Savescumming, respeccing, and cheating in RPGs

[Xenich]

The only reason Respeccing should be allowed is because of ridiculous design "choices" such as allocating worthless stats to players (Int of Fighters, for example), and forcing people to pick Skills/Abilities at the start that they will never use.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Racials; but they should never directly affect your Stats - they should be more creative - the problem is most developers can't think of a good way to do this, so different stats is a way to add simple window-dressing.

I always liked stats having more than a singular focus on gameplay in that respect. Every stat should have meaning regardless of class to lesser or greater extent. With a robust skill/spell/ability system, it makes for some very interesting approaches to play.

Racial I don't mind stats to an extent, but I do agree it can be a bit low effort at times. Special features, abilities, etc... make more sense, but my biggest gripe with a lot of systems these days is the unwillingness to put in negatives to choices. Fallout and Arcanum were on the right track with perks and backgrounds. That is the sort of thing I would like to see throughout an entire system where the player balances negatives and positives within their focus.

There is no need for a respec in games, they already have them... its called "start new game".

[TKVNC]

The only reason Respeccing should be allowed is because of ridiculous design "choices" such as allocating worthless stats to players (Int of Fighters, for example), and forcing people to pick Skills/Abilities at the start that they will never use.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Racials; but they should never directly affect your Stats - they should be more creative - the problem is most developers can't think of a good way to do this, so different stats is a way to add simple window-dressing.

The part of BG3 I enjoyed the most was the respec feature. I disagree that its only value is as a stopgap for bad/badly communicated design. I would like to see a game where character building was the primary gameplay (RPG autobattler?).

Well, respeccing as a way to forceable reallocate Stats that are not left to the player to assign is reasonable. Constantly respeccing your characters to meet different situations feels a little cheesy; but then you could create a fair spread if you've access to a range of characters (for example Wasteland 2).

As for it being the primary gameplay loop - that's an interesting one, I suppose, realistically, RPG's don't even -need- stats, technically - but it might make more sense if you assumed the role of a 'commander' and had a range of men you could field - I guess Band of Brothers has this loop? (I haven't played it yet)

[TKVNC]

The only reason Respeccing should be allowed is because of ridiculous design "choices" such as allocating worthless stats to players (Int of Fighters, for example), and forcing people to pick Skills/Abilities at the start that they will never use.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Racials; but they should never directly affect your Stats - they should be more creative - the problem is most developers can't think of a good way to do this, so different stats is a way to add simple window-dressing.

I always liked stats having more than a singular focus on gameplay in that respect. Every stat should have meaning regardless of class to lesser or greater extent. With a robust skill/spell/ability system, it makes for some very interesting approaches to play.

Racial I don't mind stats to an extent, but I do agree it can be a bit low effort at times. Special features, abilities, etc... make more sense, but my biggest gripe with a lot of systems these days is the unwillingness to put in negatives to choices. Fallout and Arcanum were on the right track with perks and backgrounds. That is the sort of thing I would like to see throughout an entire system where the player balances negatives and positives within their focus.

It is a better system - and I'm fine with that being the case, but when the basic stats are pre-decided you can't really explain player choice -- though after the 1st choice, they should be locked (but for levels or whatever changes them, or nothing at all). Interestingly Fallout letting you put them to 1 is a good example of this.

The biggest problem is that due to, what I would call the "git gud" movement, failing is now something to be chastised for - and it's no longer a meaningful gameplay mechanic, it's just a -DEAD- screen, giving you no choice to build back from them; which encourages build faggotry and savescumming.

There is no need for a respec in games, they already have them... its called "start new game".

Well, yes, that's true - and I agree, but my point is just to let you manually assign stats.

[J1M]

The only reason Respeccing should be allowed is because of ridiculous design "choices" such as allocating worthless stats to players (Int of Fighters, for example), and forcing people to pick Skills/Abilities at the start that they will never use.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Racials; but they should never directly affect your Stats - they should be more creative - the problem is most developers can't think of a good way to do this, so different stats is a way to add simple window-dressing.

