RPGs that do stealing right.

[Acrux]

I hate to be the one to break it to you but being good at video games means absolutely nothing.

How dare you

[Xenich]

How do you make an RTS "fun" for people who don't like "RTS"? Well... Modern day solution is to turn the RTS into some other style so people who don't like them can have fun, there by destroying the entire point of an RTS in the first place.

Maybe games should be developed to more logical standards rather than being created to chase after useless terms like "entertainment" that are so vaguely subjective they are pointless? Maybe players should take responsibility in determining the systems and styles of games they enjoy and select accordingly? Then maybe we can avoid games like BG3 (based on a game type system, designed for a specific style of play) which spent a lot of their time trying to attend to a focus of play that detracted from the core concepts of the series in the first place? For what? To appeal to those who wanted to see less "game play" and more "sex play"? Then we wonder why every game out there is shit. /boggle

[Norfleet]

Honestly, the core flaw of stealing in RPGs is that it's similar to the core flaw of many other games: An outcome is determined, often randomly and without any player agency, and one of these outcomes is not interesting to actually continue playing at minimum and effectively ends your game at worst. If a system isn't going to lead to an interesting and playable outcome, it's effectively the same as a game over, and it's worst when the player has no agency in actually reaching this outcome so the act of continuing your game is effectively contingent on save-scumming because RNG checks without player agency effectively offer no other choice if you actually want to use this mechanic at all.

Consider two options: In one game, there's a live action sword fight. If I win, the game progresses. If I lose, I die, the game ends, and I have to reload. But win or lose, I've still gained something since I am practicing how to be a better swordfighter in this game. In another game, the encounter is resolved through a skill check driven by RNG. If I succeed, I get to keep playing. If I fail, I die and have to reload the game. This isn't entertaining anymore because I no longer have any real agency over the outcome and there is no actual gameplay. Savescumming IS the game now.

This, incidentally, is why RPGs kinda fail in this way in vidya games. A DM will make sure any outcome leads to an interesting game. The computer can't do that.

[rusty_shackleford]

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

[Xenich]

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

Well, certainly there are some difficulties between the adaption of such systems. I don't have a problem being caught, if there is depth in it. To be honest, I will often forego characters who can steal simply because a lot of systems handle it so poorly, but I do enjoy a good system where there is benefit from stealing, but also consequences that can shape the games direction, maybe even producing positive results (ie, you get caught, and the local syndicate hears and it opens up some quest lines that would not appear otherwise).

edit:

Oh and other games that have layered implementations that happen over time. Like Diseases for instance, when you get it.. it may not be removable immediately, it causes hardship, but it can be later removed through a quest, or if kept it runs it course and eventually turns you into something that has both negatives and positives to the character.

Even traps that have additional game play involved. Maybe a teleport trap that would normally kill you, but if you pass your save places you in a room only accessible through the trap that expands the dungeon, or a series of them having to be triggered to set a condition which opens an additional room. Work this into the save system with a screen that pops up saying "continue or reload save" and if you "continue" it hard copies your save to that point (ie no going back, you are committed and the result could be good... as described above, or bad... meaning dead end, damage, etc...)

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon

Sometimes in dungeons (which are randomly generated like in Diablo), you will stumble across a Kecleon trader who has items laid out on his 3x3 carpet. To trade, you walk onto the carpet, pick up the item you want, and leave an item down in its place on the carpet. However, if you walk off the carpet having taken an item without having dropped an item in return, the Kecleon will turn hostile and will start ripping you apart. He is extremely difficult to beat. If you want to steal, better hope you're near an exit to another floor so you can escape before you die.

[Norfleet]

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

And also because your DM will see to it that the outcome is interesting because "the game is now unplayable" isn't an outcome anyone wants. Whereas CRPGs aren't designed around making an interesting, playable path for every possible outcome.

[WhiteShark]

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

And also because your DM will see to it that the outcome is interesting because "the game is now unplayable" isn't an outcome anyone wants. Whereas CRPGs aren't designed around making an interesting, playable path for every possible outcome.

And even if the outcome is 'you die', that just means you make a new character—the world goes on.

[Norfleet]

And even if the outcome is 'you die', that just means you make a new character—the world goes on.

Although usually, leading that quickly to a "You Die" outcome suggests the player was fucking around and is now finding out, rather than simply failing a skill check.

