RPG Mechanics: Skill Progression and Roles

[Snowflakez]

It's all purely theoretical and making a general point. I'm not expecting them to implement all the 100 or so skills.



You'll have to be a bit more specific here. What do you mean with "all those mechanics"? What mechanics specifically? The two skills that were used as examples are just two skills and were just examples.



They have to do that with all of the skills, why should these (suggested as smaller ones) be the ones breaking the camels back? And more over, if the application of the skill is practical, rather than vocal, it's already a different situation.



Oh no, that's not the case. Little bits of dialog is not enough and it depends greatly on the skill at hand. In fact, dialog could well be on a lesser note here. Teaching, for example, might be a 'blank' dialog check that says nothing, but implies action: [Teach the kid to tie a noose 67%], or it could be straight applied to a situation where someone is trying to accomplish something (i.e. the kid is trying to make a card trick, you point there at the cards and the default action is to [Teach trick 80%].



That's not a reason to say "Ok, just skip it, there's plenty enough with the obvious stuff like locks pick and terminals to hack." There's plenty of stuff that will take a lot of time and effort, and plenty of it more than this stuff whilst being of lesser impact on the game. It doesn't need to be a piece of cake to implement this stuff, and the customer shouldn't feel "pity" for the developer in the same manner a mom would try to restrain a demanding dad over the kids household chores.

I mean, I am asking for some stuff (theoretical stuff, nothing really specific here), but not that much. The opposition usually is about "I don't need that" or "a lot of people probably wouldn't need that"; which I think is a tad faulty logic.



I'm not asking for anything that I wouldn't think fits with the core, though. Not as per our current knowledge of the game. I don't think I'm talking about stuff that would feel "outrageous" or "totally off the mark".

Okay, sure, theoretically I see your point. One or two extra skills wouldn't be too difficult by any means. Just depends on how fleshed out you want them to be. If you only use a skill twice in the entire game, would they then need to add additional abilities for it, and how would skill progression work?

If it requires skill points to pick skills, how do you communicate to the player ahead of time they've essentially picked a skill they will only a couple times? What if they feel resentment for being "tricked"?

Its not the fact that they take time that inherently makes including them a bad idea, it's more that said time (And money) cannot then be spent on making a "bigger" element of the game better, or making another element of the game that will appeal to more people.

If 95% of players are not going to use a feature, that's not necessarily reason not to implement it, but there's also a good argument to be made for spending that time on something else. That's the only point I'm really making.

The Total War games actually had a recent controversy surrounding streamlining their games with the latest Saga title. Basically, they removed two army stances (Forced march, which gave additional movement points on the campaign map, and Ambush, which is probably self explanatory) because very, very few people used them. Something like less than 5%. Maybe even less than 2%. I don't remember the exact figure.

Personally, I was against removing the mechanics because they were present in previous games (thus it was actually a video game mechanic that was taken away from us) and I actually used them quite frequently, but 2077 is a new game with no other video game predecessors.

So, the general idea here is that everything takes time and money to make, and that time and money can either be spent on several additional smaller ideas, or polishing bigger ideas and developing new ideas that more people are more likely to use.

I'm not against having these smaller mechanics, elements, and choices by any means, so don't get me wrong there. I love the idea, and in a perfect world, I'd love to have dozens of extra options like that. I'm just saying I don't think it's feasible or realistic to ask that of CDPR, or really any non-indie developer. Deadlines and budgets come into play.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

One or two extra skills wouldn't be too difficult by any means.

Define "too difficult" and why it would be that. And more specifically... in the face of how many "major" skills that wouldn't be too difficult or tasking to implement resourcewise?

Just depends on how fleshed out you want them to be.

As fleshed as fits the design. I have no specific answer since I do not know anything about the game. But suffice it to say that if the skills have the full range, the whole range should be covered (that the skilltest difficulties cover the range from easy to hard).

If it requires skill points to pick skills, how do you communicate to the player ahead of time they've essentially picked a skill they will only a couple times?

