RPG Mechanics: Skill Progression and Roles

[Rawls]

If everything is stripped to bare essentials, then bare essentials is all we get.

Well it's all about priorities right? It depends on what you really want out of the game. I would rather they focused on great stories, great characters, an amazing dialogue system, an in depth faction reputation system, branching stories with choice & consequence (effected by things like life-path, allies, etc), intuitive UI, solid graphics, thought invoking investigation/puzzle system where it's not *just* follow the highlighted path, fun combat, cool hacking, a good stealth system, non-tedious but in depth crafting (may be impossible) polished core game mechanics, and as few bugs as possible. That's a huge challenge from a design perspective.

I'm willing to sacrifice some tertiary in-depth mechanics (like swimming & movement allowance) for that. Now I do want swimming to be in the game. But as a stat dependent skill ... it's not necessary for me. EDIT: Now there are some smaller things that I do want in-depth systems for ... like a performance system.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Well it's all about priorities right?

Yeah, sure. But I don't see how what you listed is at odds with more comprehensive RPG mechanics. A huge list of stuff, all that's good and agreeable, but this little thing about more mundane-styled skills (it's not all about "swimming", that's just one example) that really don't sound too complicated or worksome (the one example related mostly to movement speed and H2O bar and death state) somehow goes overboard and tips the boat.

If that's your opinion, that's your opinion, though. It's just seems a bit odd from where I stand, that these things are somehow at odds and there needs to be a sacrifice. I mean, I'm not asking for anything big, but rather small touches.

it's not necessary for me.

There will, no doubt, be other skills too that aren't necessary to you or to me (at least until we use them). That shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Rawls]

It's just seems a bit odd from where I stand, that these things are somehow at odds and there needs to be a sacrifice.

We'll you see I'm doing this balance internally. I'm including the things I really want to see and leaving out things I don't necessarily need. If there's more than that great! Would I be pleased if they had more? Yes! But I feel like what I've listed would already be really really hard to do.

I mean, game design is not my job (I practice law IRL) ... so I don't have a good handle on how difficult it is to do these things other than what I read. But I'm trying to be both ambitious and realistic in my expectations. Does that make sense? My suggestions are based on what I really want to be included and how I think it my practically be able to work. There a lot of personal priorities put into that and almost no one will agree with all of my choices because it's heavily based on my preferences.

Basically I want a really well written non-linear and choice dependent cyberpunk themed rpg where most situations can be solved by more than combat (though things like dialogue, stealth & hacking), that is also really well polished and immersive. The mechanics I want would serve that purpose. There are many other skills (like swimming, strength feat, teaching, paint or draw, aero tech, etc) that aren't necessary for that and more (i.e pharmaceuticals, chemistry, botany and demolitions) that can be combined for crpg purposes. Thus if they're in I'll be perfectly fine with that ... but they aren't what I really want.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

but they aren't what I really want.

I understood that you don't particularly care about stuff like that. My responses were more towards the disagreement of their viability. I hold the mechanical side in great value, much more so than strict storytelling. The opportunity to.... not really "just be able to" do something at different aptitudes but to get a reaction from the game for doing it is the bread and butter of an RPG. Storytelling is the icing on the gameplay cake, but both should be able to work in conjunction: e.g. gameplay creates and guides the storytelling, not scripted scenes.

I tend to look at this stuff more broadly, or... conceptually, if you will. I suggest potential (usually with an example case), stuff that's not necessarily "my favorite thing", but something that might create fun and versatility... and RPG's are mechanically full of that potential if they are designed with a broad and creative mind. Swimming doesn't make or break a game for me, but when I look what all could be done with it, with a simple mechanic like that (and I'm not a game designer either, I make engine parts out of metal, I'm just interested in the subject)... well, it's just a bleeding shame that games need to be so streamlined these days and there's often no room for that stuff.

 

[Suhiira]

I try to balance what I want with what's reasonably possible.
As a programmer and (non professional) game designer I have perhaps a bit more insight into this then many. But anyone who's ever done either of these things can tell you what sounds simple may be complex as hell to implement, and once in a while vice versa.

So while game mechanics are vitally important in action/sports/driving games they're less so in other types. It's really a matter of a games priorities. Is the game about story or activity?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I try to balance what I want with what's reasonably possible.

So do I. And I actually settle for reasonably little compared to an average gamer. I'm just more specific.

Is the game about story or activity?

It's a game. Storytelling (if looked at in that sort of either/or way) should always come second regardless of if the game is "storydriven".

 

[Calistarius]

It's a game. Storytelling (if looked at in that sort of either/or way) should always come second regardless of if the game is "storydriven".

I would actually agree in some several ways with this.

But that is because for me what keeps me coming back, to playing a game over and over again, is never the story... it's the game mechanics, the gameplay loop, and other such simmilar things which pulls me back in to play the game over and over again.

