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

[Irenaeus]

Any examples of RPGs that actually support partially specializing and/or hybrid non-combat characters?

The Age of Decadence

► Show Spoiler

[Irenaeus]

Okay, lemme get out paint.net and see what the color codes come back as...

Come on. You really couldn't tell which of those two in particular, and which in general, were better or worse by color shade?

Professional is brighter than good; fair is brighter than modest

Okay, I just opened it in GIMP and I was right, the brightness is higher on average in "Fair".

I had to zoom in to notice any average difference in the shades.
At the standard resolution Rusty posted, I could see no significant difference.

Certainly massively less than the difference between, say, the bright green and dim green.

If you squint, you can see the difference easier.

[DemoGraph]

Demograph proposed the notion of "partial failure"

partial successes

Skill checks are just build taxes: You must pay this many points out of your buildspace in order to experience the content you paid for. They don't really add gameplay, because the player is not involved.

On a more serious note, I think I got what your problem is.
You criticize skill checks in classical PC RPGs (Fallout, BG, PST, Bloodlines, etc.). And yes, they all suck. Because there're no social mechanics in them. Because those games were derived from D&D and assorted dungeoncrawlers and got skill checks slapped as an afterthought.
You're not proving that skill-based systems or skill checks are wrong in general. You're proving that there was (and is) a dev problem. Literally this:

Any examples of RPGs that actually support partially specializing and/or hybrid non-combat characters?

MORROWIND: learn alchemy, become hybrid.
Old WoW enforced crafting hybridization. Haven and Hearth. Eve.

Ars Magica. Exalted and other WW games. Fading Suns. Gumshoe and other detective RPGs. Cyberpunk games with hacking.
Come to think of it, almost any TTRPG I know, that doesn't have a dungeon crawler at its core, fits.

[Stack of Turtles]

Skill checks are just build taxes: You must pay this many points out of your buildspace in order to experience the content you paid for. They don't really add gameplay, because the player is not involved.

On a more serious note, I think I got what your problem is.
You criticize skill checks in classical PC RPGs (Fallout, BG, PST, Bloodlines, etc.). And yes, they all suck. Because there're no social mechanics in them. Because those games were derived from D&D and assorted dungeoncrawlers and got skill checks slapped as an afterthought.
You're not proving that skill-based systems or skill checks are wrong in general. You're proving that there was (and is) a dev problem. Literally this:

I mean, even with social mechanics, not succeeding in getting what you want is a failure. Either you were able to do what you wanted, or you weren't. Every system inherently reduces to this, because there's no third thing; all "trade-offs" just reduce to you having to choose to want either one thing or the other, and commit to that.

[rusty_shackleford]

dialogue should be for conveying information, skill checks in dialogue are even worse
need to start killing dialoguecels

everyone who liked disco elysium, right into the woodchipper with you

[rusty_shackleford]

convinced people like dialogue because it makes them feel smart to imagine they're actually saying what some writer wrote
same reason dialogue wheels cause so much butthurt

[Acrux]

Any examples of RPGs that actually support partially specializing and/or hybrid non-combat characters?

You can have a pretty viable leadership/social character in Wasteland 2 DC, although you probably still need one weapon skill on him.

[rusty_shackleford]

Any examples of RPGs that actually support partially specializing and/or hybrid non-combat characters?

You can have a pretty viable leadership/social character in Wasteland 2 DC, although you probably still need one weapon skill on him.

I meant an example where you can put some points in a social skill and actually see a return on your investment, it rarely exists.
I can list plenty of games where you can throw some points in a combat-related skill and see a return. You never see this for e.g., lockpicking and similar, non-combat stuff is almost always all-or-nothing.

Class-based systems tend to bake all of this into the classes and it's not something you have to worry about at all.

[DemoGraph]

convinced people like dialogue because it makes them feel smart to imagine they're actually saying what some writer wrote

Convinced people like dungeoncrawl because it makes them feel good to imagine they're actually knee deep in blood and sperm.