[rusty_shackleford]

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

I've seen a couple(?) people talk about policing how other people play, and it's not that at all. It's about policing the genre. You can cheat as much as you want as long as it's not the standard option offered by default.
It's inarguable that CRPGs would be better right now if they had different ways of persistence. As proof, I'll offer both the Dark Souls/Elden Ring games and things like KCD/Fallout 4 survival mode. All of these improve the gameplay experience, making choices permanent makes them important.

This is in fact the most stealable mechanic from roguelikes: Consequence Persistence.

When people talk about permadeath, they talk about us three being mean. 'Oh, they wanted to make it extra hard, so they threw in permadeath.' … permadeath is an example of 'consequence persistence.' … Do I read this scroll, do I drink this potion? I don't know. It might be good. It might be bad. If I can save the game and then drink the potion and—oh, it's bad-then I restore the game and I don't drink the potion. That entire game mechanic just completely goes away. So that was a whole reason why once you have taken an action and a consequence has happened, there's no way to go back and undo it.
…
The good stuff is just as permanent as the bad stuff.

It's also why early MMOs were so damn memorable. Your choices mattered, a lot. They were frequently permanent.

[Tweed]

There was a genuine sense of terror the first couple of times someone tried to kill me in UO. Once I learned how to fight and realized that most of these people act like niggers and run the minute you fight back, it became fun instead.

[Tweed]

On that note, I don't know if UO did it right, but it handled stealing in an interesting manner. Thieving was broken up into two skills, Snooping and Stealing. Snooping let you peek into other people's bags without being noticed while Stealing did the deed. If you just used your steal skill on a mark without picking a specific item in the bag it would randomly try to take something. As I recall difficulty was based on item weight and bag depth so back in the good old days most people would keep their valuables several bags deep and often cover them with something like a robe to make it harder for a pickpocket to get at them.

Keep in mind that in the good old days your inventory would shuffle around every time you crossed a server line, but these die-hards would readjust their bags every time.

People also worked in pairs at banks. One guy wearing almost nothing would walk up to a mark and try to nick something valuable and then pass it off to his friend before the victim could call the guards. Only a caught pickpocket becomes valid to attack, not his friend.

[Xenich]

On that note, I don't know if UO did it right, but it handled stealing in an interesting manner. Thieving was broken up into two skills, Snooping and Stealing. Snooping let you peek into other people's bags without being noticed while Stealing did the deed. If you just used your steal skill on a mark without picking a specific item in the bag it would randomly try to take something. As I recall difficulty was based on item weight and bag depth so back in the good old days most people would keep their valuables several bags deep and often cover them with something like a robe to make it harder for a pickpocket to get at them.

Keep in mind that in the good old days your inventory would shuffle around every time you crossed a server line, but these die-hards would readjust their bags every time.

People also worked in pairs at banks. One guy wearing almost nothing would walk up to a mark and try to nick something valuable and then pass it off to his friend before the victim could call the guards. Only a caught pickpocket becomes valid to attack, not his friend.

Yeah, it was interesting though I gave up UO due to the problems of the game leaking IP information and then people going around IP bombing to freeze people so they could kill them and take their equipment.

[aweigh]

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

Another problem solved by Wizardry/Elminage style item slot inventories, where each character can only have a specific amount of items slotted into their inventories, and this can change depending on the race, level or class (or some other variable).

Don't really need to worry about the player becoming rich from selling $1 junk items en masse when a player only has 9 inventory slots, and he needs at least 4 potiuons of dios and 1 potion of latumofis, and in Elminage the early game is characterized by also needing to carry around magic maps which function as an itemized version of the Dumapic spell, otherwise you need to draw the map yourself.

My point is when inventory slots are limited and you can't stack things suddenly it's very hard for the player to become rich by selling piles of junk. It also incentivizes making hard strategic decisions about what you're carrying into and out of the field as well. You might even be forced to leave behind something potentially useful in favor of carrying more amounts of another item you might need more immediately.

Also everything you mentioned about character death and permanency in choices was already done by Wizardry and Elminage long ago. Wizardry saves the game state with every step (or second, not actually sure), and it also auto-saves during battle so you can't just turn the computer off when you get wiped. (Though back in the day there were methods of yanking out the game floppy before it saved if you knew you were about to get wiped).