The part of BG3 I enjoyed the most was the respec feature. I disagree that its only value is as a stopgap for bad/badly communicated design. I would like to see a game where character building was the primary gameplay (RPG autobattler?).

Well, respeccing as a way to forceable reallocate Stats that are not left to the player to assign is reasonable. Constantly respeccing your characters to meet different situations feels a little cheesy; but then you could create a fair spread if you've access to a range of characters (for example Wasteland 2).

As for it being the primary gameplay loop - that's an interesting one, I suppose, realistically, RPG's don't even -need- stats, technically - but it might make more sense if you assumed the role of a 'commander' and had a range of men you could field - I guess Band of Brothers has this loop? (I haven't played it yet)

Agreed that "respec" delivered as a form of changing party composition would be a more palatable way to present the concept to those who place high value on verisimilitude. Most games that try to go in that direction end up falling into the trap of "characters" instead of "pawns" and incentivize reusing the same units either by giving the player an emotional connection to them or mechanical advantage.

EDIT: A way to do this for a character would be to tie equipment to actions. So you can only "block" if you equip a "shield" and only cast "fireball" if you equip a "fire wand". Other items like helms would be analogous to passive traits in character building systems.

[TKVNC]

The part of BG3 I enjoyed the most was the respec feature. I disagree that its only value is as a stopgap for bad/badly communicated design. I would like to see a game where character building was the primary gameplay (RPG autobattler?).

Well, respeccing as a way to forceable reallocate Stats that are not left to the player to assign is reasonable. Constantly respeccing your characters to meet different situations feels a little cheesy; but then you could create a fair spread if you've access to a range of characters (for example Wasteland 2).

As for it being the primary gameplay loop - that's an interesting one, I suppose, realistically, RPG's don't even -need- stats, technically - but it might make more sense if you assumed the role of a 'commander' and had a range of men you could field - I guess Band of Brothers has this loop? (I haven't played it yet)

Agreed that "respec" delivered as a form of changing party composition would be a more palatable way to present the concept. Most games that try to go in that direction end up falling into the trap of "characters" instead of "pawns" and incentivize reusing the same units either by giving the player an emotional connection to them or mechanical advantage.

The main problem games have in re. emotional connect is specific character stats, or non-random stories - where these features are not the result of low chance on generation, but hard-coded.

[Kalarion]

The only reason Respeccing should be allowed is because of ridiculous design "choices" such as allocating worthless stats to players (Int of Fighters, for example), and forcing people to pick Skills/Abilities at the start that they will never use.

That doesn't necessarily apply to Racials; but they should never directly affect your Stats - they should be more creative - the problem is most developers can't think of a good way to do this, so different stats is a way to add simple window-dressing.

The part of BG3 I enjoyed the most was the respec feature. I disagree that its only value is as a stopgap for bad/badly communicated design. I would like to see a game where character building was the primary gameplay. (RPG autobattler?)

viewtopic.php?t=3064-path-of-achra-it-n ... g-zothique

[maidenhaver]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

[Xenich]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

Participation trophy mentality. Everyone is a winner programming.

Teaching failure (ie overcoming obstacles, mistakes, etc...) is a lesson no longer learned.

[Ranselknulf]

A properly made game will make it fun and remove the need to savescum.

The issue with games where save scumming becomes a thing is when it becomes grindy.

A game where it autosaves at specific intervals, or say when you get back to specific checkpoints within the game loop makes sense enough to me. Does it become savescumming if you enter a death loop in one of those check point scenarios?

The great philosophical questions of our time must be answered in this thread.

[Red7]

A properly made game will make it fun and remove the need to savescum.

The issue with games where save scumming becomes a thing is when it becomes grindy.

A game where it autosaves at specific intervals, or say when you get back to specific checkpoints within the game loop makes sense enough to me. Does it become savescumming if you enter a death loop in one of those check point scenarios?

The great philosophical questions of our time must be answered in this thread.

autosaves are gay and ******** and potentially brake game pace
if player is too ******** to save every 3 minutes manually, he not fit using technology.

[J1M]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

I don't enjoy replaying the first half of a game to try a different set of passive talents.

