RPG Mechanics: Skill Progression and Roles

[metalmaniac21]

Totally disagree. I would look forward to a Witcher 3 style Cyberpunk. Absolutely. Be a lot of fun. So absolutely to consider.

I'd -prefer- something of a deeper RPG nature, but I'd be happy with the limited Witcher-style if CDPR gave me a fun game with a great story and a protagonist to sink my teeth into.

I doubt that's gonna happen, though. I think actual RPG mechanics - speech, choices, customization - are likely.

The problem is, the more people go "be happy" with current twitcher state of affairs, the less reason for CDPR to go out and make different games, we sure don't want another pair of nuTES/nuFallout of samey games, do we? And from my perspective, if the game won't deliver on gameplay, there won't much reason to play CP2077, let's play would do just fine. That means no buy.

Oh, right, multiplayer also exists.

 

[wisielec]

[Sard Edit: Cyberpunk is everywhere! Every wheeeerrreee....also topic.]

 

[Snowflakez]

CDPR has never made the same game twice, even within the same series.

I don't think they know how and I don't expect them to start now.

Agreed. I'll be playing Devil's advocate below but I fully expect CDPR to innovate in a major, impressive way.

Totally disagree. I would look forward to a Witcher 3 style Cyberpunk. Absolutely. Be a lot of fun. So absolutely to consider.

I'd -prefer- something of a deeper RPG nature, but I'd be happy with the limited Witcher-style if CDPR gave me a fun game with a great story and a protagonist to sink my teeth into.

I doubt that's gonna happen, though. I think actual RPG mechanics - speech, choices, customization - are likely.

This is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but I agree with Metal. I have limited time and funds, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say the average working class individual is probably in a similar boat (maybe I'm totally wrong, I don't know). We can't -- at least, I can't -- buy every single new game that comes out. I played and loved the Witcher 3 because it was a significant step forward, it was fresh, it expanded upon past systems.

If CP2077 is just going to be more of the same, except hey-now-its-Cyberpunk-guys, I'll pass. I'll pick up Bannerlord or something instead. New aesthetics and guns ain't gonna be enough for me. I'll need some deeper systems to really get hooked. But, this is just one of those things where you either accept it or you don't, and I choose not to, because CDPR has the funds, the expertise (Pondsmith and a very talented team of devs) and -- now -- the experience with open world RPGs to pull it off.

If they choose to be stagnant, I'll be disappointed and definitely won't be buying, but also understanding. Game dev is risky. KCD, for example, took a huge risk and could have failed miserably. CDPR wouldn't be the devil incarnate for going a similar route to other studios.

With all of that said... I do think CDPR will at least check off the major boxes for me with 2077. At least enough that I'll pre-order it and probably buy the collector's edition and certainly any DLC/expansions.

Really, all I'm looking for here is...

• Character creation.
• Roles/classes in some form. It's OK if they aren't determined at the start, and are rather something you "grow into" or specialize into later.
• Some level of skill-based gameplay (character skills), more than TW3.

... annnnd that's about it. I don't think these are huge asks, and they'll be enough to guarantee my business, but they are incompatible with a lot of design philosophies ( Fixed protagonist), so we'll see.

The problem is, the more people go "be happy" with current twitcher state of affairs, the less reason for CDPR to go out and make different games, we sure don't want another pair of nuTES/ nuFallout of samey games, do we? And from my perspective, if the game won't deliver on gameplay, there won't much reason to play CP2077, let's play would do just fine. That means no buy.

Oh, right, multiplayer also exists.

Yeah. Lots of great games out there, all potentially deserving of one's hard-earned $. Nobody should get a free pass just because we like them. But, some people really are happy with the Call of Duty model, and that's perfectly fine. Just different audiences.

And I don't think multiplayer is the defining point, but it's definitely a mark in the "uh oh" column for me. I really hope it doesn't dominate the experience and remains a small, side portion that doesn't pull many resources from the main game's development.

