Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[felicity]

I'm having trouble following your argument (I know, I know its because I'm retarded. I'm working on that, but its really hard!). Your main complaint seems to be that the Rogue would be able to open chests the fighter can't and, consequently, get rewards that are unavailable to the fighter. But isn't that what giving a specific class a bonus to open locks is supposed to do? Give them benefits that aren't accessible to characters without that increased ability?

Defeats the purpose of giving the fighter Lockpicks as class skills doesn't it?

Well the fighter can open chests that otherwise he would not be able to, so it is not useless though it is pointless. Getting loot is a major draw of RPG. Telling players "hey you are not going to open the highest grade chests with your fighter but you can open most, so everything is cool" isn't going to work. Everyone will want to include a rogue in their party. A better idea is giving other classes different ways of obtaining exclusive items. For example a rogue may open chests, discover secret pathways and sneak past overpowered enemies to loot items while a bard's haggle skill may allow him to buy at a discount and have access to exclusive merchants etc.

 

[DraQ]

I still see it as a non-issue. Suppose you've really specialized in the "wrong" skills, which is either an added challenge to your play-through or genuinely game-breaking. So what? It won't take you hours to figure it out or to compensate for it

Except that's not given.

Many games change their gameplay formula towards the end for various reasons. Sure, it's shit design, but so is putting in skills that are not supported by gameplay.

Or, even, break some entertainment industry taboo, like it is with kids. Considering you get nothing out of being able to kill these characters, other than perhaps some satisfaction if they're particularly annoying, there's no game-related reason to argue for the possibility of their demise

Bullshit.

Hostages, human shields for enemies, collateral damage, escort quests.

There are tons of reasons for characters player doesn't intend to die to be nevertheless killable.

I'm sorry, but to me it just doesn't make sense to expect every ability to carry you through the game. Then again, I'm sure I've played games where Fishing is a skill in the same list as all the rest, with all it determines being whether or not you'll catch a fish, and somehow that never struck me as odd or unbalanced. If I want to catch a stinking fish now and again that does fuck all, well tough shit, guess I'll have to give up an important quest or two.

Then delimit your auxiliary abilities somehow, or make player pick enough skills to have some non-auxiliaries among them.

So, someone playing a broken and unfinished build and beating the game with it should be ostracized

No, but someone doing it while praising the game for being broken shit should.

but then again I've played a few rogue-likes before where random gen just gives you shit all the way until you die

RLs are a whole different kind of animal. They are built around random generator, so there is no bypassing the lemons life may give you, they are also built around dying a lot and restarting not being detrimental to the gameplay.

Hiver, you're ultimately going to default to how the developer wants you to play, rather than how you want to play.

If developer intends me to play in particular way, then why the fuck does he put skills in game that don't support this kind of intended gameplay?

The only explanation I can think of is that for some reason Sawyer doesn't want one skill to become dependent on another, like making Lockpick an attractive choice only if you're already playing a sneaky character.

But that's still pretty retarded.

1. Stealth is only required for lockpicking if there is line of sight to guards or they are in very close hearing range. If you've managed to get into a room with a lock via whatever method (disguise, stealth, bluff, alternative access route) and there are no people who can directly observe you in this room, then you don't need to be a ninja to pick your lock undetected.

2. Bashing tends to set off traps. Traps are designed to be effective discouragement.

3. Opening container via physical abuse can destroy the content.

4. Opening doors via physical abuse prevents you from locking them again, which may be tactical disadvantage.

5. Destroying doors and containers informs everyone interested that they have been accessed in unauthorized manner, setting up stage for some really nasty delayed consequences.

6. Breaking some doors and containers that can be picked may be impossible to do or require rare resources, conversely some breakable barriers can't be picked.

7. In some situation conspicuous brute force puts you at disadvantage no matter how Rambo you are (cities, for example).

(Most have been stated in this thread already.)

If anything, I'd rather drop sneak as skill and make it partially AG/PE check (with penalties depending on stuff like armour you're wearing - and carrying), partially player skill based on navigating landscape of light, traversable surfaces producing different amounts of noise, and occlusions, than get rid of lockpicking.
Lockpicking is much more of a specific skill than sneak. T

hen again, I may just have personal dislike for sneak skill, because it doesn't play nice with use based.


Anyway, quite a few posters in this thread are morons.

 

[felicity]

I know. It was a respond to you as well as to Harg.

Lock picking skill is a dilemma. It is a very important skill because it gives you loot, which is an important factor to rpg players. It is a useless skill because it doesn't do anything besides picking locks and it is a point sink. To the first point one way a lock picking skill can stand on its own without making rogue practically a mandatory member to any party is what I said previously, to give other classes rewards in equal value but different methods in obtaining them. Ideally the method should be fun on its own so the method itself could be a persuasive reason to pick them over rogue.

To the second point it was argued that utility skills often compete with more useful combat skills. Some games tried to address this by making them separate category so for example you could have 2 types of skill points one for combat skills and one for utility skills. This way flavor skills compete against flavor skills while combat skills compete against combat skills. The utility skill points may be gained by level up or/and by paying a trainer. Alternative ties utility skills to background and make them learned automatically, then scale them according to background level. It depends on if you want more personality for specific character or class.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I know. It was a respond to you as well as to Harg.

Lock picking skill is a dilemma. It is a very important skill because it gives you loot, which is an important factor to rpg players. It is a useless skill because it doesn't do anything besides picking locks and it is a point sink. To the first point one way a lock picking skill can stand on its own without making rogue practically a mandatory member to any party is what I said previously, to give other classes rewards in equal value but different methods in obtaining them. Ideally the method should be fun on its own so the method itself could be a persuasive reason to pick them over rogue.

I don't see how this approach is incompatible with what I discussed. Just because the Rogue can access some loot that other character's cannot doesn't mean there aren't other things they can do that a Rogue can't. I quibble a bit in that I would prefer the differentiation focus on the kind of content available rather than just different loot (not that there couldn't be loot rewards, I just don't think ensuring equivalence is important).

Although, I don't really see the problem with the Rogue being ideally suited to treasure hunting, as it's the most explicitly loot-focused archetype in the game. The tradeoff is that you lose combat effectiveness, so you get more loot and have an easier time exploring, but combat is more difficult. Which is why I'm more worried that the Rogue will be comparable in combat effectiveness to a fighter, just with slightly different tactics.

To the second point it was argued that utility skills often compete with more useful combat skills. Some games tried to address this by making them separate category so for example you could have 2 types of skill points one for combat skills and one for utility skills. This way flavor skills compete against flavor skills while combat skills compete against combat skills. The utility skill points may be gained by level up or/and by paying a trainer. Alternative ties utility skills to background and make them learned automatically, then scale them according to background level. It depends on if you want more personality for specific character or class.

This approach was also discussed another thread. IIRC there were strong feelings about it as well.

 

[St. Toxic]

See the highlighted part.

If you conserve the character vs list breadth ratio then extending the list twofold will give us about 6 tags.

Selecting six shitty or auxiliary skills is much harder than three, not to mention that if your system doesn't have as many purely auxiliary/flavour/joke skills you will have to take at least one useful one.

But do we bloat the point p. level increase as well or what? I mean, it's not really an issue how many or which skills you specialize in at level one, because your character is going to be shit, relatively speaking, no matter what he goes for or how he divides up his skillpoints. It also doesn't seem likely that a skill-list can get bigger while at the same time cutting down on the amount of flavor skills.

If, however, we're talking about 'specializing' in, say, 6 out of 10 skills then we're certainly cutting down on the variety of potential character builds -- I'd probably say that chargen specialization doesn't even make sense at that point, so just fuck it. It's still possible to skill up whatever you want whether or not the skill is tagged, right, so it's not really that big of a deal.

So, it sounds like we're watering down specialization for ease of access, but in the end we still end up having struggling builds in the mix. 6 perfectly synchronized and all-powerful skills can hardly be compared to 4 or 3 with an addition of flavor, if we're talking about efficiency and viability. Do we default to easy mode? And what about the strain on the content, when the average character has 6 abilities he'd like to make use of?

And why didn't you address your 'fixed number of skills' quip? Is it really viable to put a hard limit on what the player can spec in based on choices made early in the game? I mean, it's essentially an open/closed class-system, with the added bonus that the class you created might be entirely unfixable.

In Morrowind, for instance, it's literally impossible* to make a broken build, because they are not enough purely auxiliary skills to go around.

*) Apart from magicka limitation, but this depends on signs, races and base magicka multiplier, not the skill system, and apart from some skills being too useful or buggy, but that's the issue of sloppy implementation. In terms of skillset and the roles of individual skills it's foolproof.

I thought Morrowing had a use-based system? I couldn't stomach that turd for more than 20 minutes, despite my best efforts, so I'm afraid I can't comment.

IHow the fuck do you want to consider skill system and content independently of each other?

It's a question of design. If the skill system is setting appropriate, it makes sense in the game world. Once you're creating content around that skill system, there's no guarantee that the content will or can be distributed evenly in a way that makes sense. Maybe there are even time constraints and costs involved. So, what do we do? Do we butcher the setting, by adding content purely to make use of the mechanics, or do we butcher the mechanics, removing the skill and whatever content has been created with it in mind, and all for the sake of balance?

Obviously, I'd just leave it as is, but that means suffering through the potential of personal failure in favor of internal consistency within the game. The prevailing idea, I believe, is a minimalist approach to both setting and mechanics, in order to easier fit the pieces together at the end of the development cycle, but so far the end result seems to be a product lacking in both aspects rather than some unified work of artful engineering.

