Mike Pondsmith talks about character classes on Cyberpunk 2077

[MadqueenShow]

I think that CDPR doesnt care right now about anything related to Cyberpunk 2077. They probably already have written out marketing campaign from start to finish and how much money they will spend on it. Iwinski in his last interview said that they showed trailer years ago, and right now there is nothing to talk until they will show game which must meet very high expectations after Witcher 3.

I think that they still dont have "game" to show, but for now probably few different in-engine builds which at the end must be one working game, and they still probably adding and later cuting content, so there is nothing certain, even some classes can be cut, who knows...

I'm quite positive I read somewhere that CDPR said the game was very advanced and that they were fosusing their efforts on the multiplayer part, and that was months ago. I would post you there I read it but I can't remember, I'm afraid.

 

[Suhiira]

That's sort of the point of RPGs, you can't "do it all", you need to select a role based on how you want to approach the game. It circles back to "entitlement", I paid for a game, I want to experience everything it has to offer when I play it. Sorry, real RPGs (if implemented as intended) prohibit that because different choices in skills and dialog mean you won't see everything.

Do you want Skyrim/Fallout where any single character can eventually do everything at the highest possible skill levels? Or the currently popular MMO style where you preselect from your skills for a given situation/mission and have zero access to those you didn't select?

CP2077 is NOT an MMO, chances are you won't have, or need, a PvE and a PvP build.

 

[MadqueenShow]

Or the currently popular MMO style where you preselect from your skills for a given situation/mission and have zero access to those you didn't select?

CP2077 is NOT an MMO, chances are you won't have, or need, a PvE and a PvP build.

I don't see it as a "skill selection", I see it as "forced cooperation", and it would fit the tabletop version of the game perfectly fine, making it the RPG that is more RPG ever, but then you'll need an incredible amount of dialogue lines and such. but also would allow you to replay the game countless times with different character classes and have a very different game. That would be an exageration of what was done in, for instance, Menkind Divided, where you have lots of different ways to solve the same situation, so you can choose who you side with.

 

[Suhiira]

I don't see it as a "skill selection", I see it as "forced cooperation", and it would fit the tabletop version of the game perfectly fine, <clip>

I'll disagree.
I've been running an RPG for almost 20 years, same game, some of the same characters we started with. While not Cyberpunk 2020 it uses a similar "anyone can take any skill" system. Many of the characters have become truly expert in their chosen role, others have become generalists, and a couple have (over time) adopted new primary roles. If you're doing a PnP you don't need to force cooperation as your players will naturally adopt the roles needed for a viable group.

Now, with MMOs unless you're in a guild (or whatever the game calls it) chances are you're dealing with PUGs and then I see the need/reason for "forced cooperation" and skill/role swapping.
But !
CP2077 is not an MMO.

The multi-player component will probably be similar to what was done in "Sword Coast Legends", or perhaps "Conan Exiles", someone can set their PC up as a server for a small group of people. In such a situation people gravitate to a server they like and with a very limited population (compared to a standard MMO) of players/characters people will naturally gravitate to the roles/skills necessary to create viable teams.

 

[Sydanyo]

I think all those of us who have actually played pen and paper RPGs, and run campaigns, would agree that forcing anything is about the dumbest thing you can ever do, and will with a very high likelihood lead to the players rebelling and making sure your best laid plans are torn asunder.

Yes, the GM is always right, without exception. However, the GM is also there to facilitate the fun of the players, not the other way around.

 

[Suhiira]

Yes, the GM is always right, without exception.

I prefer to say I have the final say when there's a disagreement, not that I'm right

 

[Sydanyo]

I prefer to say I have the final say when there's a disagreement, not that I'm right

Well, I mean...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleZero

Of course, in reality, if the players think the GM is a douchebag, they'll probably get another GM and tell that person to never show their face in public. But, the point here is mainly that if there's ever a doubt about the rules or something, the GM overrules the rulebook, every time. I'm one of those a-hole players (when I'm playing, not running a campaign), who starts arguing with the GM way too often about how I found something in the rulebook that contradicts what the GM says, but that's why I recognize how important it really is to just accept that the GM is the one deciding what goes. The rulebook only exists as a collection of suggestions. So, thus, the GM is always right. However, as said before, the GM is also only one person, while there might be three, four, five players. Maybe even more. And as such, the GM's job is to make sure that the majority of the group has fun, and sometimes that might mean having the insight to make some sacrifices on their own part.