Either you were able to do what you wanted, or you weren't. Every system inherently reduces to this, because there's no third thing; all "trade-offs" just reduce to you having to choose to want either one thing or the other, and commit to that.

Like, choices and consequences?

[Norfleet]

You criticize skill checks in classical PC RPGs (Fallout, BG, PST, Bloodlines, etc.). And yes, they all suck. Because there're no social mechanics in them. Because those games were derived from D&D and assorted dungeoncrawlers and got skill checks slapped as an afterthought.
You're not proving that skill-based systems or skill checks are wrong in general. You're proving that there was (and is) a dev problem.

I'm not saying they're "wrong", but I am saying they're never interesting or good to engage with.

Eve.

Really? We're going to list a skill system that exists for no other purpose other than extort money out of players and function as a time-gate to prevent you from playing the game as a GOOD skill system? There's literally NO gameplay involved here, "interacting" with the skill system is a function of going AFK until you're allowed to finally play the game. This is the worst skill system ever made.

[rusty_shackleford]

Convinced people like dungeoncrawl because it makes them feel good to imagine they're actually knee deep in blood and sperm.

It's multi-layered with interlocking elements, pretty easy to see why there are people that like it — it's an actual game with a difficult win condition vs just picking a dialogue line that makes you feel smart.

The worst thing to happen to RPGs was dialogue creep, more and more of games kept getting moved into dialogue until we got """RPGs""" that are only dialogue.

[Stack of Turtles]

convinced people like dialogue because it makes them feel smart to imagine they're actually saying what some writer wrote

Convinced people like dungeoncrawl because it makes them feel good to imagine they're actually knee deep in blood and sperm.

Either you were able to do what you wanted, or you weren't. Every system inherently reduces to this, because there's no third thing; all "trade-offs" just reduce to you having to choose to want either one thing or the other, and commit to that.

Like, choices and consequences?

Yeah. Choices and consequences exist at the story level, they aren't a function of the mechanical system.

You can have choices and consequences in D&D, btw. Most people just don't because most people are dumb.

[DemoGraph]

There's literally NO gameplay involved here

I admit, I have an idealistic view of Eve, since I've never played it seriously.
AFAIK, the skills in EVE gate ships, or in other words, combat roles. They also effectively gate some economic roles, because nobody needs a ****** miner, and crafting roles (because BPs are also skill gated). But the gates are often not hard - large alliances might have several chars who's able to craft a supership, but they want only one to do it, because he has that particular skillset that would save on costs.
I don't see a problem with this system in general. This is what any parameter (skill, feat, w/e) is supposed to do in any game - prevent you from acting in some way.
The particular realization in Eve might be ******. But Rusty didn't ask for quality, only for existence of a system that allows noncombat specializations.

You can have choices and consequences in D&D, btw.

Of course you can. I might criticize D&D, but I don't turbohate it.

[rusty_shackleford]

Bear's gay 3 has an encounter without combat where there's an inn burning down, and I'm always reminded of this encounter whenever I come back to dialogue in RPGs because there's an almost identical encounter in the Pillars of Eternity expansion except Pillows does it entirely thru dialogue whereas Bear's Gay 3 uses the immersive elements of the Divinity engine to allow the player to solve the encounter as a problem. It's obvious which one is the better encounter, which one is more fun and obviously more of an RPG. It's not even debatable.

These are near 1:1 comparisons, and one of these obviously ranks higher on the RPG scale than the other.




Which one is more of an RPG:
The one where you click on dialogue options?
…or…
The one where you get to order your units around, including enabling turn-based mode for tactical choices, and do things like break down doors/fallen debris, fill up buckets of water, cast water magic, etc., to put out fires? Being able to lift heavy objects, being able to quickly move around the battlefield? Yep, they all help you solve the encounter! It's such a great non-combat encounter.


Dialogue is a cope for developers that don't know how to make RPGs.