Is skill for operating electrically powered portable gatling gun good? Depends.

In something like Fallout - probably.
In faux medieval fantasy RPG or nursing simulator? - not so much.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that skills need to be in tune with the setting. I would disagree, however, were your example to illustrate skills in tune with content specifically. I wouldn't complain about a handgun skill in a street-sweeper rpg, provided of course that there's a handgun to be found somewhere, even if using it would give cleaning the streets a new meaning, one perhaps little intended by the game.

Depends on nothing but fucking content you expect to find in your game.
If you want ancient Latin skill in a game that won't feature any Latin speaking people, or Latin texts, then feel free to just fucking LARP it if you can't help yourself.
It's not relevant to the gameplay and doesn't need to be covered by gameplay system.

There must be some content or use for it, obviously, for it to be considered a skill and not just a broken number-counter. Even if it just gave you the ability to read some ancient Latin writing scrawls in the men's bathroom a few times, or a couple of extra dialog options when you're chatting away with historians. Unless the game is called 'Ancient Latin: Read it and Weep' it would hardly trick players whether or not to push points into it at every level up, so I'd deem it pretty harmless overall.

No, we are talking about potential for using skills together in ways that may not even be explicitly intended.

For example, if you can summon some creature using skill A and buff it using skill B, then playing character that has both skills will be qualitatively different from playing characters with only one of them.

For example you can raise a skeleton using necromancy and make it heed your commands. You can also cast protective spell shielding one human sized target from fire using certain other school of magic. You're faced by a corridor lined by both flame and arrow firing traps and need to retrieve a non-flammable item. Even if you can't disable traps with your skillset, dodge them, teleport to the item, levitate it telkinetically back to you, or levitate over the trigger plates yourself, you can buff your skeletal servant with fire resistance (it cares little for arrows lodged between it ribs or even piercing its skull as long as it doesn't jeopardize its integrity) and send it to retrieve item. You wouldn't be able to if you didn't have both skills.

I like it, but it sounds more like spell-combinations than skills. Can't say I've considered summons and buffs as an example of extreme skill synergy as generally, unless specifically tailored after spell combinations as per your example, their use lies in combat encounters which, as far as problems go, have very free-form solutions (like, for instance, avoiding them entirely). Shielding a summoned minion from elemental damage is a no-brainer, but how would you successfully synergize a complete list of abilities ranging from A to Z?

Or, back to my bandit camp, if character's magic skill is not useful as anything but short term distraction at its level (making illusionary noise, knocking an item over with TK, lighting a bush) and alchemy skill alone fails as well (weak curative and regenerative potions and mild, disabling orally ingested poisons), the character having both can still successfully infiltrate bandit camp by using temporary distraction to set up long term advantage in form of mass indigestion.

So it's the lockpicking/pie-making approach then. Exhaust a list of viable options until you run out of ideas, and any skill-combination that doesn't make the cut doesn't get you into the bandit camp -- it's what we got. Then post on a forum about how a game is badly designed because your character build felt useless in 7/10 scenarios, while min/max-ers and mage/alchemists laugh at you.

It doesn't have to be specific skill-checks, but if at some point of critical path the alternative is combat or using mechanics to bypass combat, then abilities that help in neither can't be used to progress through main quest, unless the combat is easy enough to be essentially skill-less.

What about skills used along the path assisting you to get to that critical point? If 'Barter' made a superior weapon or piece of armor affordable, and 'Gambling' provided the money, how are the skills not helping you in your next 'critical point' encounter?

Followers can be a buffer of sorts here, but outdoorsman only helps you on travel screen, while there don't seem to be many medical opportunities along the way.

Outdoorsman is great if you want to do long-distance runs right off the bat, rather than follow that 'developer walkthrough', and since you won't be rolling in the riches for a long while that First Aid may just be what keeps you alive when your luck runs out.

Tag mechanics doubling the amount of points you put into skill says otherwise. For just buffing skills of choice to begin with merely distributing points would be sufficient.

That would be true if all skills were equally powerful. As it is, tagging the weaker skills is exactly what makes them viable at the lower levels, while skilling and reading up main bread&butter skills is enough to make them useful.

Sense? Why should an IN 1 retard be able to advance in science at all, let alone 2x faster than hitting shit with a stick anyway?

At chargen we're probably talking about a brain-damaged scientist or a barebones autist. Even then, since INT influences the amount of skillpoints you're able to distribute, you'll hardly be keeping up with an INT 5/untagged science hobbyist professor.

How can you be a fucking doctor without knowing first aid? Yes, they do different things - first aid does simple things, doctor does complex things. They should be tiers of the same skill, not separate skills.

First Aid is combat medicine, which means a fast fix in a stressful situation. Doctor is status ailment treatments, which means diagnosing and repairing difficult damage when time is a-plenty. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and break both your legs and an arm, your proposed level 1 First Aid / Doctor-combo tier is not going to help you, but Doctor on its own might. However, it's not going to keep you alive in a sour combat encounter, but First Aid might.

I'd call it chargen strategy, but I'm sure someone would be quick to point out that you can just run to the nearest shop and get a bunch of stims or not take damage during encounters by killing everything outright and that the build is shit no matter how you look at it.

Gunpowder powered firearms have varying recoil, bullet drop or travel time can be insignificant at short ranges and most important part of operation boils to sighting in, aiming and squeezing the trigger trying to keep it steady.

Sounds about right.

If anything, skills should be separate based on operation - direct fire, indirect fire, burst, single, gunpowder based, rocket, laser and so on

I like, I like.

how is firing a gatling cannon similar to firing a flamethrower, and how is any of them similar to rocket launcher?

They're all heavy and inaccurate spray-and-pray type deals? I mean, sure, the launcher is single-shot weapon, but it's basically a tube that fires a rocket-propelled chunk of explosives at a spot generally near where you're pointing it, so it's close enough in my book.

You can't have it both ways - either you separate based on principle of operation or weight class. Ok, you can also make it a tree or treat both divisions as orthogonal, but not divide half of your weapons based on this half on that.

I think operation and class of firearm are at least somewhat connected. Naturally, someone bursting with a grease gun isn't going to be taking wind into consideration the same way a sniper would, but there's probably some element of familiarity there that doesn't exist once you move on to laser powered weapons and, say, grenade launchers.

I couldn't even begin to speculate what influences the shot on a laser weapon, what world factors might divert the beam or make the shot otherwise ineffectual. If we allow for the fact that the combat-system is an abstraction of a real scenario taking place, we're not privy to the various events that may be taking place and influencing the outcome of a combat encounter; such as worn guns getting jammed and unjammed, sights falling out of calibration, the dodge of an opponent at long range and how to efficiently compensate for that using traditional gunpowder weapons v.s laser weapons.

By producing magitek-level universal medicaments despite being unable to produce proper roofs?

Maybe stims are more crucial to surviving in the wasteland than aesthetics? I mean, it's not like they have problems with rain or anything.

You know how it's '50s future where everyone and their grandma has a raygun? I might just as well expect conventional arms to be rare relics of the past, while rayguns not exactly common, but they were presumably common before the nukes fell.

You're getting close to convincing me that the game needs to adhere to your baseless expectations of the setting it takes place in. Not quite there yet, but close.

Then I can expect that the game won't force me to commit to that build by tagging skills with meaty 2x increase rate.

Oh, it doesn't.

Too entitled for you?

No, that's fair. Suggesting that the game should prevent which skills you're able to spec in based on chargen decisions as a way of preventing useless builds, or that some skills need to be merged/cut because you don't find them useful, or imposing personal preconceptions on the setting and getting upset when they turn out to be inaccurate -- it's mostly stuff like that really.

Trial and error isn't exactly research

Provided you learn from your mistakes, that's pretty much exactly research.

and I would rather play my game without consulting wiki.

Go right ahead, though I would at least suggest consulting the wiki on trial and error.

Practice also isn't exactly why I'm playing a game - if the game keeps effectively throwing me back to chargen screen because I guessed a bad build, forcing me to experience the same fucking content over and over again, then it goes in the trashcan.

ADD detected.

I'm not interested in guessing games, I'm interested in games where I make critical decisions (those that can effectively cripple me for the rest of the game or force a restart) based on sufficient information I'm given and my ability to use this information.
I want to explore systems and content, not developers whims.

And how would you define sufficient information? Enough information to make the absolute outcome of your choice entirely predictable? Maybe, enough information for you to make a choice you consider to be the right one?

On a second or third playthrough I may sperg my build to eleven (or go for some zany flavour build), but one playthrough is pretty much all you, as a designer, can take for granted. Everything past that point is extra.

So rpg's should be designed without replayability in mind? You're certainly living in the right age for that.

Next time you will tell me Go involves experiencing the same content over and over because it's only black stones, white stones and a piece of plank.

Multiplayer games rarely make your mistakes trail after you for multiple hours. Multiplayer games also don't force you to experience the same fucking content again and again as part of the necessary learning on those mistakes.

So, from your description I'd have to assume that Go is one of those rare games where you don't need to learn from your mistakes to be successful and where making the same general mistakes throughout every single game is either inconsequential to how the game will play out or mysteriously leaves no mark on your memory.

Won't? Because either way you will have him on his ass in three seconds flat?

Come now. I'm talking about going after a person who's in essence a dummy and won't be able to defend himself in any efficient fashion, in order to gage the difference between an apprentice and a master. A value of X might mean several clumsy swings of a sword as our opponent desperately tries to avoid pain and death, while 3X might very well mean a clever feint from our character and our victim's head comes off in one swing.