Thus, forcing cooperation or forcing anything, is about as dumb a stunt as one can pull as a GM, and it definitely translates to the PC game world as well; when you've got an unexplained invisible wall you can't walk through, you'll feel like the designers were complete morons, not coming up with something a bit more plausible.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

I hope there aren't useless skills such as Axii. Hell there were tons of abilities that were a waste of time to spent your hard earned points into.

Most RPG's are full of useless skills and classes.

 

[Suhiira]

More too situationally dependent.
I suppose it's nice to have the "right" ability for a specific set of circumstances, but yes, having skills that are ONLY useful a very limited number of times is poor game design.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Most RPG's are full of useless skills and classes.

A lot are.

But there are often cases where the assumption of uselessness is the result of not knowing or understanding where and how the skill is supposed to be used, not appreciating what it does, or personally not finding it useful and so deems it useless in general.

Flavor skills are also often a good thing. Even despite their relative uselessness in comparison to the most used skills, they often manage to create fun gameplay variety (if designed right).

 

[Calistarius]

Yeah... being forced to do anything when it comes to pnp rpg's tends to be really annoying... and can lead to conflikt amongst the players, and between the players and GM. It is one thing to be "stuck" with a certain role due to that you as a group talked amongst your self about maybe how the groups characters should be structured to cover as many different bases as possible... then atleast there has been a conversation about it, where you your self has been able to say "yeah, sure, I can play the groups main healer/medic" even if you don't normally like playing such a role maybe (I my self don't really like those roles... I tend to more lean towards the warrior/soldier types of combat roles). But when your told, forced, to play a role... either by the other players, or the GM... then things can tend to turn bad, especially if it keeps happening over and over again. There is also a difference if it is something like where the GM maybe force everybody to play Mages or what ever, since then it comes down to that the story/campaign the GM wants to lead revolves around everybody being a mage of some kind.

Luckily I have only ever once been forced to play a certain role once, when the others in the group was not forced at all and could make what ever they wanted. My GM had finally goten tired of me for the past 10 or so years almost only ever playing human warriors/soldiers, or something close to it (like a combat heavy type of thief/rogue/rangers/hunters/etc kinds of characters, etc)... so while the other 2 in the group got to play what they wanted (both of them made Dwarves), my GM forced me to play an elven mage. Which are two of the few things I dislike the most playing... playing mages and such is the roles I dislike the most playing... and there are not a lot of races I in general dislike even more playing then Elves (Dwarves usually being the race I dislike the most playing). I still got to choice exactly how to build the character, as long as he was an elf mage, and atleast decent at magic and no weapon or combat skill higher then any mage skills (which was another stipulation ... since that is also pretty common for me when I made characters who's role was not really combat, where even something like a scientist would be better at combat then he was on the science stuff when I made them... I either make pure warriors/soldiers... or hybrid roles/classes where one half of them are warriors/soldiers types of characters... XD ). The character I decided to make was essentualy a sort of protest towards that I was forced to playing that character. Everything from which magic school I choice, to his name, personality, etc.

Of course, it is not really that I mind playing something like that... a mage, or something which is not a human (I tend to prefer playing human in essentually all types of games, be they pnp rpg, tabletop games, or videogames in general), etc... but I atleast want it to be my choice when I do play something like that.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Hey do you guys remember that thing called "CHARISMA" in Fallout 4? Funny how you could simply shoot your way through the game and completely disregard CHARISMA as a whole. Not to mention the game itself gave no choices to the player.

A lot are.

But there are often cases where the assumption of uselessness is the result of not knowing or understanding where and how the skill is supposed to be used, not appreciating what it does, or personally not finding it useful and so deems it useless in general.

Flavor skills are also often a good thing. Even despite their relative uselessness in comparison to the most used skills, they often manage to create fun gameplay variety (if designed right).

I also loved to use Axii to mind control enemies only to see them standing still most of the time.

[PASSIVE AGGRESSION INTENSIFIES]

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I wasn't really defending Witcher 3's magic abilities, but since you bring it up. Axii felt much more worth it to me than Yrden, sometimes even more than Igni. But that's about that.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

i'm sure they will make different classes with unique abilities, and you pick one and complete the game with it and then pick another one and use totally diferent abilities
maybe for multiplayer we have characters with few abilities, you know, less character development and use skills fast , like in mass effect 3 or andromeda mp,


still nothing substantial to show, this is taking so long