Skill description can offer some pointers for the player to draw from. And furthermore, you have the career packages for base skills and then there's the pick-up skills on top of that. That divide can well be used to illustrate something sort of major-minor divide.

What if they feel resentment for being "tricked"?

So what if they do? I've felt "resentment" over the design descisions of dozens of RPG's and nothing came out of it. The skill system itself should be loose enough that the player does not need to calculate for "ze bestestest build", it's a tool to interact with the game, not the point of it. "Being tricked" shouldn't be a blame of any but the one who doesn't like how his picks are being used.

If 95% of players are not going to use a feature... That's the only point I'm really making.

Why 95%? Why not 11%, 65%, 23%, or 110%? Where does that number come from?

That's really the point. We are talking about stuff here that's not really seen in RPG's anymore. Who can say people wouldn't accept it? Even that Kotaku schmuck might embrace it if was well enough done and if he opened his mind a bit.

But, we will never know how it'd go if no one does it.

I'm just saying I don't think it's feasible or realistic to ask that of CDPR, or really any non-indie developer.

You've implied it before a couple of times that my miscellaneous musings here (on these boards, not just this discussion) aren't feasible or realistic. Maybe they aren't, maybe I'm just stuck in the past where they still were and now it's just not possible anymore. But will you explain to me what is feasible and realistic and why?


Edit - For a more general rant, it’s a tad frustrating (and has been for a long time) that the only places where there’s room for ambitions and pushing of boundaries, the only places where they seem to be allowed, are on screen polygon count, square mileage of the map, number of spoken dialog lines and the ’intended’ length of the game. Asking for broadening the gameplay conventions is just ’unreasonable’ and ’asking too much’, it can’t be done, bankruptcy and burnout loom just behind the corner. But such are the times, let’s wait for the inevitably predictable and be content with it when ever it comes.

But enough ranting.

 

[SigilFey]

I'd rather have fewer options with more meaningful applications than tons of options that simply add flavor. When it comes to "auxiliary" skills, I think there are two major considerations:

1.) Do these skills offer something to entice players to use them?

and

2.) Do these skills affect the path to the endgame?

I have often felt the burn of picking a skill that does not ever come up in any meaningful way during the game. Like picking something similar to "speak to animals" in D&D games on PC. From the 1980's until the BG2 / Neverwinter Nights era, the number of times you'd actually get to use such skills was trifling -- and it usually didn't even give you anything for your trouble! Just a totally obvious clue that you probably came up with on your own far earlier...or you trade a rabbit a carrot in exchange for a gem or something. In short, a whole lot of effort and character-building for effectively...nothing. Quickly enough, the skill would become known as a "useless" skill because of [number-crunching / nerfed builds]... Well, bye-bye, role playing!

So, if a skill is included in a game, then that skill should offer a consistently useful gameplay approach and a unique pathway to the endgame. I think a lot of games have trouble doing this even with core skills. Let's face it, in most RPGs, we fight our way through to an end battle where we kill something in order to win. (And it's bloody fun -- don't get me wrong!) But it does leave a lot of support skills being relatively without impact or actual use. They tend to be more mini-games, exploits, or time-wasters than actual mechanics used to move the game's story-arc forward.

 

[Snowflakez]

I'd rather have fewer options with more meaningful applications than tons of options that simply add flavor. When it comes to "auxiliary" skills, I think there are two major considerations:

1.) Do these skills offer something to entice players to use them?

and

2.) Do these skills affect the path to the endgame?

I have often felt the burn of picking a skill that does not ever come up in any meaningful way during the game. Like picking something similar to "speak to animals" in D&D games on PC. From the 1980's until the BG2 / Neverwinter Nights era, the number of times you'd actually get to use such skills was trifling -- and it usually didn't even give you anything for your trouble! Just a totally obvious clue that you probably came up with on your own far earlier...or you trade a rabbit a carrot in exchange for a gem or something. In short, a whole lot of effort and character-building for effectively...nothing. Quickly enough, the skill would become known as a "useless" skill because of [number-crunching / nerfed builds]... Well, bye-bye, role playing!