Applying the same principle on an opponent with equal proficiency to our character, that is 'X', should realistically mean a balanced fight where the victor is determined by some random chance, moderately by defensive skills (though this is an unrelated issue) but to a great extent by player decisions and strategy. Now suppose the X has to fight against 3X, so that is he's outmatched 3 to 1. Our more masterful assailant would need both luck, his defensive abilities and practically all decisions he makes to be against him in order to fail, wouldn't you agree? For a player in control of a 3X character the fight would require practically no thinking for it to go in his favor, and were he to fail despite his inherent superiority the situation would just seem bizzare -- almost like your 100% repairman failing to tighten the loose screw.

It's like expecting that if a person with repair skill at 1% is capable of identifying a loose screw, then tightening it up in about 15s, the person with repair at 100% will tighten the same screw in 0.15s.

Oh my, more evasive derp. I've already said that skill-values are an abstraction of a character's abilities. Are you seriously arguing that because 1% and 100% are equally capable of tightening a loose screw that there is no difference in mastery between the two?

If your skill is very low or very high relative to the problem then it falls below or above cutoff level, meaning that changing it has no effect.
Being an expert engineer doesn't make tighten screws super fast or super well, being able to apply band-aid doesn't make you any more likely to perform brain surgery than a person that can't.

We're talking about applying a solution to a problem. In game terms, the solution to a problem is using a skill with the appropriate value attached to it. You at least seem to grasp that much. In the abstract sense, the solution to a problem can be anything associated with that particular skill and applying the solution may have more variables attached to it than just completing one simple task. To any problem that might reasonably have degrees of success, like not merely tightening a loose screw but also noticing that the screw shakes loose with the continued operation of the machine and stabilizing the engine to prevent further malfunctions, a three times higher value of a skill is an obvious benefit.

No, I imply that with 3 skills at 30% you either attempt to solve a 100% problem via some alternative means or fucking run from it, while with one skill at 100% but remaining two at 0% you do the same with problem requiring skills you do not have.

But combat isn't like that; not only does it have degrees of success, but it also (hopefully) relies on the player's intelligence. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you; you were advocating "player skill" over character skill just a while ago. If the only thing that determined the combat encounter was having 53 over your opponent's 52, then your solution might make some sense, but what we're talking about here are opponents in combat being particularly vulnerable to a certain type of damage and the viability of splitting your combat affinity between 3 different weapon types or piling it all onto 1 type of weapon.

I'm arguing that if splitting your skillpoints between 3 weapons skills is to be a truly viable strat throughout the game, stacking points on 1 weapon will not only carry you through encounters that are completely unavailable to the jack-of-all-trades, but it'll make certain weapon-damage specific opponents laughably easy while still enabling the character to do reasonable damage against opponents that are resistant to his particular damage type. That is, unless weapon-specific damage against certain opponents is entirely nullified, in which case there is no choice other than to spec in all necessary damage types.

What if this encounter just happens to be a golem? Or mundane bear? Or two guys with aimed crossbows?

It's situational. There's still dodge and defense, shields and other shit to account for, but generally speaking, if you can force ranged units into close quarters and soak up the damage of your opponents while bashing their brains in, it still makes more sense to have your damage-dealing skill as high as possible rather than split up for the sake of utility. That is, unless it's a rigid requirement that you counter certain creatures with specific damage types, in which case splitting your skills between different damage types becomes mandatory.

Except that's not given.

Many games change their gameplay formula towards the end for various reasons. Sure, it's shit design, but so is putting in skills that are not supported by gameplay.

I've stated my approval for fucking players towards the end on several previous occasions, like having the big bad's biggest weakness turn out to be the most useless skill in the game for example. But that's end-game stuff, it doesn't count as the entire game, and your dismissal of what you call 'shit design' isn't an argument.

Bullshit.

Hostages, human shields for enemies, collateral damage, escort quests.

There are tons of reasons for characters player doesn't intend to die to be nevertheless killable.

I think you must have misunderstood me, as we're in no disagreement that there are many potential reasons for killing kids. I'm arguing against having characters unkillable simply because they are important or cuddly wuddly, whether or not there is any reason for their death. It pains me to see your ADD in action, attaching significance only to half a sentence, and you have my deepest sympathies.

Then delimit your auxiliary abilities somehow, or make player pick enough skills to have some non-auxiliaries among them.

But some abilities just aren't as useful as others, and making them more useful than they logically would be devalues the setting. And we don't want to sacrifice specialization, now do we? No, just let the player pick whatever he thinks is best and work around whatever options those choices provides him with.

No, but someone doing it while praising the game for being broken shit should.

So, beating the game with a broken build is ok and all in good fun, but you have to hate it every step of the way.

Man, DraQ, you really are totally aren't you? The game isn't even broken if you can beat it with a bad build; broken things don't work.

RLs are a whole different kind of animal. They are built around random generator, so there is no bypassing the lemons life may give you, they are also built around dying a lot and restarting not being detrimental to the gameplay.

Same goes, or should, for any RPG. The random element is present even in scripted games if you don't have the meta, and dying a lot is generally what happens when a game is challenging, whether or not it's because of randomness or you making the wrong decisions in combat.

 

[hiver]

First Aid is combat medicine, which means a fast fix in a stressful situation. Doctor is status ailment treatments, which means diagnosing and repairing difficult damage when time is a-plenty. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and break both your legs and an arm, your proposed level 1 First Aid / Doctor-combo tier is not going to help you, but Doctor on its own might. However, it's not going to keep you alive in a sour combat encounter, but First Aid might.

Thats all fine and dandy - except what you are doing here is saying that a doctor does not know how to do the most basic first-aid medicine.
That is - you take a doctor skill at the start - instead of first aid and you find yourself in a situation where you have a fucking doctor with you who cannot bandage a flesh wound.

Another retarded take on reality of things masquerading as "gameplay" just for the sake of having more skills.
While completely simulating realism isnt the purpose - making things extremely stupid cannot help the game in any way.
Plus a wrong example of broken legs. Thats clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize unless there are some other extra complications.
A broken limb needs to be immobilized into a splint or a cast and then it will heal as broken limbs tend to.
A doctor cannot make it heal any faster - unless he is a voodoo doctor.

As far as actual injuries that require a doctor level of knowledge go - well, thats what the other doctors are there for in the game.
Which might not or should not all be perfectly happy to help you - depending on your reputation and faction standing. - requiring some sub quests maybe - suffering some consequences maybe - being careful how you play maybe?

Besides, this setup makes investing skill points or xp into first-aid completely unnecessary after some middle level - and therefore creates a dump stat.
Which shouldnt be there in the first place - at all.

But some abilities just aren't as useful as others, and making them more useful than they logically would be devalues the setting.

No, to the contrary - it is about making skills as useful as they logically should be - not more.

Making them less useful then they logically should be - devalues the setting and the whole game.

Provided you learn from your mistakes, that's pretty much exactly research.

Researching mistakes in design, or stupid design = gameplay.

Suggesting that the game should prevent which skills you're able to spec in based on chargen decisions as a way of preventing useless builds, or that some skills need to be merged/cut because you don't find them useful, or imposing personal preconceptions on the setting and getting upset when they turn out to be inaccurate -- it's mostly stuff like that really.

YEAH.... the age old ad hominem tactics.

 

[St. Toxic]

Thats all fine and dandy - except what you are doing here is saying that a doctor does not know how to do the most basic first-aid medicine.
That is - you take a doctor skill at the start - instead of first aid and you find yourself in a situation where you have a fucking doctor with you who cannot bandage a flesh wound.

And why not? So one's a doctor, the other's a medic. I mean, you can still bandage a flesh-wound with the doctor, but only ooc.

Plus a wrong example of broken legs. Thats clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize unless there are some other extra complications.
A broken limb needs to be immobilized into a splint or a cast and then it will heal as broken limbs tend to.
A doctor cannot make it heal any faster - unless he is a voodoo doctor.

Hang on, are you saying Doctors don't know how to mend broken bones? The example was meant to illustrate why merging the two skills into different tiers of both abilities would equal no ability to treat serious injuries at low levels. Keeping all serious injuries on Doctor just means you won't be healing them in combat.

As far as actual injuries that require a doctor level of knowledge go - well, thats what the other doctors are there for in the game.
Which might not or should not all be perfectly happy to help you - depending on your reputation and faction standing. - requiring some sub quests maybe - suffering some consequences maybe - being careful how you play maybe?

So you want to force players to interact with certain npc's? What if you just finished killing the last doctor in the game, and got crippled just in that last fight?

Besides, this setup makes investing skill points or xp into first-aid completely unnecessary after some middle level - and therefore creates a dump stat.
Which shouldnt be there in the first place - at all.

Not true. You still can't do shit with doc in combat.

Making them less useful then they logically should be - devalues the setting and the whole game

Making them less useful would imply removal of content that's already created with the skill in mind.

Researching mistakes in design, or stupid design = gameplay.

Yeah, I know. If you can create a bad character in the game then the developers suck at their jobs.

that some skills need to be merged/cut because you don't find them useful, or imposing personal preconceptions on the setting and getting upset when they turn out to be inaccurate

YEAH.... the age old ad hominem tactics.

How are these ad hominems? I'm just repeating his own claims back to him.

 

[hiver]

Thats all fine and dandy - except what you are doing here is saying that a doctor does not know how to do the most basic first-aid medicine.
That is - you take a doctor skill at the start - instead of first aid and you find yourself in a situation where you have a fucking doctor with you who cannot bandage a flesh wound.

