2020 Pre-Release Gameplay Mechanics Thread

[Suhiira]

I totally agree that the player provides the "brains" that determine how "smart" their character is (or isn't).
But!
The player should not provide the natural aptitude or skill necessary to successfully accomplish whatever task the character is performing.

Take combat.
In both an RPG and and FPS the player decides what to attack, with what, and in some cases how. But the actual resolution, or success, of the attack attempt is determined by player skills in an FPS and character skills in an RPG. This is the critical difference between the two game styles. No game can be BOTH. While many games incorporate (to a better or worse degree) elements of each at their core they are one or the other. Because either the player OR the character determines the outcome of tasks.

 

[Rawls]

Take combat.
In both an RPG and and FPS the player decides what to attack, with what, and in some cases how. But the actual resolution, or success, of the attack attempt is determined by player skills in an FPS and character skills in an RPG. This is the critical difference between the two game styles. No game can be BOTH. While many games incorporate (to a better or worse degree) elements of each at their core they are one or the other. Because either the player OR the character determines the outcome of tasks.

I largely agree regarding combat.

However, social interaction is a different experience that I think requires a bit more reliance on the player in cinematic games where you can experience the social aspects yourself. Your seeing/hearing how the player character and NPCs relate to one another, influence one another and etc. To not rely on what they player is experiencing and substitute it for a skill check is a less than ideal design choice in my opinion that leads to cognitive dissonance for the player. Because you can end up seeing one thing, and being told to see another based on an invisible number. Does that make sense. I think social skills are a place where modern games would do well to move away from the checks that are necessary in PnPs.

Does that make sense? I'm struggling to express the thought exactly like I want to ... but basically the nature of experiencing dialogue yourself is jarring when it relies on skills only and does not take advantage of what the player is seeing and learning about the NPCs through the dialogue.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Nope.

I was referring to your syllogistic fallacy about me saying "When I ceased to be a newbie GM ".
Telling there is holes in emmental cheese doesn't mean that everything that has holes is emmental cheese.

A player can absolutely come up with creative solutions that is consistent character and it should be rewarded, but it's still the players idea.

If it is consistent with your character, then it should be seeable on your character sheet.

To pretend the character came up with it and like your rewarding the character is ... inaccurate IMO. The player and the character are not in conflict with each other the vaaaaaast majority of the time.

It depends on the player entirely actually. The reason I came with my rule is personal experience with characters and players.
Why should I let the socially able and knowledgable player have both a socially and physically able character because he can roleplay the social part and put all his points in combats when I don't let the more physically fit player arms wrestle me to beat the physical challenges?

Why, because IRL nature doesn't makes us equal I should let inequity in my games?
Nope.
I won't let that.

To dogmatically say a players good idea should not be rewarded with advantage is not a way I would want to play a game. Incentivizing creativity leads to much more fun games IMO ... which is kinda the point.
Now sure, if the player is like "I know X (even though my character doesn't) and therefore I'm going to do Y" then yes punish away. But when my bard player starts singing a legit good song in the middle of a session, that guy/gal is getting an extra d20 on that performance roll.

So you mean that if your GM doesn't gives you that advantage you would not have start singing?
That reward is the incentive instead of fun?
Well, I disagree.

Similarly, I think that allowing the player some responsibility in making choices in a cRPG is a legitimate and even desirable design choice. Hiding all the flavor behind mechanics does not make for an intuitive social experience at all, and as I've said before, makes it feel like the NPCs are having massive mood swings based on nothing but invisible numbers. Because we hear/see the player say the same thing, and get wildly different results based on nothing we see but rather have to head canon.

Your example is because most games use oversimplication of system by saying the same things yet getting different results (which can happens actually).

That why I said before that it can be done well, but would need work, like at least as much as the combat system.
And I said "at least".

So by all means, reward the player who notices that NPC X isnt making eye contact, reward the player who notices that the NPC is jumpy and likely to respond easily to intimidation, etc etc.

To me that's basically playing as yourself.

 

[Sardukhar]

I was referring to your syllogistic fallacy about me saying "When I ceased to be a newbie GM ".
Telling there is holes in emmental cheese doesn't mean that everything that has holes is emmental cheese.

You...are lecturing a practicing lawyer on logic. Okay. I'll let him respond if he wants to that one.

