Savescumming, respeccing, and cheating in RPGs

[Stack of Turtles]

"Games aren't innovative anymore and choices don't seem to have any influence on outcomes."

Also, "I'm going to keep reloading until I get the outcome I want."

Maybe bad game developers are just responding to how you already play games.

Maybe if choice wasn't between "move event forward" or "fail and end event" players wouldn't reloading until they get what they want.

Why is "all events completed" necessary? In a tabletop rpg - which crpgs are ostensibly derived from - that would never be an option.

Any ttrpg DM who would let his players miss content that was intended to be part of the game should be lynched. There's NO excuse when you have a human being who can adjust on the fly.

[rusty_shackleford]

This thread has all the energy of "You're having fun wrong!

Yes.
Where do you think this is? Reddit?

[Nooneatall]

This thread has all the energy of "You're having fun wrong!

Yes.
Where do you think this is? Reddit?

This place is pretty gay but Reddit is even worse about "you're having fun wrong." At least here I can say ****** and **** while having a pointless argument with grown men about fictional game worlds.

[rusty_shackleford]

This thread has all the energy of "You're having fun wrong!

Yes.
Where do you think this is? Reddit?

This place is pretty gay but Reddit is even worse about "you're having fun wrong." At least here I can say ****** and **** while having a pointless argument with grown men about fictional game worlds.

Reddit is explicitly about people being allowed to enjoy games however they want.
And they're wrong. There is an objectively right way to play RPGs.

[Trickster]

This place is pretty gay but Reddit is even worse about "you're having fun wrong."

True.
I was unironically banned on a whole site because I dared to say that woke **** are ruined my immersion and gameplay in Crusader Kings 3.

[rusty_shackleford]

This place is pretty gay but Reddit is even worse about "you're having fun wrong."

True.
I was unironically banned on a whole cite because I dared to say that woke this are ruined my immersion and gameplay in Crusader Kings 3.

You won't get banned, but I will tell you that you're having fun the wrong way.

[Nooneatall]

This place is pretty gay but Reddit is even worse about "you're having fun wrong."

True.
I was unironically banned on a whole cite because I dared to say that woke this are ruined my immersion and gameplay in Crusader Kings 3.

You won't get banned, but I will tell you that you're having fun the wrong way.

You can say that if you want I prefer to believe we are having fun in different ways. You are having fun by following the game rules as intended and you enjoy that and it's great. I'm having fun by breaking the rules and finding ways to subvert them. Both perfectly valid ways to be entertained (which is what games are, a form of entertainment).

[rusty_shackleford]

True.
I was unironically banned on a whole cite because I dared to say that woke this are ruined my immersion and gameplay in Crusader Kings 3.

You won't get banned, but I will tell you that you're having fun the wrong way.

You can say that if you want I prefer to believe we are having fun in different ways. You are having fun by following the game rules as intended and you enjoy that and it's great. I'm having fun by breaking the rules and finding ways to subvert them. Both perfectly valid ways to be entertained (which is what games are, a form of entertainment).

You're having less fun than if you had fun the way I do.

[Acrux]

Yes of course because I always do whatever my software tells me to do. I would never imagine modifying it to do what I want it to do. That would be sacrilegious.
Modifying software should be illegal. I would never condone someone modifying their game to remove stupid **** that's just there to pad it out so players will buy stuff from the cash shop for example.

I have no problem with modding. I mod things all the time. So, I think you're argument here must be with someone else.

That's cheating though. You aren't playing the game as originally created by the game designer.

I've never made any claims about cheating or "playing as originally intended by the designer". That argument doesn't resonate with me anyway, as game designers are all - to a man - mental midgets and extremely degenerate. Besides, I've been around the software industry long enough to know that what is shipped is rarely what was "intended" anyway.

I've only said that people should try to be more simulationist in how they play. Here's an example: Would @Kalarion's Battle Brothers playthrough be more interesting if he just reloaded every time something bad or "not optimal" happened?

Maybe if choice wasn't between "move event forward" or "fail and end event" players wouldn't reloading until they get what they want.

Why is "all events completed" necessary? In a tabletop rpg - which crpgs are ostensibly derived from - that would never be an option.

Any ttrpg DM who would let his players miss content that was intended to be part of the game should be lynched. There's NO excuse when you have a human being who can adjust on the fly.

Any DM who isn't playing a living world where things can absolutely be missed by players isn't fit to play with. If your players aren't making choices, what are they doing? Listening to the DM play out his personal fantasy?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

[WhiteShark]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

I don't know how you could possibly have arrived at this conclusion. It is the exact opposite of what they've been arguing.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

No idea how you got to this conclusion. I roleplay as the character.
In fact, I was inspired by @Dorateen's thread to consider writing notes from the POV of my character.

[fkirenicus]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

Sorry, can't help but think of the great Ken Clean-Air System. Esp. around 0:30.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

I don't know how you could possibly have arrived at this conclusion. It is the exact opposite of what they've been arguing.

