Save the date: Night City Wire - Episode 5

+
It's in the latest Night City Wire right before those screen grabs you posted.

View attachment 11068697

Clockwise from the top: Reflexes, Tech, Cool, Intelligence and Body.
What? No... those are skill trees. I was asking to see the list and details of each and every skill/perk that's available within those trees... all 240 of them. (at least I think that's the number, anyway)

@Suhiira and @kofeiiniturpa argued that of those 240, at minimum, 216 are strictly combat skills, and only the remaining 24 are not (no, I have no idea where they are pulling that number from either). So when I asked for some more detail about the individual skills, @kofeiiniturpa pointed me into the thread where a guy talks about all the skill trees in detail.. and in that video, he says that Intelligence tree is all for non-combat net skills. But then @Suhiira said non-combat is type of combat, because you can hack a guy to overheat and kill him (I guess that means if you have some combat capabilities within the skill tree, that means all skills within that tree must also be combat skills)... at which point I dropped the conversation, because I didn't see a point in discussing semantics. By that logic I'm expecting @Suhiira to say that expending your dialogue skill points is a form of verbal combat, because you verbally defeated your opponent.

I stand by my original stance.. I'll wait for the game to come out and find out for myself.
 
What? No... those are skill trees. I was asking to see the list and details of each and every skill/perk that's available within those trees... all 240 of them. (at least I think that's the number, anyway)
Oh yeah, we don't have an in depth look at each of the trees yet. There are several previews that detailed their contents a time or two though. I.E. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/06/cyberpunk-2077-preview-5-hours/

When you make your character, you’ll get seven points to distribute across the five main attributes: Body, Intelligence, Reflexes, Technical Ability and Cool. Cool’s kind of the catch-all for your stealth, speed and critical hit bonuses , and since I was playing a lithe femme corporate arsehole — or that’s what I had in mind — I decided to max out Cool, Reflexes, and then add an extra bump into Intelligence.

What’s more important, however, is how you actually play. Similar to the first iteration of Don Bradman Cricket — stay with me here — your character levels up skills as they’re used in-game. Your ability with katanas, for instance, gets better the more you block and land hits with them. Same goes for pistols. Shotguns. Takedowns. Throwing knives. You get the drill.

When you get the chance to level up, you’ll be given an attribute point and a perk point. Later levels will sometimes give you multiple points of each, and you can spend these in any fashion you want.

And there’s a lot of perks. For the Cool attribute, you’ve got a Stealth Page and a Cold Blood page. There’s 26 different Stealth perks and 19 Cool Blood perks to choose from, and most of those have multiple levels.

The same goes for other attributes. Technical Ability — or TECH — has Crafting (19 perks) and Engineering (22). Reflexes has separate branches for each of the main weapons: Blades (23), Rifles (20) and Handguns (19).

I was playing an assassin-type, so I focused on the Cool skills. All the choices there were pretty good: Improving critical chance by 15 percent; a global 15 percent/25 percent damage bump to human and mechanical enemies; 30 percent faster move speed while sneaking; unlocking aerial takedowns; unlocking the ability to throw knives; or just getting more movement speed generally after a takedown.

And that’s just the Stealth perk line. Want to be a better hacker instead? Then you can unlock the ability to breakdown turrets. Increase your Breach Protocol buffer. Get better hacking programs. Or maybe you just want faster aim time. Better headshot damage with handguns. Health regen during combat. Double the carrying capacity.

All of this is available with your very first perk point. You can’t have it all, of course. But you can work out pretty quickly the amount of possible permutations.

People are going to be speedrunning and replaying this game for years.

I do think that a majority of the progression trees perks will deal with combat. There will be some that deal with other game elements.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@Suhiira and @kofeiiniturpa argued that of those 240, at minimum, 216 are strictly combat skills

You know, this discussion launched when I said that all the character systems are more or less related to combat. So far as we know, this is true. They more or less are.

There are 5 attributes and under them there are 12 skills, out of which 10 are directly combat skills, and engineering can be considered one because you'll mostly be crafting and looting weapon/armor parts. Hacking is the only one that has an inherent function that does not relate to combat, because you can (possibly) hack a bit more than turrets and enemies.

The 240 perks we know so far also consist more or less about means of killing shit; like the timed % increments on damage and damage reduction that trigger when certain conditions are met. The cyberware also seem to be aimed to make you a better combatant.

And all that said, the character systems by and large are aimed towards becoming the most effective combatant. And this is only underlined by the complete lack of social and interaction skills and stats (other than hacking).
There is said to be a lot of downtime from fighting, but that's not really the point of what I originally said. Of course you can run around and look at things and speak to NPC's; that is to be expected. But there are no systems governing all that besides few skillchecks in dialog here and there.

And considering most of the skills are combat skills and that skills increase as you use them, I would wager the game is designed for them to be used too. So with that in mind, it is my somewhat educated guess that combat will be a central element in the game, unless one is willing to bypass a lot of content that also exists without systemic intrigue due to the said lack of skills and stats effects therein.
 
There are 5 attributes and under them there are 12 skills, out of which 10 are directly combat skills, and engineering can be considered one because you'll mostly be crafting and looting weapon/armor parts. Hacking is the only one that has an inherent function that does not relate to combat, because you can (possibly) hack a bit more than turrets and enemies.
I don't think 10/12 skills are purely (not sure what directly means in the context of your sentence) combat skills. Athletics, stealth, device hacking, target hacking, crafting, engineering and cold blooded are all likely to have some non-combat related functions. Indeed some of them I think are likely to be very useful in avoiding combat altogether. I think every skill will have some perks/uses for combat ... but I think the 10/12 reference probably overstates the point a bit.