Life is unfair. And role playing games are as well. A Cyberpunk Ref should know this. You think PCs vs Arasaka is a fair fight? Ridiculous. You think the Cyberpunk setting itself is fair? When players have a bad Lifepath roll-set and get Ref -2 or Cool -2 and another PC gets a Sensei and 1000 eb is fair? No. Or one PC rolls 15 Humanity cost for a cyberlimb and another rolls 4 for the same limb?


@Suhiira You always use the combat example for Player/Character disconnect and disregard the social and tactical examples, where the player who is on the ball and knows the system has a tremendous advantage both in-game and compared to other players. The final dice roll, stats provided by the character, is after the player sets up the situation for his built and geared character ( within the game confines).

Combat is in many ways the least significant part of a 6-8 hour session and it's the player's wits and charisma (not just brains) that drives their success.

So if you want to separate out combat from player skill, you'd have to separate out social and tactical reasoning and game theory as well. Those are skills. And we don't even try to do that.

No, player skills/reflexes influencing combat in games like 2077 and Bloodlines isn't much different than Joe Bob The Smiler getting his way in PnP, or Jamie Lee the Pretty doing the same.

And, to turn it to where I do agree with you, I think 2077 should appreciate the player who spends in-game resources to level his Charisma (Cool?) skillset. That's no more boring than levelling REF to get better combat skills. And if you have some fun dialogue that shows up, actually more fun!

 

[Restlessdingo32]

So... of the RPG's I've played it's fair to say two approaches appear to have been used.

1. Social attributes exist.
2. Social attributes do not exist or play a limited role.

By attributes I mean skills, stats, whatever. It depends on the game.

An example of #1 would be a game like The Outer Worlds or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. The Witcher felt more in line with #2. In TW3 the only major exception was Axii.

I would not agree with the notion you must have hard gates on content or binary mechanics with #1. You can have these attributes and maintain freedom to explore available options. I would also not agree with the notion character attributes and importance must take on a minor role with #2. You can formulate dialogue and integrate the type of decisions these attributes would provide into it.

I would certainly say my personal preference is a set of social attributes. Skills, stats, perks, the whole nine. Without them an RPG can feel like it's missing something. This preference does hinge on these attributes playing into the content in a way where you don't feel locked out of it. It shouldn't be my persuasion skill is too low so I can't reach the end goal at all. It should be my persuasion skill is too low so I have to resort to a different action to reach the end goal.

To provide an example.... Say I want to enter a club to meet up with a contact to do some job, whatever it may be. The guy guarding the door has to be circumvented. A persuasive or charismatic character can sweet talk their way into the club. A sneaky character might create a distraction or sneak into a window. A big enough brute might be able to pull off intimidation. Alternatively, they can physically convince the guy to allow entry. In all cases there is a way to proceed with the content.

It could go a step further where the player has no idea which of these options will succeed beforehand. The charismatic, persuasive character tries the physical approach and gets the shit knocked out of them. Now they need to try a different approach. Hmm, the player has to self reflect on the character and decide how the character would handle things. Imagine that.....

Lastly, all of the above is primarily from a functional, game play perspective. I'd rather not kickstart the, "What makes an RPG an RPG?", conversation again. Not because it has no value but because, well, this forum has seen it's fair share of those conversations.

 

[0248991]

Hey,
cool discussion

I guess that social "things" can definitely be skills or whatnot. The only thing we seem to differentiate is whether the dialogue should be decided by saying something or using a skill or rolling something - that is at what stage and how should the check be done.

The problem I see is that if your character says something completely out of a situation and has high charisma or rolls high, then it may succeed. And also the other way around.

I guess that it may be compared to throwing a fireball. You can have a simple action description from a player - e.g. "throw a fireball", then some additional description - e.g. "bend it around a tower and hit orc on the other side". The player has some skills like "throw a fireball" and/or "bending magic projectiles" and then you have some stats, buffs, items,...and everything.

In the fireball situation you would consider everything, right?
I guess that it can be done the same with social skills/whatnots. They are just a part of a ruleset as anything else. And I guess that if you want the ruleset to be coherent and intuitive, then you should play it by the same logic as anything else.

