you mean like shooting the exact same way but having different damages because of skill level? That's videogame limitation in my book, not accurate representation of what is going on.
Personally I liked how F:NV did this. A lot of dialogue was gated behind skills, but you could level those skills reasonably and they gave bonus XP when used in conversations. Best part was talking to Ulysses: you had several ways to convince him depending on your explorations and skills.
I agree. I don't like that design either. Whats your point? That because one design is less than ideal more should be?
It's about what is more important to you in the end: form or substance.
And personally, i prefer a game where i have access to non perfectly represented things than a game with a lot less possibilities but accurate.
Actually your point sounds to me that combat skills should be removed from the game because they are not represented accurately.
What do you mean with ”ideal” here? Ideal in achieving what exactly?
If the goal is to provide a tangible progressive roleplaying experience where the player has the power to control and mold his character, who s/he is and what’s s/he like and what s/he will become, then the ideal situation is definitely having more ways of doing so (i.e. social skills and standings).
I can’t see anything ”unideal” about the mechanics that’ve been in the discussion (rng checks where appropriate, gated checks where appropriate), if they serve the goal experience.
What would be ”ideal”?
Last edited:
Abbreviated so that it works in the much more focused and narrative adventure, yes. And rightfully so. If I want to tell a great story as well as introduce engrossing gameplay (ala The Witcher Series), I need to use the parts of a potentially larger system that help me reach my goal for the game, and cut the parts that don't.
I'd say the flip-side to this would be throwing it in there so that it's there (ala most Bethesda games). Fun? Certainly! But there are also a lot of skills, abilities, and interactions that are off-note, lackluster, or just outright pointless in the actual execution.
The thing is, that's easier said than done. It's pretty common, I'd say, for a creative person or team to get a little carried away with their part of the much larger process. Then, they're unfortunately told -- even if their work is fantastic -- that it doesn't work for the larger, comprehensive piece. (No funding / No time / Interferes with the pacing / Causes a technical issue / Etc.) Which is mostly fine once creative workers get used to that. Always easier to pull back than push ahead!
In the end, what you're describing is exactly what pretty much all games try to do now, and this is the level we're at. I mean, just the 50-min demo we were shown from E3 last year, with the options provided there, was the result of easily hundreds if not thousands of man-hours. Sure, it's not hard to dream up 10 more possibilities and outcomes for each stage or line of dialogue, but a.) it is simply not realistic to spend all the time and resources on that level of detail in the face of completing the larger project as planned, and b.) no matter how many options you provide, people will instantly come up with more and be disappointed that those weren't included, too.
So, it's ultimately fruitless to try to cover every conceivable angle. Far more beneficial to try to ensure that players have a smaller range of choices that can impact the gameplay in meaningful ways. (Personally, I would always work in 3's. Left, right, or back? Rooftop, basement, or right in the front door? Kill them, avoid them, or talk it out? Keeps the branches manageable, and ensures each path is unique without getting carried away. Skills and abilities may allow characters to move laterally along the web, instead of simply following the next chain in the link. If I provide too many options, things start to feel shapeless. Now there are simply too many ways to win and get to any result I want. What's the point?)
All of this comes back to a software game not being able to adapt to situations creatively like a living, thinking GM. Computers can't "makes stuff up on the fly" or "just go with it". Everything needs to be pre-determined in excruciating detail in order to even simulate organic gameplay.
_______________
But I think you and I share a desire to see a different type of gameplay in the future. I've often posted that I would love to see a game that was shorter from beginning to end, but could be replayed as different types of characters for a completely unique experience of the same events. The story of a great war between two kingdoms. Do you play a warrior? You wind up joining the army for one side or the other and will take part in the great battles and assaults. A thief may be recruited as a scout or spy, and spend the game infiltrating the enemy behind the lines. A cleric will play as a healer and a diplomat trying to end the fighting...or maybe instigating it to appease their warlike god. Etc. Which side do you choose to join? Where do you start? Who do you meet? Friends in one game might be mortal enemies in a different playthrough. In the end, you uncover a view of the events from multiple angles, getting the "whole vision" only after playing a lot of different ways and arriving at vastly different outcomes.
But realistically, I think a system like that would mean an entire playthrough may only be around 10 hours, even if "one-hundred-percenting the game" would take hundreds. Not really a problem, I don't think. I mean, look at the amount of energy and impact a single film can have. (Inception is only 2h 28min.
)Guys it looks like upgrading your skill tree will open up certain dialogue options. Might come across as a "yeah duh" but Look on the screenshot thread and at the "Theres someone behind you" screenshot.
Having an engineering level of 5 opens up your dialogue to pointing out that a certain vehicle was a custom job and opened that dialogue option up for use. Which might also open up different pathways as to how to pursue the mission. Like finding out who did the custom job, finding out what the van is for/has, its weaknesses, etc. Whereas if you didn't upgrade your engineering skill, you wouldn't have been able to say that or find these things out.