And why not? So one's a doctor, the other's a medic. I mean, you can still bandage a flesh-wound with the doctor, but only ooc.

ooc? ah... ok.

So... doctor then can perform all skills a medic has... only he cannot do it in combat... because...? wtf?

Plus a wrong example of broken legs. Thats clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize unless there are some other extra complications.
A broken limb needs to be immobilized into a splint or a cast and then it will heal as broken limbs tend to.
A doctor cannot make it heal any faster - unless he is a voodoo doctor.

Hang on, are you saying Doctors don't know how to mend broken bones?

Of course he does, so does any paramedic. Its a basic medical procedure and getting treated by a doctor wont make it heal any faster.

The example was meant to illustrate why merging the two skills into different tiers of both abilities would equal no ability to treat serious injuries at low levels.

So? Why the fuck should you be able to treat serious injuries and status defects at low level?
Should you be able to pop moles with every shot too? Crack most sophisticated safes and stealth like a ninja at low levels?
Spam meteor storm?

Keeping all serious injuries on Doctor just means you won't be healing them in combat.

That should depend on type of injuries not on being a doctor or not.

Ever seen M.A.S.H.?

So you want to force players to interact with certain npc's?

The horror - i know.

What if you just finished killing the last doctor in the game, and got crippled just in that last fight?

C&C?
Reload and learn from your mistakes eh?

Wouldnt that kind of thing make doctors and medical knowledge more important - as it should be, especially in a post apocalyptic setting?
Wouldnt it make serious investing in medical skills become really important - fittingly for such a setting?

Besides, this setup makes investing skill points or xp into first-aid completely unnecessary after some middle level - and therefore creates a dump stat.
Which shouldnt be there in the first place - at all.

Not true. You still can't do shit with doc in combat.

Which is stupid by itself. And comes from making a stupid split of one skill into two.

Making them less useful then they logically should be - devalues the setting and the whole game

Making them less useful would imply removal of content that's already created with the skill in mind.

E -fucking- xactly. Or not managing to provide that content at all.

Researching mistakes in design, or stupid design = gameplay.

Yeah, I know. If you can create a bad character in the game then the developers suck at their jobs.
Pretty much, yes. Because that means they just wasted time and money on something that doesnt work instead of creating skills and content that do work.
Creating a bad character should come from other things - not from badly implemented skills.

From not thinking about rules and conditions of the game and setting. From spreading to thin.
From making stupid choices in the game - like attacking Deathclaws on low level, and then rage quiting because you "cannot get" to Vegas at once.
From creating a diplomatic character and then starting fights.
From attacking a leech with magic weapons.
From attacking a golem with a sword.
From investing in dodge but using heavy armor.
etc.

How are these ad hominems? I'm just repeating his own claims back to him.

Oh... OK then.





Anyway... i think there needs to be a new nomenclature and differentiation between "blind(stupid, derp?) balance" and "smart balance".

Blind balance is derp and popamole. Bethesda games and other such shit love it.
Any skills and any tool is made equally strong/powerful to enable even the worst, laziest players to "win".
- creates single content of same low quality crap for any build or skill. Limits removed across the board.
- any playthrough basically the same


Smart Balance is what AoD tries to do. And i think (and hope) what Sawyer wants to do in PE.
Different tools are useful in different ways - and each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but none is made useless or left without content - unless the player uses them in bad stupid ways.
All that requires thinking and careful consideration from the player - effort.

- creates content of higher quality across the board.

- Every play through different (in general ofc)

 

[CappenVarra]

Why is this thread still going? More importantly, why the hell am I still reading it? :facepalm:

"X is not in the game because it would devalue Y and make players who build their characters around Y feel cheated; Y has the monopoly on Z gameplay aspect" could theoretically be a decent design goal, if it was applied systematically and taken to its logical conclusion.

So, lock bashing is not in the game because it would devalue lockpicking and make players who built their characters around lockpicking feel cheated; lockpicking has the monopoly on opening locked doors/chests. Lock bashing - right out.

Popamole combat rogues (lightly armored, dual-wielding, critical hit / backstab experts, blah blah) are not in the game because it would devalue fighter skills and make players who built their characters around being a fighter feel cheated; fighters have the monopoly on dealing melee damage. Such characters (lightly armored, dual-wielding, critical hit / backstab experts, blah blah) are just one of the possible fighter builds, while rogues are all about non-combat non-magical skills.

Multi-colored projectile / artillery mages are not in the game because it would devalue actual archers and make players who build their characters around archery (or gunpowder based "artillery") feel cheated; archers (fighter build) have the monopoly on dealing damage at range, while gunslingers/grenadiers (fighter build) have a monopoly on dealing damage in a radius. Mage spells never deal damage, but have the monopoly on breaking the laws of time, space, mind integrity etc.

I also really look forward to the moment when some Biowhore asks about the possibility of playing a gay character, only to be told that gay men are not in the game because it would devalue female characters and make players who build their characters around being female feel cheated; female characters have the monopoly on having a romance with male NPCs. :i_kid:

So, since the "X is not in the game because it would devalue Y and make players who build their characters around Y feel cheated; Y has the monopoly on Z gameplay aspect" principle is not actually used to direct the overall design of the game, it can not be an excuse for excluding bashing - it's just applied arbitrarily in that case and skipped in others. Better to just say "lock bashing is not in the game because our budget doesn't allow for bashing animations" and be done with it.

In conclusion, get thee behind me, Project: Dota's Gate: Hope you like them healing surges.

 

[Roguey]

CappenVarra, your argument is stupid. Peace. And lol bashing animations. Christ.

 

[DraQ]

I know. It was a respond to you as well as to Harg.

Lock picking skill is a dilemma. It is a very important skill because it gives you loot, which is an important factor to rpg players. It is a useless skill because it doesn't do anything besides picking locks and it is a point sink.

But that has shit design written all over it.

First, lockpicking isn't the only skill that can let you have this loot - if the game has magic in it, you can usually open many containers and doors magically - drawbacks being that it's conspicuous and may consume resources. For version not requiring particular qualifications, you can smash stuff, but it's also conspicuous, leaves traces and may damage your loot.
Or you can use destructive spells or materials, but that will be *very* conspicuous, resource hungry and *very* likely to damage your loot.

Second, lockpicking shouldn't be some sort of trade-off between loot/exploration and everything else. It should be there to open up options.
For example option to sneak, or otherwise obtain access (like disguise or bluff - posing as person authorized to be there) somewhere and gain access to sensitive items and documents with guards and the rest of organization being none the wiser (and there should be consequences waiting for you if they find out other than just having to fight guards on this mission - like you being wanted, locked out of services, important and useful NPCs getting killed or imprisoned and so on).

Or option to slaughter opposition while they're sleeping, or at least not giving them time to prepare - the latter doesn't need any actual sneaking, just not being instantly detected by everyone in 1km radius.

Fuck your loot/non-loot. Give me different gameplay modes for different skill compositions and consequences of doing stuff some particular way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But do we bloat the point p. level increase as well or what?

That's neither necessary nor relevant.
You can always set up your game in such way that player will get a representative sample of gameplay before first level up.

I mean, it's not really an issue how many or which skills you specialize in at level one, because your character is going to be shit, relatively speaking, no matter what he goes for or how he divides up his skillpoints.

Quite the contrary. Initial build, if present, is the most important one, because it determines immutable stuff (if any) - attribute scores, tags and so on.

It also doesn't seem likely that a skill-list can get bigger while at the same time cutting down on the amount of flavor skills.

As long as you split and add more non-flavour skills than flavour ones it's perfectly realistic.

If, however, we're talking about 'specializing' in, say, 6 out of 10 skills then we're certainly cutting down on the variety of potential character builds

That depends on synergies.

If there are none present, then specializing in more than one skill already cuts down on the variety of potential builds.
If everything synergizes with everything else, with synergies not being merely binary, but also n-ary synergies present (ideal situation), then specializing in half of your available skills actually gives you the most build variety possible.

It's still possible to skill up whatever you want whether or not the skill is tagged, right, so it's not really that big of a deal.

Weren't you complaining about easymode?

Because if game can be beaten by having less than half of the points you'd normally have in skill(s) you actually use, then it's too fucking easy.

I thought Morrowing had a use-based system?

How is it relevant to our discussion of breadth of possible character builds?

It's a question of design. If the skill system is setting appropriate, it makes sense in the game world. Once you're creating content around that skill system, there's no guarantee that the content will or can be distributed evenly in a way that makes sense. Maybe there are even time constraints and costs involved. So, what do we do? Do we butcher the setting, by adding content purely to make use of the mechanics, or do we butcher the mechanics, removing the skill and whatever content has been created with it in mind, and all for the sake of balance?

We remove or merge skills, while reassigning the content or switching it to generic stat check (for example throwing the outdoorsman out and replacing it with generic PE check or PE/IN - finding water, spotting trouble, etc.).

Or, we mark our flavour skills as such.

Still, the best thing to do is fucking think of the content you can make for it while creating the system. The system doesn't work in isolation. If there can be perfectly reasonable content that makes the system behave in nonsensical manner, the system sucks. If parts of the system don't work to support expected content, then the system sucks due to effort being wasted that could be put elsewhere.

I like it, but it sounds more like spell-combinations than skills.

If they are spells governed by separate skills, then they are skill combinations as well.