How about something like for example in Kingdom Come: Deliverance, where you play as a guy named Henry with some background story? But there is a decent amount of freedom at the gameplay level.



There will obviously be some level of customization, at least when it comes to the appearance of the character, even The Witcher 3 allows for different hair and beard styles, armor dyes, and other features that let the player's Geralt look unique. And of course things like character skills (however they are implemented) and different story branches are also basically a given, so Cyberpunk's roles can appear at least in those. Beyond that, no one knows what we will get, it could be anything up to an Elder Scrolls like "be anyone you want" character.

Not really interested in that, primarily because I'd like to play as either a female or male character during different playthroughs - especially in the world of Cyberpunk. But this is one of the better options for handling a fixed protagonist, so I'm not completely opposed to it (I loved KCD).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

CDPR has never made the same game twice, even within the same series.

The changes going from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 weren’t all that significant if you look at the percieved experience. The world was broadened and made open to travel in 3 (and with bigger world came more content) but that’s about it, the rest was more or less the same with tweaks that come naturally for a sequel.

 

[Snowflakez]

The changes going from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 weren’t all that significant if you look at the percieved experience. The world was broadened and made open to travel in 3 (and with bigger world came more content) but that’s about it, the rest was more or less the same with tweaks that come naturally for a sequel.

Ehhh... I don't really agree here. That's like saying a pie is basically the same thing as a cake because they're both sweet and round. People who like cake don't necessarily like pie, and vice versa. Wildly different texture, flavors and baking process.

TW3, even if you weren't a fan of it for its lack of depth regarding RPG mechanics and reactivity, was miles off (whether thats ahead or behind is up to the individual) of TW2 and TW1. Totally different combat systems, totally different exploration systems, totally different environments, totally different approach to monster hunting (much more emphasis on tracking down clues, speaking to witnesses versus "kill 15 of these to unlock their codex entry") and -- for better or worse -- a totally different approach to skill/RPG systems. Equipment availability, variety and the whole process of acquiring gear is also significantly different.

These aren't incremental improvements, they were major overhauls. The only thing that I can think of that didn't change much is the dialogue system. Everything else was completely reworked for TW3. That's why its so impressive, even to people who didn't care for it. CDPR threw out their entire playbook as far as gameplay went, and started anew. They kept only the core elements (dialogue, story, choices, characters), but everything else is wildly different.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Ehhh...

Ok. Let me explain.. You seem to be painting a picture here where W3 is some completely alien product in the series with little relation to past titles. This isn’t the case at all. Also, what I said was not a slight towards the Witcher games due to ”not appreciating the RPG mechanisms there”, not at all.

The combat is not ”totally different”. It’s still the familiar heavy/light attack + dodgeroll + sign 3rd person hack and slash. There are some differences in the dynamics due to more responsive controls and an added short dodge, but the core experience isn’t ”totally different”.

Exploration and monsterhunting aren’t ”totally different”. You still run in the wilderness killing monsters, bombing nests and gathering potion ingredients the same as you did before; previously you tapped the medallion and now you have witcher senses. Bigger world alters the dynamics of it, but the core experience is not ”totally different”.

The environments most certainly aren’t ”totally different”.

There are obvious tweaks to everything, it’s not a copy/paste job, but it is not ”totally different” in any aspect. It’s a sequel, it’s not meant to be. It is supposed to offer a familiar experience. They’ve expanded the Witcher 2 experience in 3 all around, but it is still the same familiar desing in all the ways that matter, tweaks and redesigns or not. That’s what sequels do.

And lastly...
Pies and cakes are indeed different desserts, they use different dough and all. The case here is more akin to having two cakes, one with 3 layers and iced with whipped cream and strawberries and another one with 8 layers and the strawberries substituted with peach, kiwi fruit and chocolate crumb. Some might say they’re totally different because hey, there latter is much bigger and the former has nothing green or yellow on it, but they do still share much more than meets the eye (and the eye specifically).

