Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
I didn't understand your point on skills, though. Could you cite a couple games that make it right in your opinion, so I try to get what you're saying?
The closest to the skill system that I would design (which I posted a while ago) is Darklands, with some elements from Arcanum (skills being capped by attributes). Essentially it would be a system where skills are fixed at character creation and do not grow much as the game progresses. I suppose it would be ok for there to be some skill growth, but it wouldn't be tied to character progression and it would be capped by attributes.
As to how skills would actually function in gameplay, that's trickier. Obviously if you put a skill in a game, it should be useful at some point. Like I said, the point of skills is to give players the capability for open-world interaction. So each skill should be it's own subsystem, a la crafting, stealth, disguise and lore (the way AoD handles lore). I'm not sure how I would handle social skills. Like, you shouldn't need to have a skill for just talking to people, but perhaps a skill for deceiving people would work.
The RPG system I would design would be one where at character creation, you choose a class, which determines how the world reacts to you, as well as a skill package, which determines how you interact with the world. These two systems are independent of each other, and do not change throughout the game.
Yeah. Hard to read minds from over here. And no. You are an idiot who is now changing his stance after realizing how stupid you are. But I give you credit for not being a fanatic after your retarded "hurr durr skillz are the ebil guise".
Why? I can't see how this has any relation to a game quality. Witcher 3 is a good game and it's only 1 role, while V:Bloodlines has many roles and is great.
Why? I can't see how this has any relation to a game quality. Witcher 3 is a good game and it's only 1 role, while V:Bloodlines has many roles and is great.
If you're not going to make any distinction in kind then things like Bloodlines are little more than broken unfinished messes unworthy of anybody's attention.
Yeah. Hard to read minds from over here. And no. You are an idiot who is now changing his stance after realizing how stupid you are. But I give you credit for not being a fanatic after your retarded "hurr durr skillz are the ebil guise".
Again, you're missing the nuance. My point isn't that skills are bad, but that skill systems are stupidly designed and implemented, and they're bad IF they are the primary gameplay system. AoD's role pathing makes it good. AoD's skill system makes it bad. I've NEVER read anyone praise AoD for the fun of guessing skill checks. But while AoD's skill system is OVERALL atrocious, its Lore subsystem is revolutionary.
A skill system is great as long as it's a secondary gameplay system, not the primary gameplay system, and it isn't stupid to manage and full of shenanigans.
Yeah. Hard to read minds from over here. And no. You are an idiot who is now changing his stance after realizing how stupid you are. But I give you credit for not being a fanatic after your retarded "hurr durr skillz are the ebil guise".
Again, you're missing the nuance. My point isn't that skills are bad, but that skill systems are stupidly designed and implemented, and they're bad IF they are the primary gameplay system. AoD's role pathing makes it good. AoD's skill system makes it bad. I've NEVER read anyone praise AoD for the fun of guessing skill checks. But while AoD's skill system is OVERALL atrocious, its Lore subsystem is revolutionary.
A skill system is great as long as it's a secondary gameplay system, not the primary gameplay system, and it isn't stupid to manage and full of shenanigans.
At this rate, you are well on your way to become the next Josh Sawyer "everyone is wrong but me" guy. First of all, NO, the skill systems in most cRPGs are not perfect. And that's not because of the implementation, it's because these skills are not provided for. i.e. Skills are not given attention from the actual content of the game. Take for example a Barbarian with the skill of Survival in the wilds. How often do you think that really comes up in D&D cRPGs? Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.
Thus, it is not about *guessing* the skill check; stop selling the player short. The problem is at the other end. The designer gave you skills but he did not make them useful You imagined your char to have those skills and advanced it accordingly only to fall flat on your face when you realized that GEE in Deus Ex no matter how much I have in swimming it nets me nothing.
The problem is not degenerate gameplay or bad system design. It is the lack of imagination on the part of the people who make games. D&D has several problems and yes, a rapid advance skill system is one of them. You can count me in one of the critics of D&D and *yet* I consider D&D to be thoroughly playable and enjoyable system which can be used to tell amazing stories if you have the flair for using the system to its strengths instead of endlessly complaining about it but not creating anything that can beat its fun value.