Can't say I've considered summons and buffs as an example of extreme skill synergy as generally, unless specifically tailored after spell combinations as per your example

Except they are not specifically tailored after spell combinations. It's that validity of this combination is consequence of being able to command your summons to do stuff for you, ability to cast buffs on any targets you desire and inherent resistance of some creature types to some types of damage.

their use lies in combat encounters which, as far as problems go, have very free-form solutions (like, for instance, avoiding them entirely). Shielding a summoned minion from elemental damage is a no-brainer, but how would you successfully synergize a complete list of abilities ranging from A to Z?

By running serious, no-bullshit simulationist mechanics, having as much interactive stuff as possible and hoping I have given players enough material to form multiple solutions without figuring out what exactly they all may be.

Having only combat being freeform isn't something inherent to combat, it's inherent to combat being the only mechanics that isn't horribly sketchy. As for simulationism, reality seems pretty resistant to some particularly derpy exploits you can get with multiple systems interacting in unforseen manner - it seems wise to follow its example.

So it's the lockpicking/pie-making approach then. Exhaust a list of viable options until you run out of ideas, and any skill-combination that doesn't make the cut doesn't get you into the bandit camp -- it's what we got. Then post on a forum about how a game is badly designed because your character build felt useless in 7/10 scenarios, while min/max-ers and mage/alchemists laugh at you.

Except you're missing several important details:

1. If the gameworld is rich and mechanics simulationist enough, exhausting list of viable options is simply unrealistic. You don't devise and scripts dozens of approaches to each and every quest. You simply pepper the world with a lot of interactive stuff that can be useful in some manner and count on it being improbably for some stuff to not have multiple solutions. It's effectively making Lord British Postulate do the hard work for you.
2. I specifically used gimped build, with all skills used in this scenario being on mere "not quite entirely useless" level and showed how even such skills may be combined for good effect. It's definitely not a minmaxed character.
3. It's ok for player to fail quests. Why should the life of an adventurer be a train of flawless successes? Do account for player being guaranteed to fail some quests in your design, though.

What about skills used along the path assisting you to get to that critical point? If 'Barter' made a superior weapon or piece of armor affordable, and 'Gambling' provided the money

Unlikely in any exisitng system due to economy breakage. Unlikely in extensive simulationistic system because of other options that also do something else.

Barter may be good if you want to persuade someone to sell stuff they don't really want to, but why not merge it with speech in that case?

At chargen we're probably talking about a brain-damaged scientist or a barebones autist.

If you want to have autism in your game, you need to have autism in your game.

For example, you may have several separate mental stats accounting for different kinds of intelligence, and for example gimp characters emotional and verbal intelligence, but give them superhuman visuo-spatial and logical skills. There, you have your autist that will be mostly speaking in "durr"s, but will be capable of pumping science skill.

Or, at the very least put in optional trait, that modifies your IN stat depending on whether you're using it in dialogue or science-y subject (and force your content creators to choose when implementing content - no nulls here).

I think there was something like that in Arcanum chargen.

It might be a truism, but if your system can't cover autism, then it can't cover autism.

First Aid is combat medicine, which means a fast fix in a stressful situation. Doctor is status ailment treatments, which means diagnosing and repairing difficult damage when time is a-plenty. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and break both your legs and an arm, your proposed level 1 First Aid / Doctor-combo tier is not going to help you, but Doctor on its own might. However, it's not going to keep you alive in a sour combat encounter, but First Aid might.

It doesn't change that you can't really have a doctor skill without knowing the basics. If you want to cure an eye wound so that the damaged organ regains function, you'll still need to know how to dress wounds and prevent infections.

They're all heavy and inaccurate spray-and-pray type deals? I mean, sure, the launcher is single-shot weapon, but it's basically a tube that fires a rocket-propelled chunk of explosives at a spot generally near where you're pointing it, so it's close enough in my book.

Actually, they are very different. They reload completely differently act at different ranges, their projectiles behave differently, are aimed differently and need to be handled differently when firing, for example, gatling will flip you over if fired without bipod or tripod or at least leaning against something solid, assuming you're a normal person without PA, while rocket launcher may actually *pull* itself from your hands.

And what with gatling laser? Is it more like a gatling, or like a normal laser weapon, because I am confuse. I mean, normal rifle is small gun, while similar conventional minigun is big, so does that make gatling laser big gun counterpart of normal energy weapon laser? Why not?

The system in FO1-2 is simply illogical.

I think operation and class of firearm are at least somewhat connected. Naturally, someone bursting with a grease gun isn't going to be taking wind into consideration the same way a sniper would, but there's probably some element of familiarity there that doesn't exist once you move on to laser powered weapons and, say, grenade launchers.

Actually, many rocket launchers have scope, both rocket launchers and sniper rifles require correcting for both wind (although with rocket launchers you may need to correct in opposite direction) and target movement.

You might as well argue that rocket launcher and sniper rifle should be merged into long range category, while grease gun in CQB.

I couldn't even begin to speculate what influences the shot on a laser weapon, what world factors might divert the beam or make the shot otherwise ineffectual.

You don't want smoke or dust. Any occlusion counts as destructible cover. If firing rapidly you don't want to aim at the same spot as you will typically make a lot of smoke and debris with each hit. Shinies take *slightly* less damage.

You don't need to lead target, adjust for wind or bullet drop, you simply aim where you want to hit, possibly even using the same optics for aiming and shooting.

Maybe stims are more crucial to surviving in the wasteland than aesthetics? not having radioctive particles falling through your "roof" on every windy day

Unlikely.

Provided you learn from your mistakes, that's pretty much exactly research.

Not if the only thing you learn is "don't do exactly the same thing".

Anyway, bruteforcing the problem isn't satisfying, or otherwise intellectual, and it does waste a lot of time, I suggest we keep it out of our fucking games as much as possible or at least make it the retard option.

And how would you define sufficient information? Enough information to make the absolute outcome of your choice entirely predictable?

I need to know that potentially crippling decision is potentially crippling (generally satisfied when it's build we're talking about) and be able to find information to make the right choice (generally not satisfied at chargen).

If you actually intend to put a save and reload puzzle in your game, then kindly shoot yourself in the head.
This holds for chargen as well.

So rpg's should be designed without replayability in mind? You're certainly living in the right age for that.

Wait, what?


First, replayability can be an asset even with single playthrough - people tend to socialize and talk about stuff that interests them - discovering that everyone has their own, completely different experience is much cooler than talking about your synchronous Tali fappage.

Second, to have subsequent playthroughs, you need to have the first one that's good. Discovering that half your skills are broken and the other half doesn't work isn't.

So, from your description I'd have to assume that Go is one of those rare games where you don't need to learn from your mistakes to be successful and where making the same general mistakes throughout every single game is either inconsequential to how the game will play out or mysteriously leaves no mark on your memory.

No, it means that Go, and pretty much every other game you play with another person allows you to experience completely different content each time you play it despite using the same (often limited) assets.

Multiplayer games OBVIOUSLY require you to learn on your mistakes, but a learning cycle isn't tens of hours long, and each learning cycle has different content, despite allowing you to apply the insights you have already gained.

Are you impaired or something?

Applying the same principle on an opponent with equal proficiency to our character, that is 'X', should realistically mean a balanced fight where the victor is determined by some random chance, moderately by defensive skills (though this is an unrelated issue) but to a great extent by player decisions and strategy. Now suppose the X has to fight against 3X, so that is he's outmatched 3 to 1. Our more masterful assailant would need both luck, his defensive abilities and practically all decisions he makes to be against him in order to fail, wouldn't you agree? For a player in control of a 3X character the fight would require practically no thinking for it to go in his favor, and were he to fail despite his inherent superiority the situation would just seem bizzare -- almost like your 100% repairman failing to tighten the loose screw.

Indeed, so?

Oh my, more evasive derp. I've already said that skill-values are an abstraction of a character's abilities. Are you seriously arguing that because 1% and 100% are equally capable of tightening a loose screw that there is no difference in mastery between the two?

No, I'm saying that you can't assess engineering mastery by having contestants tighten screws.
Or swordsmanship mastery by having them slaughter defenceless clumsies.

We're talking about applying a solution to a problem. In game terms, the solution to a problem is using a skill with the appropriate value attached to it. You at least seem to grasp that much. In the abstract sense, the solution to a problem can be anything associated with that particular skill and applying the solution may have more variables attached to it than just completing one simple task. To any problem that might reasonably have degrees of success, like not merely tightening a loose screw but also noticing that the screw shakes loose with the continued operation of the machine and stabilizing the engine to prevent further malfunctions, a three times higher value of a skill is an obvious benefit.

Again, not necessarily.

Skill increase is only benefit if you're fairly close to the competence level required by the task. Too low, and you still can't do shit, too high, and you're already capable of performing the task perfectly.

Google sigmoid curve.

But combat isn't like that; not only does it have degrees of success, but it also (hopefully) relies on the player's intelligence. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you; you were advocating "player skill" over character skill just a while ago. If the only thing that determined the combat encounter was having 53 over your opponent's 52, then your solution might make some sense, but what we're talking about here are opponents in combat being particularly vulnerable to a certain type of damage and the viability of splitting your combat affinity between 3 different weapon types or piling it all onto 1 type of weapon.

I'm arguing that if splitting your skillpoints between 3 weapons skills is to be a truly viable strat throughout the game, stacking points on 1 weapon will not only carry you through encounters that are completely unavailable to the jack-of-all-trades, but it'll make certain weapon-damage specific opponents laughably easy while still enabling the character to do reasonable damage against opponents that are resistant to his particular damage type. That is, unless weapon-specific damage against certain opponents is entirely nullified, in which case there is no choice other than to spec in all necessary damage types.