The 240 perks we know so far also consist more or less about means of killing shit; like the timed % increments on damage and damage reduction that trigger when certain conditions are met. The cyberware also seem to be aimed to make you a better combatant.
Agreed. I think the majority of the perks will have at least some combat related use. We already know that CDPR made the design choice years ago to have social interactions more guided by player choices / some stats / character background than dedicated skills / perks. There are likely to be some perks that have some purely outside of combat benefit (like the item pricing ones in crafting), but I expect them to be the exception and not the rule. Here's the full list we know of to my knowledge:
  • BODY
    • BRAWLING
      • "Guerilla"- Kiling foes increases crit hit by 60% for 1 0 secs
    • ATHLETICS
      • Gladiator - reduces damage taken while blocking by 20%.
      • Regeneration - slowly regenerates health in combat.
      • Pack Mule - doubles carrying capacity.
      • Invincible -increases maximum health by 10%.
      • Super Hero Landing - reduces fall damage by 5%.
      • Multitasker - lets you shoot while sprinting, sliding and jumping at the same time.
      • Transporter - lets you shoot and sprint while carrying a body.
      • Hard motherfucker - at the start of a fight, armor and resistance are increased by 20% for 10 seconds.
    • ANNIHILATION
      • "Redacted" - Dismembering foes reduces recoil by 50% for 6 secs
  • COOL
    • STEALTH
      • Embrace the Shadows - 25% HP Regen when in Stealth/Sneaking
      • Crouching Tiger - Movement Speed Increase by 30% when in Stealth/Sneaking
      • Attraction and Replsion - Unlock ability to push grabbed enemies. (can probably allow you to throw enemies off cliffs to kill them)
      • Dagger Dealer - Unlock ability to use Throwing Knives
      • Hidden Dragon - Unlock ability to perform Aerial Takedowns.
      • Ninjutsu - All Sneak attacks with melee weapons will deal 100% more damage and 100% Crit hit.
      • Stunning Blow - Fast melee attacks will stagger enemies.
      • Hasty Retreat - Gain 50% movement speed when spotted by Enemies.
      • "Toxicology" - Poison duration increased by 5 secs *
    • COLD BLOOD
      • "Merciless" - if Cold Blood active, crit chance +1 0% and crit damage +2%
  • INTELLIGENCE
    • DEVICE HACKING
      • "Transmigration" - Increase Breach time protocol by 25%
    • TARGET HACKING
      • "Master Memory" - Increase memory regen speed by 25%
  • REFLEXES
    • HANDGUNS
      • "Redacted" - Land a critical hit and get an armour boost for 20 secs
    • RIFLES
      • Bullseye - Increases rifle damage while aiming by 10%
      • "Punisher" - Kill an enemy to nullify weapon sway and spread for 1 0 secs
    • BLADES
      • Flight of the Sparrow - reduces the stamina cost of all attacks with blades by 50%
      • Slow and Steady - Armor is increased by 15% while moving
      • Offensive/Defensive - Defensive attacks with blades deal 200% more damage
      • Unfair Advantage - deal 10% more damage to enemies with higher Max HP.
      • Ninja - Unlock the Block Bullet ability to deflect bullets and perform dash attacks (seem certain Perks will unlock certain skills for V)
      • "Dragon Strike" - Strong attacks consume stacked bleeding effects and deal 15% damage
  • TECH
    • CRAFTING
      • Master Gunsmith - 5% chance of getting an additional prototype component as crafting material for every item made.
      • R&D - the said skill that enables you to upgrade items to the legendary quality level.
      • Revamp is a trait, a kind of master skill at the bottom of the talent tree, which increases the sales prices of your items by 25%.
    • ENGINEERING
      • Mech Looter - you can loot scrap from drones, robots and mechs and have a 30% chance of finding weapon parts.
      • Blast Shielding - reduces your explosion damage taken by 10%.
      • Shrapnel - adds 20 additional damage to all previous garnet effects.
      • Grenadier - make the explosion radius of grenades visible to you.
      • Reverse engineering - lets you take off weapon mods.
      • You can't touch this - make yourself immune to the effects of your own grenades
      • "Crazy Science" - Increase tech weapon damage by 25%
And considering most of the skills are combat skills and that skills increase as you use them, I would wager the game is designed for them to be used too. So with that in mind, it is my somewhat educated guess that combat will be a central element in the game, unless one is willing to bypass a lot of content that also exists without systemic intrigue due to the said lack of skills and stats effects therein.
I mean, of course combat is going to be a central element to the game. Combat, dialogue, crafting/gear, (maybe) puzzles and (maybe) stealth are kinda RPGs whole thing. You can mostly do dialogue and puzzles variety without many skill/perk mechanics, so it's not surprising most the perks are dedicated to the other stuff.
 
You know, this discussion launched when I said that all the character systems are more or less related to combat. So far as we know, this is true. They more or less are.

There are 5 attributes and under them there are 12 skills, out of which 10 are directly combat skills, and engineering can be considered one because you'll mostly be crafting and looting weapon/armor parts. Hacking is the only one that has an inherent function that does not relate to combat, because you can (possibly) hack a bit more than turrets and enemies.

The 240 perks we know so far also consist more or less about means of killing shit; like the timed % increments on damage and damage reduction that trigger when certain conditions are met. The cyberware also seem to be aimed to make you a better combatant.

And all that said, the character systems by and large are aimed towards becoming the most effective combatant. And this is only underlined by the complete lack of social and interaction skills and stats (other than hacking).
There is said to be a lot of downtime from fighting, but that's not really the point of what I originally said. Of course you can run around and look at things and speak to NPC's; that is to be expected. But there are no systems governing all that besides few skillchecks in dialog here and there.

