RPGs that do stealing right.

[Rand]

People in Skyrim are very protective of their property.

Apparently BG3 is the same. I stole some things from a shop I entered never breaking stealth, took a couple of things, and made it to another building before I dropped stealth. I then walked out into the street near the shop and an NPC showed up saying "Property was stolen and you are the likely suspect". How in the hell would they even know? No failed rolls and nothing in visual perception, yet... somehow... I hate that crap.

It's a radius thing. No logic behind it. Stay out of the search radius for a bit and it's all good somehow.

[rusty_shackleford]

The stealing in BG3 is **** because it's **** in any game that lets you savescum. If you put in any real detriment for failure, people just reload because you've told them to use the cheat when they're inconvenienced.

[Oyster Sauce]

The stealing in BG3 is **** because it's **** in any game that lets you savescum. If you put in any real detriment for failure, people just reload because you've told them to use the cheat when they're inconvenienced.

I let myself go to prison a few times and then started savescumming because basically everything about escaping prison was broken.

[The_Mask]

I think the most fun and interesting one is Kingdom Come. The only issue being that you actually play by its rules. Because if you just choke someone out, you automatically gain access to their whole inventory without the minigame.

[rusty_shackleford]

I think the most fun and interesting one is Kingdom Come. The only issue being that you actually play by its rules. Because if you just choke someone out, you automatically gain access to their whole inventory without the minigame.

Very realistic.

[Xenich]

The stealing in BG3 is **** because it's **** in any game that lets you savescum. If you put in any real detriment for failure, people just reload because you've told them to use the cheat when they're inconvenienced.

Same could be said for dying though. Save scumming never bothered me, it can be easily stopped with a game mode selection at start with special save conditions if someone is so concerned about it. Ultimately, that comes down to being concerned about how others play the game, and honestly I could give two shits about how another plays the game. Especially when they can just as easily have cheat engine up doing whatever they want.

Now I do understand the "convenience" issue as that can have an effect on a player themselves trying to avoid temptation, which is why I am a big proponent of pre-start settings and options being present to allow players to "tailor" the rules and conditions more to their liking and then be held to those rules as they play. It is much easier to avoid DL, loading up cheat engine, modifying the correct memory register to make a change.

That said, if the systems are "wonky" and don't make sense, being held to that system would be a bit annoying and likely to cause me to not want to play as it is no longer a reasonable form of internal game play strategy, but rather a quest to learn a hidden mechanic to exploit (not that I am against people who enjoy that).

I just think stealing as a mechanic is often an after thought rather than some in-depth system they are trying to apply. I would like to see a good system, but have yet see a lot of attention put to it as even the ones I enjoyed were still... lacking in depth.

[rusty_shackleford]

Ultimately, that comes down to being concerned about how others play the game,

wrooooong
gamedevs design their entire game around savescumming, my experience is worsened because other people cheat.

this is why RPGs rarely have traps anymore, btw. And if you want to see a genre that has a lot of traps, check out soulsborne/soulslike games. It's not a coincidence.

[Xenich]

Ultimately, that comes down to being concerned about how others play the game,

wrooooong
gamedevs design their entire game around savescumming, my experience is worsened because other people cheat.

this is why RPGs rarely have traps anymore, btw. And if you want to see a genre that has a lot of traps, check out soulsborne/soulslike games. It's not a coincidence.

Got rid of the garbage I think I was confusing things. This should be more clear.

Edit:
After thinking about this a bit more, I think I am arguing different topics slightly. I think we agree that they develop games around it (as you used traps as an example) and I think it is bad, but RPGs I think need to be careful about permeant conditions in play that change the complete direction of the game.

Take putting in a trap. If the trap kills you, that is permeant, so how do you remedy it? In Souls games, they respawn you without your gear, you go recover it and continue on. Maybe there is some exp loss, fading penalty in a system like that, but the failure does not produce a final unchangeable result. How did you deal with that in a game like... Wizardry 7 for instance? You reloaded and tried the encounter over again.

I think your point is that they take away a lot of features because people can simply bypass the consequence with a reload and so development becomes wasted. I agree, that is a problem. How to solve it, I am not sure. Reloading from an encounter, that one is easy to justify because it is random and a reload does not mean an exact repeat of play, meaning you can fail again. Though if that is applied to a trap that for instance is meant not to kill, but to disable or inhibit, most people will just reload it anyway, and you have the same problem.