Elminage eased up on the saving however, you can save at will, but character deaths can still be permanent. Resurrections aren't guaranteed either. And your characters can also die of old age as well. One of my favorite Elminage moments was having to rescue my original party with my second party because my original party became trapped inside a dungeon floor too difficult for them, which disallowed magical teleportion. It was a mistake of my own doing, but the game doesn't end just because your characters are fucked, you can create new characters and even go rescue the old ones if you want, which is what I did. Then my party became a hybrid of old and new characters. That sense of danger is very intoxicating, it makes you weigh your decisions more carefully, especially when a moment of greed might very well cause your party to get wiped by a trapped treasure chest.

[Norfleet]

That doesn't actually make it harder, it just makes it more tedious since you run out of cargo space and have to RTB that much faster.

[Xenich]

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

Another problem solved by Wizardry/Elminage style item slot inventories, where each character can only have a specific amount of items slotted into their inventories, and this can change depending on the race, level or class (or some other variable).

Don't really need to worry about the player becoming rich from selling $1 junk items en masse when a player only has 9 inventory slots, and he needs at least 4 potiuons of dios and 1 potion of latumofis, and in Elminage the early game is characterized by also needing to carry around magic maps which function as an itemized version of the Dumapic spell, otherwise you need to draw the map yourself.

My point is when inventory slots are limited and you can't stack things suddenly it's very hard for the player to become rich by selling piles of junk. It also incentivizes making hard strategic decisions about what you're carrying into and out of the field as well. You might even be forced to leave behind something potentially useful in favor of carrying more amounts of another item you might need more immediately.

Also everything you mentioned about character death and permanency in choices was already done by Wizardry and Elminage long ago. Wizardry saves the game state with every step (or second, not actually sure), and it also auto-saves during battle so you can't just turn the computer off when you get wiped. (Though back in the day there were methods of yanking out the game floppy before it saved if you knew you were about to get wiped).

Elminage eased up on the saving however, you can save at will, but character deaths can still be permanent. Resurrections aren't guaranteed either. And your characters can also die of old age as well. One of my favorite Elminage moments was having to rescue my original party with my second party because my original party became trapped inside a dungeon floor too difficult for them, which disallowed magical teleportion. It was a mistake of my own doing, but the game doesn't end just because your characters are fucked, you can create new characters and even go rescue the old ones if you want, which is what I did. Then my party became a hybrid of old and new characters. That sense of danger is very intoxicating, it makes you weigh your decisions more carefully, especially when a moment of greed might very well cause your party to get wiped by a trapped treasure chest.

Doesn't weight restrictions solve this (if implemented as they should be)? I mean, early games used to be a lot more sensible in this (within practicality of game play), but if one were truly wanting to see this implemented, simply putting a more realistic twist on weight would be fine. I knew GM's who would not only calculate weight accordingly, but mass and then factor this into things like moving silently, being able to get through cramped spaces, swimming, jumping, and being able to use various combat abilities and skills. Problem is, many people find weight to be too much of a burden (no pun intended), yet that simple concept kept a lot of other systems in check because of it.

That doesn't actually make it harder, it just makes it more tedious since you run out of cargo space and have to RTB that much faster.

While I understand on that point, I think "tedious" has been used far too loosely to describe game mechanics that were important to over all game balance. Once you start poking holes, things are bound to start leaking and todays systems are one huge sift of problems.

[aweigh]

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

Another problem solved by Wizardry/Elminage style item slot inventories, where each character can only have a specific amount of items slotted into their inventories, and this can change depending on the race, level or class (or some other variable).

Don't really need to worry about the player becoming rich from selling $1 junk items en masse when a player only has 9 inventory slots, and he needs at least 4 potiuons of dios and 1 potion of latumofis, and in Elminage the early game is characterized by also needing to carry around magic maps which function as an itemized version of the Dumapic spell, otherwise you need to draw the map yourself.

My point is when inventory slots are limited and you can't stack things suddenly it's very hard for the player to become rich by selling piles of junk. It also incentivizes making hard strategic decisions about what you're carrying into and out of the field as well. You might even be forced to leave behind something potentially useful in favor of carrying more amounts of another item you might need more immediately.