And considering most of the skills are combat skills and that skills increase as you use them, I would wager the game is designed for them to be used too. So with that in mind, it is my somewhat educated guess that combat will be a central element in the game, unless one is willing to bypass a lot of content that also exists without systemic intrigue due to the said lack of skills and stats effects therein.

While true, most RPGs, even ones that offer very deep gameplay elements outside of combat, tend to have far more mechanics devoted to how combat will work.
  • I mean, how many skills can you possibly create that would meaningfully impact how well characters "talk" to each other? Aside from a the ability to lie convincingly, or persuade people, or deal with this or that social class better than others, or whether a character can speak a certain language fluently...that's about the it.
  • Skills for trade or craft will likely be sparingly used. If my character is, saaay, a carpenter...how much actual gameplay time am I going to spend at the table crafting tables and chairs? Are we going to have separate skills for chisels and lathes? Probably pointless.
  • Is there going to be a specific set of mechanics that determine whether my character can solve a riddle based on whether it is philosophical, mathematical, historical, or semantic in nature? Probably much more fun and engaging just to let the players solve the riddle, instead of developing dice rolls and skill synergy to determine whether they find the answer or not.
But with combat, there are so many variables that do need a mechanical expression. If my character is big and strong, I can crush that other character in my bare hands...but what if they're smaller and faster? Who wins? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm really skilled using a sword, but all I can get my hands on is club...how effectively can I reasonably fight? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm about to lose, but I decide to try to fling dirt in my opponent's eyes, then sweep their legs out from under them so my companion can save me in the next round...should I just automatically win because I thought of that? We should probably develop a mechanic for that. Etc.

TL; DR
What I'm basically saying is that just because a game focuses skills and trees on an intricately designed combat system, that doesn't mean that it's the only activity the game offers. It just means that the other activities don't require tables and skill trees to be utilized effectively. We've seen proof in the pudding for this with lots of games: everything from Minecraft, to the Fable series, to The Witcher. Lots of detail focusing almost exclusively on combat, but tons of gameplay around it at the same time.
 

Yeah, I get that. But the point kinda is that when you look at those perks and skills, and what they seem to be doing, nearly all of it is meant to make you better at doing and resisting damage. Some more directly than others.

There is a clear disparity between stuff that relates to combat and what does not when it comes to character systems design, and it's odd since there seems to be a lot of touting that it's not suppose to be all gunz'n gore.

I mean there's a perk that lets you barter with better prices, yes. But what will you be bartering the most? Combat items (drugs, healing, ammo, guns, armor, cyberware, items to install to your guns and armor, items with which you craft the parts you then install to your guns and armor, etc).

Now think about skills like human perception, personal grooming, library search, wardrobe&style, or geology, etc. None of those lend themselves easily to combat.

And the grievance is that while there is a lot to progress the character with, somehow everything beyond combat and combat management is neglected.

It's not "only CDPR" either, but almost all developers. For some reason there is a seeming lack of willingness and inspiration to make out of combat gameplay interesting also systemically. It just still bums me, that even thought there seems to be a lot of content and all kinds of things to be done, I still expect the game to get systemically boring and repetitive fast.

I once made joke (in some other forum) that since everything else's about combat somehow, the game should allow the player to use a lockpick as a weapon to pick the enemies eyes by using the lockpicking skill as a metric of the efficacy.
Post automatically merged:

I mean, how many skills can you possibly create that would meaningfully impact how well characters "talk" to each other?

Why would there need to be more than what it required? No skill should be forced in. You could have Persuasion (let's this is context sensitively used as sweet talking and intimidation with different attributes used as governing factors... say, body for intimidationa and cool for persuasion), Deception and Seduction for specific purposes and that's it; and still have checks for other skills for knowledge about them.

If my character is, saaay, a carpenter...how much actual gameplay time am I going to spend at the table crafting tables and chairs?

Why would you add skills that you know you aren't going to be giving any usefullness?

The point is not about "having as many skills as possible because skillz is cool", but more like "having as many skills governing the gameplay-essential tasks and activities as is reasonable and effective for the feel of the gameplay". So that what you do in the game is more than just doing it because you can.
 
Last edited:
Of course you can run around and look at things and speak to NPC's; that is to be expected. But there are no systems governing all that besides few skillchecks in dialog here and there.

This is the part we don't know much about though. You're basing your assumption on looking at the progression in isolation. It's not an unfair assumption to make. I've made it myself in the past. Why do all of these abilities appear combat oriented? Even so, it isn't outside the realm of possibility they've decided to integrate the non-combat applications of those abilities directly into the gameplay, outside of the progression.

An example would be, say, handguns. Intuitively, this sounds like a pure combat ability. Your character is better with handguns so you can use handguns better. However, it is possible a character with a better understanding of handguns could avoid combat via getting into a lengthy discussion with a NPC on the intricacies of handguns. Your character is intimately familiar with handguns. A NPC you meet is as well. We can call this common ground. A non-intuitive, fringe example no doubt. Perhaps stretching things. It's a possibility though.

Is it really a huge stretch given it's CDPR? They arguably insist on taking such an approach with dialogue itself. You don't have a dialogue related progression suite. This doesn't mean you won't have any opportunities where dialogue can greatly influence the direction of the gameplay. Those opportunities just happen to be detached from the progression. Alternatively, attached to it in a less intuitive way. As per the handgun example.

When I see something like the description for tech, "Your Technical Ability also unlocks unique dialogue options and opens new pathways for you around the world.", this is what immediately comes to mind. It's impossible to appreciate what this means without seeing it in action, in the gameplay. You can stare at the description within the progression system all day and it's going to sound vague.