 

[Snowflakez]

And lastly...
Pies and cakes are indeed different desserts, they use different dough and all. The case here is more akin to having two cakes, one with 3 layers and iced with whipped cream and strawberries and another one with 8 layers and the strawberries substituted with peach, kiwi fruit and chocolate crumb. Some might say they’re totally different because hey, there latter is much bigger and the former has nothing green or yellow on it, but they do still share much more than meets the eye (and the eye specifically).

I'm just pointing out that TW3 was indeed a very significant leap away from past games in many ways. For example, Far Cry games (After 3, that is) have the same exact gunplay and the same gameplay mechanisms that function the same way every time with only small, iterative improvements. Hey, now you can fish. Hey, now you're killing cult members with a couple new weapons. Hey, now you have a dog. Great. Give me $60.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding. My assumption was that you were saying TW3 was sort of a Far Cry scenario, which is just incorrect. You're right that at its very core, as in, what being a Witcher is all about, past Witcher games are the same. No argument there. If that's what you're saying, I'm with you. But how you do those things is very different, so the experience is also very unique.

Spoiler

People who liked TW1 and TW2 won't necessarily like TW3. People who liked TW3 won't necessarily like TW2 or TW1. Purely because the gameplay is so different.

By contrast, if you liked Far Cry 5, you'll almost certainly like Far Cry 3 and vice versa - same goes for the newer-gen Assassin's Creed games, Call of Duty and most other AAA titles. The only exception would be if some small Quality of Life feature made its way to the game that you just can't live without, or you just truly hate a given game's aesthetic or setting (I'm not a fan of islands/tropical environments, for example).

Yes, in TW3, you're hunting monsters, but it's an entire process now. Yes, combat is hack and slash but, as you said, the controls are better, Geralt has more tools up his sleeve, magic is more versatile, and constant movement is emphasized. We're not talking a Far Cry 5 level of improvement here.

I'm expecting 2077 to be another big step away (forward, hopefully?) from CDPR's past games, it's just what direction they go in that remains to be seen. They don't have any past games to pull "macro" gameplay elements from (hunting monsters, the whole medieval schtick, etc), after all.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Totally disagree. I would look forward to a Witcher 3 style Cyberpunk. Absolutely. Be a lot of fun. So absolutely to consider.

Just imagine each CP2020 role being a different perk tree in Cyberpunk 2077. Solos, Nomads, Netrunners, Corps, etc having 10 perks each, and also there are no restrictions so you can pick perks from different roles.

 

[Suhiira]

I REALLY hope they don't do the "Perk Tree" thing.
I'd much rather be given a list of skills with those "vital" to your selected role highlighted. Take them (as many levels as you like), or not, as you choose.
"Perk Trees" really only serve to pigeon hole you (BUT are great for PvP game balance as you have only carefully selection options to choose from).

 

[tropit9]

I REALLY hope they don't do the "Perk Tree" thing.
I'd much rather be given a list of skills with those "vital" to your selected role highlighted. Take them (as many levels as you like), or not, as you choose.
"Perk Trees" really only serve to pigeon hole you (BUT are great for PvP game balance as you have only carefully selection options to choose from).

i love perks trees. and i hope they learn their lesson from past games and will not implament "dead branches" of skills that are not worth it or don't synergise well with other skill and builds.

i love lisbeth idea of various perk trees, just hope it will not be like skyrim where you can end up a god born ruler of the universe. i want the real cool shit perks to be made availalble only to open through investing in a specific three kind of like waht witcher 2 and 1 did.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm with Su here. I mean, I'd be okay with Perk trees starting with Roles and being Role-flavoured...but Perks feel very artificial and game-y to me, typically. Special abilities you don't have un;ess you unlock a magic perk? Like anyone can't dual wield...or that suddenly at "Level 10" you can duel-wield with no penalty. unlike "Level 9" where you had full penalty...no.

