Cyberpunk 2077's "RPG" systems - how should they work?

[Guest 4149880]

Ah, I see now. I assumed it was just something people were tossing around for fun.

Yeah, I actually played a bit of Satellite Reign. It was a bit too clunky for me, but I loved the theme and the concept.

A "Tactical mode" also does seem to imply the inclusion of regular companions (probably optional/interchangeable), unless it's just going to be a 1-man mode - which would be a bit odd, but I guess it'd work.

Well, with the job listing for companions, I suppose its fairly reasonable to expect them to work into an optional squad system, possibly. Tactical mode is going to be interesting to see how they intend to implement it.

 

[sv3672]

Here's the thing: Mike refused previous offers from developers who didn't want to make a world based on his books, but who are these developers? If they are as capable as CDPR, then it might be true that "CDPR is staying close to the source material", but if these developers that Mike refused to work with weren't as capable as CDPR then there is a chance of the possibility of Mike Pondsmith accepting the deal with CDPR simply because CDPR are the first big AAA offers Mike has had. If my last statement is true then there is a chance of "CDPR not staying close to the source material".

It is not necessarily about staying close to the PnP in the sense that CP2077 will be as close as possible to a 1:1 adaptation. Perhaps CDPR will change things if necessary because of the ARPG format, or they imagine the world will be somewhat different after 57 years. But Mike may still trust them because they understand the source material very well, and if anything is changed, it will be for good reasons, rather than as a result of incompetence.

But they did Witcher very closely to the books

Not all fans of the books might agree with that. The game was not afraid to take its own interpretation of various elements for story/artistic reasons, or simply to improve the gameplay (e.g. Geralt does not use crossbows in the books). Some things are different also because it is a continuation years later, that factor obviously applies even more to Cyberpunk 2077. But the writers and quest designers know the books very well nevertheless. So, when there is no particular reason to change or evolve something, they can indeed stay very close to the source material. There are subtle references to the novels that may only be apparent to those who read them multiple times, or are discovered only on replays. It may be a similar situation with CP2077, the game would be made with in-depth knowledge of the PnP and related lore, but it may still have its own vision and gameplay design while trying to stay faithful to the original concepts.

 

[Snowflakez]

Not all fans of the books might agree with that. The game was not afraid to take its own interpretation of various elements for story/artistic reasons, or simply to improve the gameplay (e.g. Geralt does not use crossbows in the books). Some things are different also because it is a continuation years later, that factor obviously applies even more to Cyberpunk 2077. But the writers and quest designers know the books very well nevertheless. So, when there is no particular reason to change or evolve something, they can indeed stay very close to the source material. There are subtle references to the novels that may only be apparent to those who read them multiple times, or are discovered only on replays. It may be a similar situation with CP2077, the game would be made with in-depth knowledge of the PnP and related lore, but it may still have its own vision and gameplay design while trying to stay faithful to the original concepts.

To be fair, they explain some of the departures from the books. Geralt has the option of saying "We breaking with tradition?" when he's handed the crossbow, clearly showing that this is not something they usually use.

Furthermore, the difference between how the Witcher games handled the source material and how 2077 might handle it could likely be worlds apart.

A few reasons why...

• Mike Pondsmith is working as an actual designer on the game. Not a consultant - a designer. This is because he has extensive experience working on both digital games and PnPs. Around 15 years in both, I think? That number could be off, but the point is, CDPR wasn't expecting him to actually be able to contribute in such a meaningful way - but he is, and he knows his source material better than anyone. Not only can he figure out what could be included given time/resource constraints, he can help figure out how it can be included.
• A book has no translatable mechanics. It has no starting point, aside from the lore of the universe - equipment, cities, characters, maybe a few ideas for player skills (Like Geralt's signs), but that's about it.
• A tabletop like 2020 has a ton of mechanics that give the folks over at CDPR a much more robust starting point. Not only are there detailed descriptions of skills, classes, etc. but there's actual mechanics and numbers associated with them. Naturally, many of these wouldn't work as a 1-to-1 transition, as you alluded to in your first paragraph, but they'll require a whole lot less thinking (probably) than coming up with stuff from scratch and then figuring out how it would work.

 

[RLKing1969]

Good stuff. Sounds reasonable to me.