As you noted earlier, hacking also ties into the combat. You have an ability most would intuitively expect to be non-combat related with an additional relationship to combat. Why could this premise not be done in the opposite direction? Where you have an ability most would intuitively expect to relate entirely to combat offering non-combat oriented opportunities. It would be impossible to recognize this by looking at the progression system in isolation.
 
Now think about skills like human perception, personal grooming, library search, wardrobe&style, or geology, etc. None of those lend themselves easily to combat.
I could have loved a human perception skill tree if it was done well (you've seen me write about it at length). All the rest of them would be very unsatisfying in my opinion.
And the grievance is that while there is a lot to progress the character with, somehow everything beyond combat and combat management is neglected.
Yeah I get that. I don't think the dialogue at least is being neglected though. It's governed by the players former choices in regards to narrative, background and stats. Those are character progression too, just not ticked choices in the UI interface. The dialogue options we have also change based on what the character is focusing on, and can be impacted by things like V's appearance. That's a fairly intricate system. Just because it's something other than skills, doesn't mean it's not there.

EDIT: Also, we should probably take this somewhere else or get back on topic.
 
Last edited:
While true, most RPGs, even ones that offer very deep gameplay elements outside of combat, tend to have far more mechanics devoted to how combat will work.
  • I mean, how many skills can you possibly create that would meaningfully impact how well characters "talk" to each other? Aside from a the ability to lie convincingly, or persuade people, or deal with this or that social class better than others, or whether a character can speak a certain language fluently...that's about the it.
  • Skills for trade or craft will likely be sparingly used. If my character is, saaay, a carpenter...how much actual gameplay time am I going to spend at the table crafting tables and chairs? Are we going to have separate skills for chisels and lathes? Probably pointless.
  • Is there going to be a specific set of mechanics that determine whether my character can solve a riddle based on whether it is philosophical, mathematical, historical, or semantic in nature? Probably much more fun and engaging just to let the players solve the riddle, instead of developing dice rolls and skill synergy to determine whether they find the answer or not.
But with combat, there are so many variables that do need a mechanical expression. If my character is big and strong, I can crush that other character in my bare hands...but what if they're smaller and faster? Who wins? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm really skilled using a sword, but all I can get my hands on is club...how effectively can I reasonably fight? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm about to lose, but I decide to try to fling dirt in my opponent's eyes, then sweep their legs out from under them so my companion can save me in the next round...should I just automatically win because I thought of that? We should probably develop a mechanic for that. Etc.

TL; DR
What I'm basically saying is that just because a game focuses skills and trees on an intricately designed combat system, that doesn't mean that it's the only activity the game offers. It just means that the other activities don't require tables and skill trees to be utilized effectively. We've seen proof in the pudding for this with lots of games: everything from Minecraft, to the Fable series, to The Witcher. Lots of detail focusing almost exclusively on combat, but tons of gameplay around it at the same time.

Everytime I come across your comments it almost always seems like a very well typed version of my thoughts on certain things.
 
But then @Suhiira said non-combat is type of combat, because you can hack a guy to overheat and kill him (I guess that means if you have some combat capabilities within the skill tree, that means all skills within that tree must also be combat skills)... at which point I dropped the conversation, because I didn't see a point in discussing semantics.
Please explain to me the non-combat application for hacking someone's cyberware and making them shoot themself.

While true, most RPGs, even ones that offer very deep gameplay elements outside of combat, tend to have far more mechanics devoted to how combat will work.
I mean, how many skills can you possibly create that would meaningfully impact how well characters "talk" to each other? Aside from a the ability to lie convincingly, or persuade people, or deal with this or that social class better than others, or whether a character can speak a certain language fluently...that's about the it.

Skills for trade or craft will likely be sparingly used. If my character is, saaay, a carpenter...how much actual gameplay time am I going to spend at the table crafting tables and chairs? Are we going to have separate skills for chisels and lathes? Probably pointless.

Is there going to be a specific set of mechanics that determine whether my character can solve a riddle based on whether it is philosophical, mathematical, historical, or semantic in nature? Probably much more fun and engaging just to let the players solve the riddle, instead of developing dice rolls and skill synergy to determine whether they find the answer or not.
One needs only look at CP2020 pg 45 to see a number of skills not related to combat.
The problem, and it's a HUGE one, is incorporating these skills into an video game. While not impossible, it'd be far more time/effort then it's generally worth. That said, little to no attempt to incorporate any of them is very telling. But I understand why CDPR chose not to do so. Much of the non-RPG crown would go ballistic of they didn't have direct personal control over all aspects of gameplay.
 
Last edited:
While true, most RPGs, even ones that offer very deep gameplay elements outside of combat, tend to have far more mechanics devoted to how combat will work.
  • I mean, how many skills can you possibly create that would meaningfully impact how well characters "talk" to each other? Aside from a the ability to lie convincingly, or persuade people, or deal with this or that social class better than others, or whether a character can speak a certain language fluently...that's about the it.
  • Skills for trade or craft will likely be sparingly used. If my character is, saaay, a carpenter...how much actual gameplay time am I going to spend at the table crafting tables and chairs? Are we going to have separate skills for chisels and lathes? Probably pointless.
  • Is there going to be a specific set of mechanics that determine whether my character can solve a riddle based on whether it is philosophical, mathematical, historical, or semantic in nature? Probably much more fun and engaging just to let the players solve the riddle, instead of developing dice rolls and skill synergy to determine whether they find the answer or not.
But with combat, there are so many variables that do need a mechanical expression. If my character is big and strong, I can crush that other character in my bare hands...but what if they're smaller and faster? Who wins? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm really skilled using a sword, but all I can get my hands on is club...how effectively can I reasonably fight? We need a mechanic for that. If I'm about to lose, but I decide to try to fling dirt in my opponent's eyes, then sweep their legs out from under them so my companion can save me in the next round...should I just automatically win because I thought of that? We should probably develop a mechanic for that. Etc.