By nature, epiphanies are difficult to explain and not easy to understand. When someone has an epiphany, they see a hidden connection between things that on the surface don't seem to be related to each other. In this case the connection is between skill systems and rpg decline. That link is the epiphany.
The closest to the skill system that I would design (which I posted a while ago) is Darklands, with some elements from Arcanum (skills being capped by attributes). Essentially it would be a system where skills are fixed at character creation and do not grow much as the game progresses. I suppose it would be ok for there to be some skill growth, but it wouldn't be tied to character progression and it would be capped by attributes.
As to how skills would actually function in gameplay, that's trickier. Obviously if you put a skill in a game, it should be useful at some point. Like I said, the point of skills is to give players the capability for open-world interaction. So each skill should be it's own subsystem, a la crafting, stealth, disguise and lore (the way AoD handles lore). I'm not sure how I would handle social skills. Like, you shouldn't need to have a skill for just talking to people, but perhaps a skill for deceiving people would work.
Darklands is similar to how tabletop games like Runequest and Pendragon work in that your skills improve through actual use, and usually don't go up much through the game. But I can't say it's objectively better than any other method, or how it fits better a role-first approach, even if it's a valid preference as any.
Why? I can't see how this has any relation to a game quality. Witcher 3 is a good game and it's only 1 role, while V:Bloodlines has many roles and is great.
If you're not going to make any distinction in kind then things like Bloodlines are little more than broken unfinished messes unworthy of anybody's attention.
I think you misread my post. I didn't say roles shouldn't have distinctions - they should - I said a game that focus on just one role can be as good a game that offers a multitude of roles.
Darklands is similar to how tabletop games like Runequest and Pendragon work in that your skills improve through actual use, and usually don't go up much through the game. But I can't say it's objectively better than any other method, or how it fits better a role-first approach, even if it's a valid preference as any.
Could you please formulate a coherent thesis statement regarding your argument? I don't feel like your position is clear enough to defend or attack. In most of your longer posts you make at least one or two contradictory statements and I just don't really see where you are coming from.
I didn't understand your point on skills, though. Could you cite a couple games that make it right in your opinion, so I try to get what you're saying?
The closest to the skill system that I would design (which I posted a while ago) is Darklands, with some elements from Arcanum (skills being capped by attributes). Essentially it would be a system where skills are fixed at character creation and do not grow much as the game progresses. I suppose it would be ok for there to be some skill growth, but it wouldn't be tied to character progression and it would be capped by attributes.
As to how skills would actually function in gameplay, that's trickier. Obviously if you put a skill in a game, it should be useful at some point. Like I said, the point of skills is to give players the capability for open-world interaction. So each skill should be it's own subsystem, a la crafting, stealth, disguise and lore (the way AoD handles lore). I'm not sure how I would handle social skills. Like, you shouldn't need to have a skill for just talking to people, but perhaps a skill for deceiving people would work.
But if you did analysis of real world stats and skills, you can see even in real word your skills increase. You don't play adventure game where a Simon the sorcerer is trying to solve puzzles.
Frankly I'm from teacher family and I know how long it took for students to learn stuff to pass exams. There is saying "are text books for that? Then overnight." There are numerous examples of students I seen before they were tested by a teacher who spend 5 minutes of heavy studying to even have chance to get a C. Without these 5 minutes they'd get F.
(Talent and high IQ saves your butt, these without talent needs at least three hours and have MUCH harder time to understand certain types of stuff, assuming equal IQ.)
5 minutes definitely isn't long time. Situation where muscle memory is required are troublesome, but I'm from family that tried to prepare students to be able to obtain university titles, not make menial workers from everyone.
Why? I can't see how this has any relation to a game quality. Witcher 3 is a good game and it's only 1 role, while V:Bloodlines has many roles and is great.
If you're not going to make any distinction in kind then things like Bloodlines are little more than broken unfinished messes unworthy of anybody's attention.
I think you misread my post. I didn't say roles shouldn't have distinctions - they should - I said a game that focus on just one role can be as good a game that offers a multitude of roles.
But if you're truly saying nothing more than 'apples can be just as good as oranges', then what's next?
