MSFD on Bethesda's uber next-gen skill system

[galsiah]

Over a few levels, both the above characters can have the same skills and the same level, but one has a much higher attribute total. Playing naturally is penalised.

If you get higher atributes you'll need less hits to kill or succesfully do something thus you'll gain less skill.

Probably true to a small degree, but I don't see how that is relevant.
The point is that for an equivalent level, the player who plays pragmatically/powergames will have higher attributes than the player who plays naturally (though the difference will be largest for "multi-class" character types).

Given that the level of difficulty of the game (level of creatures / npcs encountered...) is set by the player's level, this means that players who play naturally will have a more difficult time.

A player who realises this is therefore encouraged to do the best thing for his character - i.e. to powergame / roleplay pragmatically. He also probably wants to play naturally, without worrying about game mechanics. He can decide between playing "naturally" in the knowledge that he could be doing better for his character (and so having less fun than he might), or playing pragmatically, doing the best for his character through constant consideration of which skills are "best" to increase next (and so having less fun than he might).

The system rewards players who powergame, penalising those who don't. A good system would not do this. Morrowind's did, and on current information it looks like Oblivion's will too (though to a lesser extent).

As always, I'd be pleased for MSFD to come in with a "Yes" to my earlier question [or a dissertation documenting every game formula and the thinking behind them of course ].

 

[Proweler]

The system rewards players who powergame, penalising those who don't. A good system would not do this. Morrowind's did, and on current information it looks like Oblivion's will too (though to a lesser extent).

Can't imagine a system whit a reasonable amount of freedom where you actions matter but doesn't reward power gaming in the way you see it. But personally I think losing all the challenge of a game is a pretty good ward against powergaming.

In a first person RPG having to consider what skills I want to raise distracts from the actuall game. In a party rpg it's part of the fun because it's a tactical game already. But seeing how your skills are tied into your action that might be quite impossible unless you deliberatly start poking low level critters to death whit a rusty dagger. IMO grinding is boring.

 

[galsiah]

Can't imagine a system whit a reasonable amount of freedom where you actions matter but doesn't reward power gaming in the way you see it.

I can - I designed one for a Morrowind mod (GCD). It is difficult, but impossible it's not. Given a free hand, I could design one much more versatile than GCD (which was highly constrained by the practicalities of Morrowind modding).

...IMO grinding is boring.

I agree completely.
But to avoid grinding, my character needs to play in a way that even he knows is not best for him. If my character found he learned best, and gained attributes fastest by concentrating on only a few skills each level, then that's what he'd do. He's living in a world with design flaws, so he'd adapt to those flaws - even if they don't make sense.

A significant amount of gamers feel compelled to do the best they can for their character, so long as that fits with his personality. A significant amount of these gamers don't like doing this if it means making the game a counter-intuitive grind, but they still do it. When it is quite possible to come up with a good design that doesn't penalise natural play, it's a cop out to say these players are playing in the "wrong" way.

That some gamers will play like this is predictable. If a designer ignors this, he's not doing his job very well. Either he can say that they're doing it wrong - not playing the game the way it is supposed to be played -, or he can acknowledge that this is his fault, and do something about it.

A game where I need to "grind" in order to play a character who does the best he can for himself is not a well designed game. A well designed game would take the most fun playing style (or set of playing styles), and then do everything possible to make that the optimal playing style.

 

[Proweler]

Agreed, most players complained about the lack of challenge after a good grinding session. The same complaint as most maxed out characters had. They should have thought about that and created more high-end challenges.

It rewards both the grinding and those that play the game normally. The grinders get to show of a med level character defeating a high end foe. Something that would be the logical result of years of training and the people that play normally will still get a real challenge once they maxed out.
To fix the random creatures they’ll have to count your attribute points and use that to determine you real level.

I'm not familiar whit the mod so I can't comment on its quality. Can you explain its working principle?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Proweler, check out his homepage here:
http://uk.geocities.com/galsiah/

It's a good system, although I personally never felt the need to use it since I never feel this need to concern myself with the game mechanics in that way. I never adjust to the mechanics, I expect the mechanics to support the way i decide to play, and the original rules did tha just fine. Also GCD removes leveling and the associated player decision instead of trying to make it more worthwhile - I like my level-ups and being able to decide where I want to progress finally I have no used for unlimited skill progression, since I never play characters that long, and it really only makes sense if you remove it for NPC's as well.

