Lephys

Well, to satiate your apparent fondness for technicalities, in almost any RPG's inventory system, your goal is to fit as much item value as possible (be it monetary or utility value) into the allotted space and/or allotted weight limit as possible. Therefore, it requires effort on the player's part to determine the relative values of all the items happened upon and to decide what to pass on whenever the space becomes filled in between opportunities to sell or make use of said items. In Tetris, blocks are cleared and you get a score as a reward for your object-positioning efforts. In an RPG inventory, you get money and/or item use as a reward. Throwing trash away isn't inherently a game, but if you suddenly "see if you can throw the trash away," it suddenly becomes one. If you happen to be standing right next to the trash can, then it's simply not much of a challenge. So, when you don't take technicality to the extreme in the name of ignoring someone else's reasoning in an attempt to make them seem like an idiot and make yourself feel better, the lockpicking in Fallout and Skyrim are not standalone games any more than an inventory interface. Without the existence of the rest of the game world, and the lock, and the content that's behind the lock's barrier, you aren't "winning" anything by simply moving the lockpick around and pushing a button until the interface goes away. Just like clicking to swing your sword and try to hit an enemy in Skyrim isn't a standalone game. It's a specific mechanic within the game, and the first-person view, along with the view of both of your hands and their accompanying animations are its interface. The lockpicking mechanic just happens to have a different interface. I can easily accept that you have arbitrarily decided to ignore the very definition of "engaging." However, I decided, instead, to attempt to point out your potentially unintended choice of words in lieu of deciding to assume that you voluntarily embrace irrationality. But, again, you're so busy trying to win your one-man "Who's the rightest?" competition that you've rendered my actions moot. Because, unlike being strong enough to lift an object, or possessing enough willpower to not run in terror, picking a lock is an actual process. Meeting a skill requirement doesn't change the fact that picking a lock actually requires your character to perform that process. Is it necessary to have a minigame represent that process? No. But it's equally as unnecessary to automatically assume that process shouldn't be represented at all. Which is exactly why there's generally some silly little 5-second animation associated with a lockpicking attempt, as well as the risk to fail, in a lot of RPGs that don't use any sort of "minigame" mechanic. Should PE use a separate mechanic interface for lockpicking? Maybe, maybe not. But, whether or not it should or shouldn't, or even ends up using one or doesn't, it is absolutely pointless to argue that a minigame mechanic offers only cons and no pros. If you eat a banana, and you decide you don't like bananas, that doesn't make all the nutrients you just got from that banana cease to exist. Maybe at that point you should ask "Hmm, how might I go about finding something that provides the nutrients the banana provided while also tasting good?" rather than coming to the conclusion that food is useless because it has the potential to taste bad.

Raised to the fractional power we hover! Wait... no... Humor aside, DRM is not a bad thing, in and of itself, because it is not simply one thing. It obviously has a variety of implementations. That would be like saying metal is bad because it makes guns, which kill people. That being said, a reasonable level of DRM implementation is perfectly... well, reasonable. Entering a serial key isn't any more of a pain in the butt than waiting on your popcorn in the microwave, or logging into a website profile. Some argue that this won't do any good. Well, to that I say, have you not noticed how many people in the world do "wrong" only when it's convenient? How many people, for example, will attempt to mug someone in an alley for the money in their wallet? Now, how many people will watch someone accidentally drop 50 bucks in cash, pick it up, keep it, and say nothing? Without getting into the "What are the specific numbers for all the different types of piraters (I say 'piraters' here to distinguish from 'pirates,' which are awesome and rum-filled) and their effect on the economy in bar-graph format," I can assure you that there are far more than a handful of people who take free copies of games because they are conveniently offered to them. So, yes, this specific group of people isn't going to go out of their way to edit config files and replace .exe's with cracked ones, etc. So, for 15 seconds of key-entering and verification, you stop a group of people. I think some form of that is probably reasonable, assuming it doesn't cost 8.3 million dollars to implement. But, there's definitely no need to implement some kind of shock-and-awe nuclear winter DRM system that takes a blood sample every 30 minutes to make sure you're still you while you play the game. That, without a doubt, causes some amount of people to put even more consideration into piracy than they would have without such a hugely punishing system. Thusly, I am in favor of DRM being implemented (in a reasonable manner) on post-release copies. In addition to this simple countermeasure, I agree with other sentiments here that the best countermeasure to piracy is to basically give pirates as little basis as possible to justify their actions, or for others to see their actions as justified somehow. Some people in the world kick puppies, but how many people do you think would watch a puppy being kicked and just shrug it off? Yeah, that's because puppies are awesome and adorable. They radiate waves of unkickableness. The video game industry as a whole? Not so much. Not nearly as much as a puppy. Factors are obviously a bit different with the kickstarter process, as has been mentioned. But, going back to the mugging-vs.-money-dropping example, out of all the people who would pick up that $50 and keep it, how many do you think would do that if it was one of their best friends who dropped it? Significantly fewer, I would say. Well, developers need to make sure they promote the fact (and they must make it a fact rather than a marketing gimmick) that they're working to EARN your money, not trick you out of it. The relationship between producer and consumer shouldn't be treated like a battle, as it is a symbiotic relationship. The most successful restaurants are typically the ones that serve the best food and treat their customers well, not the ones who gimmick the most people into choosing them and charge as much as they can possibly get away with while still staying in business.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest that, under the circumstances, it SHOULD'VE been the most immersive interface. I understand it's just a prototype, and, as I said, it's admirable that you've put the amount of work into it that you have. I really don't see it working well for crafting across the board, but, if it were fully hashed out and the interface were streamlined a bit, it could easily be some sort of Alchemy/Enchanting minigame-oid. Puzzle-type interfaces work pretty well with that, because our mind doesn't really have an inherent idea of how fictitious, magical components react with one another like we have with how metal is crafted into a sword. Alchemy and enchanting are more abstract processes, so connecting them to the reality of the player's interface interaction with the logical organization of a puzzle is a pretty functional solution. ^_^ This was already brought up a bit right in the last few posts, but I just wanted to express my support of the ideas.

