Side quest rewards and roleplaying

+
I don't know about you but I usually learn far more when I fail to do something then when I succeed.
You can learn by repetition. And it's possible to learn new things.

My problem with EXP as a reward from quests (and not from actions, no problems with that) is that it works as a simple bonus you can spend in random stuff. It's not really experience, it just fills a bar till you get a point to unlock (i.e.) a perk for guns, even if you haven't used guns at all in that quest.
Well, not all RPG give you experience that can be spent on whatever. One of the reasons why I liked Morrowind so much back in the day was that I increased my skills by using them. Isn't that also the path Cyberpunk 2077 is supposed to take? Or did I miss something?
 
Ideally it should function similar to Skyrim, you do things and you gain experience in the skills you actually use. The "problem" with this is it requires a method to gain new skill sets, unless, like Skyrim, you have them all from the start. That of course has it's own issues, you can "do it all" (maybe not well, but you can).

Given the restrictions on a video game (i.e. no GM to adjudicate) you're stuck with picking the "best" of several sub-optimal choices.

Could be balanced by doing like in most tabletop RPG (including Cyberpunk 2020): not starting as a total newbie but already having a good share of skill points (which is logical, by the way. You normally don't begin a professional activity as a total newbie).
 
Ideally it should function similar to Skyrim, you do things and you gain experience in the skills you actually use. The "problem" with this is it requires a method to gain new skill sets, unless, like Skyrim, you have them all from the start. That of course has it's own issues, you can "do it all" (maybe not well, but you can).

Given the restrictions on a video game (i.e. no GM to adjudicate) you're stuck with picking the "best" of several sub-optimal choices.
this can be easily solved by letting player choose some starting skills and letting him learn the new ones from books or other NPCs. The real problem with skyrim though was that the system was broken and abusable, but progression itself was as it should be.
Well, not all RPG give you experience that can be spent on whatever. One of the reasons why I liked Morrowind so much back in the day was that I increased my skills by using them. Isn't that also the path Cyberpunk 2077 is supposed to take? Or did I miss something?
They said in CP the more you use a skill the more you get better BUT it's hard capped by the main stat: if your strenght is 4 you can go up to 4 in shotguns until you level strenght up to 5 and so on. And it already doesn't make any sense. Increasing shotgun skill increases shotguns' DMG output. And this makes even less sense. You get points to level up only from main quest. Then you have street creds you can use to unlock perks like discounts from vendors.
It's clearly a way to try to balance the game so that you can't become OP like in skyrim (if you use your shotguns 10000 times with no hard cap you could get to an end-game DMG output in early game) or fight high-level enemies since they're hard capped and you need to follow main quest first to reach their level (or they're bullet sponges like in TW3).
This could've been "easily" solved by removing the classic levels above enemies' heads (not the first time in RPGs), don't make DMG scale with levels, but simply relate DMG to better weapons and armors you can't find in early game. BUT, if you're skilled enough, you can still face an end-game enemy. SImilar to dark souls, but here you get better at your skills by using them (less recoil, steadier aim, more effective hacking via making the mini-game easier) instead of getting EXP from killing enemies.
Also, I would've done the opposite with rewards: street creds (= how famous you are in night city) from main quest and classic EXP from side quests, BUT side quests are locked behind main quest (= street creds) so you can't become OP as there's a limited number of side quests you can do before progressing in the main quest. And it makes sense as the more known you are the better contracts you are offered to. The city is free to explore from the beginning and you don't have "locked areas" by impossible to beat enemies, you simply don't meet strong enemies until you are famous enough (street cred) to make them interested in you (FBI doesn't spend time for unknown burglars).
 
Last edited:
They said in CP the more you use a skill the more you get better BUT it's hard capped by the main stat: if your strenght is 4 you can go up to 4 in shotguns until you level strenght up to 5 and so on. And it already doesn't make any sense. Increasing shotgun skill increases shotguns' DMG output. And this makes even less sense. You get points to level up only from main quest. Then you have street creds you can use to unlock perks like discounts from vendors.
That sounds... Bad. Like, really, really bad. CDPR may be great at making unique quests, but it shows they aren't that great at creating RPG systems for their action RPGs (which shows in all of their The Witcher games). It reminds me of a comment someone made after seeing the gameplay reveal that they took the Cyberpunk universe and disregarded all of its RPG mechanics.
 
Ideally it should function similar to Skyrim, you do things and you gain experience in the skills you actually use. The "problem" with this is it requires a method to gain new skill sets, unless, like Skyrim, you have them all from the start. That of course has it's own issues, you can "do it all" (maybe not well, but you can).