I actually think his work is better placed as a mod (an optional choice) than being promoted to becoming the official rule system, but thats just my personal opinion. It's an excellent piece of modding work, no doubt.

 

[galsiah]

It's an excellent piece of modding work, no doubt.

But of course :D.

I agree that GCD isn't necessary for some people - if you can ignore the game mechanics, then that's great. Not everyone can though.

Neither would I champion it as the way Oblivion's system should be: much better systems than GCD are possible, some of which remove most of its downsides. You're also right to say that as it stands it makes most sense as a mod.

One big difference GCD makes is that initial "class" choice is very important, and there's no option to change your mind later. Given that this was a mod released years after the game, it's reasonable to assume people will know what they want when they start playing. This isn't true of a new game no-one has played yet - the devs seem to want to make sure a player can change paths midgame if he doesn't like his initial choices. That's understandable, and makes an unchanged GCD system inappropriate.

GCD does remove choice at level up. I wouldn't say it removes choice though - if you want to increase strength... fight; if you want to increase intelligence... cast spells. It's choice through action rather than choice through floating menus in the sky. Personally, I think that if you're going to have character development decisions mid-game (which admittedly can be fun), they should be related to the game world somehow.

 

[HardCode]

One big difference GCD makes is that initial "class" choice is very important, and there's no option to change your mind later[emphasis by HardCode]. Given that this was a mod released years after the game, it's reasonable to assume people will know what they want when they start playing.

But that is what makes the game fun! If you create a character that is struggling later on, you aren't likely to just scrap it. You stick it out. Then, the next time around you try something else. Gives a game replay value. I think it's a big plus.

 

[BbaxterD]

Figured I post this here, the last thing we need is another Oblivion thread. In Bethesda's Newsletter a dev, Raptormeat, has made several comments on the Magic system.

http://bethsoft.com/newsletter/devdiary_12.15.05.html

I am a bit concerned about what has been said, like

Take my advice – lose the sword and replace it with a staff enchanted with a ranged spell. These babies act just like rocket launchers; when used, the caster holds the staff out in front of him/herself and hurls a powerful projectile out of the business end

This might make the Mages Balanced, but it also makes it sound like, to be effective, every mage needs a staff.

I am happy to hear about the shiny stuff though. I've always wanted to blow things (or people) up with spells. The editor also seems pretty diverse in the spell creation aspect.

 

[galsiah]

But that is what makes the game fun! If you create a character that is struggling later on, you aren't likely to just scrap it. You stick it out. Then, the next time around you try something else. Gives a game replay value. I think it's a big plus.

Yes - I like that it makes a difference too. I think your initial choices should have significant long term consequences. All I'm saying is that I don't think Bethesda do: they want to make the gameplay versatile at all times - so if a barbarian warrior wants to take up magic, he can do it quite easily.

I wouldn't mind the idea of a character that evolves / changes according to your play. For instance using skill atrophy/synergy, so that when you increase a skill, most other skills decrease very slightly, but similar skills increase very slightly. As the game goes on, increase can be slowed down but decreases maintained at the same rate, so that the player (almost) reaches a skill-total equilibrium point where increasing skills changes his character rather than improving it overall (or only improves it very slightly). Similarly, the rates of increase of skills could be altered dynamically - as you increase weapon skills, switching to magic skills becomes progressively harder etc., but if you do switch, magic skills will slowly start to get easier to increase (for a given skill value).

The above would allow characters to change paths totally in theory, but in practice most players wouldn't, since it would be extremely hard and take ages. I'd prefer that kind of versatility - initial choices are still very important, and "class" can't be changed without a lot of hard work.

I doubt Bethesda would do that though - they seem to be aiming to please the "I want to be good at everything, and quickly!!!" crowd. Sadly it seems to be a big crowd. Oh well.

To be fair, they seem to be going for compromise and aiming at the "I want to be good at everything, and relatively quickly!" crowd. There's always the CS I guess, and things might be simpler this time.

At least they thought to include "rocket launchers" though. There's nothing like running around with a rocket launcher for getting into character in an RPG. All that's needed now is a few quad-damage power-ups.

