Game News Torment Kickstarter Update #27: Pre-Holidays Report from the Torment Triumvirate

[Zed]

Roguey has a good point, even if the wording is troll-bait. Any probability check is gonna cause save-scumming, and that's pretty poor design. I also think adding a mechanic to reduce this chance of failure by spending stat points is making it even worse.

I think chance of failure is okay (but not good) for combat. There's a chance you miss and that makes sense. Combat is long, a lot of things happen, you can easily make up for any mistakes. Chance usually go both ways here as well -- you can get lucky and land a crit, for instance. It can add excitement.

But dialogue?
PC: [Charm - 86%... FAIL] Hey baby, how 'bout GAH FUCK INTESTINES GRAPEJUICE SHIT
NPC: Why I never! [leaves party]
Player: duh, okay, I'll keep on playing.
... or what?

I prefer a system where stats determine options, and those options are pre-determined, even if the options are failures. I mean, I'll see from the text whether or not a lie sounds good or not. If it looks like shit I'll try another option. Or fight. Or whatever.

Mostly agree but why you do feel chance of failure is not good (but merely OK) for combat? I think a certain amount of randomness in combat is always needed, it makes it more unpredictable and exciting (as you youself said) and besides, (almost) no one's gonna save and reload because you character missed once (or even several times in a row as long as you're hanging in there) and/or opponent hit you unless it's fatal for your char (which is very rarely the case in any CRPG) so it's quite different to say dialogue checks in that regard (which I agree have just one required value to pass it, you either meet the requirements or you don't).

I say okay and not good because I think it too often feels arbitrary and fucking stupid to miss an attack. It's not good "game" and it's not good "simulation".

Franky, the dialogue in your sample is bad design no matter how the ruleset works. Why on earth a non combat situation should be resolved by a single test with a binary outcome?
The problem is the encounter design, not the ruleset. Players should have more options, more possible outcomes, more agency. A flat value wouldn't change anything in this scenario.

My point wasn't the choices, it was the fail-state caused by randomness.
Encounter design is based on the ruleset.
If by flat value you mean "no percentage chance to succeed" then I think you're wrong. I also like plenty of options, but I want these based on my characters statistics. If I'm not a good charmer then my attempt to charm should be in a fail-state as I choose it, not based on a dice-roll (not necessarily leading to a worse outcome - that's something else).

 

[hiver]

effort helps only in smaller tasks. there will be tasks where applying effort will not help at all.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Roguey has a good point, even if the wording is troll-bait. Any probability check is gonna cause save-scumming, and that's pretty poor design. I also think adding a mechanic to reduce this chance of failure by spending stat points is making it even worse.

I think chance of failure is okay (but not good) for combat. There's a chance you miss and that makes sense. Combat is long, a lot of things happen, you can easily make up for any mistakes. Chance usually go both ways here as well -- you can get lucky and land a crit, for instance. It can add excitement.

But dialogue?
PC: [Charm - 86%... FAIL] Hey baby, how 'bout GAH FUCK INTESTINES GRAPEJUICE SHIT
NPC: Why I never! [leaves party]
Player: duh, okay, I'll keep on playing.
... or what?

I prefer a system where stats determine options, and those options are pre-determined, even if the options are failures. I mean, I'll see from the text whether or not a lie sounds good or not. If it looks like shit I'll try another option. Or fight. Or whatever.

Mostly agree but why you do feel chance of failure is not good (but merely OK) for combat? I think a certain amount of randomness in combat is always needed, it makes it more unpredictable and exciting (as you youself said) and besides, (almost) no one's gonna save and reload because you character missed once (or even several times in a row as long as you're hanging in there) and/or opponent hit you unless it's fatal for your char (which is very rarely the case in any CRPG) so it's quite different to say dialogue checks in that regard (which I agree have just one required value to pass it, you either meet the requirements or you don't).

I say okay and not good because I think it too often feels arbitrary and fucking stupid to miss an attack. It's not good "game" and it's not good "simulation".

Franky, the dialogue in your sample is bad design no matter how the ruleset works. Why on earth a non combat situation should be resolved by a single test with a binary outcome?
The problem is the encounter design, not the ruleset. Players should have more options, more possible outcomes, more agency. A flat value wouldn't change anything in this scenario.

My point wasn't the choices, it was the fail-state caused by randomness.
Encounter design is based on the ruleset.
If by flat value you mean "no percentage chance to succeed" then I think you're wrong. I also like plenty of options, but I want these based on my characters statistics. If I'm not a good charmer then my attempt to charm should be in a fail-state as I choose it, not based on a dice-roll (not necessarily leading to a worse outcome - that's something else).

