The three levels of choice-making in an RPG

[DarKPenguiN]

Infinitron I'm not sure what your armchair psychology is getting at.

I do piss you off with that, don't I? :freudianjew:

No, I'm obviously not arguing for Skyrim - although Skyrim's problems aren't just systemic but also related to the type of content it offers. In a serious, non-power fantasy game, you shouldn't really be able to become the Archmage of Winterhold (or whatever) so easily no matter what stats you have and no matter what character you've built.

I'm not necessarily "getting" at anything in particular, just trying to get people to think about the way these choices are usually structured and maybe make them consider their assumptions about what is categorically more "monocled".

It's very easy to go "hurr, this game has higher skill check thresholds therefore it's harder therefore it's better". Maybe that's right sometimes, but it's something that needs to be examined.

In other words, you don't have a point, you want other people to make your point? I'm only being harsh because I don't think "exclusivity = better" is really such a dogmatic idol that needs to be brought down, I think significant exclusivity happens in very few games and people are often split on it.

If you have a break-in quest where you need climbing to jump the wall and speech to talk the guard, crudely speaking, you could set the checks at 3/3 so quite a few characters could choose either option; set them at 8/8 so that only dedicated specialists can pursue the options, or even have to give up on the quest altogether; set them at 6/4 so that som eoptions are more obscure and difficult, but there's at least an 'easier' and maybe less optimal way to progress. It's hard for me to think of situations where inclusivity adds to replayability, immersion, whatever. It's easy to think of situations where too much exclusivity might cause frustration, but that's not the same as inclusive choices.

The key problem that remains is that make the options too inclusive/easy and you dilute the consequences of each choice and also break down the general feeling of C&C over the long term, the feeling that your character building matters. Too much exclusivity might make you feel that your character can't do half the cool shit; too much inclusivity makes you feel that none of the work you put into the character over time actually enabled you to do any cool shit, it was always available in the first place.

DarKPenguiN The primary challenge to that is making all skills similarly useful without making them the same or having so many options for every challenge that it hardly seems to matter. If you can solve problem X with speech, combat, or stealth, fine, but if there are skill checks for survival, repair, science, charisma and endurance too, then we come back to the problem...

What would be cool imho in the scenario you present about 'jumping over the wall' vs "talking" vs "fighting" would be far beyond a mere 3/3 or 4/2 or what have you. What would be 'monocled' would be if anyone with a small % in climbing could attempt to climb. everyone would have a chance for any degree of success but on a very diverse scale.

Say a D100 is rolled. The points in climbing are a modifier added to this roll. Someone with 10 points in climbing could not have the most critical failures but also could not reach the major success as well (say, vaulting the wall is set at 150 or something and they would run 10- 110 as a low/high). BUT allowing low scores to cause vastly different outcomes such as failure (the guard sees you and attacks or attempts arrest) to varying degrees of success . You climb the wall but stumble and now an additional constitution roll will determine the injury.

This doesnt pigeonhole the build and still makes a good C&C argument for builds being monocled allowing for massively diverse outcomes in situations while not making you feel you are being excluded from crucial parts of the game as a result of building towards a meta game that we know is present in most games -

EDIT- This is what makes Table Top gaming far better especially with some house rules to make all the attributes and skills viable in some way. The same could be done in Crpgs to a lesser extent but still far better than what we currently have.

 

[Tigranes]

AOD does some of this, with different failure states and combinations of success/failure states. What we learn there is that (1) it's pretty damn cool, (2) it's a nightmare to design because (a) you have to create so much content that people aren't even used to even expecting, (b) there are a lot more dependencies that go into your level design and quest design now.

