RPGs that give sufficient information for character creation

[rusty_shackleford]

As per this post,

I look up which stats are worthwhile before creating a character so I don't end up dumping points into one that's effectively useless.

Some RPGs obviously do this better than others. Which handle this the best? Why?
How would you improve a rather typical painpoint in many RPGs?

[rusty_shackleford]

I think complex games providing premade templates is good, but at this point I just assume they suck. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or the people making the templates just suck at RPGs.

[WhiteShark]

I think complex games providing premade templates is good, but at this point I just assume they suck. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or the people making the templates just suck at RPGs.

Pretty sure it's the latter. I've witnessed several cases in the indiesphere of devs expressing surprise that anybody could beat their games on the hardest difficulty. Extrapolating from this, I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

[rusty_shackleford]

I think complex games providing premade templates is good, but at this point I just assume they suck. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or the people making the templates just suck at RPGs.

Pretty sure it's the latter. I've witnessed several cases in the indiesphere of devs expressing surprise that anybody could beat their games on the hardest difficulty. Extrapolating from this, I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

Seems like something that you'd outsource to the community then. Obviously, avoid anything broken, but a wide range of good premade builds to pick from that represent various archetypes is a good idea.

[Irenaeus]

I'm biased towards enjoying RPGs that have murky mechanics and information about your own abilities and % of success to avoid min/maxing. You get to play more by feel than by wasting hundreds of hours (that I don't have) on learning how to overcome obstacles.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm biased towards enjoying RPGs that have murky mechanics and information about your own abilities and % of success to avoid min/maxing. You get to play more by feel than by wasting hundreds of hours (that I don't have) on learning how to overcome obstacles.

It's fine when it's part of playing the game, but if you're just given a bunch of different choices and probably will irrevocably **** up your character, it's annoying.

Nowadays I typically just make a character that seems cool, but still.

[Irenaeus]

I'm biased towards enjoying RPGs that have murky mechanics and information about your own abilities and % of success to avoid min/maxing. You get to play more by feel than by wasting hundreds of hours (that I don't have) on learning how to overcome obstacles.

It's fine when it's part of playing the game, but if you're just given a bunch of different choices and probably will irrevocably **** up your character, it's annoying.

Nowadays I typically just make a character that seems cool, but still.

It sucks when there are seemingly good character creator choices which are hidden traps and worse still when they will **** up your playthrough hours in without chance to recover from/overcome the obstacles.

[WhiteShark]

The mechanics have to be made clear for in-depth character building to be meaningful. Why bother letting the player make all these micro-decisions if he can't know what effect they will have? Such games may as well do away with the ambiguous minutia and just ask the player if he wants to be a swordman, a thief, or a mage.

[rusty_shackleford]

To be clear, I'm completely fine with entirely opaque mechanics that can be learned while playing the game itself. But when you ask me to make a choice and don't actually tell me what I'm choosing, I do not like this. I can't learn what it is, decipher it, perhaps make informed decisions later, etc.,

[Tweed]

Knights of The Chalice 2 has one the most extensive in-game manuals I've ever seen and will tell you everything you'd ever want to know and everything. It's one of the game's best features.

I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

In every preview for KotC 2, Pierre loses.

[Irenaeus]

Cosmetic options, e.g. sole survivor background in Mass Effect, that have no bearing in the game are also detrimental in that they generate expectations that don't bear fruits.

[Tangerine]

I think complex games providing premade templates is good, but at this point I just assume they suck. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or the people making the templates just suck at RPGs.

Pretty sure it's the latter. I've witnessed several cases in the indiesphere of devs expressing surprise that anybody could beat their games on the hardest difficulty. Extrapolating from this, I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

I give a little more leeway if it's a very complex system and the way to break the game is using unexpected synergies. Generally, though, this is correct.

[UltraFan123]

I think complex games providing premade templates is good, but at this point I just assume they suck. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or the people making the templates just suck at RPGs.

Pretty sure it's the latter. I've witnessed several cases in the indiesphere of devs expressing surprise that anybody could beat their games on the hardest difficulty. Extrapolating from this, I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

I think a good example of this are the Owlcat games, more specifically the Pathfinder ones where most pre-made builds for your character suck *** and you would be much better off just winging it if you don't know how the system works.