I think that there's definitely a space for social skills/whatnots because it adds an additional layer to be considered in checks, makes the game more friendly towards non-combat characters - like druids, priests, thieves, healers, bards,...;
and makes it also more interesting, worth exploring, investing points and everything. It also adds new approaches - as it was mentioned - like talking in a way to a party...and so on.

The only thing I think that matters at the end is how you use and calculate those skills (together with the other factors).

 

[Suhiira]

Does that make sense?

The "problem" with your suggested method of resolving social skills is it leaves no room for errors.
Mistakes, yes, the player can make the "wrong" choice.
Error, no, you always get the same result, you never have a chance to fail a skill check because there aren't any.
See my point?

You always use the combat example for Player/Character disconnect and disregard the social and tactical examples,

Yes I do, because unlike social or (usually) technical skills they're easy.
The difference between the mechanics used is very clear cut.
I don't believe it takes any great leap of logic to extrapolate that example to other game mechanics.

I suppose I could use lockpicking ... hell let's.

The Fallout/Skyrim lockpicking system is a disaster from a game dev's perspective.
No need to invest skill points into lockpicking because it was entirely reliant on PLAYER skill with the minigame. If the PLAYER was good with the minigame no lock in the game was unpickable. Whereas even with maxed out CHARACTER skills in lockpicking a player who was bad at the minigame always struggled with locks.
Recent versions hard gate locks at 25, 50, and 75% character skill needed. And that's just as bad. Because it's a hard gate.

Or platforming ...

No matter how big, strong, agile, athletic the character is, or isn't, platforming relies entirely on PLAYER skill.

 

[Rawls]

I was referring to your syllogistic fallacy about me saying "When I ceased to be a newbie GM ".

I think you mean informal fallacy, not syllogistic fallacy. The hasty generalization from one (or a few) to a general class is informal, not syllogistic.

Regardless of the distinction, the clear implication in your choice of language is that allowing creativity from players beyond the xs and os on a character sheet to have a mechanical bonus (or detriment) is something that you (and all other GMs you know) discourage because it results in players "gaming" the game too much. Thus GMs who allow for more flexibility and some mechanical rewards to a player's (and not character's) creativity in a game are by implication managing games in a manner that you associate with newbie GMs. Every game I have ever played in or GMed myself has allowed more flexibility than what you're describing ... and I've never had a serious problem with someone going very far out of character. Literally every person I have played with wants to stay in character ... that's kinda the point of role playing. Since I have had a different experience, and do not think I would enjoy it the way you have described, I said "I'm glad I have been playing with newbie GMs."

To relate it back to the point, when a GM mentions something and the player notes it and remembers it for later ... it would seem so weird to me for the player to remember it, and say "oh but this fact my character heard before," or "didn't NPC seem nervous when they were saying X" and then make them roll to see if their character also remembers it. In the context of dialogue/social stats, that the sort of reliance on the player that I'm talking about which cannot be done in a cRPG with numbers alone. When we play in groups, there are many times that it is the player remembering what they've already been told (or the way in which they were told it) and using it to there advantage that simply cannot be mimicked by a mechanical representation in a coded game.

You can absolutely handle a fair portion of social situations in cRPG by rewarding the player for remembering and taking advantage of the information they have been given by the game already, or the player just listening to the NPCs and figuring out for themselves what makes them tick. And on top of that, you can still gate out lots of stuff based on other stats or backgrounds besides a "this character is charismatic" instant win dialogue hard or soft persuasion check. And it's still a role playing game - a game in which you play a role and in which the choices you make within the role effects the narrative.

Remember our basic description on all the promo material is ... "You play as V, a mercenary outlaw going after a one-of-a-kind implant that is the key to immortality." It is possible to allow for a branching narrative and dialogue in that character's context without resorting to insta-win or RNG persuasion checks ... both of which are bad for storytelling IMO. It's 100% clear that V is neither a fixed character nor a blank slate, but rather something in between. We won't be able to handle any given situation any way we want, but will usually have several options for different paths to take through the story the devs are trying to tell.

The "problem" with your suggested method of resolving social skills is it leaves no room for errors.
Mistakes, yes, the player can make the "wrong" choice.
Error, no, you always get the same result, you never have a chance to fail a skill check because there aren't any.
See my point?

It's not a bug, it's a feature! But yes, I think we get each other here. I just prefer not to have the story gated by hidden numbers, but by the choices the player has made (both in designing V the character and the choices made in game).