[Norfleet]

I don't see a problem with this system in general. This is what any parameter (skill, feat, w/e) is supposed to do in any game - prevent you from acting in some way.
The particular realization in Eve might be ******. But Rusty didn't ask for quality, only for existence of a system that allows noncombat specializations.

This is what happens when you eat the framing device without examining the context in which it sits. The skillsystem of Eve doesn't aim to "allow noncombat specialization" because first, in an MMO, non-combat specialization means "mule character", and second, it isn't there for the purpose of allowing specialization because you're not actually committing to a specific build, you're just playing a waiting game, the purpose of which is made all the more apparent when you look at Eve's history as a pay-to-lose subscription game.

[DemoGraph]

you're just playing a waiting game

TBH, I think all MMOs are waiting games. But sometimes you click and wait for number to go up while having a tea, and sometimes you wait for a chance drop through dungeon grind... and maybe a tea.

[Norfleet]

TBH, I think all MMOs are waiting games. But sometimes you click and wait for number to go up while having a tea, and sometimes you wait for a chance drop through dungeon grind... and maybe a tea.

At least a dungeon grind involves active gameplay.

[rusty_shackleford]

Need commonsense dialogue control, RPG developers aren't allowed to use dialogue until they've proven they can make an RPG without any.

[DemoGraph]

Need commonsense dialogue control, RPG developers aren't allowed to use dialogue until they've proven they can make an RPG without any.

I suggest drafting failed devs in Russian army.

[Stack of Turtles]

Need commonsense dialogue control, RPG developers aren't allowed to use dialogue until they've proven they can make an RPG without any.

I suggest drafting failed devs in Russian army.

Are you trying to turn the Russian army gay so it matches the American army?

[Stack of Turtles]

You can have choices and consequences in D&D, btw.

Of course you can. I might criticize D&D, but I don't turbohate it.

Anyway, I don't know if it's a language barrier problem or what, but sometimes you say things that make me suddenly realize I don't know what you're arguing about and I don't think it had anything to do with what I said.

So with that in mind, what did you mean about "choices and consequences"? It sounded like you were saying that choices and consequences were an argument for one skill system over another, but then you come and agree with me when I say they're orthogonal to mechanics, so now I don't know what the context was supposed to be.

[DemoGraph]

Need commonsense dialogue control, RPG developers aren't allowed to use dialogue until they've proven they can make an RPG without any.

I suggest drafting failed devs in Russian army.

Are you trying to turn the Russian army gay so it matches the American army?

The forest belts won't capture themselves!

sometimes you say things that make me suddenly realize I don't know what you're arguing about and I don't think it had anything to do with what I said.

Nah, I sometimes have the same problem during arguments in Russian. I tend to skip intermediate links in a chain of thought, because they're "obvious"; it often turns out that they are not. I've tried to overcome this by going into more detailed descriptions if I thought that the topic was hard - but then I've met with accusations of being too tedious.
I think it's a combination of language barrier, different backgrounds and personal quirks. I almost never have this issue when I speak with colleagues about common topics.

So with that in mind, what did you mean about "choices and consequences"? It sounded like you were saying that choices and consequences were an argument for one skill system over another, but then you come and agree with me when I say they're orthogonal to mechanics, so now I don't know what the context was supposed to be.

Let's return to your original statement.

I mean, even with social mechanics, not succeeding in getting what you want is a failure. Either you were able to do what you wanted, or you weren't. Every system inherently reduces to this, because there's no third thing; all "trade-offs" just reduce to you having to choose to want either one thing or the other, and commit to that.