So, if a skill is included in a game, then that skill should offer a consistently useful gameplay approach and a unique pathway to the endgame. I think a lot of games have trouble doing this even with core skills. Let's face it, in most RPGs, we fight our way through to an end battle where we kill something in order to win. (And it's bloody fun -- don't get me wrong!) But it does leave a lot of support skills being relatively without impact or actual use. They tend to be more mini-games, exploits, or time-wasters than actual mechanics used to move the game's story-arc forward.

This is pretty much how I feel about it, too. Well said.

 

[Rawls]

Yeah if a skill only contributes a marginal effect on the game play ... why use the resources on it. Now, I absolutely believe that multiple play styles should be supported (specifically hacking, tech, stealth, persuasion, combat) but I think the skills should be created to accommodate each of those styles. Also, some skills in an RPG require mechanics in a cRPG that may just be a given (like climbing, swimming, and etc) so I'm more flexible with those types of skills.

 

[Loostreaks]

I'd rather have fewer options with more meaningful applications than tons of options that simply add flavor. When it comes to "auxiliary" skills, I think there are two major considerations:

1.) Do these skills offer something to entice players to use them?

and

2.) Do these skills affect the path to the endgame?

I have often felt the burn of picking a skill that does not ever come up in any meaningful way during the game. Like picking something similar to "speak to animals" in D&D games on PC. From the 1980's until the BG2 / Neverwinter Nights era, the number of times you'd actually get to use such skills was trifling -- and it usually didn't even give you anything for your trouble! Just a totally obvious clue that you probably came up with on your own far earlier...or you trade a rabbit a carrot in exchange for a gem or something. In short, a whole lot of effort and character-building for effectively...nothing. Quickly enough, the skill would become known as a "useless" skill because of [number-crunching / nerfed builds]... Well, bye-bye, role playing!

So, if a skill is included in a game, then that skill should offer a consistently useful gameplay approach and a unique pathway to the endgame. I think a lot of games have trouble doing this even with core skills. Let's face it, in most RPGs, we fight our way through to an end battle where we kill something in order to win. (And it's bloody fun -- don't get me wrong!) But it does leave a lot of support skills being relatively without impact or actual use. They tend to be more mini-games, exploits, or time-wasters than actual mechanics used to move the game's story-arc forward.

Flavor options aren't bad per se, they can add a lot to roleplaying ( than powergaming aspect). Example how not to do it, is say, Skyrim with skills like pickpocketing having very limited use, but requiring heavy investment ( in comparison).
And for games of this size/complexity, this is pretty much unavoidable.
In that case, streamlining is actually good approach by combining them into one skill( or several similar in function "perks" into one).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I think the usual flaw of thought is to assume (and even demand that) the characterbuild should be constantly patting the players back by providing the expectation of steady empowerment and big rewards - essentially a powerfantasy that inevitably and without exception leads to strict and flavorless powerbuilding - rather than providing the tools of interaction for the player to choose from (whether powerbuilding or playing more organically, that's a choice) and making the player play the game as it comes with those choices for better or worse. It's a very strict road, the end of which you can predict since all roads are designed to provide a linear power curve without flavor choices or surprises.

Of course if there is a skill, it should provide useful gameplay. There's absolutely no question about it. But the point is that all skills do not need to be equally useful or impactful -- not even close. Nor does every skill need to be an endgame tool, it only needs to be useful in a manner that suits it and the core design of how the roleplaying is intended to work.

Also, if the game has mechanisms that are unequivocally useless and trivial, it's a flaw in the games design, not in the skill that has been left underdeveloped.

But yeah, I had a bigger post here, but I think this suffices. The consensus seems clear. I disagree with it, but... yeah. I've made my point.

 

[SigilFey]

Flavor options aren't bad per se, they can add a lot to roleplaying ( than powergaming aspect). Example how not to do it, is say, Skyrim with skills like pickpocketing having very limited use, but requiring heavy investment ( in comparison). And for games of this size/complexity, this is pretty much unavoidable. In that case, streamlining is actually good approach by combining them into one skill( or several similar in function "perks" into one).