This is probably how the entire game bases its social system and dialogue options. It's based more on who you actually are and what skillsets you have versus just "Charisma 10 so they do what you want because charm" which is entirely unrealistic IMO. Especially in a world like cyberpunk.
Having an engineering level of 5 opens up your dialogue to pointing out that a certain vehicle was a custom job and opened that dialogue option up for use. Which might also open up different pathways as to how to pursue the mission. Like finding out who did the custom job, finding out what the van is for/has, its weaknesses, etc. Whereas if you didn't upgrade your engineering skill, you wouldn't have been able to say that or find these things out.
This is probably how the entire game bases its social system and dialogue options. It's based more on who you actually are and what skillsets you have versus just "Charisma 10 so they do what you want because charm" which is entirely unrealistic IMO. Especially in a world like cyberpunk.
True.... However, I'd define a persuasion "skill" as knowing the right buttons to press to get a desired outcome in dialogue. It wouldn't be speech craft by itself, per-say. It would be "reading" the other person (most of which is body language) and choosing your words or actions properly to "persuade" them in a certain direction. Most of the time a person can be influenced via communication to lean one way or another. Sometimes people won't budge. A character with good persuasion skills would know the difference. They would know what to say or do to get what they want from the other actor/actors in the conversation.
Yes, it would be fair to say those actions or conversations would likely revolve around practical knowledge. The thing is... a character with high persuasion would steer the conversation toward areas they know about. Think of it like attempting to con someone else. You wouldn't choose to go down a path in conversation to pull it off if you didn't know anything about the topic it would lead toward.
Pursuing a topic the character was unfamiliar with and getting away with it would be more akin to bluffing. A topic comes up you know almost nothing about but the other person doesn't necessarily know you know nothing about it. So you steer the conversation a certain way to hide your limited knowledge. Aka, you bluff your way past the problem. Even though you lack the cards you manage to fool the other character into folding by masking body language, tells, etc.
Just to backtrack a bit... I think part of the benefit of those social related skills was hit on in your post. Perhaps it was done unintentionally. They provide a way to further define the problem solving abilities of a character. Instead of shooting, hacking or engineering your way past a problem you can talk through it. You can combine specific dialogue skills on top of those character "classes".
It's the very same addition you get from stealth related abilities. Stealth could be used for silent takedowns, firing shots from the shadows, etc. Or... it could be used to bypass threats entirely. It's the same benefit gained from faction related systems. This type of stuff gives you options. It lets you define the character further. Dialogue related skills are the same deal. Your Techie might be very persuasive... or good at bluffing, or generally attractive enough to seduce their way past obstacles. By adding this suite of skills you can customize a character in a lot of different directions. No longer is it just a Techie, Solo or Netrunner.
IMO, the truly good RPG character progression systems go down this route, above all else. They build these character traits in layers, one on top of the other (same reason why stats, skills and perks are used instead of just perks...). The end result is instead of the player character being a run of the mill fighter, solo or thief they are my fighter, solo or thief. It's my solo. There are many solos out there but this one is mine.
If we don't have those skills and write those options directly into the dialogue there is no set of character attributes really defining which route your character would take, or how they would solve those problems. You lose a lot of that granularity in character design. Yes, there are ways to get some of it back. Case and point, life-paths. I'd argue such concepts are nothing more than simplified systems attempting to fill the same void (it has a broader scope, so to speak). A well fleshed out set of dialogue related skills would strictly be better. It would require more work, however.
That’s what happens with gated checks, but not with proper weighted probability checks.
While I agree with this whole concept, the main point I was making is that all of these things are basically covered by the COOL stat. That is the person's ability to choose the right words, project the right energy, etc. to evoke the reaction they want. It really is something that transcends an individual's mastery of a language -- it's more about their ability to command a presence. Even if my vocabulary and rhetorical skills are limited, it's still possible to have a decided impact on the moment. (Use Forest Gump as an example -- "I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is." Consider that a successful COOL roll.)
So, I suppose the characters ability to utilize language could simply be left up to the imagination of the player, as it is largely irrelevant as long as the character successfully creates the right energy for the moment to get what they want. So, maybe I could convince a character to lower their weapon by making a threat and looking tough enough to back it up...or perhaps I strung the right words together and delivered them effectively...or maybe I just put a hurt expression on my face and guilted them into it. Any of those could be a COOL check.
I was getting the impression the Cool stat was a measure of composure under pressure. I do not believe it would be analogous to Charisma. Granted, it may very well play into how your character is viewed by NPC's in the game world in some fashion.