[J1M]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

Participation trophy mentality. Everyone is a winner programming.

Teaching failure (ie overcoming obstacles, mistakes, etc...) is a lesson no longer learned.

Which games are you finding difficult? Last thing that comes to mind for me is the last level of SpaceChem.

When the designers fail to present meaningful and interesting encounter challenges for years, players find other challenges like self-imposed optimization and efficiency puzzles.

[Xenich]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

Participation trophy mentality. Everyone is a winner programming.

Teaching failure (ie overcoming obstacles, mistakes, etc...) is a lesson no longer learned.

Which games are you finding difficult? Last thing that comes to mind for me is the last level of SpaceChem.

When the designers fail to present meaningful and interesting encounter challenges for years, players find other challenges like self-imposed optimization and efficiency puzzles.

Not sure what you mean? Many games don't present a balance of choices and consequences as was being discussed. Many players complain about permeant handicaps, long term penalties, or skills/abilities/classes that may not be "ideal".

People spend numerous hours researching "optimal" builds in various games using various excuses that they don't want to get locked into something that is... inefficient, less optimal, or useless in their eyes.

Part of this mentality I think comes from various ideologies where "failure" and "losing" is considered a bad word, having to deal with what you are dealt and make the best isn't taught as a life lesson much anymore, everyone is a winner, everyone can be anything if they work hard enough, which causes people to not recognize limitations and how to deal with them.

I think this effects what people accept in a game and so excessively use save scumming, starting over, or obsess over the "perfect" build before they play because they won't accept anything other than the most ideal play through. I understand this is not the reasoning for "everyone", but a lot of gamers out there display this form of behavior.

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

As for difficulty, Choice and consequence isn't always a direct translation of difficulty. Sometimes it merely hampers certain approaches to play.

For instance, weight management is not a difficulty negative, but a choice and consequence layered across many aspects of a characters design and play.

[WhiteShark]

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

No, they don't exist because of quickload. Walked on a trap? Quickload. Equipped a cursed item? Quickload. Your favorite party member died? Quickload. Mechanical choice and consequence goes out the window when the consequence can be undone with a single button press. They still exist in roguelikes. This is seprate from the buildfag issue.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

I hope I will have opportunity in my life to make you play Fallout 1 without any guide or external help and make you play different builds and every time you try a new build you have to do it in a new game. I wonder how long it would take you to hate this game.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

No, they don't exist because of quickload. Walked on a trap? Quickload. Equipped a cursed item? Quickload. Your favorite party member died? Quickload. Mechanical choice and consequence goes out the window when the consequence can be undone with a single button press. They still exist in roguelikes. This is seprate from the buildfag issue.

That's just dumb! These options have been removed from games for the same reason that bioware started writing love lines for all sexes at once: to reduce development time and/or spend that time on other things! For example, modern developers are adding trannys, gays, lesbians, all that gender ********! But you blame quickloads! When we get to the point where the chinese communists are to blame for this? Because when players quickload, they destroying america somehow and support ccp! What a clown show!

[maidenhaver]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

I hope I will have opportunity in my life to make you play Fallout 1 without any guide or external help and make you play different builds and every time you try a new build you have to do it in a new game. I wonder how long it would take you to hate this game.

How about don't make a rpg with one or two correct builds. How about that?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Why can't buildfags just finish the game with their unoptimized pc, and start over? Why do games need to be built around their inability to cope with the consequences of their decisions? I thought C&C stood for choices and consquences, not casuals and cocksuckers?

I hope I will have opportunity in my life to make you play Fallout 1 without any guide or external help and make you play different builds and every time you try a new build you have to do it in a new game. I wonder how long it would take you to hate this game.

How about don't make a rpg with one or two correct builds. How about that?

But you want choice and consequences! You can't complain about absence of consequences and immediately after this complaint about consequences of choice that you make! Or do you want all consequences of your choice to be positive?

[maidenhaver]

I hope I will have opportunity in my life to make you play Fallout 1 without any guide or external help and make you play different builds and every time you try a new build you have to do it in a new game. I wonder how long it would take you to hate this game.