Most perks, it seems to me, exist to give players gameplay options that the designers couldn't or wouldn't include in the underlying structure of the game. Say, Geralt's ability to suddenly have a second potion auto-activate when he drinks any potion.

First..wut? Hello reality break. I buy magic powerz more easily than auto-drinking potions.

Second...if the gameplay structure were deeper, Geralt could drink a potion..but he could also mix hybrid potions...or enhance effects during mixing. OR quickly down a second potion, since time-to-drink would be determined by your dexterity or wits stat. Or whatever.

So Perks are a simple, easily-understood shortcut to deeper game systems, but I'd prefer deeper game systems,

If you, a Corporate, want to call in a Black Ops Solo team..make the call. Test your Int+Persuade+Resources vs Target Number 20, minus or plus whatever modifiers seem appropriate to the game. One suggested modifier would be your choice of conversation options with your Corporate Tactical Manager. Did you previously say nice things to them? Send them gifts? Scare them, even?

If successful, you get your Solo Team by AV4. If less successful, you get them but it takes longer or they aren't real serious. If you fail, well, Ops is busy right now. Whoops.

These deeper RPG systems aren't that complex - they've been in games like Fallout 2 years ago. Witcher series has elements of them, in how it tracks your decisions and choices.

So, yeah. Perks okay, but really prefer a skill/stat/gear/player choice based RPG system. With some neat twists as your skills go up - like hey, you have Heavy Weapons 8 and Tech 7...you can -learn- to modify your flamethrower. Or whatever.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm with Su here. I mean, I'd be okay with Perk trees starting with Roles and being Role-flavoured...but Perks feel very artificial and game-y to me, typically. Special abilities you don't have un;ess you unlock a magic perk? Like anyone can't dual wield...or that suddenly at "Level 10" you can duel-wield with no penalty. unlike "Level 9" where you had full penalty...no.

Most perks, it seems to me, exist to give players gameplay options that the designers couldn't or wouldn't include in the underlying structure of the game. Say, Geralt's ability to suddenly have a second potion auto-activate when he drinks any potion.

I think Perk Trees exist for three primary - and equally "important" reasons.

1 - They limit the skills a player can possess (total and at any given 'level'); and skill synergy's are (theoretically) known in advance and can be planned for.
2 - They require less "thought" on the players part; you have 2-3 choices not 20-30.
----(And yes, you need to consider future skill choices and synergy's be there 3 choices or 30, but MUCH less to consider with 3.)
3 - They pigeon hole characters into "easily" definable roles that can be planned for.

Most games (all games?) that have Perk Trees have a "respec" option, because it's all about min-maxing.
Sure, there's some of that in classless PnP games, but MUCH less because situational modifiers (what you're doing, where, with whom) tend to make such min-maxing much less useful because you don't have clearly defined situations and opponents.

I'll come straight out and say it (and I KNOW people will vehemently disagree) - Perk Trees are good for lazy players and developers who don't want to think to much. Players love them because there's (almost) always a "perfect" build ... let's hear it for Power Tripping!

 

[tropit9]

I think Perk Trees exist for three primary - and equally "important" reasons.

1 - They limit the skills a player can possess (total and at any given 'level'); and skill synergy's are (theoretically) known in advance and can be planned for.
2 - They require less "thought" on the players part; you have 2-3 choices not 20-30.
----(And yes, you need to consider future skill choices and synergy's be there 3 choices or 30, but MUCH less to consider with 3.)
3 - They pigeon hole characters into "easily" definable roles that can be planned for.

Most games (all games?) that have Perk Trees have a "respec" option, because it's all about min-maxing.
Sure, there's some of that in classless PnP games, but MUCH less because situational modifiers (what you're doing, where, with whom) tend to make such min-maxing much less useful because you don't have clearly defined situations and opponents.