^ I actually kind of forgot about tavern games and such, heh. I think those actually work the best when they're... I won't say "skill-based," because that suggests "twitch" mechanics to people's minds, but... effort-based? What I mean is, when the only gamblesome (that's a word now) game you implement is basically a variant of poker, in which about half the game is chance and the other half is statistics, the demographic for that game is restricted to people who happen to enjoy passing the time with chance and statistics. Since these are not traits that inherently make an RPG an RPG, I'd bet that that's a pretty small percentage of the RPG-playing populous (say that ten times fast...). Usually there's an incentive, such as the gambling mechanic. The potential to win money for your character. However, it'd probably be even better to: A) Design a game that uses a greatly reduced chance factor and involves a more enjoying challenge, and B) incorporate the minigame into some other aspects of the main game, beyond currency winnings. For example, why not have people in each town who are the reigning champ at the game, and you can challenge them to win some accessory or other item that's more useful than a sheer amount of currency? Beating one would reveal/allow you to challenge the next one in the next village, and they'd get progressively more challenging to best as you went through the game. Now, this minigame, though optional, IS actually applicable to your character's progression through the game, just like any other optional system (content that's restricted by lockpicking skill, or by speech skill/choices, etc.) I guess the only thing I'm wholeheartedly against is the intentional design of a sub-system like that to be completely inconsequential to any other system in the game (Like a poker game in which you can't even win money.). It's a bit self-defeating, as, since the only people who have any reason to partake in the minigame are those who just so happen to specifically enjoy something about that game (sort of like enjoying something that's blue simply because it's your favorite color and not because of the design or function of the object itself). It might as well be ANY minigame at this point. A little soccer game, so that people who are playing the RPG and also happen to like soccer can opt to play it. Because even if it isn't soccer, it's become arbitrary by design, and then is quite literally wasted resources. Kind of what you were saying, Umberlin, I realize. But, I guess what I'm saying is that, even though there's always going to be SOME number of players who don't particularly like a specific design decision, there has to be some other standard for deciding whether or not it works with the game. Because, if everything that everyone didn't enjoy became optional and arbitrary, the entire game would be incohesive and pointless. On the other hand, you cannot maximize variance for the sake of variance, i.e. "One guy really likes this idea, so it's totally in, u_u"

I think it's safe to say that "class" applies to those traits of a character that were voluntarily developed/chosen. Example: shyness... not associated with a class. Skill with a sword? Possibly associated with a class. You could be born with shyness, but you cannot be born with knowledge of swordplay. This would include societal titles and creeds, though. Of course, certain inherent traits might cause certain class choices to not make much sense. You couldn't have magic-o-phobia and be a wizard, just as I can't ever own a spider ranch. 8P And finally, while attire isn't necessarily associated with class choice, I would like to join the Advocates for the Existence of Pointy Hats to be Implemented Definitively group, or A.E.P.H.I.D. u_u

It's a good thing I didn't ALSO come here to post it. That would've shattered the truth of your saying. "Great minds think alike... and apparently also overly-analytical, unnecessarily wordy minds? o_O" Hehe. Sadly, I'll have to wait 'til I get home to watch it.

Really. So I take it the inventory management interface is a minigame, too, because you interact with it and things happen. You could take that out of the rest of the game and try to get items from one part of your inventory to another and have a ball all day long. You still haven't changed the definition of "engaging." You didn't find them "enjoyable." And if you can quote me stating that people must share my opinion, I'll buy you a puppy. Just because you disregard facts before you reply doesn't mean everyone else must.