I think it could work better in, say, a Thief-like game where outcomes could be tied to relatively emergent states (i.e. you have dynamic physics on objects and sound calculation, so a failure in climbing might mean you make more noise or land harder, and the consequences it might have in knocking shit around and creating noise and alerting guards doesn't have to be predetermined). Another way is to have many situations where there is no linear success trajectory or an optimal state (i.e. you climb, you lose no resources, you make no sound, tada), but different combinations - e.g. smash the reinforced window (STR req, makes mucho noise, leaves evidence which will be held against you in the scripted police interrogation after the quest), make alchemical mixture to melt window (Alchemy skill req, but takes some time so player may be discovered, expends scarce ingredient), pick the lock on the window (lockpick skill req, but turns out to trigger a trap tied to the lock), etc., etc.

 

[DraQ]

Well, I originally created this thread because I know there are some people who think that 2) is shallow and pointless, "because what's the point of having a character or party that can do everything"?

They are demonstrably retarded, though.

First, being able to do more than one thing isn't quite being able to do everything.

Second, there is nothing more shallow than single skill gameplay. Either all skills are viable, in which case it's mindless "apply %PCSkill until finished", or not all skills are viable in which case it's "haha sucker! should've picked diplomacy instead of evocation back during chargen, you lose!".

Third, having very few skills at viable levels eliminates possibility of meaningful synergies and lessens number of distinct builds. In ideal situation where every subset of skills has at least one unique synergy you get maximum build variety if a build involves as much as half of all skills.

There are certainly plenty of people on the Codex who seem to think it's cool when an RPG is harsh like that. "You should have built your character right, now you can't do that quest! Choice and consequence, bitch!"

Indeed, we've always had plenty of morons here, sadly.

The way I see it, there's a sort of internal conflict here in the mind of the hardcore RPG player.

On the one hand, he claims to want harsh choices and consequences that lock out content.

On the other hand, he strives to construct "completionist builds" that can do a maximum amount of content. He builds the "canonical AD&D party" with fighters, clerics, a thief and a mage so he can handle everything. He builds a "charismatic hacker sniper"-type character in Fallout.

Where's the conflict here?

The player says what he'd like to get, then plays what he actually gets the best he can.
It's like saying that players don't want challenging games because they actually try to win.

So maybe we should stop pretending that building and managing a kickass "A Team" that can "do everything" (not literally everything, of course - those characters still need to develop in some direction) is somehow a bad thing, and learn to embrace it instead?

Then maybe we should drop the pretense altogether?

RPG systems are not exactly trivial to implement, they take a lot of effort that could be put somewhere else, all to ensure that characters are distinct in terms of abilities and supported playstyles.
If we are to embrace that it's doomed to failure then all the effort put into that is effort wasted that could be put into making the game substantially better in terms of action, story, C&C, tactical gameplay, visuals, the amount of content or basically anything else

DraQ Sure. There are good and bad ways to do it. I'm trying to address the point that even when it's not done so well, it's still better to have some exclusivity.

Everything sucks when done poorly.
If you're implementing multiple options of which only one is really worthwhile and the choice itself is trivial, then you've just wasted valuable time and resources.

Actually yes that would work as well. Usually use-based skill systems just get really meta-gamey though.

Because usually the implementation just sucks.
Not that XP based is any better in that regard.

IF Constitution actually played a bigger role than 'HPs' and Charisma means something a bit more and wisdom could even help a mage in a valid way- In other words, if all the skills you chose mattered in such a way as to make it very difficult to decide how to build your character to your specific tastes and this actually changed the game in a meaningful way- Its a win.

Agreed.
People often misinterpret it when you talk about no dump stats - they take it to mean no primary stats, while it's not the case. A system may require particular stat(s) over certain threshold for given build yet still make all the other stats equally attractive options and ensure enough character points to be actually able to spend some on them.

DarKPenguiN The primary challenge to that is making all skills similarly useful without making them the same or having so many options for every challenge that it hardly seems to matter. If you can solve problem X with speech, combat, or stealth, fine, but if there are skill checks for survival, repair, science, charisma and endurance too, then we come back to the problem...

If the main challenge in solving the problem is actually having the right skill in your build, then we've already came back to the problem.

How is always more interesting than what, and having more tools in your toolset allows for larger set of more interesting and demanding solutions.