Given the restrictions on a video game (i.e. no GM to adjudicate) you're stuck with picking the "best" of several sub-optimal choices.

Or it could simply require you to visit a trainer - in the general sense - who could be an NPC, a course, even a specific cyberware so as to allow you to progress past a certain proficiency level. Kinda like milestones. Think Gothic meets The Elder Scrolls.

What I really liked about Gothic's progression system is that at the beginning your char could barely swing a sword, and it showed. Once you got some actual training, his stance changed, his swings changed, not just a number.
 
You can change quest design though. Streamline the player's interactions too much and it won't be more interesting than saying "yes" or "no". Give players as many options as you can - within reason - and it will be much better individual experience. It will mean extra work, true, but isn't that the core of an RPG?

You can change the quest design, sure. Now change it so every conceivable type of character a player would make and wish to role play can simultaneously do all of the content and feel like they're remaining within the scope of the character. Sounds a lot harder, no? I'd wager it's impossible using current technology without radically condensing and streamlining the type of characters the player would play. To me, this doesn't sound like a very good RPG.

I can fully understand wanting quest content to have more paths, done in a way where more types of characters have a reasonable choice given the character design created by the player. This pertains equally to rewards, or lack thereof, for the content. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the concept here. It sounds like on the one hand there is stuff to do in a game. It could be CP2077, TW3, any "RPG". On the other hand it sounds like people are trying to rationalize why Geralt would run off doing all this busy work when time was supposedly of the essence, or a self-absorbed character would rush to save the day.

If this is an accurate interpretation I'd call it a player problem. If you don't think your character would do X, Y or Z, and it's a problem for you as the player to do so, don't. Play through the game a certain way and remain within whatever you've set as your character persona. If this means you don't do all of the content so be it. Do it on another play through with a different character. Congrats, you just gave yourself replay value.

I don't know about you but I usually learn far more when I fail to do something then when I succeed.

It's the second best way to learn something.

My problem with EXP as a reward from quests (and not from actions, no problems with that) is that it works as a simple bonus you can spend in random stuff. It's not really experience, it just fills a bar till you get a point to unlock (i.e.) a perk for guns, even if you haven't used guns at all in that quest.

-I helped that guy finding his wife -> now I'm better at shooting (nonsense)

-I shot 1000 times with a shotgun -> now I'm better at using it (makes a lot of sense)

Experience (and not exp point) as a reward from quests works on the player and not on the character. Give me a good variety of quests were it can happen that you accept a shady quest which puts you in troubles. Now, as a player (or as a character) I've learned not to trust everybody. I haven't learned how to get better prices from vendors or whatever.

High suspension of disbelief is what keeps RPGs from evolving to their next step.

In fairness, at some point I don't think it's all on the game for this type of stuff. Pushing a player in a certain path based on their character actions does make sense, within reason. I don't think it's unacceptable to make the player choose the right improvements based on the actions taken by the character, however. After all, when "role playing" your character persona in dialogue or quest content you would be doing so. You're presented with choices and you pick the one appropriate for the character under the circumstances. It's the fundamental difference between assignable attribute improvements and through use attribute improvements. I'm not claiming your point is invalid either.
 
You can change the quest design, sure. Now change it so every conceivable type of character a player would make and wish to role play can simultaneously do all of the content and feel like they're remaining within the scope of the character. Sounds a lot harder, no? I'd wager it's impossible using current technology without radically condensing and streamlining the type of characters the player would play. To me, this doesn't sound like a very good RPG.
On the contrary, it's possible (and very RPG-like).

You don't even need anything special for it technology-wise either - just a bunch of stats that are responsible for projecting your character's overall psyche during a conversation and a text screen (think: Fallout 2), where interactions between you and an NPC happen via text. Not only it's easier to do it that way (and pack it up with more options as a result), it's probably way cheaper than doing the whole voice-recorded, lips-synced extravaganza that's so common nowadays.

If you don't believe me, just look at Disco Elysium. It's a text-based game, where (almost) everything happens via text interface, yet it's closer to an RPG than any so-called RPG I have ever seen. It even has dice rolls for skill checks and stats that dictate your ability to see or do stuff.
 
Last edited:
That sounds... Bad. Like, really, really bad. CDPR may be great at making unique quests, but it shows they aren't that great at creating RPG systems for their action RPGs (which shows in all of their The Witcher games). It reminds me of a comment someone made after seeing the gameplay reveal that they took the Cyberpunk universe and disregarded all of its RPG mechanics.
The real "problem" is trying to appeal to both "Action" and "RPG" fans. Yes, you can make a system that doesn't alienate either group too much (W3) but not one that really satisfies both.
It's a top-level design decision much like selecting the overall setting for a game, so the actual devs themselves have essentially zero control/input over how a game functions.
 