Then why they are arguing against save-loading, which allows to read all options, see all cutscenes, see all outcomes?

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

I don't know how you could possibly have arrived at this conclusion. It is the exact opposite of what they've been arguing.

Then why they are arguing against save-loading, which allows to read all options, see all cutscenes, see all outcomes?

Because typically, my character does not have ESP or time traveling powers.

Altho limited ESP is a perk in one of the Fallout games. Cool idea.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I don't know how you could possibly have arrived at this conclusion. It is the exact opposite of what they've been arguing.

Then why they are arguing against save-loading, which allows to read all options, see all cutscenes, see all outcomes?

Because typically, my character does not have ESP or time traveling powers.

Altho limited ESP is a perk in one of the Fallout games. Cool idea.

I don't know what to tell you. If you are like to replay whole game to pick another option in sidequest, you do you, I don't feel fun of this.

[Stack of Turtles]

Why is "all events completed" necessary? In a tabletop rpg - which crpgs are ostensibly derived from - that would never be an option.

Any ttrpg DM who would let his players miss content that was intended to be part of the game should be lynched. There's NO excuse when you have a human being who can adjust on the fly.

Any DM who isn't playing a living world where things can absolutely be missed by players isn't fit to play with. If your players aren't making choices, what are they doing? Listening to the DM play out his personal fantasy?

What does this sentence even have to do with mine? Man, I really hate arguing with spergs.

Listen. There's no equivalence between "making choices" and "missing content that was intended to be part of the game". Let the players make choices, but make sure they will still be able to get the tools they need to continue. If the players decide to skip some dungeon that was supposed to contain an essential clue, then either come up with a better reason for them to do it or put the clue somewhere else. Worst case scenario, if you really can't manage to do better, just frankly tell them that this was supposed to be the next step and they're going to have to do it eventually. This doesn't even mean that the players have to win, it just means that you don't take the option of winning away from them purely because they didn't read your mind. And if your players are fully committed to doing something absolutely stupid like murdering the fisher-king in cold blood in front of his guards, you simply tell them the consequences they're courting.

And, lastly, yes, sometimes you may have to say "I wasn't planning on running that sort of game; if you want to do X, you'll just be doing a completely different game I didn't prepare for." If your players want to play that other game and you're willing to switch to running it instead, that's fine, but it should be understood what that means for the abandoned plot threads. You don't have to agree to run this new other game, either - if I'm running a game, I'm simply not going to be okay with it becoming a furry dating sim because the guy playing the druid decided he wants to seduce some squirrels instead of finishing a quest.

[rusty_shackleford]

Then why they are arguing against save-loading, which allows to read all options, see all cutscenes, see all outcomes?

Because typically, my character does not have ESP or time traveling powers.

Altho limited ESP is a perk in one of the Fallout games. Cool idea.

I don't know what to tell you. If you are like to replay whole game to pick another option in sidequest, you do you, I don't feel fun of this.

I just accept it's a road not taken.

[WhiteShark]

There's no equivalence between "making choices" and "missing content that was intended to be part of the game". Let the players make choices, but make sure they will still be able to get the tools they need to continue. If the players decide to skip some dungeon that was supposed to contain an essential clue, then either come up with a better reason for them to do it or put the clue somewhere else. Worst case scenario, if you really can't manage to do better, just frankly tell them that this was supposed to be the next step and they're going to have to do it eventually.

If your campaign comes to grinding halt because your players didn't find an 'essential clue', you are GMing wrong. In fact, the whole idea of a campaign that can come to a grinding halt and has things like 'essential clues' is indicative that you're GMing wrong.

[Stack of Turtles]

There's no equivalence between "making choices" and "missing content that was intended to be part of the game". Let the players make choices, but make sure they will still be able to get the tools they need to continue. If the players decide to skip some dungeon that was supposed to contain an essential clue, then either come up with a better reason for them to do it or put the clue somewhere else. Worst case scenario, if you really can't manage to do better, just frankly tell them that this was supposed to be the next step and they're going to have to do it eventually.

If your campaign comes to grinding halt because your players didn't find an 'essential clue', you are GMing wrong. In fact, the whole idea of a campaign that can come to a grinding halt and has things like 'essential clues' is indicative that you're GMing wrong.

That's what I'm saying

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Because typically, my character does not have ESP or time traveling powers.

Altho limited ESP is a perk in one of the Fallout games. Cool idea.

I don't know what to tell you. If you are like to replay whole game to pick another option in sidequest, you do you, I don't feel fun of this.

I just accept it's a road not taken.

Well, I like to see everything, try other options.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't know what to tell you. If you are like to replay whole game to pick another option in sidequest, you do you, I don't feel fun of this.

I just accept it's a road not taken.

Well, I like to see everything.

You're having fun wrong.

[WhiteShark]

That's what I'm saying

Is it? Your post made it sound as though your campaigns have things like singular, essential clues, without which the players can't progress to a necessary 'next step', all of which are antithetical to the nature of a tabletop campaign.