AOD does some of this, with different failure states and combinations of success/failure states. What we learn there is that (1) it's pretty damn cool, (2) it's a nightmare to design because (a) you have to create so much content that people aren't even used to even expecting, (b) there are a lot more dependencies that go into your level design and quest design now.

3. Scripting everything effectively amounts to spreading your buttcheeks and ramming curse of combinatorial explosion up your own ass.

I think it could work better in, say, a Thief-like game where outcomes could be tied to relatively emergent states (i.e. you have dynamic physics on objects and sound calculation, so a failure in climbing might mean you make more noise or land harder, and the consequences it might have in knocking shit around and creating noise and alerting guards doesn't have to be predetermined).

Preferably. It's always smart to have your systems do your work for you. Even better if they can handle situations you haven't even specifically envisioned.

Another way is to have many situations where there is no linear success trajectory or an optimal state (i.e. you climb, you lose no resources, you make no sound, tada), but different combinations - e.g. smash the reinforced window (STR req, makes mucho noise, leaves evidence which will be held against you in the scripted police interrogation after the quest), make alchemical mixture to melt window (Alchemy skill req, but takes some time so player may be discovered, expends scarce ingredient), pick the lock on the window (lockpick skill req, but turns out to trigger a trap tied to the lock), etc., etc.

Also true, but mind the excessive scripting.

 

[V_K]

The problem with "replayability" argument is that the game in question should be good enough to prompt to replay it in the first place. Personally I don't know a single one that does (and only a few that don't criminaly overstay their welcome). Severely limiting player's options only makes gameplay repetitive, ensuring s/he gets bored early and never finishes the game, let alone replay.

 

[Abelian]

The problem with "replayability" argument is that the game in question should be good enough to prompt to replay it in the first place. Personally I don't know a single one that does (and only a few that don't criminaly overstay their welcome). Severely limiting player's options only makes gameplay repetitive, ensuring s/he gets bored early and never finishes the game, let alone replay.

Replayability works better when you can have dramatically different experiences based on your character, so it's easier to make a single-character RPG replayable. If the RPG is best tailored to the mage, cleric, thief and two fighter party, it's harder to get players excited about replaying it.

For example, arpg Nox featured three PC classes that played very different from one another: melee fighter, summons and range-focused conjurer, and spell and trap oriented wizard. Almost all equipment had class restrictions. Not only that, but the game started in a different location and ended differently for each class.

 

[V_K]

The problem with "replayability" argument is that the game in question should be good enough to prompt to replay it in the first place. Personally I don't know a single one that does (and only a few that don't criminaly overstay their welcome). Severely limiting player's options only makes gameplay repetitive, ensuring s/he gets bored early and never finishes the game, let alone replay.

Replayability works better when you can have dramatically different experiences based on your character, so it's easier to make a single-character RPG replayable. If the RPG is best tailored to the mage, cleric, thief and two fighter party, it's harder to get players excited about replaying it.

For example, arpg Nox featured three PC classes that played very different from one another: melee fighter, summons and range-focused conjurer, and spell and trap oriented wizard. Almost all equipment had class restrictions. Not only that, but the game started in a different location and ended differently for each class.

My point is that to want to replay the game, you should first finish it and not be fed up with it by that time. Limiting gameplay options doesn't help reach that goal in any way.
I played Nox, got bored to death after a couple of areas - precisely because the playstyle with a given class was too focused that it quickly became repetitive and boring.

 

[adddeed]

Replayabilty for me is not necessary about content. I've finished Max Payne 5 or 6 times, not because of all the new content, but because i liked the setting, the gunplay, the atmosphere etc and wanted to experince it again.

 

[DraQ]

Replayabilty for me is not necessary about content. I've finished Max Payne 5 or 6 times, not because of all the new content, but because i liked the setting, the gunplay, the atmosphere etc and wanted to experince it again.

Except replayability is defined by how much can subsequent playthroughs differ.
We already have a word for "good".

 

[adddeed]

Yeah i guess.