How about don't make a rpg with one or two correct builds. How about that?

But you want choice and consequences! You can't complain about absence of consequences and immediately after this complaint about consequences of choice that you make! Or do you want all consequences of your choice to be positive?

This isn't a gotcha, it never was. Guess what you do, when you can't ******* find the correct build that keeps the game playable, after the story changes and you get new enemies? You go outside. You quit.

[rusty_shackleford]

Having nonviable builds came out of d&d 3e which came from magic the gathering Timmy cards. Devs should work on making more things viable rather than slapping a bandaid on it.

I suspect this is why J1M likes it, however, as he seems to enjoy card(deck building) games. This isn't meant to be offensive towards him, I suspect we just enjoy different parts of rpgs.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

How about don't make a rpg with one or two correct builds. How about that?

But you want choice and consequences! You can't complain about absence of consequences and immediately after this complaint about consequences of choice that you make! Or do you want all consequences of your choice to be positive?

This isn't a gotcha, it never was. Guess what you do, when you can't ******* find the correct build that keeps the game playable, after the story changes and you get new enemies? You go outside. You quit.

I agree, but you people here scream so much about choice and consequences must be in every sneeze in a game and all of a sudden consequence of making an unplayable build and starting a new game because of it makes you sad. To me this is inconsistency in what you want.

[Xenich]

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

No, they don't exist because of quickload. Walked on a trap? Quickload. Equipped a cursed item? Quickload. Your favorite party member died? Quickload. Mechanical choice and consequence goes out the window when the consequence can be undone with a single button press. They still exist in roguelikes. This is seprate from the buildfag issue.

That is what I have been saying, I just push it a step further as to the reasoning for this mentality in play. The mechanic may have fostered the behavior, but the core reasoning behind it is inability to accept consequence to manage a less than ideal situation. The "buildfag" also sits in with this mentality as well for some (ie the "need" to have everything be "perfect").

Again, I am not speaking in absolutes here, there are reasonings for doing these things outside of that evaluation, but I think it plays a part with certain behaviors in gaming, more specifically with those players who go on about "fun" being a design objective and expect games to be "entertainment", not a contest.

[TKVNC]

Participation trophy mentality. Everyone is a winner programming.

Teaching failure (ie overcoming obstacles, mistakes, etc...) is a lesson no longer learned.

Which games are you finding difficult? Last thing that comes to mind for me is the last level of SpaceChem.

When the designers fail to present meaningful and interesting encounter challenges for years, players find other challenges like self-imposed optimization and efficiency puzzles.

Not sure what you mean? Many games don't present a balance of choices and consequences as was being discussed. Many players complain about permeant handicaps, long term penalties, or skills/abilities/classes that may not be "ideal".

People spend numerous hours researching "optimal" builds in various games using various excuses that they don't want to get locked into something that is... inefficient, less optimal, or useless in their eyes.

Part of this mentality I think comes from various ideologies where "failure" and "losing" is considered a bad word, having to deal with what you are dealt and make the best isn't taught as a life lesson much anymore, everyone is a winner, everyone can be anything if they work hard enough, which causes people to not recognize limitations and how to deal with them.

I think this effects what people accept in a game and so excessively use save scumming, starting over, or obsess over the "perfect" build before they play because they won't accept anything other than the most ideal play through. I understand this is not the reasoning for "everyone", but a lot of gamers out there display this form of behavior.

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

As for difficulty, Choice and consequence isn't always a direct translation of difficulty. Sometimes it merely hampers certain approaches to play.

For instance, weight management is not a difficulty negative, but a choice and consequence layered across many aspects of a characters design and play.

I think the main problem is with a lot of 'failures' in games, it's purely binary - you win, or lose. There's rarely any actual 'continuation' beyond that, in a way that makes something worth doing, regardless of success.

Mount & Blade: Warband does this well, you fail dialogue you can be attacked, and if you lose a battle, you lose your men (who become prisoners), and you get captured yourself; suppose you're fast enough though, you can rebuild your force, rescue your men, and reclaim your lost items. Lords will comment on the fact that you've been beaten, ran, or whatever it may be - and it effects your general reputation on the political stage.