I'll come straight out and say it (and I KNOW people will vehemently disagree) - Perk Trees are good for lazy players and developers who don't want to think to much. Players love them because there's (almost) always a "perfect" build ... let's hear it for Power Tripping!

i wonder if there will be respec option in the game. i think mike said somthing about it, in some interview but not sure. anyway if therfe is respec in the game, i think it will take the form of the training program from the matrix movie. rewriting knowledge not only directly to your brain but to your muscels, creating new muscle memory.

 

[sv3672]

Just imagine each CP2020 role being a different perk tree in Cyberpunk 2077. Solos, Nomads, Netrunners, Corps, etc having 10 perks each, and also there are no restrictions so you can pick perks from different roles.

I doubt there would be no restrictions at all, The Witcher 3 already encourages specialization in combat/signs/alchemy by requiring minimum amounts of points in each "class" to unlock their higher tiers of perks. Usually, when a game includes perks, the lowest tier is "free" so players can easily get started with whatever build they want, but further progression is restricted in some way.

Most games (all games?) that have Perk Trees have a "respec" option, because it's all about min-maxing.

As far as I know, there is no respec option in Fallout 4, for example.

By the way, I am not sure what perks have to do with developers being "lazy", implementing a good perk system may actually require more work than a handful of skill numbers where each point of a skill translates to something like "guns now have 0.75% better hit chance" (which the game often does not document to the player). But developers tend to focus on including as many different perks as possible, quantity sells after all, so balancing and character progression become problematic.

 

[Suhiira]

i wonder if there will be respec option in the game. i think mike said somthing about it, in some interview but not sure.

Possible but doubtful. Most "real" RPGs don't really allow respecs. This is one of the things that makes them unpopular with the "power gamer" crowd. It takes a l-o-n-g time to get thru an entire game (usually) and you can't be sure your build is optimum till the end. In "real" RPGs your characters skills are the sum of their lifetime experiences and training, not something you can really "retrain". Even if you learn something new and quit using some skill you still retain the knowledge of that skill.

Perk Trees are almost always "abilities" or "perks" rather then "skills"; i.e. the ability to use X type of weapon, or improve your ability with Y. That's why they're not (usually) called "Skill Trees". A skill is something like handguns, you learn the basics of using that class of weaponry and can use any handgun. Not well till you get use to a specific weapons quirks, but you can use it. Heck, you can use it without any skill at all ... in which case the safest place to be might be directly in front of you.

As Sardukhar said, you don't just suddenly wake up one morning knowing how to dual wield when you've had no previous ability or experience doing so. Anyone can try it at any time, they'll just suck at it till they train and practice.

As far as I know, there is no respec option in Fallout 4, for example.

No need for one as you eventually master every skill in the game.

By the way, I am not sure what perks have to do with developers being "lazy", implementing a good perk system may actually require more work than a handful of skill numbers where each point of a skill translates to something like "guns now have 0.75% better hit chance" (which the game often does not document to the player). But developers tend to focus on including as many different perks as possible, quantity sells after all, so balancing and character progression become problematic.

You make my point.
You're concern is quantifying, and knowing exactly how "good" your character is as at things and balancing progression. Neither of these is terribly important (in terms of specifics vs generalities) in an RPG. You're "bad", "adequate", or "good" at something; and of course characters are imbalanced, character A isn't "just as good" as character "B", they have different skill sets.

I assume your concern in PvP. That's a VERY VERY minor consideration in an RPG.

RPG characters are not disposable assets you generate as needed like Action game characters. I've been running one PnP game for over 30 years now, some of my players are still using the same character they first generated ... and there are NO respawns or resurrects in many RPGs.

This is why "RPG" and "Action" gamers mix like oil and water, totally different perspectives as to what characters exist for. And this is why no single game can satisfy both groups.

 

[sv3672]

No need for one as you eventually master every skill in the game.

Surely if you do not mind hundreds of hours of grinding (or relying or cheats or exploits). A more typical playthrough tends to run out of meaningful content at about third or so of the maximum perk points. Although that is already enough to become overpowered anyway.