It's situational. There's still dodge and defense, shields and other shit to account for, but generally speaking, if you can force ranged units into close quarters and soak up the damage of your opponents while bashing their brains in, it still makes more sense to have your damage-dealing skill as high as possible rather than split up for the sake of utility. That is, unless it's a rigid requirement that you counter certain creatures with specific damage types, in which case splitting your skills between different damage types becomes mandatory.

Vertical progression is boring compared to horizontal progression.

Simple challenges are boring compared to complex ones.

Edit:

For example if you max out your swordsmanship, you may be able to best every other swordsman in gameworld in single, fair combat. The thing is that not many combat situations are going to resemble a duel. You will have multiple combatant with weapons working at different ranges, magic, poisons and throwable potions, tactical advantages and stuff like this. Even if you can win while being ganged upon by multiple opponents, then someone may just do what a reasonable PC would in such situation - shoot you with a crossbow. And that's it.

So much for your ability to wipe the floor with every swordsman and its exceptional usefulness regardless of situation.

And then you have enemies like rock golems that can be pretty much immune to swords, with attacks that can't be parried with one.

Or undead that don't seem terribly bothered by getting stuck full of arrows or skewered on a spear if those are your weapons of choice.

I've stated my approval for fucking players towards the end on several previous occasions, like having the big bad's biggest weakness turn out to be the most useless skill in the game for example. But that's end-game stuff, it doesn't count as the entire game, and your dismissal of what you call 'shit design' isn't an argument.

How about players successfully pacifist-diplomaticizing they way through 3/4 of the game, with awesome success, no less, only to discover that the remaining 1/4 requires you to hack your way through and they have no skill for that nor means to gain it?

If that's not shit design, then nothing is.

So, beating the game with a broken build is ok and all in good fun, but you have to hate it every step of the way.

Don't be silly. You can love it, while acknowledging it being horribly broken.

See me and Morrowind.

Same goes, or should, for any RPG. The random element is present even in scripted games if you don't have the meta, and dying a lot is generally what happens when a game is challenging, whether or not it's because of randomness or you making the wrong decisions in combat.

Not enough of it.

 

[Kirtai]

For example option to sneak, or otherwise obtain access (like disguise or bluff - posing as person authorized to be there) somewhere and gain access to sensitive items and documents with guards and the rest of organization being none the wiser (and there should be consequences waiting for you if they find out other than just having to fight guards on this mission - like you being wanted, locked out of services, important and useful NPCs getting killed or imprisoned and so on).

A good example of this is stealing military plans, where it's absolutely crucial that the enemy not know you've obtained them. If they realise you have them, they'll just change their plans, or worse lay a trap for you.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

For example option to sneak, or otherwise obtain access (like disguise or bluff - posing as person authorized to be there) somewhere and gain access to sensitive items and documents with guards and the rest of organization being none the wiser (and there should be consequences waiting for you if they find out other than just having to fight guards on this mission - like you being wanted, locked out of services, important and useful NPCs getting killed or imprisoned and so on).

A good example of this is stealing military plans, where it's absolutely crucial that the enemy not know you've obtained them. If they realise you have them, they'll just change their plans, or worse lay a trap for you.

That would be very cool. Especially if the game doesn't let you know that you've been discovered until you try to conduct the ambush only to find yourself surrounded.

 

[DraQ]

Provided you learn from your mistakes, that's pretty much exactly research.

Researching mistakes in design, or stupid design = gameplay.

Then Oblivion is objectively the most game ever - so much to research.

Plus a wrong example of broken legs. Thats clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize unless there are some other extra complications.
A broken limb needs to be immobilized into a splint or a cast and then it will heal as broken limbs tend to.
A doctor cannot make it heal any faster - unless he is a voodoo doctor.

Hang on, are you saying Doctors don't know how to mend broken bones?

Fails at reading comprehension.
Accuses others of ADD and failing at reading comprehension.

So you want to force players to interact with certain npc's? What if you just finished killing the last doctor in the game, and got crippled just in that last fight?

Then you get to suffocate on enemy's schlong.
You had ample time to acquaint yourself with the rules of the game and no one cares if it hampers your serial killer larp or something.

Problem?

C&C shouldn't be about something awesome happening regardless of what you do. They should be a way to make you think about your choices and fear their consequences.

Sure there probably shouldn't be one single optimal choice, but among workable ones and some slightly less workable ones there should choices that can kill you or fuck you up badly and not necessarily spell it outright even after you take them.

The information should always be available to the player, though, but not handed on a silver platter.

Maybe a one-off situation where player is saved from a bad choice early on, but the game, through an NPC, most likely, informs him that doing stupid shit like this will get him killed should be put in.

In Morrowind, for example, trying to grab that nice 600GP platter during chargen will get you yelled at and informed of consequences. You don't get to act surprised when doing such thing later-on gets you arrested or killed, as the consequences have been established.

Making them less useful then they logically should be - devalues the setting and the whole game

Making them less useful would imply removal of content that's already created with the skill in mind.

Except it does not, so it does not.

From not thinking about rules and conditions of the game and setting. From spreading to thin.

Or overspecialising.
Game where every problem actually is a nail is going to be pretty boring.

Blind balance is derp and popamole. Bethesda games and other such shit love it.
Any skills and any tool is made equally strong/powerful to enable even the worst, laziest players to "win".
- creates single content of same low quality crap for any build or skill. Limits removed across the board.

Actually that's neobeth and even them not explicitly.

For example option to sneak, or otherwise obtain access (like disguise or bluff - posing as person authorized to be there) somewhere and gain access to sensitive items and documents with guards and the rest of organization being none the wiser (and there should be consequences waiting for you if they find out other than just having to fight guards on this mission - like you being wanted, locked out of services, important and useful NPCs getting killed or imprisoned and so on).

A good example of this is stealing military plans, where it's absolutely crucial that the enemy not know you've obtained them. If they realise you have them, they'll just change their plans, or worse lay a trap for you.

That would be very cool. Especially if the game doesn't let you know that you've been discovered until you try to conduct the ambush only to find yourself surrounded.

I wonder if players would still prefer to blast every door with shotgun then.

 

[CappenVarra]

CappenVarra, your argument is stupid. Peace.

Peace is all I have, bro

And hey, if it's acceptable for rogues to be less effective fighters, why not have fighters be less effective rogues as well? I'm disappointed someone with your username is against more "rogueing" in the game.

And lol bashinggrappling animations. Christ.

I couldn't agree more :D

 

[DraQ]

And hey, if it's acceptable for rogues to be less effective fighters, why not have fighters be less effective rogues as well?

That's more sensible.

Not being able to bash a container just because is artificial.

I'm disappointed someone with your username is against more "rogueing" in the game.

Roguey needs to play more rogueylikes.

 

[St. Toxic]

ooc? ah... ok.

So... doctor then can perform all skills a medic has... only he cannot do it in combat... because...? wtf?

Because wtf is right. You're not going to get quality treatment for serious injuries from a medic, because his training is geared towards quick fixes to last you through a combat encounter, fixes that may not even be permanent solutions to your medical problem. A doctor focuses on medical treatment proper, treatment that, if performed within the scope of a minute while some assholes are shooting at you, in all likelihood would do little to compensate for damage. These are two different areas of expertise, as what a gp can do for you in combat v.s what a combat medic can do you for on the operating table would clearly demonstrate that their knowledge and specialization isn't interchangeable.

Thats clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize unless there are some other extra complications.

Hang on, are you saying Doctors don't know how to mend broken bones?

Of course he does, so does any paramedic. Its a basic medical procedure and getting treated by a doctor wont make it heal any faster.

Fails at reading comprehension.

You guys are silly. Make note of the wink and of the presented fact that mending broken bones is "clearly in the first-aid paramedic area of expertize". Of course I'm going to jump on any implied difference between First Aid and Doctor, if it's being argued by someone who wants the two skills merged.

At the same time, setting the bone with whatever rope and twigs that you've got at your disposal while a squad of angry raiders are trying to knife you in the stomach is probably not going to be as effective as making a cast once there's time-a-plenty.

So? Why the fuck should you be able to treat serious injuries and status defects at low level?
Should you be able to pop moles with every shot too? Crack most sophisticated safes and stealth like a ninja at low levels?
Spam meteor storm?

Oh, pardon me. Doctor skill too op for you? Your character isn't a new-born baby, he's had time to learn his shit and maybe even some practice to boot. Being able to treat a serious injury at a low level with Doctor is no different than being able to avoid a hostile encounter with Outdoorsman or being able to headshot a raider with Small Arms, it's just what the skills do. They still won't be amazing at level 1, but they at least need to be useful right?

That should depend on type of injuries not on being a doctor or not.

Ever seen M.A.S.H.?

Only a few episodes of the TV-series, never the movie. But there is a distinction between different injuries in FO, though it categorizes injuries in a pretty abstract way, with anything that can be healed in combat simply represented by hp, and anything that's too serious for combat treatment being represented as a status effect.

The horror - i know.

It's just that it's a lazy solution. I hate the idea of key npc's, especially when the service they provide is so simple that the character could do it himself or, even, not do it.

C&C?
Reload and learn from your mistakes eh?

Reload because of a status ailment? Surely you're joking. There's no mistake here, just a game providing a single lazy solution to a problem that could be solved in numerous different ways.