When I read the thread title, and started out at the beginning, reading though, I misunderstood the OP and thought this was referring to random factors during quests and random event encounters and such. Now, having read through a good bit, I have to say that I think worrying with anything involving skill checks is just-plain not worth it. I don't see how randomizing the difficulties of locks and pickpocketing attempts on NPCs really gains the player much at all, so I don't see the need to lock those in to prevent reloading to "re-roll" that factor. That would actually encourage MORE re-rolling. Because you'd get to a dilapidated barn door with a lock that some child hand-crafted, and you'd be asking yourself "Why is this thing's difficulty check over 9,000?!" However, when it comes to random events and happenings around you(i.e. some random thief shows up and pickpockets you, and you've got to chase him down, but it could happen at any point in the game while you're in a town), I think that, assuming Obsidian decides to implement such things and has a good reason for doing so, such things should be locked. It's kind of silly to be able to reload your save from 10 seconds ago and basically "skip" the random event, then do this every single time it comes up throughout the entire playthrough, so that you effectively never have to partake in any of these random events. A system that would determine that thief-guy is going to show up the next time you enter a town or something would be easy and effective, since you wouldn't know how far back you'd need to reload to hit before that roll occurred and was stored. Meanwhile, the rest of the game is unaffected, and you can reload to get your 45 lockpicks back in your inventory to your heart's content. If random events are intentional, then causing the game to re-roll until they don't occur or until you get your preferred outcome would technically be a bug. Determining the roll that causes the event to trigger more than 5 seconds before it triggers would tackle it nicely. But, again, it really depends on the intended design of the game.

^ How's about this... What if you've got a skill check to see if your character is even CAPABLE of successfully performing a skill-requiring task (such as lockpicking). Then, if his/her skill is high enough, yet another check determines how difficult the task at hand is relative to your character's current skill. For example, if you're at 30 lockpicking (example numbers), maybe you are capable of picking up through difficulty 40 locks. However, if the lock is 30 or below, you instantly pick it. If it's 31-40, you are presented with the "minigame" interface, and the difficulty of the "minigame" is directly tied to the difference between the lock rating and your character's skill (lockpicks become less steady, sounds or visual indicators for "sweet spots" fade, etc.) Then, above 40, you cannot even ATTEMPT to pick the lock. Now, your character's skill serves a purpose and helps things make sense, as some locks require minimal effort (i.e. no effort on the player's part to pick), so you don't have to go through the motions, so to speak. The minigame mechanic would DIRECTLY represent a challenge to your character's skill level. Would that be a good method of minigame-interface implementation? The same type of system could be tailored to a crafting minigame mechanic, if the crafting system were to support one.

Well, hard mode has a precedent of adding extra enemies to encounters, and/or beefing them up. I think what Sacred_Path means is, for the sake of dynamics and replayability, it might be prudent to actually alter the specific makeup and placement of enemy groups in each playthrough. Not literally randomize it, mind you (i.e. There's a cat here instead of a bandit!), but maybe in one playthrough this room in a cave might have 2 bandits with daggers guarding a certain door in some bandit hideout, whereas, in another playthrough, there might be 2 bandits with crossbows guarding the same door, but standing significantly away from it (because of their weapon range). Just that simple change means that you can't immediately know the best way to approach that door, even if you've already played through the same area/quest/content once before. Obviously, there would be certain places where changing the positioning/composition of enemy forces would be detrimental to the story or quest setup. But, it could be randomized to a degree, and I think changing the locations and specific attributes of combatants throughout areas would be not only easier than changing the environments themselves, but also have more of an impact on the dynamics and replayability of the game.

While it may not be the most immersive interface, I can definitely see the merit in it. Also, I admire the amount of work you've put into this.