Also everything you mentioned about character death and permanency in choices was already done by Wizardry and Elminage long ago. Wizardry saves the game state with every step (or second, not actually sure), and it also auto-saves during battle so you can't just turn the computer off when you get wiped. (Though back in the day there were methods of yanking out the game floppy before it saved if you knew you were about to get wiped).

Elminage eased up on the saving however, you can save at will, but character deaths can still be permanent. Resurrections aren't guaranteed either. And your characters can also die of old age as well. One of my favorite Elminage moments was having to rescue my original party with my second party because my original party became trapped inside a dungeon floor too difficult for them, which disallowed magical teleportion. It was a mistake of my own doing, but the game doesn't end just because your characters are fucked, you can create new characters and even go rescue the old ones if you want, which is what I did. Then my party became a hybrid of old and new characters. That sense of danger is very intoxicating, it makes you weigh your decisions more carefully, especially when a moment of greed might very well cause your party to get wiped by a trapped treasure chest.

Doesn't weight restrictions solve this (if implemented as they should be)? I mean, early games used to be a lot more sensible in this (within practicality of game play), but if one were truly wanting to see this implemented, simply putting a more realistic twist on weight would be fine. I knew GM's who would not only calculate weight accordingly, but mass and then factor this into things like moving silently, being able to get through cramped spaces, swimming, jumping, and being able to use various combat abilities and skills. Problem is, many people find weight to be too much of a burden (no pun intended), yet that simple concept kept a lot of other systems in check because of it.

That doesn't actually make it harder, it just makes it more tedious since you run out of cargo space and have to RTB that much faster.

While I understand on that point, I think "tedious" has been used far too loosely to describe game mechanics that were important to over all game balance. Once you start poking holes, things are bound to start leaking and todays systems are one huge sift of problems.

I don't like weight mechanics because inevitably they lead to tying weight to an attribute, usually Strength. This is degenerate design, IMO.

Also it takes up more of the player's time, calculating pounds and seeing if they can squeeze in an extra pound or two. I don't like anything that might make a specific attribute or class "essential", like 'gotta have a high STR guy to carry everything'. I think it detracts, negative-depth.

[Xenich]

Another problem solved by Wizardry/Elminage style item slot inventories, where each character can only have a specific amount of items slotted into their inventories, and this can change depending on the race, level or class (or some other variable).

Don't really need to worry about the player becoming rich from selling $1 junk items en masse when a player only has 9 inventory slots, and he needs at least 4 potiuons of dios and 1 potion of latumofis, and in Elminage the early game is characterized by also needing to carry around magic maps which function as an itemized version of the Dumapic spell, otherwise you need to draw the map yourself.

My point is when inventory slots are limited and you can't stack things suddenly it's very hard for the player to become rich by selling piles of junk. It also incentivizes making hard strategic decisions about what you're carrying into and out of the field as well. You might even be forced to leave behind something potentially useful in favor of carrying more amounts of another item you might need more immediately.

Also everything you mentioned about character death and permanency in choices was already done by Wizardry and Elminage long ago. Wizardry saves the game state with every step (or second, not actually sure), and it also auto-saves during battle so you can't just turn the computer off when you get wiped. (Though back in the day there were methods of yanking out the game floppy before it saved if you knew you were about to get wiped).

Elminage eased up on the saving however, you can save at will, but character deaths can still be permanent. Resurrections aren't guaranteed either. And your characters can also die of old age as well. One of my favorite Elminage moments was having to rescue my original party with my second party because my original party became trapped inside a dungeon floor too difficult for them, which disallowed magical teleportion. It was a mistake of my own doing, but the game doesn't end just because your characters are fucked, you can create new characters and even go rescue the old ones if you want, which is what I did. Then my party became a hybrid of old and new characters. That sense of danger is very intoxicating, it makes you weigh your decisions more carefully, especially when a moment of greed might very well cause your party to get wiped by a trapped treasure chest.

Doesn't weight restrictions solve this (if implemented as they should be)? I mean, early games used to be a lot more sensible in this (within practicality of game play), but if one were truly wanting to see this implemented, simply putting a more realistic twist on weight would be fine. I knew GM's who would not only calculate weight accordingly, but mass and then factor this into things like moving silently, being able to get through cramped spaces, swimming, jumping, and being able to use various combat abilities and skills. Problem is, many people find weight to be too much of a burden (no pun intended), yet that simple concept kept a lot of other systems in check because of it.