 

[Sardukhar]

Yes I do, because unlike social or (usually) technical skills they're easy.

I think social and technical skills are just as easy. The reason I mention combat is because the player's advantages in social tests or the mental aspect of PnP or BG2/DoS 2 is ignored when talking about player abilities vs character abilities. There is -no issue- with being good at character builds or charming the other players/GM in a roleplaying game. That's totally fine if Joe can build a way better character or come up with a way better way to solve the problem than the other players or his character could. He will, typically, be rewarded for this in fact.

The rare GM who makes players play dumber or weaker characters because that's what the stats say generally has to do it a lot (really all the time, to resistance) , as players are -trying- to think their way out of problems and are encouraged to do so.

My point is that player-influenced/controlled combat in say Deus Ex is no less unfair or less "role-play" than the same player using their brain to build and gear a better JC Denton or, as I said, charm the GM/players into going along with their plan. There never was a character-focussed success game, especially not outside combat.

It's just that social and mental skillsets out of character are encouraged in role-play, and very hard to enforce otherwise on. But it's a no no that your twitch skills or spatial awareness should affect your character's success. That couldn't happen in PnP and if it happens in a CRPG, that CRPG is the less for it.

It's very much a double standard, one I see every week in gaming. PnP gaming.

It's never been a level playing field, in PnP or CRPG. The real measure of success for an RPG is the role-immersion offered. That's determined either by a good GM or a really well-designed CRPG.

Gameplay-wise, depends on personal preference. I'll take Skyrim over press-button-for-pass, generally,[ because the latter is dull.

All that said, I'd still rather see an enforced compromise in terms of character abilities so my character cannot be a great talker/persuader/seducer for free, based on -my- intuition of good convo choices, or some online guide for same.

 

[Suhiira]

The rare GM who makes players play dumber or weaker characters because that's what the stats say generally has to do it a lot (really all the time, to resistance) , as players are -trying- to think their way out of problems and are encouraged to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you've said.

But!

Just because less proficient GMs don't generally enforce such things doesn't mean that's the way it's intended to be. I've had great fun playing a dumber-then Drt (another character in the campaign was a 3 Int 1/2 orc named "Dirt", he spelled it Drt, my 1/2 ogre had a 2 Int ... thus dumber then Drt), with a good GM and players it's a blast!

My point is that player-influenced/controlled combat in say Deus Ex is no less unfair or less "role-play" than the same player using their brain to build and gear and better JC Denton or, as I said, charm the GM into going along with their plan.

Never played Deus Ex, so all I know is what I've seen in "Let's Plays".

Nevertheless, just because some (many?) players take advantage of less skilled GMs doesn't mean we need to look at computer RPGs in the same light. In fact since there is no live GM I'd say it's the perfect platform for implementing character skill based social checks!

 

[Thanatoskaras]

How they handle kipping cutscenes and dialogues in FPP,I think this the most important thing about this game，Devs said they developed around 10 different protypes just for that feature, but ultimately they found a really cool solution they seem to be satisfied with，I assume we will only know this when we play this game by ourself，very excited to find out！

 

[Sardukhar]

Nevertheless, just because some (many?) players take advantage of less skilled GMs doesn't mean we need to look at computer RPGs in the same light. In fact since there is no live GM I'd say it's the perfect platform for implementing character skill based social checks!

I'm not sure it's about being a less-good GM. I mean, I can do that and my players can RP it, but they get a rush from a well-thought out plan and that moment when their built character comes into their own. RPing stupid/clumsy/terrible involved constant fighting against the urge to do better and even when successful, their is an unfair advantage for better role-players! It's...just never gonna be fair.

So sure, I'd love to have CRPGs that more-thoroughly engaged the character that the player created, although I'm not sure how we'd get past some people just having an easier time because they make "better" characters for the game. Perhaps we shouldn't and that's fine.

I do think finding a "fun" mechanic is more important. For me: click and pass is not "fun". This includes press-button-and-watch-bullet-hit. Wiggle the lockpick is slightly more "fun", until it gets tedious.

So I dunno. I sure don't want Doom Eternal in my RPG. No. As fun as it was, it had nada to do with role playing.