I've provided PLENTY of examples that have been largely ignored in lieu of simply stating that anything I've said is completely wrong. Maybe they haven't been 100%-ready-to-go-into-a-game write-ups, but why should I give you a 5-hour painting when you don't even like the idea in my sketch? I have gone out of my way in every single post to specifically explain that the term "minigame" can refer to a spectrum of various mechanics. I have also stated that I'm in no way referring to having full, standalone games, which is why I've been saying things such as "minigame mechanic" so much. Not to mention the fact that everyone keeps referring to the lockpicking mechanics in the Bethesda games as minigames, despite the fact that they aren't standalone games. If they weren't serving as the process for using a skill within an RPG, they would not function at all. So, yes, in that way, I have made many examples to illustrate how just such mechanics (the type of game mechanics to which I'm referring that everyone else is happily labeling "minigames") are not that much different from the dialogue mechanic, or the mechanics of combat. You want to control how your characters fight, and you wan to control how your characters converse with other characters. Why is it so silly to want to control how your characters use their skills? Lockpicking doesn't last NEARLY as long as combat, or entire dialogue conversations, yet everyone's okay with their implementation in the game. No one's opting for a simple skill check, followed by either "The NPC told you where the thief went" or "The NPC did not tell you where the thief went" in lieu of the blatantly much-more-interactive-and-enjoyable dialogue mechanic, in which you actually get to experience the process of gathering information via conversations. If you have absolutely no interest in the same thing for lockpicking, then it's moot to have any interest in a lockpicking "skill" whatsoever. It should just be a never-unsuccessful ability. Some characters get it (most likely just Rogues), and some don't. What good is the 1-100 range if there's nothing more to lockpicking than a click and a dice roll? Once you hit the right number, you can open the lock. Could you imagine having a combat skill check for determining whether or not you kill an enemy? Not even fight it... you just either kill it, or you don't even harm it at all, and it's all based on your EnemyKilling skill. You could have that enemy have some cool loot that you can only get if you kill it. There, now you have the same exact game mechanic with a different face. You just want a loot barrier? How about a solid metal door that won't open until you find the switch? Now actively searching for that switch as you make your way through content you're already making your way through equals reward, rather than grinding skill points equaling a reward. I actually find this hard to believe. I have to specify here that I'm not suggesting that some lockpicking mechanic from a previous game is THE solution to the problem. However, you seem to be aware of the recent Elder Scrolls/Fallout lockpicking system, and you can HONESTLY tell me that, side-by-side, interacting with a lock via a lockpick and actively picking the lock (regardless of how lacking you feel it was in any respect) is not, by definition, more engaging than pressing an "Unlock because my character's skill is high enough" button? "Engaging: to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons)." Feeling that it got boring too quickly or that it wasn't complex enough in the long run doesn't change the definition of words. I realize this, and I'm not even claiming to have good communication skills. However, it's difficult to cut all the explanation out of my responses when people are telling me that, even with the plethora of it I've got in there right now, I'm not being specific enough or that I need to provide examples. If I state something that I know makes some amount of sense, and someone acts as though it did not make any sense, then I must either assume I did not communicate well enough and attempt to explain further, or forfeit any attempt at being understood and saying anything further on the matter. The latter doesn't really accomplish much in a discussion. Plus, I feel like it's a bit rude to simply ignore people's replies for the sake of brevity. Thus, here I am. *sigh*

^ Your fears are understandable, and I'm not trying to be a **** here, but the reason for your fears doesn't change the fact that poll choices based on completely assorted psychological impressions of class names don't really tell us a whole lot right now. Also, you've got a point about the term "class." But, since a game is an artificial construct, intended to simulate aspects of reality, we've developed many new terms and usages for existing terms, without which it would be quite difficult to refer to games' blueprints, so-to-speak, from an external, critical standpoint. Inside the immersion barrier of the fantasy world, you probably wouldn't see anyone using the term "class" like we do when referring to the way character types are programmed. But, in an RPG, whatever your character's make up and ability/stat set, if at any point we ask ourselves to compare that character to another character, or to other possibilities for character development, we're going to run into the classification. It's an identification phenomena. If it didn't serve to organize the possibilities of character mechanics, it wouldn't serve much other use. As others have touched on, within the reality of the virtual game world, characters would not be identified by other characters by their class mechanics, but instead by more title-like labels. If you can work magic when most people cannot, then that would be an identifiyng factor. You'd be a wizard. If you make shoes, you're a cobbler. If you steal things from people, you're a Thief. Whereas, if you were just super stealthy all the time, you wouldn't necessarily be called anything. How do people KNOW just how stealthy you are? They only know what you do that identifies you to them. If you were stealthy and make precision kills on specific targets, you'd probably be called an assassin, if anyone knew you did so. So, yes, I get why you're kind of irked by "class" always being so attributed to everything. It's a lot like damage. No one would ask you, if you got stabbed in real life, how much "damage" you took. They'd ask how badly you're hurt. But, with game mechanics, we're forced to represent wounds mathematically, relative to a completely unwounded state. Therefore, we have damage. And you may not care to use damage as a basis for class differences, but that doesn't change the fact that different characters are going to have varying damage outputs. "Class" and "damage" are examples of notions that get misused a lot, but they exist for a good reason.

^ I believe JFSOCC was correcting the statement on a technicality. Randomness is an aspect of chance, so chance can't technically BE random. Chance is chance. I understand that premise. I was arguing against the idea put forth about the horde of zombies situation, in which you actively prepare for it by consolidating the town's population in the safest place in town, then set up a giant inferno trap for the zombies and lure them into it. Naturally I can't locate the section to quote now, *fail*, but it suggested an example of chance having it that either: A) Despite all of your efforts, the zombies just so happen to bypass all of your trappy bits and assault the civilians, and a bunch of them die. B) Even though you're putting all your focus into being safe, your inferno trap kills all the zombies, but then it just so happens that your fire spreads to the civilian building, again causing heavy casualties. The idea of your trap failing to ultra-efficiently dispatch the zombie horde and your having to deal directly with them in order to keep the civilians safe is splendid. The possibility of a fire breaking out and your having to go extinguish it as quickly as possible and/or get the civilians out of the building is also great. It was the suggestion that chance be directly involved in the outcome itself (i.e. the zombies bypass your trap and kill everyone, or the fire burns the building down and kills everyone simply because the building caught ablaze at all) was what I'm not in favor of. That might have not been the intention of the person who posted such examples, but they didn't make it clear that they were referring to chance producing random changes in circumstances rather than jumping straight to outcomes.