A lot of games, meanwhile, simply make it so that a failure is just that. Nothing additional is added to the game by virture of it - a failed dialogue choice does not lead to anything, it often just goes back to the choice before you opted to try that choice - or if you are defeated, you get a 'you failed' screen, and are required to reload. With that in mind, there's no incentive to not save scum, since you lose nothing by doing it, as these games do not allow for emergent gameplay.

[Xenich]

Which games are you finding difficult? Last thing that comes to mind for me is the last level of SpaceChem.

When the designers fail to present meaningful and interesting encounter challenges for years, players find other challenges like self-imposed optimization and efficiency puzzles.

Not sure what you mean? Many games don't present a balance of choices and consequences as was being discussed. Many players complain about permeant handicaps, long term penalties, or skills/abilities/classes that may not be "ideal".

People spend numerous hours researching "optimal" builds in various games using various excuses that they don't want to get locked into something that is... inefficient, less optimal, or useless in their eyes.

Part of this mentality I think comes from various ideologies where "failure" and "losing" is considered a bad word, having to deal with what you are dealt and make the best isn't taught as a life lesson much anymore, everyone is a winner, everyone can be anything if they work hard enough, which causes people to not recognize limitations and how to deal with them.

I think this effects what people accept in a game and so excessively use save scumming, starting over, or obsess over the "perfect" build before they play because they won't accept anything other than the most ideal play through. I understand this is not the reasoning for "everyone", but a lot of gamers out there display this form of behavior.

As @rusty_shackleford was saying, a lot of older mechanics of play aren't as common (or exist) anymore because people don't want the "inconvenience" of a negative in play.

As for difficulty, Choice and consequence isn't always a direct translation of difficulty. Sometimes it merely hampers certain approaches to play.

For instance, weight management is not a difficulty negative, but a choice and consequence layered across many aspects of a characters design and play.

I think the main problem is with a lot of 'failures' in games, it's purely binary - you win, or lose. There's rarely any actual 'continuation' beyond that, in a way that makes something worth doing, regardless of success.

Mount & Blade: Warband does this well, you fail dialogue you can be attacked, and if you lose a battle, you lose your men (who become prisoners), and you get captured yourself; suppose you're fast enough though, you can rebuild your force, rescue your men, and reclaim your lost items. Lords will comment on the fact that you've been beaten, ran, or whatever it may be - and it effects your general reputation on the political stage.

A lot of games, meanwhile, simply make it so that a failure is just that. Nothing additional is added to the game by virture of it - a failed dialogue choice does not lead to anything, it often just goes back to the choice before you opted to try that choice - or if you are defeated, you get a 'you failed' screen, and are required to reload. With that in mind, there's no incentive to not save scum, since you lose nothing by doing it, as these games do not allow for emergent gameplay.

Yeah, I think having viable options is important and some form of recovery should exist in game progression. Though I also think some things could be permeant handicaps depending on how severe the result of a bad choice is.

As @rusty_shackleford said, becoming useless is another problem and I think this should be avoided. Unless it is a specific design cycle of the game, a player should be able to succeed in a game with numerous bad choices if they learn to adapt, it should just create hardships for progression when it happens.

[Xenich]

But you want choice and consequences! You can't complain about absence of consequences and immediately after this complaint about consequences of choice that you make! Or do you want all consequences of your choice to be positive?

This isn't a gotcha, it never was. Guess what you do, when you can't ******* find the correct build that keeps the game playable, after the story changes and you get new enemies? You go outside. You quit.

I agree, but you people here scream so much about choice and consequences must be in every sneeze in a game and all of a sudden consequence of making an unplayable build and starting a new game because of it makes you sad. To me this is inconsistency in what you want.

To be fair, there is a factor of wasted time though. A complete road block build that can not succeed should be something avoided. Granted, you can't dumb it down to the point of stupidity, so yes... in a perfect storm of such choices, I am not against a character/party becoming unplayable... but... I think in situations like this, it should be something that is apparent early on and also pretty obvious when considering the choices.