[asf]

i fail to see the point in this

any decent game will be complex enough that devs will have no idea what kind of character attributes are really good, game shouldnt spoon feed anything to you

[Demonic Fate]

Cheap or free respec has become a popular design choices for a good reason. You can just relax and pick whatever sounds cool at character creation, and then change it if you discover that:

- isn't as cool as you thought, or perhaps it's fiddly and slow
- it's cool, but it's underpowered
- it's cool and strong, but there's a companion that already does the same thing better
- it's only cool and strong in the early game and it suddenly becomes useless later

etc. etc. Too much stuff to reasonably present to the player during the CC screen, especially if some of that information are spoilers ("hey there will be a shitload of undead in Act 3 so your enchanter will be totally useless"). Extensive codexes are still good for factual and objective information, but you don't want to stuff a full strategy guide in there.

IMO, the better structure is to let you pick roleplaying-only options at character creation (race, background, etc.), then you play through the tutorial as a generic n00b, alongside prebuilt companions. Those companions let you get a sense of what the different classes and skills do - and then, at the end of the tutorial, you can pick class/skills/talents. And you should still have respec options available later in the game.

The structure is a lot easier in classless systems, where you can simply be a level 0 PC with no skills, but it's perfectly doable in class-based systems as well, it just requires the devs to implement a default "commoner" class with no special abilities that you immediately respec out of.

[Kalarion]

I think the biggest problem with stats is when (1) they're broken (as in, at the programming level - they just don't mechanically work as advertised), or (2) the way they're presented during character creation isn't how they work in the game. The first problem is obvious and, theoretically, easily solved: fix your ******* game and don't ship **** code. The second is more difficult, because it requires effort.

If CHA is supposed to make you a glib, silver-tongued devil who can sell ice to eskimos, the game should support that. If it doesn't, you've failed as a developer. Games, especially RPGs, are loved or hated directly to the extent the developers succeed at this. On paper, Age of Decadence is a terrible game with a ton of dev shortcuts. But it's still loved by many, including me, because all of its stats are supported in gameplay. Even though the gameplay itself is so bare!

If you can get that basic core correct, a lot of other stuff will be forgiven.

[Tweed]

the way they're presented during character creation isn't how they work in the game.

This has been a problem since the beginning because crunch is not fluff. No matter how much you want your stats or skills to work a certain way you only have however much time to code that all in and make it all play nice with each other and even when you think you have it all playing nice, the players will come in, find the meta, and then your carefully planned system of however many stats and skills is reduced to two or three useful ones and everything else is tossed out.

[J1M]

Knights of The Chalice 2 has one the most extensive in-game manuals I've ever seen and will tell you everything you'd ever want to know and everything. It's one of the game's best features.

I conclude that devs are bad at their own games, and, as a corollary, that they don't understand which stats are ineffective nor why.

In every preview for KotC 2, Pierre loses.

It doesn't matter if you don't know what type of encounters to expect.

[J1M]

The problem is fidly bits obscuring meaningful choices. Bombarding players with extensive skill lists, feat lists, and the ability to screw up not just in what they select, but how much they allocate to what they select should be reserved for systems that already have traction outside the game (D&D).

My ideal RPG character creator if I was to design one today would ask you to select the following things, where each of them would be roughly as impactful as the others mechanically and narratively.

[Race]
One of (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Choice-unique-to-setting)
The benefits of this choice should unlock as you level up. The world should react to this choice. This should also be a highly orthogonal choice between something like slowly building up immunities to all status conditions or being able to teleport short distances.

[Power Source]
One of (Divine, Elemental, Draconic, Psionic)
This should be a mechanical and thematic choice that affects resources and action economy. For example, one option gives a classic builder/spender setup, another focuses on abilities with daily charges, another focuses on a single ability that is modified by applying damage types/shapes/rider effects.

[Party Role]
One of (Defender, Striker, Controller, Support)
Party size in-game MUST be different than the number of party role choices. Different configurations equals replayability.

Only 3 choices, but in theory 64 interesting outcomes. Low enough that QA can validate all of them as viable and somewhat worthwhile in different ways.

[Valter]

If you don't determine the character stats with a Buzzfeed personality test, you're doing it wrong.

[rusty_shackleford]

If you don't determine the character stats with a Buzzfeed personality test, you're doing it wrong.

I actually like games that do this nowadays, I like to just take what I get and make the most of it.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

i dunno i just put everything into strength or constitution because i hate reading