[Xenich]

Pre-knowledge is a cheat many often dismiss.

Knowing the entire games mechanics, progressions, optimal choices/builds, etc... (outside of basic manual information) is a knowledge cheat that greatly destroys the experience of a game regardless of how useful that knowledge is and that alone I think has been a large determent to gaming styles which has driven game design.

I think a lot of attention to secrets and the like in a game are less pursued these days due to the fact that many just read/watch complete game guides before they even play the game or they follow some pre-planned optimal play progression rather than playing the game and finding out themselves.

I look back to the games I had the most fun in and they were the ones I went into knowing nothing about outside of a quick read of the manual and found out everything as I played.

[Acrux]

I'm starting to have feelling that Rusty, Acrux and other from their camp play games exclusively for gameplay. Story, quests, visuals, graphics, style, worldbuilding do not exist for them. They don't read any dialogue, they skip all cutscenes, don't look at the surroundings.

All they do is follow the script: they see tree model on the road, they equip sword and left-click on it, nothing happened, than equip spear, left-click, nothing happened, equip axe, left-click, health point bar of a tree decreased, repeat until health point bar of a tree reaches 0 and tree model disappears from road; when they fight enemies, they don't care what creature they fight, how it looks, how it is animated, what sound it makes, they care about their health bar, the "enemy" tag and what what vulnerabilities it have when they right-clicked on an enemy and selected the "inspect" option from the drop-down menu.

Once again, I am simply arguing for more simulationist play. You are listening to the zeal of the convert, by the way. I used to reload all the time to get what I thought was supposed to be the best outcome. Trying to roll with the punches makes games much more fun.

Any ttrpg DM who would let his players miss content that was intended to be part of the game should be lynched. There's NO excuse when you have a human being who can adjust on the fly.

Any DM who isn't playing a living world where things can absolutely be missed by players isn't fit to play with. If your players aren't making choices, what are they doing? Listening to the DM play out his personal fantasy?

What does this sentence even have to do with mine?

Uh...everything.

Listen. There's no equivalence between "making choices" and "missing content that was intended to be part of the game". Let the players make choices, but make sure they will still be able to get the tools they need to continue. If the players decide to skip some dungeon that was supposed to contain an essential clue, then either come up with a better reason for them to do it or put the clue somewhere else. Worst case scenario, if you really can't manage to do better, just frankly tell them that this was supposed to be the next step and they're going to have to do it eventually. This doesn't even mean that the players have to win, it just means that you don't take the option of winning away from them purely because they didn't read your mind. And if your players are fully committed to doing something absolutely stupid like murdering the fisher-king in cold blood in front of his guards, you simply tell them the consequences they're courting.

And, lastly, yes, sometimes you may have to say "I wasn't planning on running that sort of game; if you want to do X, you'll just be doing a completely different game I didn't prepare for." If your players want to play that other game and you're willing to switch to running it instead, that's fine, but it should be understood what that means for the abandoned plot threads. You don't have to agree to run this new other game, either - if I'm running a game, I'm simply not going to be okay with it becoming a furry dating sim because the guy playing the druid decided he wants to seduce some squirrels instead of finishing a quest.

I guess you need to be more clear about what you mean by "intended to be part of the game". You are the one coming up with examples that, yes, of course a DM would change on the fly. You're not actually arguing against my points, but something you've misinterpreted.

[Stack of Turtles]

That's what I'm saying

Is it? Your post made it sound as though your campaigns have things like singular, essential clues, without which the players can't progress to a necessary 'next step', all of which are antithetical to the nature of a tabletop campaign.

Then you read it wrong.

I guess you need to be more clear about what you mean by "intended to be part of the game". You are the one coming up with examples that, yes, of course a DM would change on the fly. You're not actually arguing against my points, but something you've misinterpreted.

I wasn't "arguing against your points" in the first place, you just assumed I was...

[Faceless_Sentinel]

I just accept it's a road not taken.

Well, I like to see everything.

You're having fun wrong.

No, you having fun wrong!

[Acrux]

I guess you need to be more clear about what you mean by "intended to be part of the game". You are the one coming up with examples that, yes, of course a DM would change on the fly. You're not actually arguing against my points, but something you've misinterpreted.

I wasn't "arguing against your points" in the first place, you just assumed I was...

You literally quoted me and told me where you thought I was wrong. Are you actually ********?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Once again, I am simply arguing for more simulationist play. You are listening to the zeal of the convert, by the way. I used to reload all the time to get what I thought was supposed to be the best outcome. Trying to roll with the punches makes games much more fun.

I can't imagine how you can roll for the best outcome or safe-load for the best outcome if you don't know the whole chain of event. You need to play whole game atleast once with choices that you made to get the whole picture.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

► Show Spoiler

Screenshot_20241104-205819.png

@rusty_shackleford Two can play this game!

► Show Spoiler

Screenshot_20241104-205659.png