I'm not really sure how to work in the cutscene-style system, BUT, assuming they figure out a way that works, I think that would definitely be a great place to implement some minigame-ish mechanics. It should always first be decided whether or not something should have a delay. Then, if it DOES have a delay, why not make it more than a mere delay? That's exactly the "I want to use minigame mechanics to fill gaps" notion I was speaking of. I think my new motto is "Why wait when you can do?". Or, maybe I should ask Snickers if I can use "Not going anywhere for a while? Grab a minigame." Hahaha...

I am ALL for incorporating the skill check. I do not want minigames to replace anything. If anything, I want them only to fill a gap. Hence my comparisons to other systems. And I fully understand the pacing issue. But, on the other end of that spectrum (the extreme end, purely to illustrate the range inside which we must find balance), you run the risk of having everything so dedicated to keeping things fast/excitingly paced that you miss out on any variance whatsoever. I.e. dialogue with anyone in an "we're escaping from this stronghold" situation would become ludicrously short, etc. Again, obviously an extreme, but I think that means we can agree that you have to allow some degree of pace-changing or the pace, itself, becomes monotonous and unvaried. So now it comes down to where that degree is on the spectrum of "no variance" and "variance for the sake of variance". I think it can be worked out. For example, take the "we've got to escape from this stronghold" example above. It should be pretty tense in that "If we don't keep moving, we're screwed" way, right, or it won't be differentiated from any other scenario in the game where you're sitting around petting rabbits or eating at a tavern. Well, having a simple skill-check for lockpicking, for example (as you may very well run into locked things when escaping from a structure that someone who isn't your friend built intentionally to PREVENT you exiting, hence the word "escape") might actually detract from that tension. Imagine: Your party is making their way down corridor after corridor, trying their best not to attract attention. Obviously, guards are going to be pretty well posted if your enemies aren't idiots, so they can't avoid EVERYone. So you keep having to fight the the small patrol that spots you. You're maybe going about combat as efficiently as possible, though, so as not to attract EXTRA people by allowing alarms to be raised. You've gotta keep moving, gotta get out of here! The longer you stay, the more likely alarm will be raised throughout the guard ranks. You get to a locked door. "Crap, we have to get this door unlocked!" This helps the tension because A) it makes sense, and B) it's an obstacle you've got to tackle before you can keep moving. Well, "Oh, we've got a Rogue! *click* Done! Let's go!" makes it a pretty arbitrary obstacle. The only way real way to increase the tension there is to throw a bunch of guards (aka combat) in the way to delay you, OR to have the lockpicking itself delay you. Either way, if it literally takes no time whatsoever to do it, it actually detracts from the tension of the scenario. In that scenario, having the rest of the party stand guard while the Rogue has to pick the lock might actually make it more exciting. And if it's GOT to take time, I'd rather have fun with the process of picking the lock (not necessarily have it be some uber challenge) rather than just waiting. The time delay is an integral part of the tense moment, in this specific scenario, but a time delay by itself is not fun at all. Having what comes down to essentially waves of guards attacking you while you wait is at least better than waiting, but it's still not that different, by itself. So, in that scenario, I could very much see some sort of interactive process to get that lock picked. Maybe you could even lock individual tumblers in place (yes, sort of like Oblivion, although I'm not endorsing the entire Oblivion system), then pull your Rogue off the lockpicking to fight another guard patrol that may have found their way to you, then resume the lockpicking. Another thing to consider in all this is that, just because your Rogue is good enough to pick a lock, that doesn't mean that all locks are now easy. But, yes, you've got to implement additional factors for levels of complexity in minigame mechanics like that. You can't just say "Now you have to do this 5 times instead of 4." There has to be something else that wasn't even in play before. Kind of like how character progression provides you with additional abilities and strategic tools, rather than just increased stats and damage numbers that make you last longer and do things better. Or, in combat, how you've got this enemy that can knock you 20 yards into a tree, or this enemy that's really fast, or this enemy that casts spells and teleports, or this enemy who'll paralyze and poison you. Combat becomes complexly more difficult, rather than mathematically more difficult (i.e. this enemy has MORE health and does MORE damage.)