 

[AnalogKid]

At least they thought to include "rocket launchers" though. There's nothing like running around with a rocket launcher for getting into character in an RPG. All that's needed now is a few quad-damage power-ups.

Remember the screen cap of the "alpha" version of Fallout 3? I'm too lazy to link to it, but now I'm thinking maybe that it wasn't Fallout 3 after all, it was the result of becoming the mage's guild leader in Oblivion!

 

[VenomByte]

Give a man an RPG, and he's happy for a week.

Give him the CS to fix an RPG, and he's happy for years.

Beth don't believe in making RPG's. They believe in helping people to make their own RPG's, for a brighter future for everyone




In all seriousness though, I'm very impressed with what's been revealed about the CS so far. I've lost count of the number of hours I spent tweaking targetted scripts launched from 'attack' dialogue, or sound detections in Morrowind.

I had nightmares it was going to be 'streamlined' for Oblivion in such a way that all the tricks from MW would prove impossible. So far, it would seem not.

However much I dislike the feature set or design decisions of Oblivion, if mods can fix it in a smooth, unobtrusive, unkludged way, I'll be very pleased indeed.

 

[odorf sniggab]

Did it ever occur to some of you here, that the bedrock of American jurisprudence, "innocent until proven guilty" might be a better method of proceeding when judging games not yet released--rather than the reverse? And why not make sure you understand the full ramifications of something (like skill progression) before you pronounce it anathema and excoriate it? Doing it your way, you often prove yourself ill-informed and end up embarrassing yourself.

Because most of these guys are just not capable of that kind of consideration. Especially not Vault Dweller, who's opinions according to him are gospel. They'll all be buying Oblivion and loving it, they'll make sweet love to the box nightly. As for me? I'm just waiting until Zelda Twilight Princess comes out. I hope that pisses people off here, that game will be a THOUSAND times better than Oblivion could ever hope to be in it's wettest of dreams.

 

[yipsl]

But we don't know who your playtesters are or what their views on RPG's are, if they even care for specialized characters etc. What criteria have been set for them to judge the game on? If its just the game getting to difficult or too easy for a certain class, then that is easily remedied by making all classes equal jack of all trades... So by itself thats not all that reassuring.

To add to that, we were told before MW's release that the testers assured you that the combat system was a lot of fun - that impression wasn't really shared by a majority of the customers, I think and on hindsight not even by Bethesda, hence the new and improved combat, I suppose.

I'd often thought that playtesters were "just" quality assurance. The game's already designed and in near final form. Nothing a set of playtesters can say would change major features, but they'd catch bugs.

Fun is why we play games, but fun is so relative to the gamer that it's ephemeral to developing a game. That's where Bethsoft's marketing comes across as skewed. It's not about fun, it's about being true to the RPG series they started ten years or more ago while still being marketable.

Part of marketing is education, and I don't think the current gen of console gamers have been educated about what single player RPGs offer, as too many console RPGs have been RPG Lite. Take Fable, The Bard's Tale and KOTOR; I enjoyed the second two despite the RPG Lite elements, but I wouldn't put them up there with Daggerfall, Betrayal at Krondor or even Morrowind as RPGs.

Overall, the skill system as described seems to be a mix between what people got from Morrowind and what we saw in Daggerfall. Non-class skills can still advance to 100, but it's much harder to acheive. I wonder if there's a cap to advancement on skills or level once a stat reaches 100?

 

[Drakron]

Fun is why we play games, but fun is so relative to the gamer that it's ephemeral to developing a game. That's where Bethsoft's marketing comes across as skewed. It's not about fun, it's about being true to the RPG series they started ten years or more ago while still being marketable.
...

Its part of Holywood problems, they use the "blockbuster" formula with big budget but they end up witrh more misses that hits.

In games that is exactly what is going on, they follow the current gameplay trend, they focus on the graphics and in the end they have something that costed 20 million but its the same as the competition.

Games series get diluted because of that, what we expected to see gets replaced by the latest trend ...

Yes "fun" is the goal but when they aim at the lowest dominator in the market (the cluess Halo player that never played a RPG before) they are going to miss the main market ... people that play RPGs will continue to do so but they are not going to remain "loyal" to a series were the developers pretty much say "you are not my target audience".

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Fun is why we play games, but fun is so relative to the gamer that it's ephemeral to developing a game. That's where Bethsoft's marketing comes across as skewed. It's not about fun, it's about being true to the RPG series they started ten years or more ago while still being marketable.