TL; DR
What I'm basically saying is that just because a game focuses skills and trees on an intricately designed combat system, that doesn't mean that it's the only activity the game offers. It just means that the other activities don't require tables and skill trees to be utilized effectively. We've seen proof in the pudding for this with lots of games: everything from Minecraft, to the Fable series, to The Witcher. Lots of detail focusing almost exclusively on combat, but tons of gameplay around it at the same time.

Yeah. Looks like the majority of previewers agree that the central element of the gameplay is dialogue and character interaction, not combat, despite the fact it has a skill tree.
 
An example would be, say, handguns. Intuitively, this sounds like a pure combat ability. Your character is better with handguns so you can use handguns better. However, it is possible a character with a better understanding of handguns could avoid combat via getting into a lengthy discussion with a NPC on the intricacies of handguns. Your character is intimately familiar with handguns. A NPC you meet is as well. We can call this common ground. A non-intuitive, fringe example no doubt. Perhaps stretching things. It's a possibility though.

Yeah, that's what I meant with the occasional skillcheck in dialog.

The crux, though, is interactivity on a larger scale that includes dialog checks as part of it all.

Too often the gameplay loop of an RPG (or a so-called one) is that you walk, you talk and you kill. What happened to all the stuff that's between those three, and that happens during the walk?

While not impossible, it'd be far more time/effort then it's generally worth.

I don't really agree with that. I think people actually like to check around on things and higher amounts of interactivity, even if all of it does not lead to a gamechanging revelation.

Think about awareness/notice or human perception just used casually along your way from point A to point B when not under clock. You might stop to follow a ganger walking the same way for a moment and possibly learn something about his mannerisms, or you might take note of some intricate detail on a graffiti or a poster on the wall and once again learn something (about the lore, about a mission, a specific person...), or you might spot something small under a car that you might've otherwise missed. Most of the time you'd probably learn nothing new, or find nothing at all, but when you do... the little rewards here and there make all the difference. You might remeber some of your otherwise repetitive treks through the city, and you might even start waiting to into one at times.

And that's just stuff outside missions.

I don't think the dialogue at least is being neglected though.

Yeah, dialog might be safe, all in all. But otherwise... there's stuff to be done outside combat otherwise too.
 
Last edited:
Why would there need to be more than what it required? No skill should be forced in. You could have Persuasion (let's this is context sensitively used as sweet talking and intimidation with different attributes used as governing factors... say, body for intimidationa and cool for persuasion), Deception and Seduction for specific purposes and that's it; and still have checks for other skills for knowledge about them.

Or, the game will simply handle that via your character stats and a tree of faction relationships, directly. It's not something that needs a "skill tree" to make sense, and not something that is rigid enough to require its own stat, as a video game adaptation of is not the same thing as the table-top version of an RPG. It can't work that way.

Hence, for PnP, my character's backstory may set my "base" ability to to speak street vernacular really well. It's naturally how my character speaks. Because I also chose the "Street Kid" skill, I can now talk it up with the average tough on the street and feel like I'm from their world and I get how it works. If I encounter a gang member I helped out in the past, and I'm going to try to talk them out of killing another NPC, the GM will simply handle that situation organically:

GM: "Alright, but that's going to be tricky, so what will you try to use, Reason or Intimidation?"

Player: "Reason. 'Look, man. Think this through, yo. This meat can die any day -- doesn't have to be now. And it would mean money to me to give a few days to rest. Besides, you still owe me for that door kicking we did last week, yo.'"

GM: "Ah -- good point. Alright, what are your chances?"

Player: "I've got 15 in Reason, +4 Intelligence modifier, and +5 for Street Kid -- so: 24."

GM: "Add +10 for bringing up the fact the guy still owes you and roll."

Player: (Grabs a d20 and rolls a 10. 10+4+5+10) "29!"

GM: "Yeah, you see him start nodding before you're even done talking. He doesn't look happy about it, but he holsters his gun..."

Now, the exact same thing can be accomplished in a video game -- but we don't need separate skills for Reason, Intimidation, Street Kid, and numbers to represent the dialogue attempt to be visible. All the game needs to do is check certain flags according to the player's past choices and pathway through the game. Behind the scenes, the game will use its own system to go:

[Dialogue choice selected.]
Base success value = 40
Player stats:
Intelligence = 12
Cool = 10
Street Cred = 18
Modifier: Faction = 5
Modifer: Quest Resolution (Door Kickers) = 10
Modifier: Damage to Faction = -3
Final Value = 12+10+18+5+10-3= 52
52>40 = Success!
Proceed to Dialogue Option 4.

None of that needs to be displayed in-game as a bunch of tables and charts and assigned points. It just needs to be calculated by the game's engine in the background, leaving the experience on-screen as fluent and cinematic as can be mustered. Just like in real life, all of the considerations are there, but we simply say something and someone else will have a reaction to it.

For PnP, this type of thing often benefits from having more fleshed out skill trees with numerical stats that can be combined every which way depending on the situation. And it ensures neither the GM or Players' human minds override what would be more sensible for a given scenario when it pops up. For a video game, every available option must be pre-determined and specifically coded into the software ahead of time, and computer will simply do all applicable math at the time and provide a final result in milliseconds. Thus, that limitation can be offset by having the experience remain cinematic and organic. It's pointless to clutter up a screen with skills and values that the player will never need to bother actually interacting with during the execution. It's not that these things are not there or not factored in -- it's just that video games don't need to make all of these values visible.

