Various role-playing RPG game stuff not deserving its own thread

[MrTwinkls]

Is Expeditions Viking and Expeditions Conquistadors any good? I find Rome too woke.

I tried and dropped Vikings a few times - found it too boring. Conquistadors felt the most interesting and exotic from the trilogy and it has a great OST.

[Maledict]

Is Expeditions Viking and Expeditions Conquistadors any good? I find Rome too woke.

I tried and dropped Vikings a few times - found it too boring. Conquistadors felt the most interesting and exotic from the trilogy and it has a great OST.

Thanks, MrDawg. Noted & wishlisted.

[J1M]

You are completely out of your depth man, you dont even know what you dont know.

I don't like the subclass model they used for a few reasons:
-fundamentally eliminates multiclassing

I wish, but no, multiclassing still happens all the time.
Multiclassing has always been ********, very few multiclasses can be justified, and the overwhelming mayority are taken to minmax instead of because of character identity or character development.

-if any amount of power is shifted into the subclass allocation, you essentially have a number of base classes equal to the subclass list

I dont understand. Are you talking about powerbudget of a given subclass?

-designers will quickly start making subclasses that trade a base class feature for more subclass power

No they wont, classes are static, subclasses are the ones bringing new stuff. So in actuality theres no such a trade.
What did happen was that rules from tasha allowed to trade class features for new class features, in an effort to balance the system, but thats neither here nor there.

-in practice most people start at level 3 because there are no interesting choices for making a character at level 1, again meaning subclass = base class

I dont see this as a negative, you are simply pointing it out. The fact is, the choice of starting as a level 1 rookie without a real identity beyond the base class is objectively better than the alternative. If you want to start a character with a set identity, then starting them at level 3 is fine, or even at level 6 if you wanted them to be more experienced. The fighter can start as a lowly soldier, or a guard, or a maybe as a part of a peasant militia, or perhaps the son of a warrior trained through his childhood, the players can then build their own characters identity from there.

-proliferation of subclasses that are nearly identical, such as the martial character that can cast a few spells (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer, etc)

They are actually very different.
- Eldritch knight is a heavy duty fighter with low level spellcasting support, both protection and offensive type spells.
- Arcane trickster is a rogue with access to enchancement and illusion spells
- Arcane Archer is a ranged specialist with magic trickshots and no spellcasting

None of them are remotely similar. They are all very different flavors and all of them have good character example in fiction.

-pressure to create the same number of subclasses for all classes results in quite a few duds (more subclasses than something should have, interesting mechanics spread too thin)

This is not true either, some classes have only 3 subclasses, others have like 8 in the PHB alone, other have 2 distincts and very influential choices of "subclasses" (warlock patron + subclass).
Not even sure why you bring this up as a negative, its not even worth considering.

-choice paralysis for new players

lmao, lol, lmfao. Subclasses have very strong identities and most players will probably have thought of the direction their character will go in during the first or second session, depending on development or whatever cool **** they saw recently that inspired them
Not even worth considering as creating any sort of choice paralysis, since its pretty much a single choice and its staggered to level 2-3.

You make some good points but I think we'd agree more if I had elaborated more.

[Maledict]

**** Expeditions games. **** the devs. ******** decisions for gameplay are unforgivable. Nooo you can't respec because no. No mods for the game because no one wants to play this crap. You have to ******* guess what the game wants you to do unless you'll look up guides which I don't want to do. **** this game. **** the devs.

[rusty_shackleford]

Nooo you can't respec because no.

this is good

[Maledict]

Nooo you can't respec because no.

this is good

Not if the devs pre-spend points for you on companions

[rusty_shackleford]

Nooo you can't respec because no.

this is good

Not if the devs pre-spend points for you on companions

sovl

[Rand]

I think the biggest advantage to doing something like this is that it allows you to add a lot more flavor (Red Wizard of Thay vs. Generic Wizard) and it allows for the basic Fighter or Thief class to perhaps only have 5 levels, at which point you pick another path to advance in.

Starting soldier class: militiaman
Expert NPC class: veteran or sergeant
Professional class: captain or hero

And so on, every few levels?
It would suit me.

[Rand]

this is good

Not if the devs pre-spend points for you on companions

sovl

shite

[J1M]

I think the biggest advantage to doing something like this is that it allows you to add a lot more flavor (Red Wizard of Thay vs. Generic Wizard) and it allows for the basic Fighter or Thief class to perhaps only have 5 levels, at which point you pick another path to advance in.

Starting soldier class: militiaman
Expert NPC class: veteran or sergeant
Professional class: captain or hero

And so on, every few levels?
It would suit me.

That's one way to do it. Another would be something like this:

Fighter (5 levels)
Paladin (5 levels, requires 5 levels in Fighter and 2 levels in Cleric)

[Lhynn]

That's one way to do it. Another would be something like this:

Fighter (5 levels)
Paladin (5 levels, requires 5 levels in Fighter and 2 levels in Cleric)

Never liked this kind of progression, it doesnt add anything.
Could theoretically work in a game where the information isnt available, so stumbling upon the paladin class after taking levels in the right classes would feel really cool. But with the abundance of information available theres simply no point.