Wouldnt that kind of thing make doctors and medical knowledge more important - as it should be, especially in a post apocalyptic setting?
Wouldnt it make serious investing in medical skills become really important - fittingly for such a setting?

I don't know, maybe you're right. If killing all the npc doctors in Fallout makes First Aid and Doctor more important, you've got yet another play-style where these supposedly broken skills can be useful.

Which is stupid by itself. And comes from making a stupid split of one skill into two.

Not really. I mean, you won't be skipping FA in favor of DOC if what you need is more efficient combat healing, not taking stims into account here mind you. There's plenty of skills in FO where a mid-level proficiency feels more than adequate, like Small Arms.

E -fucking- xactly. Or not managing to provide that content at all.

But we don't want junk content that's there only to justify a skill or two. I mean, if you want to make First Aid and Doc more important, just get rid of stims.

Yeah, I know. If you can create a bad character in the game then the developers suck at their jobs.

Pretty much, yes. Because that means they just wasted time and money on something that doesnt work instead of creating skills and content that do work.

You might as well say that any problem should be solvable with any solution, because otherwise the devs wasted time and money on making solutions that don't solve every problem. I mean, heck, we got dialog options that only get you in trouble, traps that only get in your way, weapons and gear that are literally junk-tier. It's all just part of the challenge, variety and the overall experience, mang. If their job isn't to make a bunch of obstacles, then it's not a game that they're working on.

Creating a bad character should come from other things - not from badly implemented skills.

As long as the skills do what they're intended to do, they're not 'badly implemented'.

From not thinking about rules and conditions of the game and setting. From spreading to thin.
From making stupid choices in the game - like attacking Deathclaws on low level, and then rage quiting because you "cannot get" to Vegas at once.
From creating a diplomatic character and then starting fights.
From attacking a leech with magic weapons.
From attacking a golem with a sword.
From investing in dodge but using heavy armor.
etc.

Well, you already covered investing in skills that you aren't using, with the 'diplomatic character' example. What else do you want? There won't be an opportunity of talking down every opponent, and even though you may try to avoid combat there's no guarantee of doing so successfully and it certainly wouldn't rely on your diplomacy skills if you did. It's the same with any situational skill; they all have their uses and benefits, but only in specific situations.

Anyway... i think there needs to be a new nomenclature and differentiation between "blind(stupid, derp?) balance" and "smart balance".

Blind balance is derp and popamole. Bethesda games and other such shit love it.
Any skills and any tool is made equally strong/powerful to enable even the worst, laziest players to "win".
- creates single content of same low quality crap for any build or skill. Limits removed across the board.
- any playthrough basically the same


Smart Balance is what AoD tries to do. And i think (and hope) what Sawyer wants to do in PE.
Different tools are useful in different ways - and each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but none is made useless or left without content - unless the player uses them in bad stupid ways.
All that requires thinking and careful consideration from the player - effort.

- creates content of higher quality across the board.

- Every play through different (in general ofc)

Smart balance sounds like no balance. I mean, c'mon, it's not like devs don't care about making their skill systems useful in a logical way, that's always been a key aspect of development. It's that when a handful of skills prove to be more important than the rest (which they almost inevitably will) you just decide to roll with it, rather than adding fluff content to balance out the less viable skills (which still makes them less viable, and the setting less consistent) or cutting away any abilities and mechanics that don't provide characters with the same amount of power as the top-tier ones do. That's content stage balancing for you.

If you want to make a balanced game from the get-go, which isn't all that easy if you want your setting to remain logical and consistent rather than gameplay-centric, it generally means you adopt a minimalistic approach to game mechanics -- you limit the number of systems that are in play and what they are capable of doing. That's designer stage balancing and more often than not the result is boring and constricted.

If anything, the balancing process is a waste of time and money, because it doesn't improve the game; it either just butchers or bloats the game.

 

[Roguey]

And hey, if it's acceptable for rogues to be less effective fighters, why not have fighters be less effective rogues as well? I'm disappointed someone with your username is against more "rogueing" in the game.

Rogues aren't less effective fighters in Project:Eternity. They have a different combat role. Moreover, fighters can put points into the lock opening skill, but they don't get the bonus rogues do, so they can be "less effective rogues" in that sense.

And lol bashinggrappling animations. Christ.

I couldn't agree more :D

I see you misunderstood so let me clarify: "bashing animations" are no different than attacking animations. There were no special "bashing animations" in NWN or NWN2, lousy games that were improved not a bit for their inclusion of lock bashing.

 

[hiver]

So... doctor then can perform all skills a medic has... only he cannot do it in combat... because...? wtf?

Because wtf is right. You're not going to get quality treatment for serious injuries from a medic, because his training is geared towards quick fixes to last you through a combat encounter, fixes that may not even be permanent solutions to your medical problem. A doctor focuses on medical treatment proper, treatment that, if performed within the scope of a minute while some assholes are shooting at you, in all likelihood would do little to compensate for damage. These are two different areas of expertise, as what a gp can do for you in combat v.s what a combat medic can do you for on the operating table would clearly demonstrate that their knowledge and specialization isn't interchangeable.

No, no - we are talking about a doctor performing basic first aid - which we just concluded he knows - only he cannot do it in combat - because he is a doctor, right?

Not the more serious injuries that take time.
They take time on their own, (and of course they become worse if they are not treated), - not because they are treated by a doctor.

At the same time, setting the bone with whatever rope and twigs that you've got at your disposal while a squad of angry raiders are trying to knife you in the stomach is probably not going to be as effective as making a cast once there's time-a-plenty.

Hah! The point is that you need to take care of that kind of injury outside of combat anyway. Because of type of the injury itself - not because of who takes care of it.

If its hard to provide immediate first aid under combat - that should be the same for everyone - not because youre doing it with some specific class.
The medic should get gutted by raiders the same as the doctor in that situation.

So? Why the fuck should you be able to treat serious injuries and status defects at low level?
Should you be able to pop moles with every shot too? Crack most sophisticated safes and stealth like a ninja at low levels?
Spam meteor storm?

Oh, pardon me. Doctor skill too op for you? Your character isn't a new-born baby, he's had time to learn his shit and maybe even some practice to boot.

o_O - if that is so then all skills can be overpowered as examples above.
Plus, thats not how medicine works.

You first learn the simple shit - then you learn the higher knowledge and gain higher knowledge abilities.

THAT is how every other class/skill advances and so should the medicine.

It's just that it's a lazy solution. I hate the idea of key npc's, especially when the service they provide is so simple that the character could do it himself or, even, not do it.

o_O Simple? Lazy? And it isnt lazy to fucking start with doctor level of medical knowledge?

C&C?
Reload and learn from your mistakes eh?

Reload because of a status ailment? Surely you're joking.
There's no mistake here, just a game providing a single lazy solution to a problem that could be solved in numerous different ways.

You didnt get it - it was an added sarcastic joke aimed at your previous "learning by reloading because the system has faults and mistakes is so ".

The proper answer is C&C biatch.
As noted.

But we don't want junk content that's there only to justify a skill or two.

What "junk" content?

You might as well say that any problem should be solvable with any solution,

For fuck sake... am i not fucking claiming the exact opposite the whole fucking time?


Basically , after these assertions which make it clear you took everything i said in completely opposite way - the rest of your post became pointless.
but, this line still sticks out:

If anything, the balancing process is a waste of time and money, because it doesn't improve the game; it either just butchers or bloats the game.

Look you!

Im going to write how this would play in my game so maybe the difference in the approach gets through that thick skull.


MEDICINE:
(0 - 100 spread)
First, once you fuse first aid and doctor skills back, the next natural conclusion is that there is really no need to have it all split into tiers inside one skill.

It is still better then having two fake skills, but this separation can be completely removed - with even better consequences for the gameplay.

Because you can learn horizontally and in non-linear way, instead of vertically and in a linear way.


Fucking observe.




You start, maybe with 10-15 points. As usual.
That means you can do some simple stuff, basic first aid. But slowly and not always in the best way possible. And it represents how much can you learn about Medicine.

When you go out with the team, or solo ... you LEARN new stuff by:


Interacting with NPCs:

Imagine yourself limping over the PA wasteland, then meeting some shaman, maybe you did something for his small tribe.
You notice he knows how to suture smaller wounds, maybe fix and stabilize broken legs - better then you.
He had a long, long practice so he knows his simple tricks very well.

- You learn from him and gain those techniques and improvement to quality and speed when performing those medical procedures.

- In the next quest you find someone who has figured out that some spores or mushrooms that, when prepared in specific way, can cure some specific smaller diseases, or be applied to wounds to sterilize them.

- In the next quest you meat a guy in a faction like BoS or Guardians - who learned form a guy who learned from a guy who learned from a true surgeon. His knowledge - ALTHOUGH FRACTURED AND NOT ABSOLUTE - is basically a treasure in the wasteland.
Real surgery - dealing with internal bleeding and few other specific things - for example.

- The next guy knows a few other specific procedures. Or chemicals. Or ways to make specific cure for specific disease.


- YOU COMBINE EACH NEW TRICK WITH WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LEARNED! -




Discovering data:

Exploration becomes really valuable for your specific skill!

You discover old bases, computers, books - even old robot surgeons-doctors.
Some maybe require good electronic or repair skills - that makes the repairman-technician-hacker MORE VALUABLE (if the game is team based) - or it makes these skills more valuable to invest in.


- then, YOU COMBINE THAT WITH WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LEARNED! -


PLUS Crafting and collecting resources and equipment


- Which then you combine with your knowledge!!!