The real "problem" is trying to appeal to both "Action" and "RPG" fans. Yes, you can make a system that doesn't alienate either group too much (W3) but not one that really satisfies both.
While this is true, I think they could've done a much better job at implementing the RPG elements. Especially given the fact that they had an excellent source material to pick from (Cyberpunk 2020).
 
On the contrary, it's possible (and very RPG-like).

You don't even need anything special for it technology-wise either - just a bunch of stats that are responsible for projecting your character's overall psyche during a conversation and a text screen (think: Fallout 2), where interactions between you and an NPC happen via text. Not only it's easier to do it that way (and pack it up with more options as a result), it's probably way cheaper than doing the whole voice-recorded, lips-synced extravaganza that's so common nowadays.

There are a finite number of stats and ways to integrate them into dialogue, character interactions, narrative, etc. There is almost an infinite number of ways to define a character persona.

I am not saying it would be bad to have more possible character personas accounted for in the game design. Unfortunately, there are too many possibilities to cover them all. Taking a more text based approach tends to yield more options in these cases because most of it is text and writing.
 
There are a finite number of stats and ways to integrate them into dialogue, character interactions, narrative, etc. There is almost an infinite number of ways to define a character persona.
Character is made of finite number of stats is purely because it's a fairly simple way of getting together enough data for the Game Master to evaluate what you can or can't do on a physical level. But the number of possible character interactions with the environment depends on the environment, which in itself holds potential for infinite possibilities.

As there is "a finite number of stats", there can be a finite number of what consists of the player's character's persona. It isn't done in RPGs (and by that I mean tabletop RPGs) mostly because in them the player usually fulfills the role of the persona for his own character. But when we come down to a cRPG, having a somewhat defined psyche is as important - if not more - as having physique, because in cRPGs you are playing as a character so it's important to define what kind of character you are.

I am not saying it would be bad to have more possible character personas accounted for in the game design. Unfortunately, there are too many possibilities to cover them all.
It ain't about covering them all. It's about having enough of them to have a varied experience in terms of who you are, mentally, and what you can perceive (and say, as a result) when interacting with people.
 
Last edited:
It ain't about covering them all. It's about having enough of them to have a varied experience in terms of who you are, mentally, and what you can perceive (and say, as a result) when interacting with people.

Agreed. Again, if this is the request it's a good request. It doesn't make sense for all of the content to be tailored to an altruistic do-gooder if a selfish, greedy megalomaniac would fit the environment. Maybe I want my character to be the latter of the two. Based on what I understand about the game setting in this case, for CP2077, it feels like it would make sense for this to be an option.

Here is the problem.... In a video game you have your game setting. It could be based on external source material or a unique, new creation. Certain characters would fit this setting. In TW3 we were handed a developed character. In CP2077 we're creating our character.

Now, consider the content of the game. Say, the quest content. In TW3 the quest designers can design everything around Geralt. They know the character. So it's relatively easy to consider the type of decisions you would logically present to the player. Geralt is still Geralt but he might make decision A, B or C. All three fit Geralt to varying degrees. At least, you could make a reasonable case Geralt would pursue any of the available options.

Now go back to CP2077. Here the quest designers have an unknown character. Incidentally, the way the character would logically approach quests is very difficult to pin down. Here the quest designers job just got a whole lot more difficult. Yeah, they can plan around the types of characters people would make for the game setting. They can consider the progression system mechanics, and the types of character molds those allow. The fact remains they can only go so far with it.

The only way I can see to solve this problem, where every character has a logical path through the content, is to streamline the setting, progression system mechanics, etc. In a way where the players are pushed toward playing certain types of characters. Even if they're not aware of it. I wouldn't consider this a worthy trade-off just so a player with a completionist mindset can play what they want and feel every shred of content offers an approach befitting their character. It's a whole lot of streamlining, watering down of content, and "forcing" players away from creativity and into limited logical options to satisfy what I'd call, again, a player problem.

Also, keep in mind how this plays out on the developer side of things. They also lose a lot of wiggle room in what they can design in the game. Every shred of quest content has to fit those molds they're pushing players toward. So not only does this limit options available to the player it limits options available to the developers. To make matters worse, when it's all said and done a player goes and chooses to play a character failing to line up with one of those "templates". Now the player isn't happy because it feels like their character wouldn't do X, Y or Z. Compounding matters, now all of the content feels "wrong". Going even further, it's even worse for the player because the content begins to feel too streamlined.