[J1M]

That's one way to do it. Another would be something like this:

Fighter (5 levels)
Paladin (5 levels, requires 5 levels in Fighter and 2 levels in Cleric)

Never liked this kind of progression, it doesnt add anything.
Could theoretically work in a game where the information isnt available, so stumbling upon the paladin class after taking levels in the right classes would feel really cool. But with the abundance of information available theres simply no point.

Pathfinder added capstone abilities to try to encourage people to stick with one class. The Fighter doesn't have much to offer after a handful of levels. Every subsequent feat will be less valuable than the feats you selected first. Getting an extra +2 damage on hit is a fighter-exclusive feat for... level 12.

So essentially the design strategy here would be to avoid stretching out a concept that doesn't scale vertically very well. Compress it and allow players to go horizontally with their progression. For example, branch out into Ranger and get a pet, Paladin and get divine power, Eldritch Knight for some spells like fly to augment your fighting, Warlord to help the party with healing and saves, or other ideas that have yet to be explored. There's other ways to do it while still calling it a fighter, such as via subclasses, but qualifying for a new class feels like more of an accomplishment than reaching level 7.

[UltraFan123]

Another thing Pathfinder did to encourage people to stick to a single class was to make "hybrid" bases classes, like the [Magus] for those that didn't wanted to multi-class as fighter-wizards, or the [Eldritch Scoundrel] for those that didn't felt like picking both rogue and wizard levels.

[rusty_shackleford]

Read paragraph 7.

[Rand]

Pathfinder added capstone abilities to try to encourage people to stick with one class. The Fighter doesn't have much to offer after a handful of levels. Every subsequent feat will be less valuable than the feats you selected first. Getting an extra +2 damage on hit is a fighter-exclusive feat for... level 12.

So essentially the design strategy here would be to avoid stretching out a concept that doesn't scale vertically very well. Compress it and allow players to go horizontally with their progression. For example, branch out into Ranger and get a pet, Paladin and get divine power, Eldritch Knight for some spells like fly to augment your fighting, Warlord to help the party with healing and saves, or other ideas that have yet to be explored. There's other ways to do it while still calling it a fighter, such as via subclasses, but qualifying for a new class feels like more of an accomplishment than reaching level 7.

Always remember, the original classes were designed to be 8 levels of power increases (because it went from 1 to 9, but you started at 1), then just max-level political stuff or upgrades via gear.
It worked for the primitive game it was, but if we've learned anything from 3rd edition it's that bonus-itis and power creep are real mechanical problems and 20 class levels on a constant slope line or shallow curve add to this.

I agree with the idea that a basic warrior combatant shouldn't really have anything new to learn after 5 levels or so of "fighter" or whatever. Ditto for the mages, "rogues" etc...
That's when the options take over with master or heroic "classes" that most NPCs never ascend to. The idea of a 10th level bandit or thief is kind-of silly. They can solo fight a whole squad of guards or whatever.

[Lhynn]

qualifying for a new class feels like more of an accomplishment than reaching level 7.

Does it? I tend to have builds planned out before I ever start the game. Entirely possible with the aboundance of documentation pathfinder gives you.

Hiden quests, random encounters and actual achievements are better ways of unlocking advanced classes than just fulfilling an easy to find requeriment.

[J1M]

qualifying for a new class feels like more of an accomplishment than reaching level 7.

Does it? I tend to have builds planned out before I ever start the game. Entirely possible with the aboundance of documentation pathfinder gives you.

Hiden quests, random encounters and actual achievements are better ways of unlocking advanced classes than just fulfilling an easy to find requeriment.

I would consider those types of fun to be separate. On one hand you have progression, the type of enjoyment someone gets from checking off a full list of things to do. Having 4 shorter lists is more satisfying than one really long list. The other thing you are mentioning is more like winning a slot machine. A random reward interval result, which creates a powerful response in the brain.

It sounds like you have a more powerful response to the second thing than I do. I would probably just be annoyed after finishing the game to find out that I could have unlocked a fun and creative class but missed out due to random chance.

My preferred way to handle something like this would be for in-game groups, like an order of paladins, to offer a quest chain to join them as a means of unlocking it. Reaching Fighter level 5 could be part of said quest chain. That way players can opt into a meaningful challenge for the reward. Especially if the organizations are as prominent as something like the Pokemon Gyms.

[Rand]

I would probably just be annoyed after finishing the game to find out that I could have unlocked a fun and creative class but missed out due to random chance.

Same.
This is a big issue for me with computer RPGs.

Edit: what the **** are you disagreeing with? This is my opinion of how I want games to play. It literally cannot be disagreed with any more than you can have 2/0 be a useful statement.
Or maybe you want to play annoying games with missing stuff witheld from you? Feel free. Play them 1000 times over.