^^ Yes. We. You see, Karkarov used his human powers of perception to observe and record the fact that at least one other person registered your unexplained loathing of minigames' implementation into an RPG. There's really no need to act like he's an idiot for stating such. And yes, correct me if I'm wrong, but your explanation seems to be a circle. "I don't like minigames because they have no place in an RPG, and they have no place in an RPG because I don't like minigames." Also, to Hormalakh, I'd like to apologize for getting a little worked up, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your stance on this whole thing. Part of the reason for my misunderstanding, however, is that, despite the fact that you haven't yet stated "I absolutely hate minigame mechanics and they are stupid and inherently evil," the brunt of your replies basically inferred that you were against them in any way, shape, or fashion. This topic is essentially a "should we even attempt to figure out how to implement such mechanics? or is it hopeless and pointless?" thread, so arguing against them rather than outright saying "I think maybe they could work if they were done like such-and-such," I kind of assumed that you were suggesting they pretty much couldn't work at all. (EDIT: Agh, you made another reply while I was typing this, heh. This post didn't take into account your reply above this ^. Sorry about that.) Your last reply on the matter was extremely informative and constructive. And I wasn't trying to suggest you didn't offer constructive critique anywhere regarding other systems' repetition. But, that you did was my point exactly. That mechanics like lockpicking and crafting have a long-standing precedent for being afterthoughts, and so, are seen from the first mention in a very negative light. There are plenty of people jumping on the "No, we shouldn't even TRY to discuss how minigame mechanics could be implemented. Just NO!" argument, but you don't see people arguing that for combat or dialogue. Everyone's happy to discuss what factors to fiddle with to make those two systems more enjoyable and less repetitive, but it's difficult to get anyone to truly discuss in-depth mechanics for things such as crafting and lockpicking. And yes, I realize how difficult it is to make these mechanics as engaging and dynamic as things like combat and dialogue, but we're discussing gameplay and mechanics in the realm of what could be and what should be, since P:E is in development as we speak. So yes, I'm always for development priorities. Really, if Obsidian doesn't have time to work out any high-quality minigame mechanics for the more minor, one-dimensional (as they stand) systems in the game, then they definitely shouldn't. BUT, since we don't KNOW what they will and won't have time for, I feel that the only pointless thing to do would be to shoot down the very idea of improving upon past systems and how we might go about this. That last bit wasn't aimed directly at anything you said... I sort of expanded to the thread in general there, heh. But, I'll definitely hash out what ideas I can on how to make minigame mechanics work. I just know that they can, and it'll take some major brainstorming to figure it all out. It's just difficult to put hours of work into figuring out specific details to post when so many people aren't even open to the idea of any mechanics potentially working. It's like trying to discuss classes, and someone saying "THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY CLASSES! ". I can't discuss things with myself, so I appreciate any input and/or constructive crticism anyone can provide. (To everyone) Telling me WHY I'm mistaken or wrong gets us somewhere. Telling me only that I'm wrong gets us nowhere. I don't want to be righter than anyone. I just want to be constructive, whether I'm hitting the bulls-eye or whiffing the target.

^ It'll have what we love about the classics, but you don't have to invent a new genre of music to make a good song.