For combat skills, however, there are a lot more options that are not based on particular story, plot, or character interaction elements through gameplay, but more on what a character chooses to focus on and build. Hence, there might be 30 options for weapon skills, but only 3 options for Speech skills, and 5 options split between Rogue skills and Hacker skills. However, in the end, a player's character will be defined by a total of 6 skills. While we have options for 30 different types of "combat" oriented skills, only a pure fighter will select all 6 of their character's major abilities from that tree. And it's perfectly possible to create an equally versatile gameplay experience choosing only non-combat skills, as well.


Why would you add skills that you know you aren't going to be giving any usefullness?

The point is not about "having as many skills as possible because skillz is cool", but more like "having as many skills governing the gameplay-essential tasks and activities as is reasonable and effective for the feel of the gameplay". So that what you do in the game is more than just doing it because you can.
One needs only look at CP2020 pg 45 to see a number of skills not related to combat.
The problem, and it's a HUGE one, is incorporating these skills into an video game. While not impossible, it'd be far more time/effort then it's generally worth.

Precisely. So, to make combat work and let the player understand exactly what they're investing in and how that will affect their combat performance, do I need a large tree of skills? Yes! Just like in real life, combat is fairly particular and dangerous, and people are trained along very specific pathways of gear and skills to accomplish very specific combat roles on the battlefield.

Far less so with public speaking, for example. If I learn how to enunciate properly, speak slowly enough that my words are clear even over distance, and project the right level of emotional energy into my words at the right times -- I can now play any house! I can speak at a wedding, a political rally, to a bunch of kids about healthy eating, or narrate a documentary about the breeding habits of dinosaurs. It's all the same skill. This doesn't require a skill tree with 15 options on a menu. It requires 1 or 2.
 
Last edited:
It's all the same skill. This doesn't require a skill tree with 15 options on a menu. It requires 1 or 2.

You know, this kind of reductiony set of mind can be applied anywhere. You can round all combat into two skills: Close combat and ranged combat. Or, if you wish, you can round it all down to just Killing. The "30 options" are all about that, when we start to reduce and neglect nuances.

And even that "killing" skill can be handled behind the screen without any tables for the player to dabble with.

Nothing "needs" stuff like that to work.

But there is something to be said about "why" do these things still exist even on combat outside PnP, when they aren't really needed and they "can be handled behind the screen"?
They are there for the player to play with them; to guide their experiences towards different directions through means of roleplaying that specific character they have created and seeing where that gets them, not so much simply choosing possible narrative paths. It's not a surprise that stat progression has been seeping into action and adventure games. They're fun.

But for some reason there's a certain kind of animosity towards almost anything outside shooting a gun or swinging a sword.

I'll shut up about this now, though.
 
You know, this kind of reductiony set of mind can be applied anywhere. You can round all combat into two skills: Close combat and ranged combat. Or, if you wish, you can round it all down to just Killing. The "30 options" are all about that, when we start to reduce and neglect nuances.

And even that "killing" skill can be handled behind the screen without any tables for the player to dabble with.

Nothing "needs" stuff like that to work.

But there is something to be said about "why" do these things still exist even on combat outside PnP, when they aren't really needed and they "can be handled behind the screen"?
They are there for the player to play with them; to guide their experiences towards different directions through means of roleplaying that specific character they have created and seeing where that gets them, not so much simply choosing possible narrative paths. It's not a surprise that stat progression has been seeping into action and adventure games. They're fun.

But for some reason there's a certain kind of animosity towards almost anything outside shooting a gun or swinging a sword.

I'll shut up about this now, though.

I'll continue: I like this discussion!

I don't disagree that a lot of games do hyper-focus on combat. There has always been and still is a huge market for that. But -- the skill trees of really deep and engrossing RPGs still tend to be extraordinarily combat heavy. Let's take any PnP RPG into account, whether D&D or Cyberpunk or GURPS or whatever:

Take a look at the sheer amount of words/pages that deal with combat, the effects of combat, recovering from combat, how NPCs will behave in combat, etc. It's going to be the lion's share of any sourcebook. And rightfully so -- it's not only fun, but other aspects of the game don't require that level of breakdown to be understandable and applicable to actual gameplay in a detailed and satisfactory way.

Another parallel I can draw to this is staging or filming a combat scene. Yes, we spend long hours on the stage or set dealing with character work, intense dialogue scenes, establishing scenes, transitional scenes, etc. But guess what happens when we're going to have a swordfight, or a bar brawl, or some slapstick comedy with someone getting hit in the face with a massive salami? (The "salami" show is called Scapino, btw, and if you have a chance to see it -- just go!)

Now -- all of a sudden -- we hire a separate combat choreographer. Separate training rehearsals are scheduled for only the actors that are going to be involved in the combat or stunt scenes. Totally separate crew is hired and set pieces and props are created, specifically to meet the needs of those (often extremely short) scenes of violence. Why? What's so special about these scenes?

Three answers:
  • Firstly, they're more complicated with much more going on in every scene or shot than something like a "dinner party" scene.
  • Secondly, there is a lot of nuance that needs to be worked into the violence itself to ensure it's still capturing the characters involved.
  • Lastly, they are high-stake scenes. These moments are make-or-break moments for the characters. If they lose, they may lose everything. If they lose and survive, they will profoundly change. If they win, they will still profoundly change...
Hence, violence, by its very nature, is not only a massive real-life consideration, but an even more impactful literary or narrative consideration. These moments tend to fast-forward the character development, the story arc, heighten the themes, and resonate with the audience. Thus, they can make or break a whole production. A powerful scene of violence can instantly transform the way an audience feels about a character: change a hero into a monster, or develop instant sympathy for a reviled villain.