To me it makes a lot more sense to just tell the completionist to shove off, make good content, give players a lot of freedom and be done with it. If you find your character wouldn't do X, Y or Z for a given piece of content then don't do X, Y or Z. If this means you can't complete that piece of content or get a shiny achievement, so be it. Play the game as your character would, restart the game, make a new, different character and rinse/repeat. Hell, setup multiple games in parallel and swap between them every hour.
 
In TW3 we were handed a developed character. In CP2077 we're creating our character. [...] Now go back to CP2077. Here the quest designers have an unknown character.
It's questionable how much this will be "our" character and how much it'll be a character made by developers and simply lended to players (known as V). I will go as far as to claim that Cyberpunk 2077 will be limited in very similar fashion [as The Witcher] in this regard. Honestly, at a minimum I'd like it to be more in-line with how Alpha Protocol did things, but realistically speaking I don't expect even that much.
 
Last edited:
Back on topic, please. This is not a thread about whether or not V is a blank-slate character, so if you want to continue that discussion take it to some more appropriate thread.
 
To get this thread back on topic - take Disco Elysium for example: you have a pre-defined character (a male, a drunk, a cop), but the way the game is designed (you have both physical and psychical attributes + thoughts) it's possible to role play "who you are" quite heavily within that narrative and do quests in a wide array of styles (some of them being really wild). That's exactly the kind of role playing any self-respecting cRPG game should be aiming at.

Do you absolutely have to have psychical attributes for enchanced role playing? Well, I'd argue for "yes".

Some stats do count as psychical and were used for role playing in the past. In Planescape: Torment having high intellect and wisdom did matter, a lot. In Fallout 2 it's possible to play as low-intelligence character, which is a different experience from playing as average-intelligence character. Same goes for Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (special note for "Idiot Savant", which allowed you to keep high intelligence while still talking like a character with low intelligence).

The difference between Disco Elysium and the other cRPGs is that Disco breaks down your stats into more categories, so it's possible to define "yourself" (and what you can do in almost any situation) in detail, while in other cRPGs it's more cramped, which makes some stats more useful in dialogues than others (intelligence being the prime example here) or turns others into straight combat stats.
 
Last edited:
Do you absolutely have to have psychical attributes for enchanced role playing? Well, I'd argue for "yes".

I did not think we were necessarily talking about physical attributes. When I say "character persona" I don't mean the physical characteristics. Although, those are certainly part of it.

The original post talked about building a self-interested character, where they aren't looking to save the world. They are looking to benefit themselves. Given what we have heard about CP2077 this sounds like a very appropriate character to build. The question was why would this type of character go out of their way to help arbitrary people? The answer is they wouldn't unless they had something to gain from it. The opening post also indicated a desire to complete all content. If any of the content fails to deliver a path where this character has something to gain it's difficult to rationalize why this character would participate in it.

From here we get to the request to have a viable path for a self-interested character for every piece of content. A path this type of character would pursue. This way the player feels like they should participate in all of it, thus giving them a reason to do so. The end goal is to prevent ending up in a scenario where you run into content you want to complete, just to complete it, but feel your character wouldn't. At this point the choices are one of the following...

1. Break character and complete the content for the sake of completing it.
2. Stay in character and don't complete the content.

Sure, the game can be made in a way where a self-interested character will always have an appropriate path for all content. This isn't the only type of character. If this character should have a viable path you could make the case for any character having a viable path. At what point is it acceptable? There are a huge number of ways to define a character. How is it possible to design all content so every conceivable character can complete it without breaking character? I'm saying it's not without attempting to artificially limit the number of conceivable characters. More importantly, attempting to achieve this has potential for serious drawbacks.

I don't think this line of thinking is valid, or trying to make all content provide an appropriate path for all characters, due to the reason it's being requested. It's all in the name of the game going out of it's way to feed the completionist mindset of players. To me this isn't a valid reason to push an RPG in one direction or another. Again, trying to make the game offer multiple paths through content, with different options for different character personas, to add variety and depth is another matter entirely. That would be fine.

[Off-topic removed.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Cyberpunk 2077, I don't want to skip any content, however, if my character doesn't get any in-game reward, that goes against that selfish/greedy roleplay.

If you really wish to roleplay as selfcentered opportunist (I know I do), you sometimes have to accept skipping some content. I don’t think it’d feel very good or natural if every single mission, be it main or side content, was crafted to fit every single character type you can play.

Some things are - and should be - just built for certain characters. That’s life.

Although, I would push for saying ”no” to a questgiver to actually matter, and that if your character isn’t up to the task at hand (e.g. a heavily combat focused solo being offered a task of a netrunning specialist, and it just isn’t completable that way - why did you agree to taking it?), it would have consequences.
 
Top Bottom