When you don't make it dynamic enough, it does. As much as I love Jacksmith, the smelting/pouring mechanic is exactly the same every single time. Unless you spasm and toss the mouse across the room, you're not going to spill the molten ore, or have any detriment to your forging process. So, the only factor there is whether or not you spasm. You don't really have to try to not spasm. You just don't do it. It's not any sort of fun challenge. Also, the blade hammering pretty much always gives you plenty of hammerings to go completely around the blade. This makes you be pretty careful, but it's exactly the same every time. So, while I admire the "crafting can be active and fun" notion behind the game, I definitely wouldn't port it straight into an RPG. However, if you were to, for example, have to hammer differently each time (maybe the cooling molten block has a different temperature grid every time, so your hammer blows cause varying effects depending on the temperature of the area you're striking, which could be color-coded much like an infra-red thermal image for simplicity's sake), now you have a dynamic system. I've said it 12 times and I'll say it again. If, after figuring out that mechanic, it becomes too tedious to repeat it a bunch of times, then the exact same logic can be applied to combat. "Oh look, bandits. Man, I've already figured out how to fight these guys and be victorious, so now fighting bandits is purely a chore and is no fun at all." And yet, I don't see anyone suggesting that combat getting duller with repetition is a good reason to not have a combat system. I acknowledge your point. I wasn't intending to suggest that the only puzzles were cardboard ones. I was only simplifying my example for the sake of not having to elaborate on the effects of the existence and differences of every single different type of puzzle. Sorry about that. But, the reason I made that example was because you went straight from "puzzles are minigames" in trying to make a point in the minigame debate, to "imagine playing the same puzzle over and over again... see? That would suck, therefore minigames must always suck." Your own correction on the variance within the group "puzzles" is counterproductive to the idea that the puzzle mechanic, in general, is monotonous. It's probably one of the most multi-faceted mechanics in existence, so it doesn't really follow that such mechanics can do nothing but produce tedium. My point was only that, if you weren't suggesting they were the only repetitive aspect, then why is no one arguing against all other things that are repeated hundreds of times in an RPG? (Combat once again... dialogue... looting...literally getting from point A to point B). That a minigame mechanic would be repetitive is not enough of a reason to completely eliminate it without eliminating all other repetitive aspects of the game. Some people aren't very good at RPG combat (managing the party and keeping people alive and efficiently taking down foes), but no one's suggesting that it's inherently wrong for combat to be mandatory to progress any part of the game's main story. Yet there should definitely never be a mechanic that could be found repetitive or tedious. And if there's a difference for combat, then I'd be happy to be informed of it. And, even not knowing the difference (if it exists), I'd like to know why it's impossible for a minigame-style mechanic to possess such a mechanic. Technically, the combat system could be considered a minigame mechanic. It's just very well integrated into the rest of the game. Or rather, whatever you want to call it, why can't you have something like the combat mechanic worked in for lockpicking or crafting or pickpocketing or whathaveyou? How is it that it's intolerable for sub-systems like lockpicking or crafting to get tedious, but the very reason it would be okay to implement any sort of mini-game mechanic would be that it's a refreshing change of pace for the whole rest of the game, which apparently gets tedious (and it's totally fine)? I smell a double-standard. Yet once more, I will point out that all Mario Party minigames are minigame mechanics, but not all minigame mechanics are Mario Party minigames. To which you will certainly respond "I'm not saying Mario Party is the only option to go with." But what you most likely won't do, if I had to guess, is explain to me why there is absolutely no possible minigame mechanic that could possibly be conceived that could serve well in an RPG environment. "Because all the examples of standalone minigames I can point out would be so terrible and tedious" is not a good reason. This game is in development, and it is not limited only to what has been produced before. It's not as if my argument is "The whole GAME should be made out of minigames! It shouldn't even be an RPG anymore! 8D". So, I don't see how "It could be done if it was done well" can possibly be wrong. I'm arguing in favor of a possibility, and yet everyone seems certain that that the IM-possibility is true, all without even trying to come up with a viable minigame mechanic before declaring it can't be done.

So, since an arbitrarily chosen minigame mechanic such as Bejeweled -- an entire standalone puzzle game designed specifically to entertainingly pass the time without contributing to any other game or game system -- would be stupid to implement as an RPG sub-system, you can somehow logically deduce that there's absolutely no way in which an RPG could have a subsystem that WASN'T arbitrarily chosen and, instead, made perfect sense and enhanced the depth of the game? Also, a puzzle is an established system. Some number of pieces of varying shapes and sizes fit together to form an image. Why on earth, with a system like that, would you be limited to "The same puzzle over and over again"? And lastly, why is it still being suggested that "minigame" mechanics are the ONLY repetitive thing in an RPG? I still have no evidence as to why "minigames" are inherently flawed. All that's been presented are specific examples of mechanics that other RPGs have used that happened to be flawed (with no suggestions on how to de-flaw them), and the fact that arbitrarily chosen puzzle game mechanics would be stupid in an RPG. Alright, so let's just have our characters automatically pick dialogue choices based on their Speech skill and Charisma rating. In fact, let's not even show the dialogue to the player. You don't need to know what was said, right? Because the success of your characters and the outcomes of their actions shouldn't have anything to do with your ability in any capacity. You're not there to play DialogueDash, right? You're there to simply pick stats and skills, then watch your characters make their journey through a giant, non-interactive cinematic sequence. Or hey, in combat, how about your characters simply pick their own targets and decide when to use which abilities. I mean, shouldn't your Level 20 Ranger know combat strategy better than you do? That's using player skill, not character skill, u_u... Do you see the flaw there? Where do you draw the line? You must want SOME degree of your own "skill" to play a part in things. Part of roleplaying is getting to enjoy the experience of WIELDING your character's skills and abilities. You sort of immerse yourself in a fantasy world, and your characters are your submarine. That's precisely why you get to read dialogue, and choose from various options based on what YOU think your character would say. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a first-person-shooter module be randomly loaded up in the middle of your cRPG. I can press a button 137 times in 10 seconds (Thank you, Mario Party, for telling me that), but I'm not suggesting we put in a mechanic that allows ONLY the people who can do that to have any success at something. But that doesn't mean that there's absolutely NO "minigame" or subsystem possible that could enhance your experience of the fantasy world via your characters without being ridiculous and/or pointless.

