Crashing is definitely problem (ah I know it too well), but you could get around it by have very frequent auto-saves or some sort possibly, but then people might try and get around it by intentionally crashing the game so they could re-load where they wanted to. But even with crashing if the worst is having to replay from the last time they exitted the game properly it wouldn't be too bad. Not ideal agreed.
This is abou the one thing I think MMORPGs have over real games. The fact that their character is regularly saved, but that the players themselves don't have access to those save files. However such systems really need to make player death something that is punished, but not excessively, which can't be justified in certain game worlds.
However, even though it is an effective method, I don't think putting the saves out of the players' hands is the right way to go. If the player is saving regularly to perform skill checks and loading them if they fail then there's a couple of things going wrong.
Firstly, there's too much random variance. It's not really fun to fail due to chance, but more on that a little later. Secondly, the consequences of failing are too severe. If I get caught stealing it shouldn't be game over because an entire town is now hostile toward me.
To use a non-RPG example, Hitman handles this sort of thing pretty well. If a civilian spots you doing something you shouldn't be doing, they will run and tell somebody. If you kill the screaming civilian, the guards are none the wiser. If you let them alert the guards, then you have to be stealthier, but it's not the end of the world. Additionally, it doesn't suffer from the instant recognition flaw that many games seem to have.
If I get spotted doing something illegal, the guards will have a basic description of my appearance to work with. If I change my outfit, then what do they know?
This is one thing RPGs would benefit from greatly. A system with roots in chaos theory, where a small action can cause gameplay permutations, completely altering the dynamic. Provided the rules are solid and plausible within the game world, then you can allow the player to basically fuck up, and it will change things, but it's not necessarily a failure, it just didn't go to plan.
I think it's partially a problem of the randomness of the crpg, a hold-over from rolling dice.
I've only gotten into Pen and Paper RPing fairly recently, but I'm fascinated by the gaping differences between how people react to bad rolls. In PnP, bad rolls tend to be laughed off; you've got a bunch of other people to cover for your mistake, and there's something in the manual rolling of a die that makes it feel like it's the luck of the dice.
Compare that to CRPGs, and it's a different story altogether. Because the rolls are happening in the form of abstracting a random variable from a seed, it's less tangible for the player, and it's a lot easier to feel resentful of bad rolls, especially when there are plenty of games out there that do actually cheat the player. I think also because the roll isn't initiated by the player, it's like watching somebody else roll for you and fail. Even though you cannot control a die roll in any way whatsoever, there is some kind of quaint belief just below the surface of the mind that you can. That is coupled with a responsibility of sorts. You rolled the dice, there's nobody to blame but you.
But saving and loading can be used to effectively eliminate randomness. Therefore why should the attempts be randomized? Either you can pickpocket someone based on a situation or you can't and reloading ain't gonna make it any easier. On the other hand, there is something just plain fun about knowing you aren't likely to succeed but there is that 1 in-a 100 shot.
The best approach I have seen to this age old problem is seen in System Shock 2. The first element in the SS2 system is resource use. Resources are fairly easy to control, and provided they aren't too rare, then the player generally wont mind if they have to "waste" a few on the way to a success. As the character becomes more skilled, the resource use is decreased.
The second element is the concept of multiple rolls. Rather than having a single roll govern the success of an outcome, the player has multiple chances, and this ties in with the third major element, and that is safe vs critical attempts. Rather than having critical failure as an extension and further random factor, the player can actively choose to take a risk. The number of nodes that can result in critical failure is increased by a lack of skill, which enforces two things - a higher resource use for safe play, and a considerably higher chance of failure for the risk taker. Both are incentives to improve the skill.
So basically what this system boils down to, is playing the percentages. Rather than the random occurance meaning the difference between saving and loading the game, it actually becomes incorporated into the game play. "My last attempt at 50% chance to succeed failed. The next one
should be successful." But the most important thing about this system, is that if you fail, it costs resources. If you critically fail, it's because you chose to take that risk. It puts the responsibility back on the player, much like the dice roll rant above.
This speaks to the bane of all aspects CRPG's which is simply unscripted intelligent NPC behavior. Individuals should indeed react differently. I love the image of some nerdy scholar catching you pickpocketting him and then big warrior of the party facing him down with a "whatt'er you gonna do about it? huh?" And he does nothing except "eep" or even waits and then goes and reports you to the guards. <sigh> Someday maybe we'll have a game which models personality attributes and reactions for npc's well. Someday.
There are a few simple things that can greatly improve this. Non-Lethal attacks for one, and a less binary recognition/suspicion system. The guy who saw you digging in his pockets is goin to recognise you on sight, but the guards he may have reported it to and his fellow citizens should really be looking for somebody like you, and not know you specifically.