You're concern is quantifying, and knowing exactly how "good" your character is as at things and balancing progression. Neither of these is terribly important (in terms of specifics vs generalities) in an RPG. You're "bad", "adequate", or "good" at something; and of course characters are imbalanced, character A isn't "just as good" as character "B", they have different skill sets.

This sounds nice in theory, all possible builds should be equally "good" overall (for a given total experience or level), just define different roles to play as. But it is nearly impossible to achieve in a complex game, and not only because developers are all lazy. Even in a single player game, there is an aspect of challenge, and in practice some characters will be more effective at overcoming it than others. That is what I meant when referring to balancing issues. I also do not think it is unreasonable for players to want to be able to make informed decisions about their character builds.

 

[Suhiira]

Surely if you do not mind hundreds of hours of grinding (or relying or cheats or exploits). A more typical playthrough tends to run out of meaningful content at about third or so of the maximum perk points. Although that is already enough to become overpowered anyway.

Again you show a preference for "fast and efficient", most RPGers are completionists.

This sounds nice in theory, all possible builds should be equally "good" overall (for a given total experience or level), just define different roles to play as. But it is nearly impossible to achieve in a complex game, and not only because developers are all lazy. Even in a single player game, there is an aspect of challenge, and in practice some characters will be more effective at overcoming it than others. That is what I meant when referring to balancing issues. I also do not think it is unreasonable for players to want to be able to make informed decisions about their character builds.

Apparently you missed "of course characters are imbalanced, character A isn't "just as good" as character B" when reading my post. And your preference for "Action" game mechanics and play is obvious.

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but CDPR has said straight out CP2077 will be an RPG first and foremost.

While there may (in fact probably will) be certain action game type mechanics it's NOT going to be a fast paced action game.
It's not going to be "Dark Souls 2077".

 

[Rawls]

Perk Trees are almost always "abilities" or "perks" rather then "skills"; i.e. the ability to use X type of weapon, or improve your ability with Y. That's why they're not (usually) called "Skill Trees". A skill is something like handguns, you learn the basics of using that class of weaponry and can use any handgun. Not well till you get use to a specific weapons quirks, but you can use it. Heck, you can use it without any skill at all ... in which case the safest place to be might be directly in front of you.

Yes. I still think it would be awesome if skills advances led to actual gameplay mechanics (i.e. for guns jamming guns, slower reload, accidentally leaving the safety on 5% of the time; for hacking, without the appropriate skill points, the actual hacking puzzles are harder ... like they scale to be easier if you have more skill representing your experience in the field, plus longer periods of time to solve, more allowances for error, and etc).

I think that a "Skill Tree" and skill points system is completely feasible. However, one has to design interesting gameplay mechanics that represent the experience inherent in the skill. That way it doesn't turn into the typical perk tree format of 20% more damage with swords, or now your invisible for 20 seconds while sneaking instead of 10, etc.

 

[sv3672]

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but CDPR has said straight out CP2077 will be an RPG first and foremost.

Did they not say the same about the Witcher series? Not that I am saying those games are not RPGs, only that it is apparently not against their definition of the genre to include perk trees and action elements. But I can also imagine it will be made an important point to keep the character system as faithful to CP2020 as possible, as long as it is feasible and does not conflict with other design goals.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'm just pointing out that TW3 was indeed a very significant leap away from past games in many ways.

I don't think it was (aside from the first game, that is), that doesn't coincide with my experience.

You're doing the same things the same way for the same reasons as before. There's more quantity of content, there technical and mechanical tweaks, the world is bigger and less restricted by the narrative than before and these obviously affect things, but all in all the minute to minute flow, delivery of content and gameplay aren't significantly different (there are those Far Cry-style additions "here's an additional dodge, here's a horsie to ride, here's a boat sail, etc, now give me sixty", but that's nuances in the big picture just like such additions are with FC series).

Yeah, and here's a NO vote for perk trees/charts.