A good story is nice, a good story makes me rate a game higher then games with a medioker or bad story, or higher then games with my favorit game mechanics... but if I have seen/experienced the story once (even though the game might or might not have multiple endings), then I usually don't need to see/experience it again (I am sort of the same with movies and TV-series... especally TV-series... where I seldomly rewatch things I have seen befor... there are exceptions of course, especially amongst movies... but even then, those are very specific things (super hero movies for example), and after having seen them a few times they will eventually also end up not being reseen very often after the first year or so after first seeing it).

I would guess that every single game on my my top 20 or so favorit videogames are all there thanks to a good story... but as far as I can recall none of them are games which I actually replay a lot, or at all. Most of the games I tend to replay all the time will probably not show up untill after my top 20 or even further down the lists.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But that is because for me what keeps me coming back, to playing a game over and over again, is never the story... it's the game mechanics, the gameplay loop, and other such simmilar things

Same with me.

There's that thing that a game can have the best story ever told (in a game), but it can never compensate for bad or uninteresting gameplay. Story matters, in ways, it helps tie in the gameplay aspects, it gives the player and the character motivation, it fleshes out the world, and so on. But all that is experienced through the gameplay. and even the best stories get diluted if experiencing them is a chore.

This is one of the reasons why I probably never will replay Witcher 3. I liked the storytelling, but the gameplay was mediocre at best - uninteresting character systems and hands on feel, and very repetitive to boot - and I can't see myself suffering through it again just to see what other solutions there are for the Bloody Barond quest line and the like. It just doesn't feel worth the trouble.

On the otherside of the scale, there's Might&Magic X: Legacy (released in 2014). It looks pretty bad, it doesn't have a dynamic open world and it has lousy storytelling to say the least, but the gameplay - even if not the shiniest example among the elite of blobbers - keeps drawing me back time and again. I've finished it twice and clocked almost twice the hours there than with Witcher 3, and it's much smaller game too. I can tolerate the (severe) lackings of storytelling because I have fun playing it.

But as said, it doesn't really have to be an "either/or" situation -- good story-bad gameplay, good gameplay-bad story. The gameplay and the narrative can be intervowen to satisfactory degrees as shown in the better Fallout games (not 3 or 4); it doesn't need to be a hard-scripted singular epic like W3 or GTA V. And there definitely doesn't have to be a sacrifice of RPG mechanics because of story (those mechanics can be used to tell the story...).

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Same with me.

There's that thing that a game can have the best story ever told (in a game), but it can never compensate for bad or uninteresting gameplay.

This is one of the reasons why I probably never will replay Witcher 3. I liked the storytelling, but the gameplay was mediocre at best - uninteresting character systems, hands on feel, and very repetitive to boot - and I can't see myself suffering through it again just to see what other solutions there are for the Bloody Barond quest line and the like. It just doesn't feel worth the trouble.

On the otherside of the scale, there's Might&Magic X: Legacy (released in 2014). It looks pretty bad, it doesn't have a dynamic open world and it has lousy storytelling to say the least, but the gameplay - even if not the shiniest example among the elite of blobbers - keeps drawing me back time and again. I've finished it twice and clocked almost twice the hours there than with Witcher 3, and it's much smaller game too. I can tolerate the (severe) lackings of storytelling because I have fun playing the it.

But as said, it doesn't really have to be an "either/or" situation. The gameplay and the narrative can be intervowen to satisfactory degrees as shown in the better Fallout games (not 3 or 4); it doesn't need to be a hard-scripted singular epic like W3 or GTA V. And there definitely doesn't have to be a sacrifice of RPG mechanics because of story (those mechanics can be used to tell the story...).

When will developers get that making a game fun and chalenging is the way to go. Replayability is based on gameplay, not just in the sense of "replaying" the game but also in the perspective of being abble to keep hours and hours being entertained with the gameplay mechanics. Story is good, but a game that is only focused in it is no different than seeing a movie, what a shame that too many producers today only focus on graphics to sell their games.

That was the main problem with Witcher 3. Just look at the average time spent by Witcher 3 players on steam, last time I checked a few years ago was 70 hours per player, that's absolutely bad compared to other games.

Seriously, how many skills were important in that game? I remember Axii being completely irrelevant due to the not very smart enemies' A.I.

Oh boy, let's talk about A.I again, Witcher 3 was almost Assassins' Creed levels of unchalenging combat, the only methods the enemies in both games have of adapting to your attacks is by simply blocking with their swords.

Regarding enemies with chalenging A.I, we have mainly 3 important roads we can take:

1: Make them sponge damage enemies, in other words, increase the ammount of damage they can take, giving them huge HP.
2: Increase the ammount of damage they can inflict to the player.
3: Give enemies a smart A.I making them adapt to the player's attacks.