And all the time you invest in medicine skill because you cannot learn something advanced, if you dont have your basic knowledge covered, right?
Some NPCs wont even talk to you if youre not skillful enough. Some data or info discovered in some old computer or a procedure you learn from someone else - you cannot understand without having a high enough skill.

THE MORE SKILL POINTS YOU INVEST THE BETTER YOU ARE AND MORE YOU CAN LEARN!



Which means now you have a very good incentive to invest points all the way to full 100 points - and the game rewards that all the time.
Medical knowledge is precious - hard to gain - and should be very useful in quests.

BECAUSE NOW you can go into some settlement and heal some NPC to gain info or help from that NPC or his Faction in return. Maybe you learned how to make an antidote for specific poison previously?
Maybe you learned ho wto perform operation on a kidney, or liver, or how to take out the appendix without killing the patient! - IE: you can influence how things evolve, solve quests or help get them solved.
You can influence the whole story with your skills by being able to influence NPCs and whole factions with your skill!

And NOW you have a very natural big consequence for having a bad reputation with a faction or killing an NPC.
That comes from the very gameplay and skills you have in the FUCKING GAME.



And all this time - you can attempt anything you know how to do - in combat! Combat situation punishes this by itself - because you can get gutted by those Radiers if they catch you performing some complicated surgery while the combat is going on!
It is your choice will you risk it or not!
The knowledge you discovered or gained yourself controls and limits what can you even do.
Your skill level governs how fast you can do it - with specific amounts of resources (bandages, medicine, potions, cures, chemicals etc) Higher skill - less resources needed and faster it all goes.

If its a smaller wound or something that can be done quickly - then you do it quickly.
If not - then the rest of the team must cover the doctor while he tries to stabilize the seriously wounded and keep them from dying!

THEN - after the combat is done (your team won) - you can continue to heal the wounded as necessary, for as long as necessary.

 

[EG]

Sigh. A semantic argument regarding skill names now?

Medic Skil: Quick and dirty short-term medicine.
Doctor Skill: Long term and professional care.

Doesn't quite represent reality but it seems sensible in a game, doesn't it?

Would you rather that, at a certain percentage point, say in a covers-all "Medicine" skill that a former "medic," becomes a "doctor?" Would that ease this little fit everyone is having over these two words?

Oh deity help me, I've just advocated consolidating a skill.

It can't end like this.

Not like this.

(Yes, that's right. I didn't read your entire post before writing this one. Woe is I.)

 

[hiver]

- ..

 

[St. Toxic]

No, no - we are talking about a doctor performing basic first aid - which we just concluded he knows - only he cannot do it in combat - because he is a doctor, right?

It is what we are talking about:

You're not going to get quality treatment for serious injuries from a medic, because his training is geared towards quick fixes to last you through a combat encounter, fixes that may not even be permanent solutions to your medical problem. A doctor focuses on medical treatment proper, treatment that, if performed within the scope of a minute while some assholes are shooting at you, in all likelihood would do little to compensate for damage. These are two different areas of expertise, as what a gp can do for you in combat v.s what a combat medic can do you for on the operating table would clearly demonstrate that their knowledge and specialization isn't interchangeable.

I think you're just getting confused by the name. Maybe if First Aid was called Combat Medicine we wouldn't need to argue that a Doctor serves a different function.

Hah! The point is that you need to take care of that kind of injury outside of combat anyway. Because of type of the injury itself - not because of who takes care of it.

But the skills are divided by type of injury, meaning that depending on the type of injury you're going to use a different skill.

If its hard to provide immediate first aid under combat - that should be the same for everyone - not because youre doing it with some specific class.
The medic should get gutted by raiders the same as the doctor in that situation.

The medic knows how to keep someone's guts in during a fight, that's the whole point of the class. Why should it be the same, why do we need to eliminate character variety?

o_O - if that is so then all skills can be overpowered as examples above.
Plus, thats not how medicine works.

That's pretty much exactly how it works. Theoretical knowledge of treatment can stretch far beyond experience and assist with more serious injuries, but that lack of experience also means its going to be a slow and sketchy process.

You first learn the simple shit - then you learn the higher knowledge and gain higher knowledge abilities.

I know that's how it works at the brick and cement factory, but reality isn't like that. You can have bits and pieces of this "higher knowledge" before you even get to med-school, and nobody is going to give you shit about it either. In FO we're forced to assume that any skill selected has been learned inside the Vault, going through old computer records and training courses, perhaps tutored by another Doc who's done pretty much the same but has more experience under the belt. The kind of injuries and problems that would be prevalent in the Vault are in all likelihood the ones you would primarily focus on.

THAT is how every other class/skill advances and so should the medicine.

This higher knowledge bullshit does not apply to skills grounded in theoretical disciplines. Obviously, for static skill-checks you're going to want a 'higher value' in a skill in order to be successful, but what the skill represents is not necessarily which type of knowledge your character possesses. Science is another good example of this, where a higher value may be representative of the amount of separate bits of knowledge or fields of science that your character is schooled in, but without attributing lower or higher values to the science itself.

o_O Simple? Lazy? And it isnt lazy to fucking start with doctor level of medical knowledge?

Just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you can do it successfully.

The proper answer is C&C biatch.
As noted.

Forcing you into contact with npc's is not C&C, that's railroading or bust.

What "junk" content?

By junk content I mean content added specifically to make the skill more useful.

For fuck sake

... am i not fucking claiming the exact opposite the whole fucking time?

Not really. Is that what you're trying to do?

Look you!

Im going to write how this would play in my game so maybe the difference in the approach gets through that thick skull.

*SNIP*

It's not a bad approach, but I'd still prefer the two skills to remain separate. What if someone wants to make a 50-something Good Natured Doctor who's just really unlucky? You'll want the ability to treat status ailments right off the bat. What you essentially create is a more linear path in the game-world designed for 'Healers', where you just romp around and and collect pieces of knowledge in order to improve your skill. To say that "Well, Doctors don't necessarily need to pick up all the Doctor bonuses to stay viable" is like saying Pac-Man doesn't need to eat all the pellets on the board.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Sigh. A semantic argument regarding skill names now?

Medic Skil: Quick and dirty short-term medicine.
Doctor Skill: Long term and professional care.

Doesn't quite represent reality but it seems sensible in a game, doesn't it?

Would you rather that, at a certain percentage point, say in a covers-all "Medicine" skill that a former "medic," becomes a "doctor?" Would that ease this little fit everyone is having over these two words?

Oh deity help me, I've just advocated consolidating a skill.

It can't end like this.

Not like this.

(Yes, that's right. I didn't read your entire post before writing this one. Woe is I.)

The funny thing is, that it has nothing to do with names and real life.

It has entirely to do with HOW those skills will be put to use in the game as designed. That and having WAY too many skills than the designer can really make use of (darklands cough cough)

 

[EG]

Sigh. A semantic argument regarding skill names now?

Medic Skil: Quick and dirty short-term medicine.
Doctor Skill: Long term and professional care.

Doesn't quite represent reality but it seems sensible in a game, doesn't it?

Would you rather that, at a certain percentage point, say in a covers-all "Medicine" skill that a former "medic," becomes a "doctor?" Would that ease this little fit everyone is having over these two words?

Oh deity help me, I've just advocated consolidating a skill.

It can't end like this.

Not like this.

(Yes, that's right. I didn't read your entire post before writing this one. Woe is I.)

The funny thing is, that it has nothing to do with names and real life.

It has entirely to do with HOW those skills will be put to use in the game as designed. That and having WAY too many skills than the designer can really make use of (darklands cough cough)

Oh, I didn't say I felt it made sense or was relevant ultimately to a system. I was just getting tired of arguments based around "No, that's not how it works in real life!"

 

[DraQ]

Reload because of a status ailment? Surely you're joking.

No, reload because you've played yourself into a corner through repeated application of poor judgement.

Sigh. A semantic argument regarding skill names now?

Medic Skil: Quick and dirty short-term medicine.
Doctor Skill: Long term and professional care.

Doesn't quite represent reality but it seems sensible in a game, doesn't it?

Well, no.

First it's completely artificial split, second, it's not as if even merged skill would be particularly OP.
Even with less, no, or differently acting (temporary HP buff that may kill you when wearing off) stimpaks it still wouldn't be more powerful than speech or weapon skill, so why not have single medical skill?

Splitting OP skills along natural dividing lines and merging underpowered skills covering the same area of expertise is a very sensible way of balancing your game without affecting world's logic.

In FO we're forced to assume that any skill selected has been learned inside the Vault, going through old computer records and training courses, perhaps tutored by another Doc who's done pretty much the same but has more experience under the belt. The kind of injuries and problems that would be prevalent in the Vault are in all likelihood the ones you would primarily focus on.

So, first aid would presumably be learned from...
Oh.

Forcing you into contact with npc's is not C&C, that's railroading or bust.

Does forcing you into contact with NPCs hamper your larp as psycho hermit, or something? Because you seem very butthurt about it.

The fact is that not relying on other people's help is going to make your life nasty, brutish and presumably short.
Keeping your own guts in is going to be problematic if you're unconscious with both crippled arms.

Many skills, including doctor, should rely on stuff that may be impossible or impractical to carry. Sophisticated repairs may require a lot of specialized equipment, that you won't be able to carry around, operating someone will need at the very least some place to immobilize them, antiseptics, clean water and not having wind blowing dirt all over you.

Many skills should get hefty penalties for not having proper workstation and crying about it breaking your larp won't change it.