Most every game has roleplaying in it. But not all games are about roleplaying. Not all games focus entirely on giving you as many choices as possible in creating and developing characters. As it happens, some RPGs give you class systems. Others use a class-less system based on skills. There are many approaches to the same goal.
The OP's argument that fine tuning skill systems is necessarily bad flies in the face of every example he's given us thus far. Bloodlines and AoD had skill systems that were integral to the experience and the fact one person claims to dislike them is irrelevant. Therefore, it is silly to take the argument at face value, cross your arms and just say 'i don't differentiate between games that give you multiple roles and games that don't'.
Because if you truly don't, then Action and Strategy games offer much better experiences than RPGs mostly do.
The OP's argument that fine tuning skill systems is necessarily bad flies in the face of every example he's given us thus far. Bloodlines and AoD had skill systems that were integral to the experience and the fact one person claims to dislike them is irrelevant.
Bloodlines and AoD are good DESPITE their stupid skill systems, not because of their stupid skill systems. But AoD is still a part of an overrall decline in modern computer RPGs, just as much as Pillars. AoD and Pillars are both a part of decline, and they are a part of decline for the same basic principle (but different manifestations of that principle).
Could you please formulate a coherent thesis statement regarding your argument? I don't feel like your position is clear enough to defend or attack. In most of your longer posts you make at least one or two contradictory statements and I just don't really see where you are coming from.
I already have, several times. It can't be formulated like a thesis since it's an epiphany, not a deduction. It's a revelation, not an argument or opinion.
My point has really gotten lost unfortunately. It's a simple point - the decline in computer RPGs in the past 10+ years is due to an increased emphasis on skill-based interaction in gameplay, aggravated by the failure of computer RPG makers to implement an interesting skill system. This decline is the fault of WotC. I use AD&D and 3E as my primary examples not because I think either are perfect, but because each D&D edition simply has a profound effect on the entire gaming industry. D&D, AD&D, 3E and 4E each revolutionized RPG design - but with the case of 3E and 4E, in hindsight these changes were for the worse. 3E did not make RPGs better, but instead moved RPGs away from the essence of the role-playing gaming experience. I can see that clearly now. Yet we are still in the shadow of 3E's influence. In hindsight 3E was not just a dismal failure, it was an absolute catastrophe that continues to wreck RPG design even to this day.
When I worked for White Wolf 14 years ago, I thought it was dumb and lazy for Justin Achilli to stick to this concept of "core classes" whether it was the five basic vampiric clans in the Vampire reboot Requiem - Gangrel (warrior), Ventru (priest), Mekhet (wizard), Nosferatu (rogue), and Daeva (social), or in White Wolf's fantasy rpg Exalted, with it's five basic Solar classes - Dawn (warrior), Zenith (priest), Twilight (wizard), Night (rogue) and Eclipse (social). Now I realize that I was wrong and he was right - the character class concept is essential to rpgs.
Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is fairly sophisticated as well as nuanced, and I'm tired of trying to defend it against those who are reading into it what they want to read into it without understanding what I'm really saying.
Bloodlines is a great example of a computer RPG, not because of the way it implements skills - which is just as terrible as every other RPG that's tried - but because it understands the goal of RPGs. When you create your character you can customize many things, but the most important choice is choosing your character's vampire clan. That choice determines how the world reacts to your character, changing your gameplay experience. That's the essence of RPGs. There's a world and there's a story. Now you have these seven paths through that world and story - choose one of these seven roles. Not create your own role. Choose one of these seven. The same is true for Age of Decadence. There's one world and one story, but when you create your character you choose a role and get to experience the world and the story very differently depending on which role you chose. These are two examples of RPGs that are designed with an understanding of what a computer RPG experience should be. Age of Decadence has the right idea for what a computer RPG should be; unfortunately like the other RPGs designed post-NWN it's saddled with a retarded skill system.
...Bloodlines also shows that class doesn’t have to be “class.” It can just as easily be tribe. I know some of them map onto DnD style classes very well, but others less so: WTF is a Malkavian in DnD? Sure, a Nosferatu is a stealthy thief, but that’s way less important than the fact that you’re hideously deformed. Ventrue are clerics? Okay, but what really matters is that they’re aristocrats. Honestly, this is much better than “pick your class—you’re a rogue because you’re a sneaky little fucker.”