Maybe things like that, as long as they are not as severe in result (ie death, a disease that can never be cured, etc...), then the solution would be to carry over states caused by the trap over to the previous saves (maybe back to a certain time or area so even if you reload, your damage and condition are retained? just spit balling). This forces the game mechanic of play, but doesn't get to the point where it ruins the entire game (ie having a bad seed and somehow never getting any gear of worth in D:OS making the play through.. maybe enjoyable mechanically, but lacking in the excitment of interesting items and the like).

So I do understand your issue, I agree, I just don't like the way they do it and I really can't say what is the best approach.

[Rand]

and honestly I could give two shits about how another plays the game.

What about three shits? Or is two the limit?

Personally, I couldn't give a **** at all, myself, but I respect that you say you care at least two shits worth.

[Xenich]

and honestly I could give two shits about how another plays the game.

What about three shits? Or is two the limit?

Personally, I couldn't give a **** at all, myself, but I respect that you say you care at least two shits worth.

Are we negotiating? I will go 5 shits and no higher! Deal?

[Vergil]

What about three shits? Or is two the limit?

Are we negotiating? I will go 5 shits and no higher! Deal?

viewtopic.php?t=1404-the-india-thread

[Rand]

and honestly I could give two shits about how another plays the game.

What about three shits? Or is two the limit?

Personally, I couldn't give a **** at all, myself, but I respect that you say you care at least two shits worth.

Are we negotiating? I will go 5 shits and no higher! Deal?

Five shits may be exchanged for a free copy of Starfield.
That is the assessed value of the property.

[Xenich]

What about three shits? Or is two the limit?

Personally, I couldn't give a **** at all, myself, but I respect that you say you care at least two shits worth.

Are we negotiating? I will go 5 shits and no higher! Deal?

Five shits may be exchanged for a free copy of Starfield.
That is the assessed value of the property.

No deal, I would rather keep the shits. Way more valuable.

[Tweed]

the only things I stole in there were a half-dozen ******* VEGETABLES.

Those vegetables were for the Jarl's table, did you really think you were just going to walk out with them?

[rusty_shackleford]

The penalty for getting caught should be severe enough that only a small fraction of players consider stealing.

[Anon]

Imo the big issue with stealing is that players will always find a way to cheese it and make it 100% safe and repetitive, which in turn trivializes the game's economy.

[aweigh]

Stealing is awesome in Elminage: Original and Elminage: Gothic.

Enemies in Elminage tend to have unique versions of weapons and armors which can *only* be obtained via stealing, and there is at least one class that benefits directly from always having "monster" equipment.

"Monster" equipment usually has unique attributes or effects as well which you would normally miss out on if you never bother stealing it from them; this means that a party without access to stealing is missing out on that specific dimension of the game's itemization. In Elminage both thieves and bards have access to stealing, and bards are very unique in the Elminage series so you get two completely different flavors of steal-capable classes.

In Elminage: Gothic steal becomes less about acquiring unique monster equipment and more of stealing becoming an offensive ability for your thief or bard as stealing an enemy's currently equipped weapon will instantly deprive them of its use. This can completely turn the tide of an encounter, especially late game. In the later dungeons there are humanoid enemies who can go from "this guy is about to wipe my entire party" to "lol by stealing Skillving's sword i've reduced his threat level by 80%, the fight's basically over", making your boring old thief suddenly feel like he's the MVP again.

That's actually one of the things Elminage does beautifully: restoring usefulness to old abilities, or making an older basic character class shine like new under a new use-case scenario.

I always appreciated how monster equipment works in Elminage, specifically in Elminage: Original, and it made stealing feel fun and exciting.

[Xenich]

The penalty for getting caught should be severe enough that only a small fraction of players consider stealing.

Seems fair, but then provide the tools to greatly reduce that threat via the classes that specialize in it. What is the point in having a class that has bonuses and skills focuses to such an act if the penalty is so severe they won't want to use it? So either it is much harder for them to get caught, or they are provided tools to avoid consequence.

Ultimately, my complaint about some systems is not the consequence, but more so the system being so buggy or inconsistent. As I said though, while I agree there should be better systems to provide that, designing completely around it excessively to the detriment of other systems is something that should be avoided.