I'll never deny that they can be fun, but sometimes I feel that they detract from the overall experience. Especially when a player sees an option, gets excited to use it, and the game never delivers on that promise. That can suck a lot of energy out of a playthrough. (Yes, I was definitely thinking of Bethesda's approach to a lot of their "support" skills.)

I think the usual flaw of thought is to assume (and even demand that) the characterbuild should be constantly patting the players back by providing the expectation of steady empowerment and big rewards...

But the point is that all skills do not need to be equally useful or impactful -- not even close. Nor does every skill need to be an endgame tool, it only needs to be useful in a manner that suits it and the core design of how the roleplaying is intended to work.

It's precisely to avoid feeling like I'm being allowed to win, and rather the desire to see a game that challenges me to play the build I created. The way it mostly works now, if I choose a "dud" skill, a game will almost invariably put me into a situation where I have little chance of succeeding because it requires some other skill (usually combat-related). If I don't have the ability to do so much DPS, I can't get by this or that boss. I decided to play a thief...or a diplomat...but I needed to focus on either melee or archery for that part, or it's basically impossible.

So...why did the game allow me to build that sort of character if it's so obviously balanced for something else? Or (more to my point), why is there not an option for me to play the character I built? Why can my thief not just sneak by it (maybe have to set up an intricate, multi-step distraction using the environment)? Why can my diplomat not manage to confuse the troll using a really tricky dialogue sequence? It doesn't have to be "easy", but I'd love for the option to exist if the skill exists. Why can my illusion mage not create a mirage to confound it? Why can my druid not befriend it? Why do only my "fighting" skills provide a solution except for certain, set-piece instances?

And I agree that support skills should be just that: ways of augmenting and flavoring the necessary skills. I just think that there are so many missed opportunities in the attempt to make a game "longer". I'd rather see games that are "wider".

(Also, I understand if you've already discussed it to death. I just stumbled on it now.)

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'd rather see games that are "wider".

This is precisely what I've been trying to suggest.

Options and opportunities. Bigger and smaller. More or less important in the big picture, but there nonetheless. Allowing a "wider" variety of roleplaying options rather than going strictly and simply towards what seems like the obvious choice... a sneaky sniper, a diplomat, a tank, a gadgeteer. To have the opportunity to go beyond the archetypes. What if my Solo "tank" was also an amaterur geologist (or even competent one)? Nothing away from anyone else, but for the player choosing it and getting gameplay out of it is rewarding as hell. "Hey, I didn't expect I could do that!" What if my sneaky nomad sniper was also a techer/educator....?

"Dud" skills and trap situations that block vital progression are a fault of the developer; but not being able to do everything logic might suggest is just life. The troll you mentioned might not care at all about your utterances, no matter how slick and smart they are, so diplomacy might not be an option there. And if you aren't able beat it, if you do not possess the skills that are required, you should accept the situation and move on. The game doesn't fall apart on situations like that; and if it does, it's a bad game.

(Also, I understand if you've already discussed it to death. I just stumbled on it now.)

Not all the way to death, yet. No worries.

 

[Snowflakez]

I think the usual flaw of thought is to assume (and even demand that) the characterbuild should be constantly patting the players back by providing the expectation of steady empowerment and big rewards - essentially a powerfantasy that inevitably and without exception leads to strict and flavorless powerbuilding - rather than providing the tools of interaction for the player to choose from (whether powerbuilding or playing more organically, that's a choice) and making the player play the game as it comes with those choices for better or worse. It's a very strict road, the end of which you can predict since all roads are designed to provide a linear power curve without flavor choices or surprises.

Of course if there is a skill, it should provide useful gameplay. There's absolutely no question about it. But the point is that all skills do not need to be equally useful or impactful -- not even close. Nor does every skill need to be an endgame tool, it only needs to be useful in a manner that suits it and the core design of how the roleplaying is intended to work.

Also, if the game has mechanisms that are unequivocally useless and trivial, it's a flaw in the games design, not in the skill that has been left underdeveloped.