That doesn't actually make it harder, it just makes it more tedious since you run out of cargo space and have to RTB that much faster.

While I understand on that point, I think "tedious" has been used far too loosely to describe game mechanics that were important to over all game balance. Once you start poking holes, things are bound to start leaking and todays systems are one huge sift of problems.

I don't like weight mechanics because inevitably they lead to tying weight to an attribute, usually Strength. This is degenerate design, IMO.

Also it takes up more of the player's time, calculating pounds and seeing if they can squeeze in an extra pound or two. I don't like anything that might make a specific attribute or class "essential", like 'gotta have a high STR guy to carry everything'. I think it detracts, negative-depth.

Yeah it is a logical thing to attach it to though. I mean, while real armor is quite well balanced, if you are a weakling, you won't be walking around in it, not to mention swinging a great sword, great axe, or halberd. Seems odd to have strength tied to so many logical conditions, then opt out of it for the natural progression of carrying something. I mean, I understand your practical argument, but with a slot based system, you could have a weakling carrying around 15 full set plate armor which at that point, doesn't simply sound odd, but rather contradictory to the entire games believability. Yes, I understand its fantasy, but even in AD&D a level of realism was at the center of its design, otherwise it was just D&D for larping.

[Norfleet]

While I understand on that point, I think "tedious" has been used far too loosely to describe game mechanics that were important to over all game balance. Once you start poking holes, things are bound to start leaking and todays systems are one huge sift of problems.

When I say "tedious", I mean, "a game behavior that purely drags down playflow without actually acting as an actual mechanical counter". Since in 99% of cases, there is no actual drawback beyond having to do a lot of extra walking and enduring load screens to having to RTB due to running out of space (after all, continuing and NOT getting any loot is just as purposeless), all this adds is busywork for the player without actually doing anything to the game balance. This just creates a wider performance gap between players willing to suffer through the tedium and those unwilling to do so, who then operate at reduced efficiency. Vast performance gaps between players makes balancing the game that much harder, if you can expect a player willing to eat the tedium to end up 10x richer and possibly thus better equipped than the impatient player who forfeits all his loot. "Tedium" is what separates the performance gap between a player opting not to engage in boring scutwork vs. someone who doesn't care and does it all. For instance, JA2's "looting from the map screen" is an anti-tedium mechanic. Rather than forcing the player to manually drive the character around the map to manually locate and pick up every single item of loot, once the map is secured, any unclaimed item on the map can simply be accessed from the overworld loot screen. It makes the process NON-tedious. The game doesn't mechanically change, but the process of interacting with it is a lot less annoying and time-consuming of the player's personal time.

In the context of a D&D game, the player should no longer need to manually pick up every piece of dungeon loot while exploring and clearing the dungeon, nor figure out what he needs to leave behind: He simply clears the dungeon, and then from the overworld screen, you decide what to load onto the donkeys afterwards.

[Xenich]

While I understand on that point, I think "tedious" has been used far too loosely to describe game mechanics that were important to over all game balance. Once you start poking holes, things are bound to start leaking and todays systems are one huge sift of problems.

When I say "tedious", I mean, "a game behavior that purely drags down playflow without actually acting as an actual mechanical counter". Since in 99% of cases, there is no actual drawback beyond having to do a lot of extra walking and enduring load screens to having to RTB due to running out of space (after all, continuing and NOT getting any loot is just as purposeless), all this adds is busywork for the player without actually doing anything to the game balance. This just creates a wider performance gap between players willing to suffer through the tedium and those unwilling to do so, who then operate at reduced efficiency. Vast performance gaps between players makes balancing the game that much harder, if you can expect a player willing to eat the tedium to end up 10x richer and possibly thus better equipped than the impatient player who forfeits all his loot. "Tedium" is what separates the performance gap between a player opting not to engage in boring scutwork vs. someone who doesn't care and does it all. For instance, JA2's "looting from the map screen" is an anti-tedium mechanic. Rather than forcing the player to manually drive the character around the map to manually locate and pick up every single item of loot, once the map is secured, any unclaimed item on the map can simply be accessed from the overworld loot screen. It makes the process NON-tedious. The game doesn't mechanically change, but the process of interacting with it is a lot less annoying and time-consuming of the player's personal time.