Edit: here is another idea. A complete faction subsystem for stealing that modifies the core faction (only a percent of it though as it is ultimately a perception, not evidence). This would not be shown to the player, it would be more like an assumption statistic that weights the perception of the NPC as it concerns that player. For instance, while things can not be proven in many instances where someone steals, reasonable people may hypothesize as to who may be the culprit based on a logical deduction of who was seen near an area last, if they passed a role on profile determination (ie this shady guy who looked like or was a rogue was browsing the shop yesterday), etc... then, when something is stolen and there is no obvious choice because that player passed all their checks, the NPC will adjust its attitude concerning that player via a minor suspicion weight. While it may not cause an NPC to stop dealing with a player, it would keep even the "perfect" faction level of being retained due to the NPC always being suspicious of them being the one that may have stolen from them.

A small subsystem that since is not displayed to the player and maybe is timer based weighted over time, would not allow the player to so easily "reload and repeat" their actions until they succeeded and keep a loyal reputation with the NPC.

It doesn't stop the problems with save scumming in other areas, but it does provide a means to reasonably adjust a characters attitude to a player in a manner that more realistically would occur I think.

[Xenich]

Imo the big issue with stealing is that players will always find a way to cheese it and make it 100% safe and repetitive, which in turn trivializes the game's economy.

My issue is that they can do whatever they want, but if someone wants to cheat, you can't stop them. Cheat engine gets around anything a game may throw at a player, so while I do agree a better system needs to be implemented, I think it has to be constrained to what is reasonable and more importantly, what logically and enjoyably obtains game play. Games that have obvious massive "stop this" mechanics are ******** and in my opinion make the game seem fake.

[rusty_shackleford]

Cheat engine isn't equivalent to a badly designed mechanic.
e.g., Skyrim alchemy & enchantment are absolutely busted, if you interact with these at all your character is broken and the game is irreversibly ruined. This makes the game worse.

[Xenich]

Cheat engine isn't equivalent to a badly designed mechanic.
e.g., Skyrim alchemy & enchantment are absolutely busted, if you interact with these at all your character is broken and the game is irreversibly ruined. This makes the game worse.

Oh I don't disagree, I was just saying them trying to design around stopping people from cheating has always been... a silly approach to game development as their solutions have a bad habit of creating numerous results that screw the player unintendedly.

I never liked the original console implementation of save points that somehow became a standard for their play (even when they no longer had the technology limitation). I caused me to avoid some games in my past due to time constraints being variable. I remember playing one game where the save point was too long between points and I wasn't able to actually reach it in time before something came up, resulting in me playing it over and over many times before I could progress.

I really think there are much better ways to implement various systems (with setting adjustments pre-start as well) that could solve a lot of these issues, but unfortunately putting genital's on characters seems to be more important these days.

[maidenhaver]

Theft needs an economy to work, and priceless items like idols or heirlooms need flags to make them unsellable and the owners come looking for them. If the pc was the last stranger in town when a bunch of things went missing, it makes perfect sense they'd just blame him for it. Regardless if you were detected.

That goblin mechanic in Oblivion should have been attached to idols in family hearths and relics in chapels. The family, lord, or parish come looking for you or attack the npcs around the place you dropped it off.

[rusty_shackleford]

Most items shouldn't have a sell value at all unless it's someone actually interested in that specific crap.

[Tweed]

Theft needs an economy to work, and priceless items like idols or heirlooms need flags to make them unsellable and the owners come looking for them. If the pc was the last stranger in town when a bunch of things went missing, it makes perfect sense they'd just blame him for it. Regardless if you were detected.

That goblin mechanic in Oblivion should have been attached to idols in family hearths and relics in chapels. The family, lord, or parish come looking for you or attack the npcs around the place you dropped it off.

Gothic 3 basically does this. Once a few items go missing a guard will stop and question you. The first time you can deny it, but if anything else goes missing they'll try and kill you.

[Xenich]

Theft needs an economy to work, and priceless items like idols or heirlooms need flags to make them unsellable and the owners come looking for them. If the pc was the last stranger in town when a bunch of things went missing, it makes perfect sense they'd just blame him for it. Regardless if you were detected.

Agree, but I think the solution needs to reasonable to the games world. I am not a big fan of the "invisible wall" type implementations. I think powerful and expensive items can have extra security placed on them (ie magical tracking spells that take unreasonable efforts to remove, NPC sellers that can recognize the item and know it is another stolen source (even fences saying the item is too hot). Also, maybe even realistic results to a mass theft (ie player steals a bunch of high end items from a store, store goes out of business or after a theft, many world changes happen causing increased security to levels that makes it almost impossible for these actions to happen, etc..)