I enjoy BG2 (yet again, really gotta go finish my latest run through) but I don't want to play those or the TB version of Wasteland/DoS2 again-again. Tooooooooo boring and, hrm, un-involved. I loved the setting and conversations the most, the game mechanics the least.

In PnP, I have my players describe what they do, then we add their stats and gear and some random chance. That's pretty fun.

So I think I want something that is cool to watch/see, fun to execute and influenced heavily by my stats, etc.

 

[DerangedMorgath]

So basically for the last week or so I've been trying to get as much info on how the Techie might affect gameplay,

(I already hear the comments saying "Wait till June") But I wanna have some fun in the forums

So lets start off with a bang and check out the primary reason you would go techie, The Flathead,

This military grade spider-bot can go invisible and climb walls, Loot stuff, And drop heavy machinery on top of enemies and make a silent raid look like an accident, Killing them in ways that make it look like a freak accident, Kinda like what we saw during the deep dive preview and the boxer-bot.

But why stop there? why not craft a grenade and let your invisible little friend drop it on someone from above? Heck, Let's make it a gas-based grenade that drugs people and causes them to go berserk and just watch as the chaos unfolds,

You are a craftsmen, But that doesn't mean that you can't fight on your own terms, you don't have to go in guns blazing or sneak on by, You don't necessarily have to be the "Support" that only serves to glorify Solo and Netrunners, The only thing you might need is an adequate delivery system, And that's where the flathead comes into play, But aside from grenades, what else could we craft?

Weapons mods, Armor modifications, Chipware tweeks, More effective street drugs, Better Cyberware, You name it, The game might have it, Heck if multiple languages are still a thing in cyberpunk 2077, Then you'll be glad for all those different language translation splinters you've been making if you're looking to make a trade transaction with some of the more random streetgangs, Maybe even open up a few quests because you understood the street gossip,

And who knows how the Techie could benefit the driving sections? Buy an Armored van and add a turret to it perhaps?

If I had to make a compassion, Then if's Solo's are the battle-savy soldiers, And the Netrunners are the stealth operatives looking to go unnoticed as long as possible,

Then I would think of the Techie as a Sliver tongued Merchant, Making difficult trades, Selling better quality gear, And making deals that benefit all parties involved,

What does everyone else think? Is this pretty close to what Techie gameplay might be like? I wonder how much of this I got right when the game releases.

 

[Suhiira]

We know VERY little about the Tech skills in CP2077.

We do know they're somehow related to your ability to use the spider-bot (Flathead), craft and install custom weapon components, and bypass locks (electronic or mechanical). Beyond that it's all conjecture.

You may be right, you may not

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

"Wait till June"

Nope, till September.

 

[Sild]

How they handle kipping cutscenes and dialogues in FPP,I think this the most important thing about this game

I think the whole point was to do away with "traditional" cut-scenes and introduce playable cut-scenes through an interactive scene system that's both seamless and engaging for the player. So, probably not a lot of skipping involved. The scene when Jackie and V enter the Maelstrom hideout could have easily been a cutscene - and was, in a way - but as you've surely noticed, there were plenty of choices to make that would have altered the (cut)scene and the events that followed.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

We need to see how that playable cut-scenes really work, and how much they are engaging for player or if the are fun and interesting at all.

Nothing was wrong with old cut-scenes system, sometime you don't need to try and reinvent the wheel, you only end up breaking thing or make bigger mess.

 

[Lucian06]

I hate cutscenes, give me dialogue option and i will be satisfied.

 

[Rawls]

We need to see how that playable cut-scenes really work, and how much they are engaging for player or if the are fun and interesting at all.

You can see it in the 2018 demo and 2019 demo (though less so in the latter due to the edited nature of the video). Conversations with Jackie, Dex, Victor, Stout, Dum-Dum, Royce, Placide, Night-Watch Agent & Bridgett. Those are all cutscenes from FPP.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

To see something in video, and then try it in game for your self is not a same, sometime you see gameplay video and you think that is good that will be fun, but when you try it you start to find problems with that gameplay, system, mechanics........ and that can ruin your fun.

Personally i was fine with TPP cutscene, they did great job of showing me my character, his facial expression full tone of dialogue and event that is going on.

Also since i hear that you will be able to look around in dialogues and highlight some object or some other things and that will lead to new dialogue option, that from first time sounded and it still sound like really really bad idea.