Suppose that we're talking about D&D combat.
You roll to attack, you miss, you don't get what you want.
Why isn't it a problem?
Because you have a combat system that includes rerolls (additional attacks), builds (more atk or more dmg?), penalty for excessive attempts (enemy actions), maybe economic decisions (consumables, etc.). It also has enemy variability, etc.
If you roll in a dialogue you either hit, miss or reload. There's no system.
Is it a fault of a skill system as a mechanic (as opposed to, say class-based system)?
No, because there could be an interesting skill-based combat system. Just like there could be ******** class-based dialogue system. The problem lies not in a principle chosen for character building, but rather in implementation of social conflicts.

even with social mechanics, not succeeding in getting what you want is a failure. ... all "trade-offs" just reduce to you having to choose to want either one thing or the other

Are limited actions inherently bad? No, because any game is built around rules that limit freedom of action, that forces a player to choose among several options.
Absolute omnipotent freedom is boring.
The fun comes from making interesting choices (that is, meaningful and non-obvious). We actually want to limit player freedom in a meaningful way.
So trade-offs are good. Bad trade-offs are bad. Having dumb boring trade-offs isn't a feature of trade-offs, it's a feature of dumb boring devs.

[Stack of Turtles]

Suppose that we're talking about D&D combat.
You roll to attack, you miss, you don't get what you want.
Why isn't it a problem?
Because you have a combat system that includes rerolls (additional attacks), builds (more atk or more dmg?), penalty for excessive attempts (enemy actions), maybe economic decisions (consumables, etc.). It also has enemy variability, etc.
If you roll in a dialogue you either hit, miss or reload. There's no system.

Sure, but I'm talking at a more abstract level where this is exactly the same as saying: If you fight a combat, you either win, die, or reload.

I'm not even on the same planet as talking about whether the combat system is more "fun" here. My point is just that I understand Norfleet to be saying that "particular interaction is gated on a skill check" is the same thing as "getting past a combat is gated on having enough dps to kill the enemy", and I agree with that. You either do, or do not. If you have the opportunity to keep rerolling, for example, that just lowers the minimum threshold success chance you need to pass the encounter according to your level of patience.

[DemoGraph]

If you fight a combat, you either win, die, or reload.

Let's make it even more abstract. If you play a game, you either win, lose, or quit.

My point is just that I understand Norfleet to be saying that "particular interaction is gated on a skill check" is the same thing as "getting past a combat is gated on having enough dps to kill the enemy", and I agree with that. You either do, or do not.

And I agree with this. There's no game. But it's not a problem of mechanics (a "class" in programming sense), it's a problem of their implementation (a programming instance).

[Stack of Turtles]

If you fight a combat, you either win, die, or reload.

Let's make it even more abstract. If you play a game, you either win, lose, or quit.

Yes, now you're getting it.

That's why Norfleet referred to skills as a "build tax". You always have to bring, as a minimum, what you need to win the game. And, since it's a game, anything you don't need doesn't really matter. In that context, what he said makes perfect sense.

[DemoGraph]

You always have to bring, as a minimum, what you need to win the game. And, since it's a game, anything you don't need doesn't really matter.

And, since it's a game, anything you do in it doesn't really matter.
For me the goal of the game is the process, not the end result. The result is fleeting, the process is eternal.
It's like sex. If your only goal is to orgasm, woman is excessive.

[Oyster Sauce]

Any examples of RPGs that actually support partially specializing and/or hybrid non-combat characters?

Ones with bank alts. HM slaves in Pokemon.

[Stack of Turtles]

It's like sex. If your only goal is to orgasm, woman is excessive.

That's why people who don't want kids are inherently gay, yeah.

[Norfleet]

Suppose that we're talking about D&D combat.
You roll to attack, you miss, you don't get what you want.
Why isn't it a problem?

Because you have a combat system that includes rerolls (additional attacks), builds (more atk or more dmg?), penalty for excessive attempts (enemy actions), maybe economic decisions (consumables, etc.).

Mostly because an attack in combat is a micro-event. Although people still savescum that, it's not really considered as "necessary", as the result of a single combat roll is not especially consequential (outside of save-or-die oneshot cheese). In contrast, skillchecks tend to be do-or-die moments. Either you pass them, or entire sections of game get closed to you. Which, of course, is not what you bothered buying the skill for, and thus the entire point of the playthrough has been invalidated.

[maidenhaver]

RPGs are imsims where the game lets you do an imsim thing, but the devs decide they don't want you to and script you out of choices.