I just have to take you up on that, because I think it's where you and a large faction at the Codex are dead wrong. If you don't put fun at the core of making a game, you have a serious problem. There are different WAYS to have fun, and it's fine to disagree on that or to want a certain kind of fun. But it is NOT about stayin TRUE to anything. It's really, plain and simple, about having fun. Which is why I am a lot less worried about Oblivon than many of you - it's gonna be fun, even if it does not fit my ideal RPG standards either.

 

[Twinfalls]

I just have to take you up on that, because I think it's where you and a large faction at the Codex are dead wrong. If you don't put fun at the core of making a game, you have a serious problem.

No, you are the one who is wrong. That 'large faction at the Codex' DOES want 'fun'. For them, fun is real decisions with real consequences, fun is lots of skills and factions, fun is real role-playing - ie character development that's not just powering up, and character skills, not player skills, deciding outcomes. Fun is intelligent, realistic dialogue. Fun is sophisticated, intriguing, mature plots. Fun is non-linearity. Fun is non-munchkinism. Fun is being a key part of a struggle, not a one-man Fantasy Rambo.

This stuff was what Daggerfall either had, or aspired to. And this stuff is FUN. This is the only manner and reason that people here want it to 'stay true' to the series.

 

[Balor]

Well, GBG, Twinfalls is right.
There are multiple kinds of fun - yet, desribed above is 'refined' and really hard to get.
So, seeing once glorious 'mature' game degrade into 'an other arcadey hack&slash' - it can cause nothing but pain and contempt.

 

[yipsl]

Can anyone tell me, as unarmoured is out, why is the heavy and light armour skill still in? Since you gain better AC protection in the skill as you advance, then not wearing any armour means the player is actually penalised for trying to play as an unarmoured character, or am I reading it wrong?

Todd himself said that fighting is not twitch based (whatever it may sound like, ie player/time based blocking), so the player should, like an armour wearing dude, automatically get better at not wearing armour.

I'm not whining about this, I honestly want to know how this is being incorporated into the game. Cheers.

I've thought about this too. I once thought they might be adding dodge aspects to acrobatics, that make Morrowind's unarmoured unnecessary, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on Bethsoft's own codex entry for acrobatics.

Since we haven't heard that unarmoured polled anything, I think this could be less a matter of mainstreaming than that the devs like hack and slash characters in armor. I admit, I had to wear armor in Daggerfall, dodge or not, but I loved avoiding that option in Morrowind. Perhaps it is up to us as gamers to avoid that location damage with a bit of twitch dodging of our own?

If I missed a reply by MSFD to your post, I'm sorry, but in reading the thread again, I thought you made a good point that I'd like to second.

 

[OverrideB1]

No, you are the one who is wrong. That 'large faction at the Codex' DOES want 'fun'. For them, fun is real decisions with real consequences, fun is lots of skills and factions, fun is real role-playing - ie character development that's not just powering up, and character skills, not player skills, deciding outcomes. Fun is intelligent, realistic dialogue. Fun is sophisticated, intriguing, mature plots. Fun is non-linearity. Fun is non-munchkinism. Fun is being a key part of a struggle, not a one-man Fantasy Rambo.

This stuff was what Daggerfall either had, or aspired to. And this stuff is FUN. This is the only manner and reason that people here want it to 'stay true' to the series.

Those words should be tattooed on the forehead of every single RPG designer and made into the only background they're allowed to have on their computers.

 

[Proweler]

No, you are the one who is wrong. That 'large faction at the Codex' DOES want 'fun'. For them, fun is real decisions with real consequences, fun is lots of skills and factions, fun is real role-playing - ie character development that's not just powering up, and character skills, not player skills, deciding outcomes. Fun is intelligent, realistic dialogue. Fun is sophisticated, intriguing, mature plots. Fun is non-linearity. Fun is non-munchkinism. Fun is being a key part of a struggle, not a one-man Fantasy Rambo.

This stuff was what Daggerfall either had, or aspired to. And this stuff is FUN. This is the only manner and reason that people here want it to 'stay true' to the series.

You mean like "reality", if you think that is fun I can't imagine a reason you play RPG's. If you think that is fun you should run for president. Character development, tactical media desisions, realistic dialogue and real conceqeunces.