But yeah, I had a bigger post here, but I think this suffices. The consensus seems clear. I disagree with it, but... yeah. I've made my point.

You make a lot of great points, and honestly, maybe I'm wrong as far as resource allocation goes. I would like to have everything you've talked about here. I'm just being pessimistic about how realistic it will be for a AAA developer to implement it.

If we're strictly going off of the "what I'd like to see" thing, then I'm totally on board. But if we're thinking more along the lines of "what will probably happen," I'm going to have to dissent. Again, I could be (and hope I am) wrong, so I suppose we'll find out what CDPR decides come E3.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But if we're thinking more along the lines of "what will probably happen,"

I don't like those lines because it's too often a dire and droll excercise in premeditating a disappointment. I rather try to push things in different directions that I think are sorely underexplored with todays RPG's than dwell in what is thought to be likely because here, with what we know, what can be called likely is to contemplate the safest and least jagged design possible to sell 10+ million copies. And that thought leaves no copy to me, and thusly no interest in pursuing it much further. It's not very useful from than point of view.

But what do you think is likely for this game? What is "probably" going to happen, in your mind? It's easy to think about stuff that might not happen, what seems unlikely to you, but what about the contrary of it?

 

[Snowflakez]

I don't like those lines because it's too often a dire and droll excercise in premeditating a disappointment. I rather try to push things in different directions that I think are sorely underexplored with todays RPG's than dwell in what is thought to be likely because here, with what we know, what can be called likely is to contemplate the safest and least jagged design possible to sell 10+ million copies. And that thought leaves no copy to me, and thusly no interest in pursuing it much further. It's not very useful from than point of view.

But what do you think is likely for this game? What is "probably" going to happen, in your mind? It's easy to think about stuff that might not happen, what seems unlikely to you, but what about the contrary of it?

Based on CDPR's track record and statements they've made in the past about elements that won't transfer over well to video game form, I'm unfortunately expecting a lot of the fluff skills to be canned entirely.

I'm expecting the game to be story and dialogue-heavy, with plenty of optional (and the occasional forced) combat encounter. I'm expecting skills such as weapon handling, reflexes, body type (essentially toughness/constitution), hacking, and other "traditional" RPG skills that will have a more major impact on gameplay to be present. These are the skills that players will have access to the majority of the time. Other skills, such as geology, will undoubtedly be removed, as I believe CDPR themselves said in an early blog post.

For example, the Cyberpunk® 2020 “Wardrobe & Style” skill governs the knowledge about the right clothes to wear, when to wear them and how to look cool even in a spacesuit. As you can see, this skill covers quite a big area of lore and can be interpreted differently, depending on the situation and the players. In Cyberpunk 2077 this skill has to be tied to a specific gameplay mechanic. And all of these mechanics have to be clearly defined so they can work well with other elements of the game and, at the same time, be easy to understand for the player. After all, we don’t have a referee or game master to explain or interpret the rules as you go. And, to accommodate your curiosity, yes, we have some really cool ideas on how to present aforementioned skill in the game. Regrettably, we’re not quite yet ready to spill the beans.

...Of course we may need to change some things, add new elements or even drop the ones that simply do not work in a video game (“Geology” skill anyone?).

Source: http://cyberpunk.net/blog/mechanisms/

So, if we're to assume that the game will open the door to some of the "main" playstyles (and not many others), such as persuasion, combat and stealth, skills associated with those playstyles will likely be present but very much streamlined.

For example, in the case of persuasion, I'm expecting them to be condensed significantly. I doubt you'll have access to numerous separate Bluff, Persuade, Intimidate, Seduce options. They will probably be rolled into one general "speech" skill, and possibly have perks that you can use from time to time for more specific dialogue options where the devs deem them appropriate.

I'm also expecting a streamlined progression system, as much as I hate to say it. The Witcher 3 was incredibly simplistic, so much so that -- and I do not mean this in a derogatory way -- my 8-year-old nephew could probably grasp it. I don't think it will be quite that streamlined, but it will be simpler than a classic CRPG, I have no doubt of that.