[maidenhaver]

Something like an heirloom or hearth idol should be as good as a deed to the property, or even the source of the realm's blessings. Healthy children and abundance of the fields, and the like. In a magic setting, stealing that stuff could raise the dead, curse the young to be more annoying, work other horrible calamities, until you are caught or the thing taken back. Stuff like that shouldn't have a price, but could be ransomed back to the owners. This is basically one step beyond goblin totem wars, although writers probably have the shitfits, over their precious stories getting borked by all the reactivity.

[Nooneatall]

I hate to keep beating the drum: BG3.

You're encouraged to distract the target by having someone else talk to them, lead them away from guards, the target knows they've been stolen from and searches for the thief...

It's a well done system overall. Even if it lends itself to save-scumming.

A little buggy at times, but I do agree it wasn't too bad on its implementation.

I hate the save-scumming crusades though. It is wasted effort to combat in a game where the software resides on the persons system and ultimately we are telling people they can't have a better turn out, which then brings up the point of... why have saves controlled by the player anyway? You can't stop people from doing this, they can cheat in so many ways that it is pointless to try and force a particular element as this. I hated Larians use of it (ie the RNG loot in D:OS) and it was brought about with reasoning from some people claiming "But players will save scum for better gear and then come back complaining the game is too easy, causing Larian to make it harder! "

I am all for options in initial game setup, after all this is what Ironman mode is, but the need to push it seems... a bit on the narcicist side.

Dark souls and online multi-player have made people obsessed with difficulty and making sure people play "the right way"

Devs used to (and still do sometimes) encourage cheating and exploits and would program them into the game as features for when you completed certain challenges. Now they and all their basement dwelling fand get all butthurt if you circumvent "the experience"

[Mondain]

Devs put cheats front and center now, they just don't call them cheats because a low iq ****** might get offended.

[Xenich]

I hate to keep beating the drum: BG3.

You're encouraged to distract the target by having someone else talk to them, lead them away from guards, the target knows they've been stolen from and searches for the thief...

It's a well done system overall. Even if it lends itself to save-scumming.

A little buggy at times, but I do agree it wasn't too bad on its implementation.

I hate the save-scumming crusades though. It is wasted effort to combat in a game where the software resides on the persons system and ultimately we are telling people they can't have a better turn out, which then brings up the point of... why have saves controlled by the player anyway? You can't stop people from doing this, they can cheat in so many ways that it is pointless to try and force a particular element as this. I hated Larians use of it (ie the RNG loot in D:OS) and it was brought about with reasoning from some people claiming "But players will save scum for better gear and then come back complaining the game is too easy, causing Larian to make it harder! "

I am all for options in initial game setup, after all this is what Ironman mode is, but the need to push it seems... a bit on the narcicist side.

Dark souls and online multi-player have made people obsessed with difficulty and making sure people play "the right way"

Devs used to (and still do sometimes) encourage cheating and exploits and would program them into the game as features for when you completed certain challenges. Now they and all their basement dwelling fand get all butthurt if you circumvent "the experience"

They can go overboard though.

Ultimately, I think it is a balance. I used to see people complain about how they couldn't make AI smart enough to beat a player and the reality is more that it is very difficult to design an AI to be challenging, but not destroy the player constantly (we used to toy with the Unreal bots back then to make them more difficult to beat and you could make them unbeatable rather easily). People have to be able to win, or it won't be fun (so some weaknesses have to be implemented to keep them realistic).

I think the problem these days is a lot of people aren't "gamers" in the traditional definition of the word that it is a contest according to rules. Many people now days define games with useless subjective words like "my fun" , "enjoyment" or "entertainment" (ie a movie is also entertainment, but a movie is not a game). The original purpose and core of a game is lost these days and design directions I think have resulted in lukewarm systems that are bland and weak in play because they are trying to appeal to some intangible concept of "fun" rather than establishing a clear system and objective to victory and tuning it to that design where the player can then determine if that type of system is what they enjoy.

I think if developers are truly interested in peoples entertainment with a given system, the best approach is extreme flexibility in the engines options. I think more along the lines of what Pathfinder did in tuning how the game is configured and played to achieve the style someone is looking for. Sure, it is initially a lot more development time to put that system in, but once that generic template is built, it can easily be adjusted in future releases as well as be exported to new engine design. Unfortunately, this form of player tuning doesn't seem to be a focus for most development.

[Nooneatall]

Devs put cheats front and center now, they just don't call them cheats because a low iq ****** might get offended.

If you mean they put it behind a pay wall sure.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but being good at video games means absolutely nothing. It's a entertainment vehicle that's interactive. It's like being good at checkers.