In the context of a D&D game, the player should no longer need to manually pick up every piece of dungeon loot while exploring and clearing the dungeon, nor figure out what he needs to leave behind: He simply clears the dungeon, and then from the overworld screen, you decide what to load onto the donkeys afterwards.

Matter of perspective though. What you see as taking you too much time to get around it, I see as a natural barrier to reasonable play. That is, if a person really wants to "grind" themselves to death to pinch every penny, well... if that is something they are willing to do, I guess that is what they will do, but I don't consider such min/max level of grinding to maximize currency as reasonable play. The enjoyment isn't lost, its just a hassle for those who don't want to have to make a decision on the issue (ie they want all the cash and none of the consequence). That is exactly what I mean though in terms of "tedious" being used to justify a change that really only serves an individuals tolerance or personal goals within the game.

edit:

blah blah blah (I cut out all the long windedness)

[aweigh]

Yeah it is a logical thing to attach it to though. I mean, while real armor is quite well balanced, if you are a weakling, you won't be walking around in it, not to mention swinging a great sword, great axe, or halberd. Seems odd to have strength tied to so many logical conditions, then opt out of it for the natural progression of carrying something. I mean, I understand your practical argument, but with a slot based system, you could have a weakling carrying around 15 full set plate armor which at that point, doesn't simply sound odd, but rather contradictory to the entire games believability. Yes, I understand its fantasy, but even in AD&D a level of realism was at the center of its design, otherwise it was just D&D for larping.

I'm against 'realism'. I belive the very foundation of RPGs is abstraction. Hit points. Armor class. Chance to hit. Inventories. Turns. Encounters.

Abstraction is the lifeblood of the RPG. The more you chase 'realism' the less of an RPG it becomes.

[Xenich]

Yeah it is a logical thing to attach it to though. I mean, while real armor is quite well balanced, if you are a weakling, you won't be walking around in it, not to mention swinging a great sword, great axe, or halberd. Seems odd to have strength tied to so many logical conditions, then opt out of it for the natural progression of carrying something. I mean, I understand your practical argument, but with a slot based system, you could have a weakling carrying around 15 full set plate armor which at that point, doesn't simply sound odd, but rather contradictory to the entire games believability. Yes, I understand its fantasy, but even in AD&D a level of realism was at the center of its design, otherwise it was just D&D for larping.

I'm against 'realism'. I belive the very foundation of RPGs is abstraction.

Well, I am not overly critical of it, but it has been a system that was in many CRPGs for decades and came from a system that took it into consideration due to its original design focus.

Ultimately, by removing weight, it created more problems that had to be solved. For the only reason that someone might grind the game excessively to overpower it. It is the same concept as Larian putting in anti-save scum code to stop people from spending hours trying to get the perfect loot. It takes a problem that only exists for certain players and makes it an issue for everyone, again.. all due to an excessive personal play style that finds such actions "inconvenient". I don't think it to be a reasonable argument for such a change.

[aweigh]

Yeah it is a logical thing to attach it to though. I mean, while real armor is quite well balanced, if you are a weakling, you won't be walking around in it, not to mention swinging a great sword, great axe, or halberd. Seems odd to have strength tied to so many logical conditions, then opt out of it for the natural progression of carrying something. I mean, I understand your practical argument, but with a slot based system, you could have a weakling carrying around 15 full set plate armor which at that point, doesn't simply sound odd, but rather contradictory to the entire games believability. Yes, I understand its fantasy, but even in AD&D a level of realism was at the center of its design, otherwise it was just D&D for larping.

I'm against 'realism'. I belive the very foundation of RPGs is abstraction.

Well, I am not overly critical of it, but it has been a system that was in many CRPGs for decades and came from a system that took it into consideration due to its original design focus.

Ultimately, by removing weight, it created more problems that had to be solved. For the only reason that someone might grind the game excessively to overpower it. It is the same concept as Larian putting in anti-save scum code to stop people from spending hours trying to get the perfect loot. It takes a problem that only exists for certain players and makes it an issue for everyone, again.. all due to an excessive personal play style that finds such actions "inconvenient". I don't think it to be a reasonable argument for such a change.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Xenich]

I'm against 'realism'. I belive the very foundation of RPGs is abstraction.

Well, I am not overly critical of it, but it has been a system that was in many CRPGs for decades and came from a system that took it into consideration due to its original design focus.

