- Mar 2, 2015
Maybe the player character shouldn't have powers of foresight and mindreading and therefore able to know exactly what their odds of passing said skill check are?Take a dialogue that goes:
"I offer lore that is the start of an interesting side quest."
1. [Persuasion 60%] As a fellow knowledge-seeker, I would love to hear it.
2. [Intimidate 20%] Tell me or die!
3. So what.
Totally worthless. No player will take #2 (as its odds are lower); if his stats are such that the odds are flipped, then he will take #2 rather than #1, of course. And no player will take #3. Furthermore, there is a 40% chance that the player will reload -- if he takes #1 and fails the check.
(In fact, AOD suggests that even if you replace these rolls with threshold checks, players will go berserk about their inability to get this sidequest without foreknowledge of the necessary thresholds.)
Unless, of course, the player is actually psychic or really good at reading people. Hey, maybe this could be actual features in an RPG character system or something.
Stop blaming players for bad design choices by game developers.
The thing is, that usually there are no interesting (even if negative) consequences for failing those skill checks. Usually you'll be denied some sidequest, companion or the area will aggro on the player. And that's it.
Limited saving in Kingdom Come (until you learned to brew the magical save potion in such quantities as to make it a non issue) worked well, because you had to deal with the situation you got into, which usually resulted in running away. But it didn't feel like you arbitrarily got locked of some interesting content because you had too low stats and the RNG wasn't in your favour.
Hell, I did my fair share of save-scumming in BG games just because of that.