Like I said, the real issue is consistent reactivity to something and you seem to be admitting that. What matters is that there’s one particularly salient aspect of character creation.
You could do the same thing in a high fantasy style world with reactivity to race. The issue is that the game needs to take this decision seriously. Hell, if someone ever makes a game set in, say, the European wars of religion, you would have twelve basic permutations: three religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist), two social classes (nobility, commoner), and urban/rural. These are what people would care about; they would change how the world approaches you and how you approach the world. Theoretically, you could do be same with a skill based system: 25 skills, you tag two to create your vocation, that’s 600 vocations. A lot of these would be very similar so the developer could probably simplify down to, say, 20-30 odd archetypes. As long as the game reacts to that, you’re good. It’s probably too much work but a skill based system doesn’t inherently demolish the idea of a role.
But when the game tries to react to everything in your build, it ends up feeling like you have no definition—I agree with you here. There needs to be some focus. He who defends everything defends nothing. I give Sawyer credit for attempting to do this in Pillars, but it would be a better game of he’d designated some part of character creation as all-important.
PS. Jason, it’s not that you’re being too sophisticated or subtle, it’s that any post longer than a thousand words probabneeds an editor.
Could you please formulate a coherent thesis statement regarding your argument? I don't feel like your position is clear enough to defend or attack. In most of your longer posts you make at least one or two contradictory statements and I just don't really see where you are coming from.
I already have, several times. It can't be formulated like a thesis since it's an epiphany, not a deduction. It's a revelation, not an argument or opinion.
No. Just no. You have in fact formulated it like a thesis and then underlined it. It’s simply that your thoughts were very disorganized when you started this thread. You had a thought; calling it a revelation makes you sound like you’re having delusions of grandeur.
The OP's argument that fine tuning skill systems is necessarily bad flies in the face of every example he's given us thus far. Bloodlines and AoD had skill systems that were integral to the experience and the fact one person claims to dislike them is irrelevant.
Bloodlines and AoD are good DESPITE their stupid skill systems, not because of their stupid skill systems. But AoD is still a part of an overrall decline in modern computer RPGs, just as much as Pillars. AoD and Pillars are both a part of decline, and they are a part of decline for the same basic principle (but different manifestations of that principle).
You have no idea what you're talking about. Which is characteristic of someone who thinks they are being too sophisticated for forum discussions on RPGs.
Of all the arguments about Pillars of Eternity -- be it Sawyer's design principles or the overal disappointment with the game's writing -- it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it has character systems. On the contrary, it was always expected to since before the Kickstarter was even launched. It was its major selling point.
Age of Decadence and Pillars of Eternity have nothing to do with each other. One is a vocation driven turn based RPG that draws from fallout. The other is a monty haul real time with pause trash fest centered around parties. If you think they are 'manifestations of the same essence' then your argument is more dilluted than homeopathy potions. And just as phony.
Bloodlines without its character systems would be objectively worse, even from a writing perspective. It would be a world where all Tremere are witches, all Toreador are talkies, all Nosferatu are stealth ninjas. A fully realized version of the game would not cut the freedom to customize the character. It would further capitalize on it by introducing more alternate paths past Santa Monica. Such that you'd be able to create a Brujah that does more than smashing heads.
The skill system is part and parcel of playing all of these. Your actual epiphany is that you don't like RPGs all that much. You'll have better luck with CYOAs. Now move on.
Yes it does. That's actually the epiphany, and the hardest part to explain. It's what most of you guys aren't getting. A skill system DOES fundamentally detract and distract from Role. A character class system and a skill system can exist together, but they also fundamentally oppose each other like yin and yang. That's the epiphany. And the more modern RPG design moves toward skill systems, the more it moves away from role.
Within a role one can find multiple paths of development. This can be expressed as a skill system. This can be expressed as even more roles. Its entirely up to whoever develops the game.
You can have a wizard class that can be further tweaked using an attribute system. To cast spells more quickly, to cast more powerful spells, to rely on luck and critical chances and so on. Or you can create 4 more classes that are thematically similar. A waste of time.