Ultimately, by removing weight, it created more problems that had to be solved. For the only reason that someone might grind the game excessively to overpower it. It is the same concept as Larian putting in anti-save scum code to stop people from spending hours trying to get the perfect loot. It takes a problem that only exists for certain players and makes it an issue for everyone, again.. all due to an excessive personal play style that finds such actions "inconvenient". I don't think it to be a reasonable argument for such a change.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, some of @Norfleet's discussion crept into my response. Basically he was saying that weight is bad because people will just take what they can carry, run back and forth selling to eventually over power the system anyway, so it is a useless feature to have in the game.

[WhiteShark]

@Norfleet is absolutely right if the game has no clock and no random encounters. The latter make it impossible to simply clear the map and then loot all. The former is the cornerstone of many game mechanics that have become lost without it. In the eternal words of Gygax,

"YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT."

In classic D&D, the only thing keeping in check many degenerate gameplay behaviors was the time cost: characters would get older, the dungeon would repopulate, food and lodging would keep costing you money, and whatever villains were about would draw ever nearer to completing their evil plans. This is why roguelikes have a hunger system: it is an inexorable 'clock' that drives the player forward and curbs tedious-yet-advantageous behaviors.

Tedium alone is not a good barrier to manage player beahvior. Those of a certain mindset will play optimally regardless of tedium and resent the developer for trying to band-aid a broken system with such half-measures. If you consider it from the PC's perspective, it becomes even more absurd: to him it's often a matter of life and death, so why would he not do the boring but optimal thing? Tedium as a barrier also tends to rob the game of real difficulty. Can an RPG really be called challenging if the option to go kill 500 goblins and become overleveled is always present? Such a game isn't challenging, only tedious.

[Tweed]

So, bout that stealing.

[krokodil]

every system in KCD is good and that includes lockpicking and pickpocketing.

[aweigh]

Can an RPG really be called challenging if the option to go kill 500 goblins and become overleveled is always present? Such a game isn't challenging, only tedious.

That's the elegance of Wizardry/Elminage mechanics, and to a lesser extent of Dragon Quest mechanics as well. (We all know Dragon Quest is basically an extremely simplified form of Wizardry).

In Wizardry/Elminage there are multiple avenues for instant death, robbing or melting or destruction of weapons and armor, immunization to types of damage, powerful adversaries who have the ability to disrupt your row formation and the turn order, outright nullification of spells, preventing you from healing, etc.

What I'm saying is when the underlying foundation is so goddamn well thought-out it becomes hard to "over-level" difficulty.

Skillving up in Ibag's Tower is still going to fuck you up no matter how many levels your party has on him because that motherfucker was created for only one purpose, to fuck up your formation, disrupt the turn order and then behead half your party before you can even blink. Magical teleportation is disallowed inside the Tower so you can't just warp out, and resurrection is dependent upon several hidden variables with even a small chance of permanently turning your dead party member into ashes (i.e. permanent death). This is dependent on their Vitality, their age, their race, their level, and similar variables from the caster as well. It's one situation where you suddenly realize that having a "basic" Cleric is actually really good because they have the highest chance to resurrect dead party members, whereas your shiny "hybrid" advanced classes like the Lord or the Bishop have much less; you *need* that resurrection spell to work on this turn, you can't afford to have it fail, because on the next turn Skillving is going to fuck you up again.

There's a reason why Wizardry mechanics are 40 years old and still provide more depth than most modern RPG systems. They are elegant in their simplicity. They are lethal. You can't over-level a trap that instantly petrifies your Cleric. Remember, can't teleport. You're 12 floors away from the exit and your Cleric just got petrified by a trap. Now what?

[Tweed]

Underrail's pickpocket isn't all that great (in nutshell it's just another way to get access to items, like Mercantile), but at least it doesn't randomly lead to NPCs going hostile. If your stealing skill isn't high enough, you can't steal the item, and that's it.

It also gives you access to a bunch of unique items and oddities, as well as gives you an edge during the early sections of the game since you can rob guards for ammo.

Styg at least understands that if you don't create some form of continuity or gimmick for theft that people will just reload, so he cut out the bullshit.

Has anyone ever made an RPG where you can steal things from people who are weaker than you and they don't put up a fight?

[rusty_shackleford]

that people will just reload, so he cut out the bullshit.

By removing the reload, right?