I am not expecting a great deal of world reactivity. The Witcher 3 didn't have it, so that's where I'm just pulling from CDPR's track record. I don't expect NPCs to react to your decisions in meaningful ways outside of dialogue and the occasional "oh look my decisions have impact lol". However, since appearance/style was such a big part of 2020, NPCs will probably pay attention to your outfits and treat you slightly differently.

 

[Rawls]

So, if we're to assume that the game will open the door to some of the "main" playstyles, such as persuasion, combat and stealth, skills associated with those playstyles will likely be present. However, in the case of persuasion, I'm expecting them to be condensed significantly. For example, I doubt you'll have access to numerous separate Bluff, Persuade, Intimidate, Seduce options. They will probably be rolled into one general "speech" skill, and possibly have perks that you can use from time to time for more specific dialogue options where the devs deem them appropriate.

I'm not so sure. If there's an entire charisma play-style, you would expect lots of options as to how to do that. Just like combat encounters have multiple styles for success, you would hope the same could be true for dialogue ... be it persuasion, intimidation, bribery, cuddling, or whatever. If it's all just "speech" then it becomes very simplified.

 

[Snowflakez]

I'm not so sure. If there's an entire charisma play-style, you would expect lots of options as to how to do that. Just like combat encounters have multiple styles for success, you would hope the same could be true for dialogue ... be it persuasion, intimidation, bribery, cuddling, or whatever. If it's all just "speech" then it becomes very simplified.

We would be moving towards Vampire: The Masquerade territory there, and the only other major, non-isometric RPG I know of that has successfully completed that in modern times is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, and even then, it only has 3 options.

Not saying it's impossible, but he asked me what I expected, and that's still what I expect.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

...

Yeah. Case in point. I would've probably said the exact same things.

"Probably: cutting this, not doing that, streamlining those, neglicting these, unfortunately this, regrettably that..." It's mostly a downer to think about what's "probable" or "realistic" based on the current knowledge. Doesn't really paint a picture of anything special, nor urge me to open my wallet for it.

 

[BaalNergal]

We would be moving towards Vampire: The Masquerade territory there, and the only other major, non-isometric RPG I know of that has successfully completed that in modern times is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, and even then, it only has 3 options.

Not saying it's impossible, but he asked me what I expected, and that's still what I expect.

Shadowrun Returns series made use of different speech options and skills to avoid a lot of problems. Not a single skill, build, or choice is really useless for most of that series. And the one that kinda edged on it was removed in Hong Kong.

On the other hand, this approach can be very limiting in its own way. In Shadowrun Returns, if you want to play as a charismatic, speech-using character you're pretty much limited to playing an elf shaman for much of the game.

 

[Snowflakez]

Yeah. Case in point. I would've probably said the exact same things.

"Probably: cutting this, not doing that, streamlining those, neglicting these, unfortunately this, regrettably that..." It's mostly a downer to think about what's "probable" or "realistic" based on the current knowledge. Doesn't really paint a picture of anything special, nor urge me to open my wallet for it.

I'm still holding out hope until at least E3. There's every possibility we're all wrong and this will prove to be the most ambitious RPG of the decade, with many of 2020's skills implemented cleverly and meaningfully.

If E3 comes with no reassurance, or worse, confirmation of our fears, then I'll be more worried.

Shadowrun Returns series made use of different speech options and skills to avoid a lot of problems. Not a single skill, build, or choice is really useless for most of that series. And the one that kinda edged on it was removed in Hong Kong.

On the other hand, this approach can be very limiting in its own way. In Shadowrun Returns, if you want to play as a charismatic, speech-using character you're pretty much limited to playing an elf shaman for much of the game.

Yep, but that was a turn-based, isometric, party-based RPG. Not that its a bad game, but when you add 3D movement and much bigger art/animation budgets, you have less freedom to go wild in that regard. Plus, voice acting.

Completely agree that it was handled well there, though. Shadowrun is actually another game I had in mind when I was writing that.