So, for gaming, yes -- once again, I agree without hesitation -- many RPGs (or games in general) throw violence away. It is the only worthwhile activity. But look at games like Baldur's Gate, Fable (...at least 1 and 2...), The Last of Us, The Witcher Series, Mass Effect / Dragon Age, Mount and Blade, Fallout 1&2, and even Minecraft. Yup. Combat. Lots o' combat. TONS of combat. Each of the games featured incredibly detailed combat systems compared to other systems...but is that what the games are really about?

I love using Minecraft here. Look at your inventory. What can you equip? Every slot is for armor. To defend against combat damage. The other slots are for weapons or "tools". Which still have a combat value. Controls are mapped to affect combat. You tap LMB to initiate a combat attack. You hold it and release it to initiate a charged combat attack. You hit RMB to block with your shield to avoid combat damage. You can craft potions. Which primarily affect your ability give/receive more/less damage during combat, or they will help to avoid combat altogether. You can enchant all sorts of items. Most of which affect how effective that item will be in combat.
...
While the rest of the entire friggin' game can basically be summed up with:
1.) Hold LMB to collect block.
2.) Refine block in crafting table/furnace.
3.) Place block.

That's it.

1. 2. 3.

And yet...who plays Minecraft for its riveting combat system?

Whether I'm going to to catch and cook fish...smelt iron ore into ingots and make a new hoe...harvest wheat, milk, and eggs to bake a cake...or craft sugar cane into papyrus (somehow) to map my surroundings...or make a fully-functional 8-bit friggin' hard drive out of flippin' redstone blocks...

...the rest of the ENTIRE @#$%!ng GAME is: "Harvest block. Refine block. Place block."

But look! LOOK at how much of Minecraft's mechanics are focused on combat-related elements. Look at what the tools do. Look at how much code is devoted to how weapons work. Look at the sheer variety of potions, and enchantments, and mobs, and frickin' planes of existence...that have been created...to...primarily...introduce interesting places to try to fight to survive.

I don't think it's going to be any different for Cyberpunk. Any RPG's "combat system" will tend to be more detailed than other aspects of its mechanics. That doesn't mean the game is only combat-based.
 
Yeah, that's what I meant with the occasional skillcheck in dialog.

The crux, though, is interactivity on a larger scale that includes dialog checks as part of it all.

Too often the gameplay loop of an RPG (or a so-called one) is that you walk, you talk and you kill. What happened to all the stuff that's between those three, and that happens during the walk?

If it makes you feel any better we are in perfect agreement on this point.

Nothing "needs" stuff like that to work.

But there is something to be said about "why" do these things still exist even on combat outside PnP, when they aren't really needed and they "can be handled behind the screen"?
They are there for the player to play with them; to guide their experiences towards different directions through means of roleplaying that specific character they have created and seeing where that gets them, not so much simply choosing possible narrative paths. It's not a surprise that stat progression has been seeping into action and adventure games. They're fun.

But for some reason there's a certain kind of animosity towards almost anything outside shooting a gun or swinging a sword.

^
This is why. There is a certain continuity you get roleplaying a character when everything is built off the progression system. I don't think you get it when the alternative approach is used. More freedom perhaps. Sadly, this greater freedom can make the decisions made toward building and evolving the character feel diminished or less important.

I never said this design direction they may have taken is ideal from my perspective. Merely that it is possible it's the direction they have chosen.
 
Think about awareness/notice or human perception just used casually along your way from point A to point B when not under clock.
I agree with you 100%.

That said, there are limits imposed when you're making a video game.
Some technical (i.e. every option the play has must be coded, no free-form)
Some budget (you have to get a product to market before you go broke creating it)
Some time (twenty years to design, code, and test is a bit excessive)

I try to take these into account when I discuss the features/mechanics a video game has/lacks.
 
I'll continue: I like this discussion!

...

Jeez, you don't give me a chance here. You know I can't just stop... :p

I don't disagree that a lot of games do hyper-focus on combat. There has always been and still is a huge market for that. But -- the skill trees of really deep and engrossing RPGs still tend to be extraordinarily combat heavy.

Yes, and this has been very prevalent since the dawn of cRPG's (let alone that PnP games themselves originate from tabletop wargaming).

And just to be clear - in case it wasn't... I am absolutely not against having comprehensive and well made combat, even lots of it. Although the "well made" part in this context might be a story of its very own.

The point I've been trying to drive through is a different one, and has to do with diversity of gameplay opportunities across the board. There's a question to be asked about how do you make the downtime from combat actually interesting to experience? Minecraft's (as per your use of it as an example) isn't - it is designed to hook the player in with and extremely simple "low effort - high output" gameplayloop not too far off from something like Angry Birds. That's also why I don't completely buy the example using it, even though I think I understand where you're going with it.

RPG as a genre is probably the most fertile ground to create the sort of "free form" and variable progressive simulation of the events the currently percieved character faces during his journey. It has an inherent strive towards statistical and systemic gameplay even for the narrative drive of it. And this kind of inheritance is sorely wasted when there is no intent on using it anywhere but the expect act of physical harm on other in the variety of ways it can be done.

Combat in RPG's is fun when it's done right. But why is there no strive to make what happens between the combat sequences fun in the similiar way as combat, through the statisical progression and systemic considerations? Why is that such a curse word?

DIalog is gameplaymechanically and sytemically droll. It only consists of picking one of the available lines.
I would try to find ways on gamifying the dialog. Making it something the player doesn't necessarily want to just click through in subsequent playthroughs.

Walking long distances is a similiar case of pressing and holding the "move forward" button for prolonged periods of time... and the only fix to that seems to be to add some combat at steady intervals. Why just combat? I would try to figure out what all "would" an inquisitive and/or creatively built character (inquisitive, because not everyone needs to) do along their trek that would also give it a systemic flavor. Be the trek through a city or a wilderness. And I don't mean checking containers here either - game being littered with boxes to loot is one form of intense irritation because slows everything down, devalues everything you find in them, and still demands attention because "you never know".