As I've already wrote, I play chess. I'm totally fine with deterministic games. But a totally deterministic CRPG? No, thanks... If you ask me, viideo games such XCOM and Jagged Alliance,strongly based on %, kick in the ass any RPG I've played so far gameplay-wise. So I see no arm in a reasonable degree of randomness, both in combat and outside of combat. Of course, if we are speaking of a D&D degree of randomness, you are totally right.

 

[Roguey]

According to your post, everything that hasn't a 100% deterministic result encourages save scum, so is inherently bad.

Combat doesn't because there are too many checks and it all evens out.

In that case, I can't see why "chance to hit" is good and "chance to succeed in a test" is bad. In Numenera all the tests work in the same way, and players have agency on the outcome, both in combat and outside of combat.

The number. And as I said, that works in P&P because of the lack of infinite mulligans.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Combat doesn't because there are too many checks and it all evens out.

A single skill test with a binary outcome is bad design no matter how the ruleset works. Non-combat gameplay shouldn't be a tax for your non-combat abilities (at least not in Torment). It should be real gameplay, like combat.

The number. And as I said, that works in P&P because of the lack of infinite mulligans.

to avoid the "degenerate" save scum, there's no need to change the ruleset. They simply can do what Firaxis did with the new XCom: generating all the dice rolls when a new map is loaded for the first time. This way, you can save/reload how many time you want, but the result of your tests will be always the same.

 

[Infinitron]

They might as well just make it deterministic if they're going to do that. Pre-baked random dice rolls in a story-driven RPG are hardly a source of replayability.

 

[Brother None]

What I'm missing from this discussion (and it's an interesting read) is consideration of how Crises factor into this, since they change the whole "combat vs non-combat skill" differentiation significantly.

 

[undecaf]

but to have the choices be small individual games of chance is pretty stupid.

I don't think it is, if the occasion is appropriate for there to be a chance that the persuadee/whatever might have a whim of thought and disagree even with the most convincing lie/plea/bargain. I think there being a chance for disagreement is more natural way to approach these kinds of situations, it gives the NPC's a sense that they actually do have a personality and will of their own. Again, just to make it clear, this - chance based dialog - should not be the case everywhere but just where these sorts of whims are appropriate.

 

[Karellen]

What I'm missing from this discussion (and it's an interesting read) is consideration of how Crises factor into this, since they change the whole "combat vs non-combat skill" differentiation significantly.

Indeed this. Randomized skill checks for non-combat abilities make a great deal of sense in a situation where they are part of a larger problem and there is some element of timing, danger or attrition involved. The "Fallout-style" repeating of, say, picking a lock, suddenly becomes meaningful if character skill determines whether said character is occupied for one, three or five turns in getting that lock open, while other party members have to protect the character from enemies while he's occupied. In a sufficiently sophisticated and multi-faceted scenario, the use of non-combat skills becomes simply another strategic consideration in dealing with an encounter. In fact, having to make such choices as who to send to accomplish a non-combat task, and whether to expend limited resources while doing it, could shake up otherwise static party roles and bring variety to encounters, which is highly desirable.

Of course, the important thing is that all of this is only true if the skill checks are repeatable, or there is otherwise some margin for error. Randomization with combat skills is interesting because it allows risk-taking and for unexpected situations to arise in combat that require adjustment from the player, but all this works only because the situation is dynamic and a single failed check shouldn't lead to a total failure. So in situations with no element of time or danger there might as well be some kind of "take 20" mechanic in place, since in the event of failures there's no incentive for players not to try again until they get it right.

 

[Dr Schultz]

They might as well just make it deterministic if they're going to do that.

Point is, the whole game system is built around dice-rolls and the ability of players to manipulate their outcomes, through effort, skills and "assets" (tools, information, tactical advantages or whatever). You can use effort even in combat, to rise your chance to hit. Hit points and Stat points basically are the same thing. They should change the whole system to make it deterministic, and I don't think it will be an improvement.

Pre-baked random dice rolls in a story-driven RPG are hardly a source of replayability.

New game, new rolls. Replayability is hardly affected by this "trick".

What I'm missing from this discussion (and it's an interesting read) is consideration of how Crises factor into this, since they change the whole "combat vs non-combat skill" differentiation significantly.

That's what I hope. I always felt that barriers between combat and combat gameplay in CRPGs are arbitrary and detrimental. I'm looking forward to see a Crisis in action.

 

[Jaesun]

Some day, cRPG's will be able to handle skill checks that fail like a good PnP session, and unbeknownst to the party allows for some incredible creativity on the players.

I personally don't get why people would ever re-load from a failed check. I do not, because I love that challenge to then think of another way to resolve the issue at hand. A GOOD cRPG allows you many options to deal with such a situation (and with consequences), without the need for reloading.