 

[LlamaGod]

yes, since I want videogames to not be like real-life, they should all be completely retarded.


I myself prefer a game that tries to be unique in ideas, wether it be story, setting, general design, whatever. I just like stuff that is different while also being good.

I also like stuff that is very well designed, with a good character system and combat system that is well structured and well thought out.

Unique, structured and well thought out design = most fun for me.

(This is the reason I dont like Morrownd, too.)

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well, GBG, Twinfalls is right.
There are multiple kinds of fun - yet, desribed above is 'refined' and really hard to get.
So, seeing once glorious 'mature' game degrade into 'an other arcadey hack&slash' - it can cause nothing but pain and contempt.

Read my post again, I even acknowledged that right there, and I want my own KIND of fun too. I was responding verbatim to Ypsls statement, which may or may not have been meant that way, that fun be "ephemeral to game design", which apparently you too don't agree with. I was not defending one way of fun over another or TES over other RPG's or whatever, just the statement as such.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

No, you are the one who is wrong. That 'large faction at the Codex' DOES want 'fun'. For them, fun is real decisions with real consequences, fun is lots of skills and factions, fun is real role-playing - ie character development that's not just powering up, and character skills, not player skills, deciding outcomes. Fun is intelligent, realistic dialogue. Fun is sophisticated, intriguing, mature plots. Fun is non-linearity. Fun is non-munchkinism. Fun is being a key part of a struggle, not a one-man Fantasy Rambo.

This stuff was what Daggerfall either had, or aspired to. And this stuff is FUN. This is the only manner and reason that people here want it to 'stay true' to the series.

Sure, we have no disagreement on that. I was merely pointing out, as I stated aboe, that fun cannot be "ephemeral" to design, although the way to achieve fun can vary, you and ypsl list one way. I enjoy that one and others. What I am saying is that the criteria you list are only valid if they come together and create a fun game, not in and by themselves. I just get the impression that a lot of people here think of them as valid in and by themselves, instead of ways to a means (to have fun), and tend to automatically reject any idea that does not fit into this "RPG-formula" - case in point the almost automatic rejection of the "rocket launcher" comment in the last dev diary for Oblivion. While this may sound like munchkinism, the real qustion is if it is fun in the context of the game as a whole.

And actually Daggerfall had almost none of the things you list. No intelligent dialogue, a very superficial non-linearity in the plot (although a lot of freeform fun), a poor excuse for a non-linear ending, a plot more confusing than intricate, a lot of player skills envolvement, and a lot of ramboing. conseqeunces only within the confines of it's legal system. As to character progression as powering up - the actual character advancement was mostly that, although the guild perks made it more complex than that, which is happily making a combeack in Oblivion, plus perks... Yet Daggerfall was a lot of fun, wasn't it?

 

[Twinfalls]

Note that I said 'This stuff is what Daggerfall either had, or aspired to' - see the Ted Peterson interviews.

The main point was that your statement:

I just have to take you up on that, because I think it's where you and a large faction at the Codex are dead wrong. If you don't put fun at the core of making a game, you have a serious problem. There are different WAYS to have fun, and it's fine to disagree on that or to want a certain kind of fun. But it is NOT about stayin TRUE to anything. It's really, plain and simple, about having fun. Which is why I am a lot less worried about Oblivon than many of you - it's gonna be fun

- read like an apologia for dumbing down (though I know that's not what you really want for Oblivion). You were not just responding to Yipsl, since you state 'a large faction at the Codex'.

This IS about 'staying true' to something. It's about staying true to the standards and ambitions of the original Daggerfall team. This is not something you can dismiss by simply saying 'but it's gonna be fun'. No-one here wants a game that is 'no fun'. To suggest that this is some kind of core dogma here is preposterous. Expecting a level of role-playing sophistication which would make the Daggerfall team proud is not the same as wanting some kind of grognard stat-heavy spreadsheet game mired in dour real-world mundaneness.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I guess I got hung up on semantics, and then everyone got hung up on mine. Serves me right. I guess I would still maintain that there is a certain automatism here to scoff at simple fun as opposed to complex, intelligent fun. I agree that the simple fun should not REPLACE intelligent entertainment, but it may very well ADD to it.
No aplogia intended though, We will see what Oblivion achieves when it comes out.