[Lhynn]

I would probably just be annoyed after finishing the game to find out that I could have unlocked a fun and creative class but missed out due to random chance.

Same.
This is big issue for me with computer RPGs.

Id want to replay and see what else Ive missed.
I enjoy replayable games. Dunno what is it and people wanting games to be one and done deal.
That said, maybe not entirely rng? Or an rng you can game somehow?

[J1M]

I would probably just be annoyed after finishing the game to find out that I could have unlocked a fun and creative class but missed out due to random chance.

Same.
This is big issue for me with computer RPGs.

Id want to replay and see what else Ive missed.
I enjoy replayable games. Dunno what is it and people wanting games to be one and done deal.
That said, maybe not entirely rng? Or an rng you can game somehow?

We've been trained to have very low expectations for how variable a playthrough will be a second time around.

[Stack of Turtles]

I would probably just be annoyed after finishing the game to find out that I could have unlocked a fun and creative class but missed out due to random chance.

Same.
This is big issue for me with computer RPGs.

Id want to replay and see what else Ive missed.
I enjoy replayable games. Dunno what is it and people wanting games to be one and done deal.
That said, maybe not entirely rng? Or an rng you can game somehow?

Using RNG is the worst possible way to add "replayability" because you don't even get to decide whether this playthrough will be different from the last one. The more possible random points there are, the worse this gets as you've already done more and more of the possibility space.

I should get to make a CHOICE about which option I'm going to do each time.

[Lhynn]

Using RNG is the worst possible way to add "replayability" because you don't even get to decide whether this playthrough will be different from the last one.

I love random encounters, I enjoy hiden interactions, and I dont mind missing out stuff on a run because of rng/didnt pay attention/etc. Can always play again if the game itself was enjoyable.

Theres nothing inherently wrong with RNG in itself. The problem comes with over reliance on it. When the map is randomly generated, the equipment is randomly generated, the bosses randomly generated, then the whole game suffers in quality. But having random hand crafted encounters that can wildly change any given run, then yeah, i think its a great idea, **** your plans ******.

[J1M]

Dragoon skills IRL:

[Rand]

Using RNG is the worst possible way to add "replayability" because you don't even get to decide whether this playthrough will be different from the last one. The more possible random points there are, the worse this gets as you've already done more and more of the possibility space.

One of my issues with Styg's Underrail design. There are a bunch of RNG areas that may or may not be in the game.
I want them ALL in the damned game because they're all in the codebase.

[rusty_shackleford]

Should add more rng areas so you don't feel ripped, missing 5 of 30 is less big than 1 of 3

[Stack of Turtles]

Using RNG is the worst possible way to add "replayability" because you don't even get to decide whether this playthrough will be different from the last one. The more possible random points there are, the worse this gets as you've already done more and more of the possibility space.

One of my issues with Styg's Underrail design. There are a bunch of RNG areas that may or may not be in the game.
I want them ALL in the damned game because they're all in the codebase.

I don't mind this SO much; it can be fun – like Lhynn said – for individual runs to be distinguished by randomly different content. But it's obvious that nothing important should be gated by pure RNG alone or you're just getting gypped out of content for no reason. I would never want to replay the game to find something random with no control over it – that just sucks. That's the kind of thing that will just get people to share seeds or savegames to avoid engaging with the randomness at all. I've never played Underrail because it just sounds too close to that gay monsters game for tumblr ********, so I don't know how important the random elements in that are. If they're something where I would have no reason to care about seeing them all, so that even if I could control which one I got I wouldn't bother to restart for it, I don't mind.

[Tangerine]

Dragoon skills IRL:

I think I have a new hobby.

[Rand]

viewtopic.php?p=212152-various-role-pla ... ad#p212152
New roadmap for Wartales out to the end of the year. And it looks like they'll keep going into next year at least.


Looks like they're copying the Paradox route of many small but usually somewhat transformative DLC per game, released relatively frequently.
This is both good and bad.
Hey, at least it's not Bethesda's shite method and content.

[J1M]

viewtopic.php?p=212152-various-role-pla ... ad#p212152
New roadmap for Wartales out to the end of the year. And it looks like they'll keep going into next year at least.


Looks like they're copying the Paradox route of many small but usually somewhat transformative DLC per game, released relatively frequently.
This is both good and bad.
Hey, at least it's not Bethesda's shite method and content.

These roadmap things need a clear marker on them where I am supposed to care and play the game given I will only do that once. I want to know at what point the game is complete but hasn't yet had cash-grab DLC added.

[Rienen]

I appreciate that they want to put out more content, but nothing about a roadmap alone will ever excite me or get me to trust a game is worth my time and money.

They're not contractual obligations.
They're often padded with filler like: literal color variations on armor (lolok), platitudes like "and more"/"more to be revealed", or the nebulous "QoL improvements".
They allude to large windows of time.
And, what seems like more often than not, everything just ends up getting pushed back/delayed anyway because devs can't stick to their own schedules.

This isn't a dig at Wartales, specifically, or Rand... It's just a type of marketing that doesn't work on me anymore.