The issue I'd raise here is the same one I would raise with Cool functioning purely as a traditional Charisma stat. Stats, in my mind, are broad reaching character traits. Skills tend to be specialized. Perks take specialization even further. At least, this is my take on stats, skills and perks. Your strong character would be an effective climber, swimmer, hit hard, be able to lift heavy objects and bust through doors, for instance. "Strength" improves all of these actions. The actions themselves would be skill related. Although, actions like climbing, swimming, lifting heavy objects (beyond inventory considerations) and bashing doors don't tend to have much of a presence in modern games in the progression system.
Getting to the actual issue.... I'm not a fan of taking different areas of character development and stuffing them together. Just as I am not a fan of reducing all possible dialogue related skills or actions into a single stat value. Having certain stat values govern those skills in the way a stat typically does would be fine. Ripping out the skills entirely and combining their function into the Cool stat is a different matter (and, doing this stuff purely via dialogue is the very same thing). This type of reduction in character progression systems is the polar opposite of the earlier mentioned description of a "good" progression system.
It should be noted this behavior is not new either. Most RPG's in the last 10-15ish years have done it. The end result is simplified character progression with stats doubling for skills, perks pretending to be skills, various customization options cut out entirely, etc. Not only does this cut into the ways the player can "build" the character it greatly diminishes how they can interact with the game world. Frankly, it's annoying and... unacceptable
. Particularly because it's not done in the name of delivering a better game. It's done to make it easier to deliver a game. In the context of an RPG the narrative, characters in the game world and, yes, character progression are integral components. I doubt there is much cause for concern on the narrative and character fronts, given it's CDPR. The character design and progression systems are another matter. Those remain a large question mark. The approaches described above, and the fact it feels an awful lot like it's what is being done, are they reason they remain a question mark.
I mean.... I won't declare this to be false. It would not at all surprise me if this isn't where these type of design decisions originate. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme as long as X is satisfied. The problem is I don't agree with it. It does matter. In an RPG the result or ending isn't what draws me to the game. It's the path taken to get there. This holds true for the story, characters interacted with within the game world, progression system, the whole nine. If any one of these areas is lacking by itself or with the way it plays into the bigger picture I will notice. The absence of social skills, both in terms of the progression system and their use in the game world, sticks out like a sore thumb.
Either way, a roll of the dice increasing your odds of saying what you actually want to according to an upgraded stat is way less immersive and real than actually altering your dialogue options itself by your long term gameplay and play style. Like role playing as an engineer? You'll be able to point out and say things an actual engineer would, only because that's your play style. Versus having to be a CHARISMATIC engineer who just uses... charm?? Most games don't have options for dialogue like Cyberpunk seems to have so far. The furthest you'll get is dialogue options like in fallout or skyrim with "Persuasion 50%" or something like that. In this game, to be trusted, you need to actually earn the trust. Which makes way more sense in a world like Cyberpunks where it's saturated with con artists and criminals looking to rip people off. Are you telling me top end criminals are going to trust someone simply because they say something sweet? Nah. They've been there and done that. They trust you through proving you're trust worthy and thats exactly how this game should be IMO
RNG <<< any other possible alternative.
In the moment you need the player to imagine things instead of portraying them on screen, there's no point in making a videogame.
In the moment you need the player to imagine things instead of portraying them on screen, there's no point in making a videogame.
The minute you deny the character the agency of his aptitude, and the player from adopting that role as it comes, and replace it with a binary and gamey ”locked door”, you shouldn’t be making RPG’s and even less calling your game one.
You say that like in this world two strangers saying the exact same word will always have the same answers.
Some people are just better than others at convincing others regardless of their reputation, that's a fact.
Of course thats a fact, but this is a world where they dont care how you say it, it's what youre saying. It's been dismantled and destroyed by con artists and manipulators and businessmen saying things the right way. Do you really think they're going to care if you say something a certain way if you haven't ever actually followed up on it? I feel like this is the system they'll be going off of. It's all about street cred. Not charisma. And I like that personally.
There is more an engineer can be apt with than engineering. Commanding attention and sounding/acting convincing are very much things in a debate, and there are topics that strive way off a specific line of occupational knowledge. Lying convincingly, persuasion and seduction, intimidation... they require skill. It very rarely comes automatically.
I can agree to that entirely. I'm talking more about having dialogue options available due to certain skills though. A charimsa or intimidation skill seems too easy to me. I'd rather be intimidating through murdering people relentlessly and earn it and I'd rather be known as charismatic through seducing people from in game choices and gameplay versus leveling up due to actions entirely unrelated and then just selecting to upgrade my charisma for whatever reason. I feel like that's just way more immersive
Post automatically merged:
I'd strongly disagree with you there. Cyberpunk to me seems to be about climbing up in the ladder and earning your spot at the top. Of course saying the right things and doing the right things are important, but your actions definitely speak way louder than your words in this world.