The danger is poor design by the developer where the choices don't properly reflect the function in game. In those situations, it isn't the player making a bad choice, it is the developers implementation.

The consequence should always produce a means for a player to succeed, though it may require extremely clever approaches to overcome them. Getting 40 hours into a game and hitting a wall would make most reasonable people not play the game (unless the game specifically catered to this style of play and the player understood this).

[J-12]

My least favorite thing about Fallout 2 is that i can savescum. I can abstain from doing that, but why would i when game does nothing to punish me for it?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

My least favorite thing about Fallout 2 is that i can savescum. I can abstain from doing that, but why would i when game does nothing to punish me for it?

Your immersion is breaking, that is your punishment. Also you admit that you don't have any self-control.

[J1M]

Having nonviable builds came out of d&d 3e which came from magic the gathering Timmy cards. Devs should work on making more things viable rather than slapping a bandaid on it.

I suspect this is why J1M likes it, however, as he seems to enjoy card(deck building) games. This isn't meant to be offensive towards him, I suspect we just enjoy different parts of rpgs.

Over the years I have found fun in RPG systems more than the RPG content as the quality of RPG content has declined. When I played Fallout I wasn't looking for the respec option.

A measurable indicator of this transition would be the shift from enemies having damage type resistance or immunity to damage types being something that only matter for selecting stackable damage boosts on the player character.

Put another way: BG3 doesn't offer any challenge, so I have to find my own game inside the game by seeing if I can end every combat in two rounds.

[J1M]

This isn't a gotcha, it never was. Guess what you do, when you can't ******* find the correct build that keeps the game playable, after the story changes and you get new enemies? You go outside. You quit.

I agree, but you people here scream so much about choice and consequences must be in every sneeze in a game and all of a sudden consequence of making an unplayable build and starting a new game because of it makes you sad. To me this is inconsistency in what you want.

To be fair, there is a factor of wasted time though. A complete road block build that can not succeed should be something avoided. Granted, you can't dumb it down to the point of stupidity, so yes... in a perfect storm of such choices, I am not against a character/party becoming unplayable... but... I think in situations like this, it should be something that is apparent early on and also pretty obvious when considering the choices.

The danger is poor design by the developer where the choices don't properly reflect the function in game. In those situations, it isn't the player making a bad choice, it is the developers implementation.

The consequence should always produce a means for a player to succeed, though it may require extremely clever approaches to overcome them. Getting 40 hours into a game and hitting a wall would make most reasonable people not play the game (unless the game specifically catered to this style of play and the player understood this).

You expect your least-capable players to discover and overcome recovery challenges that require "extremely clever approaches"? It sounds like you are pitching a design to train people to use quickload.

[Xenich]

I agree, but you people here scream so much about choice and consequences must be in every sneeze in a game and all of a sudden consequence of making an unplayable build and starting a new game because of it makes you sad. To me this is inconsistency in what you want.

To be fair, there is a factor of wasted time though. A complete road block build that can not succeed should be something avoided. Granted, you can't dumb it down to the point of stupidity, so yes... in a perfect storm of such choices, I am not against a character/party becoming unplayable... but... I think in situations like this, it should be something that is apparent early on and also pretty obvious when considering the choices.

The danger is poor design by the developer where the choices don't properly reflect the function in game. In those situations, it isn't the player making a bad choice, it is the developers implementation.

The consequence should always produce a means for a player to succeed, though it may require extremely clever approaches to overcome them. Getting 40 hours into a game and hitting a wall would make most reasonable people not play the game (unless the game specifically catered to this style of play and the player understood this).

You expect your least-capable players to discover and overcome recovery challenges that require "extremely clever approaches"? It sounds like you are pitching a design to train people to use quickload.

Why would you cater to them? They aren't the intended audience.

This also is solved with new game start settings, but I still would design the game for the intended audience and if the "least-capable" needs to "quickload", well... that is their choice, but it won't be a default mechanic of play, nor will the game design around it. Use at your own gaming experience risk.