 

[Gwydden]

I was hoping for something more along the lines of a handful of well developed systems, which should be feasible enough. The way I see it, we would get a handful of ways of interacting with the game world, and the player character could be specialized along some of them. So there would be combat, obviously, and probably also stealth, hacking, dialogue, and a few others, all with a similar level of built-in complexity. So take dialogue: it wouldn’t be just a simplistic “put points into this attribute and press the I win button” anymore than combat would be.

Again, I think DX:HR came closest to making dialogue into fully fleshed out gameplay. If you want to convince someone, you should have to figure out what approach would work best and how to present yourself, pick the apropriate options without any signposting, use whatever you know about them, and so on. Focusing on social skills would make this easier, give you hints and perhaps additional approaches, but it would not take care of the actual socializing for you. Just like a socially-focused character may have trouble with the forced combat encounters, a combat-focused character should face similar difficulties in the forced dialogue battles (assuming no cross-specialization, of course).

That would still leave room for a handful of flavor skills that would come up a couple times throughout the game, though I admit I don’t find that to be terribly important. I don’t want a Pillars of Eternity type deal where you have dozens of options that hardly matter. Roleplaying-wise, I would prefer a proper implementation of life paths so that your character does not materialize out of thin air as so many RPG protagonists and actually feels a part of the world.

 

[Suhiira]

For example, in the case of persuasion, I'm expecting them to be condensed significantly. I doubt you'll have access to numerous separate Bluff, Persuade, Intimidate, Seduce options. They will probably be rolled into one general "speech" skill, and possibly have perks that you can use from time to time for more specific dialogue options where the devs deem them appropriate.

Different "speech" styles (Bluff, Persuade, Intimidate, Seduce) can, and should be useful in specific situations. No "one size fits all" skill please. You CAN NOT do it all, that's the point of an RPG vs your typical Action game where you can. You need to have the option, and game supported method, to resolve situations in a variety of ways.

If a games skills are designed such that each is equally useful in any and all situations, and you have access to them all, what's the point of having skills in the first place?

I am not expecting a great deal of world reactivity. The Witcher 3 didn't have it, so that's where I'm just pulling from CDPR's track record. I don't expect NPCs to react to your decisions in meaningful ways outside of dialogue and the occasional "oh look my decisions have impact lol". However, since appearance/style was such a big part of 2020, NPCs will probably pay attention to your outfits and treat you slightly differently.

Here I hope (but wouldn't bet) you're wrong.
I think CDPR should be keeping world reactivity near the front of their entire design for CP2077. Because that's what makes an RPG different then your typical action game. In both games you start at 'A' and eventually get to 'Z', but if at the end all you have is "You foiled the oppositions plans" (via killing them or whatever) "GAME OVER" what's really the difference between the two games? In the earlier Fallout games you got a rather long series of "Your actions resulted in ..." snapshots at the end of the game. You felt like your actions had meaning, consequence.

 

[Snowflakez]

Different "speech" styles (Bluff, Persuade, Intimidate, Seduce) can, and should be useful in specific situations. No "one size fits all" skill please. You CAN NOT do it all, that's the point of an RPG vs your typical Action game where you can. You need to have the option, and game supported method, to resolve situations in a variety of ways.

If a games skills are designed such that each is equally useful in any and all situations, and you have access to them all, what's the point of having skills in the first place?


Here I hope (but wouldn't bet) you're wrong.
I think CDPR should be keeping world reactivity near the front of their entire design for CP2077. Because that's what makes an RPG different then your typical action game. In both games you start at 'A' and eventually get to 'Z', but if at the end all you have is "You foiled the oppositions plans" (via killing them or whatever) "GAME OVER" what's really the difference between the two games? In the earlier Fallout games you got a rather long series of "Your actions resulted in ..." snapshots at the end of the game. You felt like your actions had meaning, consequence.

Yeah, I agree with all this. Especially the speech stuff. Just saying what I think is likely. I don't think many game developers appreciate the nuance between different types of speech, even though they are very important for gameplay and roleplay.