Guess which of these 3 options is less used in the gaming industry? Now guess which one is more difficult to make? Probably the same one that scares the hell out of casuals, we're talking about number 3.

 

[Suhiira]

I'll have to disagree.

Bloodlines sucked game-play wise, but is still a great game.

 

[Calistarius]

I don't consider an average game time of 70 hours as something bad or anything. I think that is a lot more then what most people would put on most singleplayer games. I think most people who play and enjoy RPG games would probably be able to finish such a game at least one time with 70 hours... and that is good enough in my opinion, especially considering that the longer a game is the less likely people are to actually finish them (less then half for a lot of games... Mass Effect 2 was at 56% a few years ago, Skyrim at 32% at the same time... and I have seen some numbers that only 6,5% of players has finished Pillars of Eternity... As for Witcher 3, apperantly only 24% of people who own it on steam had beaten it back in October of 2015).

So if any singleplayer game can get 70 hours out of a person, then I would say that is pretty good. Granted... apperantly to finish everything in witcher 3 (expansions and all) it will take most people well over 100 hours if they rush it... but you could finish the entire main story only in those 70 hours if you wished (that would not be an option for me though... I don't like leaving things undone behind me in games... XD ).

Not all people will spend the amount of time I can spend with some games after all... where each new game I play that I like will probably give me anywhere from 50+ hours minimum of gametime (as long as they are long enough, with enough content in them, to keep going that long). Most RPG games will usually last me more then that as well (2 times longer on average, but it is not uncommon for 3-4+ longer for some games... some games, like the various XCOM's for example, I have spent a lot more in though, since I keep coming back to them over and over again)... but I would consider about 40-60 hours to be an ok leangth för most games, even if I do prefer if they are longer (it has to be considered though that when I say that, I say that with the background of that it will usually take me anywhere from 25-200+ % extra time ontop of the normal for me to finish most games then your average person... because I tend to want to do everything, not leave anything behind... and have no problems in spending entire days on just grinding (where my "normal" gameplay already consists of a a fair/large amount of grinding... depending on the game I will probably spend anywhere from 10% to 50+% of my total "normal gameplay time" on grinding, where I don't really realize/notice I am doing it)).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Bloodlines sucked game-play wise, but is still a great game.

I don't think its gameplay sucks. And I never did, either. It reminded me of Deus Ex a bit from the very beginning and I'm still having more fun with it than with most of these modern "RPG"s (gameplay wise).

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Bloodlines sucked game-play wise, but is still a great game.

I played Bloodlines over and over, while I only finished Witcher 3 once.

@Calistarius Its good but could be better. Perhaps CDPR should ask what makes these popular games so popular?

Spoiler

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Perhaps CDPR should ask what makes these popular games so popular?

Comnpetitive (or coop) multiplayer.
Simple hectic action.
Simulation (of activity and world).

I can see myself not buying a cyberpunk game made with those ingredients. Not a big loss for a big company, of course.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Simulation (of activity and world).

I can completely understand the other mentions, but this one? I'm intrigued. In a certain way, the CP2020 reflects our reality, in a distorted way of course.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I can completely understand the others mentions, but this one?

Simulation always kind of rubs me the wrong way. It - as I understand it here - often comes with a package I do not need or want in RPGs. It presupposes concrete non-abstract realism of action and activity. That comes at the cost of what I value the most in RPG's; the separation between the character and and the player (and I bet the overt strive for "realism" is what will kill Kingdom Come: Deliverance too for me). And it's nearly always the case because developers don't dare to distort the controls anymore to adequately depict inept characters in fear of losing the audience that isn't inherently even interested in RPG's (because selling "only" to the RPG crowd isn't enough anymore).

Narrative simulation is fine as a concept, but here (with CP2077) it means the loss of the 80's scifi feel and look (of CP2020), which I liked much better than current day scifi.


Anyways... Compromises compromises. If for once in a blue moon they were made with the right set of mind and for the right effect...

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

separation between the character and and the player

In my perspective this can kill immersion, thus the level of connection the player has with the game. But aren't inept characters exactly what makes a concrete non-abstract realism? With realism comes vulnerability from the characters, and after it comes tension of losing something or someone, thus it gives functioning to the term "living on the edge".

Take superman for instance, what tension is there when the main hero is almost invencible and has almost no vulnerability, well except for the kryptonite and the possibility of losing his loved one...

But compare it to Luke Skywalker, who

Spoiler

loses his arm in a fight with to Darth Vader in his first fight

. This type of character has a greater emotional connection to the audience because he is in constant danger, in opposite to superman who pretty much EASILY comes across any chalenges. Luke had to learn through the trilogy how to fight and use the force, and even then it wasn't enough.

"art from adversity" said Shakespeare, but when adversity is not possible you can guess what happens next.

