actually learn by doing. They learn through teaching. - First, they are taught by their family. Then by their family and teachers. Then by teachers and friends. Then by mentors at work (or through books and computers, if they're a nerd). Always, there is the expert teaching the skill. First people are taught, then they practice what they are taught in a controlled environment, then they go off and implement what they've learned in a real situation. Very rare is the individual who learns spontaneously, who invents a way to use a skill purely through trial and error.

All of which may seem familiar, however vaguely. Because this is a thing occasionally discussed in education, so you may have heard it in your younger days. And it also means LBD runs counter to common experience. With running counter to common experience being a hard road to trod, since you are defining the unfamiliar thing that is rpg rules with tools that are themselves unfamiliar to common experience. And defining something unfamiliar with something else that is also unfamiliar, of course, being no definition at all.

Howsoever, in game logic, the main trouble for the functionality of LBD has always been the open use skills (things that are used whenever the Player wants), not the closed use skills like combat. Combat skills are generally functional under LBD, if unintuitive. It's things like Stealth that cause LBD to break down. When does a Player get an xp tick for Stealth? Every creature they stealth past? What about civilians? Every time they stealth past a creature? What if they're going back and forth? And if you answer no to that, why not? Why is sneaking in to get the treasure a legit use of the skill, but sneaking out is not? How many xp ticks do you give to non-thief characters who do use stealth, such as rangers, in order to keep their stealth of a concurrent level with the rising game difficulty? And so on.

All of that said, in a game with a completely closed environment, where there is a fixed number of skill uses, such as can be implemented in CYOA, none of the above actually matters. Because you are utilizing your character in the game not through concurrent action in the game world, but through a fixed framework of set actions. If you CYOA the whole thing, you can actually count the exact number of skill uses there will be in the game. And so, it's no longer a question of when is Stealth on and is it a legit moment for it to be on to get the xp? Instead, it becomes - this is the situation, do you use Stealth or do you use Diplomacy, and per that choice get an xp check mark. Under that set of rules, LBD works just fine, and it works because it is utilizing the normal rules of CYOA to define its use.

 

[Lomer2]

Shit because you didn't like AoD combat or shit because you think that this combat will be worse?

Actually it's mostly because I saw you say Wasteland 2's combat was acceptable.

But also both.


Really I don't have much faith in your capability when it comes to combat design, but I hope you at least manage to make it much faster paced than AoD.

What was exactly the problem with the combat design in AoD? I thought that most of the fights were challenging enough and there was practically no filler combat. As regards the pace, I don't believe that you can increase it (unless you practically blur the animations by pushing an animation slider to the extreme) considering that we are talking about turn-based combat. How many TB games with faster combat can you name? If anything, the Colony Ship combat will be slower because of the party.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Learn By Doing will always seem gamey, because it is the definition of gamey. Because the vast majority of people do not actually learn by doing. They learn through teaching. - First, they are taught by their family. Then by their family and teachers. Then by teachers and friends. Then by mentors at work (or through books and computers, if they're a nerd). Always, there is the expert teaching the skill. First people are taught, then they practice what they are taught in a controlled environment, then they go off and implement what they've learned in a real situation. Very rare is the individual who learns spontaneously, who invents a way to use a skill purely through trial and error.

All of which may seem familiar, however vaguely. Because this is a thing occasionally discussed in education, so you may have heard it in your younger days. And it also means LBD runs counter to common experience. With running counter to common experience being a hard road to trod, since you are defining the unfamiliar thing that is rpg rules with tools that are themselves unfamiliar to common experience. And defining something unfamiliar with something else that is also unfamiliar, of course, being no definition at all.

Howsoever, in game logic, the main trouble for the functionality of LBD has always been the open use skills (things that are used whenever the Player wants), not the closed use skills like combat. Combat skills are generally functional under LBD, if unintuitive. It's things like Stealth that cause LBD to break down. When does a Player get an xp tick for Stealth? Every creature they stealth past? What about civilians? Every time they stealth past a creature? What if they're going back and forth? And if you answer no to that, why not? Why is sneaking in to get the treasure a legit use of the skill, but sneaking out is not? How many xp ticks do you give to non-thief characters who do use stealth, such as rangers, in order to keep their stealth of a concurrent level with the rising game difficulty? And so on.

All of that said, in a game with a completely closed environment, where there is a fixed number of skill uses, such as can be implemented in CYOA, none of the above actually matters. Because you are utilizing your character in the game not through concurrent action in the game world, but through a fixed framework of set actions. If you CYOA the whole thing, you can actually count the exact number of skill uses there will be in the game. And so, it's no longer a question of when is Stealth on and is it a legit moment for it to be on to get the xp? Instead, it becomes - this is the situation, do you use Stealth or do you use Diplomacy, and per that choice get an xp check mark. Under that set of rules, LBD works just fine, and it works because it is utilizing the normal rules of CYOA to define its use.

Gothic used the learn by teaching thing fairly well. The only way you could become proficient with a weapon or a skill was to be taught the skill by an already skilled user.