So no. Combat itself isn't a problem (unless it's lousy). It's rather everything else.

I agree with you 100%.

That said, there are limits imposed when you're making a video game.
Some technical (i.e. every option the play has must be coded, no free-form)
Some budget (you have to get a product to market before you go broke creating it)
Some time (twenty years to design, code, and test is a bit excessive)

I try to take these into account when I discuss the features/mechanics a video game has/lacks.

Agreed. But then....

The direction I'm coming from is that I like to think that it is possible today to create things that were made 25 years ago already. Technology hasn't regrerssed even though it sometimes might seem so since all the punches are thrown in the production values department instead of gameplay. It's no surprise that almost all games - higher level genre dividations notwithstanding - today look and play very much alike.

If it makes you feel any better we are in perfect agreement on this point.

Yay!!!!
 
Jeez, you don't give me a chance here. You know I can't just stop...

I'm happy to wait, say, an additional 30 minutes... :D

(But, I full of @#$%. I've been so busy lately, one or two conversations like this are all I can reasonably engage in.)


The point I've been trying to drive through is a different one, and has to do with diversity of gameplay opportunities across the board. There's a question to be asked about how do you make the downtime from combat actually interesting to experience? Minecraft's (as per your use of it as an example) isn't - it is designed to hook the player in with and extremely simple "low effort - high output" gameplayloop not too far off from something like Angry Birds. That's also why I don't completely buy the example using it, even though I think I understand where you're going with it.

You're nailing my point almost directly on the head.

Downtime...

Low effort - high output loop...

Exactly. See, what is weird is that "downtime" is what's missing from a lot of RPGs. If it's all one amazingly epic, blockbuster adventure to the next, that's the trouble. When diving off of a dragon to fight an entire horde of Orc warriors single-handedly before facing off against the demon / legendary warlord / secret wizard nemesis is just another day in the life...it loses its luster rather quickly. BUT! I also want that part of the game to feel that impactful and engrossing. Hence, I'll need pretty intricate systems to pull all of that off -- whether I use it 15 times over the course of my game...or only 3 -- the mechanics need to be in place.

On the flip-side, what about other activities? How much coding does it take to make "hunting" really immersive as a "downtime" activity? How much coding is required to make blacksmithing really detailed and engaging? Or cooking? Or brewing potions?

Let me toss something other than Minecraft out there as a comparison (as I wasn't using Minecraft as a direct parallel for an RPG, per say, but rather as a direct parallel for the amount of coding required for combat gameplay elements vs. what a player is likely to focus on the most.) Lego Harry Potter. I love...and I mean looooooooove the potion-making in this game. How friggin' cool! If only TES had incorporated that type of system! It was so engrossing and entertaining...but look at how simple the mechanics actually were. It was nothing. Same thing with Minecraft. The core of the game (harvesting, refining, and placing blocks) is what made the game such and incredible hit, learning tool, and teaching tool that it has become.

Good "non-combat" gameplay will probably always require far less code, fewer menu options, skill trees, and inventory slots than even rudimentary combat systems. Thus, viewing a skill tree that seems so much more complex for combat elements than other gameplay elements isn't really evidence that a game is "mostly combat focused".


Combat in RPG's is fun when it's done right. But why is there no strive to make what happens between the combat sequences fun in the similiar way as combat, through the statisical progression and systemic considerations? Why is that such a curse word?
...
Walking long distances is a similiar case of pressing and holding the "move forward" button for prolonged periods of time... and the only fix to that seems to be to add some combat at steady intervals. Why just combat? I would try to figure out what all "would" an inquisitive and/or creatively built character (inquisitive, because not everyone needs to) do along their trek that would also give it a systemic flavor. Be the trek through a city or a wilderness. And I don't mean checking containers here either - game being littered with boxes to loot is one form of intense irritation because slows everything down, devalues everything you find in them, and still demands attention because "you never know".

It's not! Personally, I'm probably more on the extreme of non-combat stuff than you are. When I play games like TW3 or Skyrim or Mass Effect -- I walk everywhere I go. Not "default jog"...I walk. I try to immerse myself in the actual sense of day-to-day life in-game as realistically as I possibly can. To me, that experience, that sense of distance and scale as it would feel in real life is more important to me than maxing my DPS or hundred-percenting achievements. (I normally disable achievements so I don't have to deal with the stupid pop-ups on my screen.)

Conversely, I think you're right -- that games could make an extra stride to introduce actual mechanics into the gameplay that make such mundane activities as crafting, or learning new skills, or even socializing more immersive. (Like adding a Lego Potter brewing mechanic to TES...rather than a static menu with text options that provides instant results.)


DIalog is gameplaymechanically and sytemically droll. It only consists of picking one of the available lines.
I would try to find ways on gamifying the dialog. Making it something the player doesn't necessarily want to just click through in subsequent playthroughs.

I get a strong impression that this is going to be one of the things that puts CP2077 through the roof. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong.


So no. Combat itself isn't a problem (unless it's lousy). It's rather everything else.

But in the end, if combat is going to be good, no matter how sparingly used, the systems are going to be really complex. "Downtime" activities will never require that much coding -- not even if they were really interactive. In a sense, it's the same in real life. Learning how to cook, for example, being the true artform it is, is still far less time-consuming than learning how to become a master hand-to-had combatant, a master of the sword, a master of the bow, and a master of battlefield tactics. Each of those "combat" skills would take about as long as it would take to teach someone to be a master chef once. Hence, combat seems to be a lot bigger of a focus than it really is.
 
Top Bottom