 

[Rawls]

Something a little more faithful to the base game. So I still have six main stats, with six skills listed under each stat. I still think that attractiveness, movement allowance and luck ought to be scrapped as systems as they don’t add much. There are no longer specific actions listed in the combat-ish stats (like ambush) but they would be incorporated in ranks within the skills. So maybe rank 1 of stealth increases chance of staying hidden while “sneaking,” rank 2 of stealth would give an increased chance of a critical hit from stealth, rank 3 would give an increase to critical hit damage from stealth, etc etc. Each of the stats increases base levels for basically every type of action, while the skills give bonuses and/or allow for additional specific actions. Apologies for still using tables ... it's the easiest way to present information.

EDIT: Borked Tables
I
Some skills are fairly similar to their 2020 counterparts. Some are combintions – i.e. small arms is pistols and auto pistols, long arms would be rifles, shot guns, assault rifles & archery. Stealth would also include hiding/evade. Smithy would be weapon smith and amour combined. First Aid would encompass some ideas from diagnose illness. Biology would be botany, biology & zoology combine. Chemistry would include pharmaceuticals and demolitions.

Also there are some new skills. Cybrewarfare would be the more advanced version of interface. So anybody can learn to hack, but not anybody can use it to disable drones, hack into turrets, hack computers remotely etc. Business combines stock market, accounting, and a few other things and is basically a skill that lets corporates make obscene amounts of cash. Toughness essentially gives Nomads natural damage resistance. Bargain lets you haggle prices better. Deception let’s you lie more effectively.

Some skills are similar to CP2020 but a little different. Performance would effect how well received your performances are, if you can raise money through them, and how much they raise your reputation with those in the room. Anybody can go sing at open mic night, only Rockerboys can make money and influence others doing it.

All skills would be available from the start, each role gets 6 skills (including their special) from the start plus an additional 4 skill points to spend where they wish. Rather than experience points, completing quests gets you skill points you can invest in new skills (or sometimes just cash or gear). The PC will have a total of 37 skills and 222 (37 skills x 6 ranks) potential skill ranks to invest in with something less than that (maybe 150-ish) of skill points available in the game. Here is a suggested list of career skill possibilities. So just about all actions would be available from the start of the game, but the effectiveness of your actions would be determined by your skills.

EDIT: Borked Tables
I
So that’s a rough start on the more faithful approach. I’m still pondering it a bit and didn’t want to dive too much into some of the details.

 

[Calistarius]

I played Bloodlines over and over, while I only finished Witcher 3 once.

@Calistarius Its good but could be better. Perhaps CDPR should ask what makes these popular games so popular?

Spoiler

Well... Witcher 3 is a lot longer then Bloodlines is. So by the time you have played your self tired on playing Bloodlines several times, you might have finished Witcher 3 once or twice. XD

The sheer length of Witcher 3 can be something that can hold people back from playing it again possibly, because you know how much time you have to invest in it... where as a shorter game is easier to pull the trigger on to play again because you know it will be over with faster... but a game being short/shorter can also be the reason why some people don't come back to it as well... since some might not want to have to play the same part of a game over and over and over again.


As for what makes those games popular... more then half of them are Multiplayer/PvP games. Atleast 15-16+, out of 26 total on that list, are Multiplayer and/or PvP games... 9 out of the top 10 of them are multiplayer/PvP types of games. So like what kofe said, not the kind of games that I would like CP2077 to be.

In my perspective this can kill immersion, thus the level of connection the player has with the game.

For you and some other people yes... but not for others. I get just as immersed by games like Fallout 1/2 and Dragon Age Origins, as I can get by something like Crysis or Farcry.

The means by which you can controle a game/character does not really effect mine, and some others, immersion in a game basicly.

So if the only thing that can immerse you in a game is if you have full, 100%, pinpoint accurate, realtime controll over your character, where your own skill in controlling your character (and/or controller/mouse+keyboard) matters the most for if you succeed or not... then I do feel a bit sorry for you. Because it would mean that there is a huge amount of REALLY good games that you could/would/might never like/experience due to it... which is a shame really, since there are a lot of really good games out there which you are missing out on due to them not following what you seem to need from them to be immersed.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

In my perspective this can kill immersion, thus the level of connection the player has with the game

For me it increases it as I actually connect more with the character - that I am roleplaying a character - instead of the controls which means that the PC just a virtual costume (which is fine in action and adventure games or "me" simulators, but goes against the grain in RPG's). The connection between the game comes from the gameplay anyway, what ever it might be, if not, you're probably having bad time and it's not a game for you.

But aren't inept characters exactly what makes a concrete non-abstract realism?

If the character is allowed to be inept, yes. If you need and are granted the "immersion through controls" via lack of PC/Player separation, it's a bit problematic since the charcter is always as good or bad as you are with your method of controlling him.