Hahaha. I might do that. I dunno, I guess I just sort of feel like that person who got pulled over for no reason, and the cop simply won't answer me when I ask why it is he pulled me over, ya know? "But, unless I'm mistaken, I was obeying all laws." "Nope... you weren't." "Well, which one was I breaking?" "YOU WERE JUST BREAKING THE LAW, OKAY?! NOW PAY YOUR TICKET!" Not that anyone was shouting at me in this thread. There's a pleasant lack of outright hostility here. At least that I've seen.

It would definitely be great if all enemies didn't behave in essentially the same manner. For example, a pack of wolves that's out hunting and notices you is probably going to try to attack you. Especially if you piss the wolves off. Although, you'd be surprised how much basic strategy wolves can use... But, that's beside the point. As opposed to this aggressive take, I think if you were attacking a bandit camp, and you kill a scout on the wall with an arrow, ALL The bandits suddenly rushing out of the camp straight at you, is pretty silly. Why would they do that? They have a perfectly defensible position, and they don't even know how many foes are out in the woods, or where they are. All they know is that at least ONE foe has a bow, and he's within range of their wall. Maybe they're more alert now. Maybe they send a small group of now-alert bandits to carefully make their way out a side entrance and attempt to stealthily locate you. Maybe they all take some cover from the direction the arrow seems to have stricken the man on the wall (maybe one of them has to go inspect him, first, a la "He was facing this way, and it's in his chest, therefore it came from this general direction.) Along the lines of that example, it would also be awesome if they took more than 3 milliseconds to alert each other to your presence and whereabouts. I hate it when enemies have hiveminds. Some guy sees you for a split second before you knife him in the lung, and he NEVER calls out or otherwise conveys any information to anyone else, and yet, since you didn't knife him in the back, everyone totally knows where you are now. But, I digress. That's getting into a stealth mechanic. But, it is pertinent to AI behavior. I think if you make the sets of behavior scripts varied and complex enough, you can simulate pretty awesome AI without having to program an actual sentient computer that eventually becomes Skynet. So, kiting an enraged troll? Sure. Of course, a simple way to fix that "He keeps turning around to attack the last person who attacked him" problem is to have a switch in place (let's call it "ChangeTargetWhenHit"). So, whenever he acquires a target, turn that switch off. Then, when he successfully executes at least one attack on his current target, flip the switch back on. Voila. The next attack that strikes him will cause him to change targets again. Not very elegant, but my point was only how simple it would be to break up the "I can kite everything always!" problem. The main problem with what you're suggesting is that the game doesn't have to go through the entire list of available actions every second. It first decides whether or not to attack, then, ALL options that don't coincide with its decision are ruled out. It doesn't go "Should I use a healing potion? No... Should I use a healing spell? No... Should I run away? No.. Should I enter into an idle animation? No... Should I block? No..." etc. When a player character gets attacked, what do you do? You do some math on your own. "How much damage did that do? How quickly can it be repeated? More quickly than I can kill something before fleeing, or win the entire battle? Yes? Okay, then I should probably stop taking damage." Then, you act accordingly. You don't just start thinking of all the possible things you could possibly do. At that point, there are only so many ways in which you can escape damage. Get out of enemy range, use some kind of damage-blocking ability, heal yourself, etc. So then, you check to see if you have healing potions, or sufficient mana, etc., for a heal to be useful. Again, you get to determine the priority order for checking these things ahead of time. So, when you get to a viable option, you take it, and the rest are moot. And I'm pretty sure a computer can react a little faster than a human brain when it comes to evaluating factors and executing actions.

Hahaha. Touche, salesman... touche.

That's assuming mistakenly, then. I was referring to dynamics, not random chance. As in, "because you didn't go help this screaming lady who was being attacked by zombies, you STILL saved the town, but she perished" as opposed to "you either saved the entire town, or you completely failed to save the town. These are the only two possible outcomes." Really it could be argued with 3, or 4, even, but the greater the number of outcomes, the more dynamic the gameplay becomes, in a very primitive sense. Two is just the fewest you can have without it being not a functional game. But, yes, I've actually stated that I'm against randomizing quest outcomes. Random quest BRANCHING, maybe, sure... Maybe Orcs attack the town instead of bandits, or maybe the attack comes at night instead of during the day. Randomizing the factors of your situation, or the path available to you (literally... again, I don't "path" as in "the path to peace" or anything) is fine. But, having you go out of your way to muster 50 extra troops, then somehow randomly failing to protect the town against 7 bandits is pretty rage-inducing. Just the fact that, no matter what choices you made, they just so HAPPENED to not matter. It's another thing entirely if, as part of the story, you simply cannot save a town or produce a certain quest outcome, ever.

I'm confused as to what, exactly, the boundary is, in this thread, between minigames and non-minigames. In the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, you had that little Rupee Toggle Shoot game towards the beginning that involved essentially a toggle shoot with your slingshot. That was a minigame, was it not? And yet, the only difference in gameplay between this and Link simply strolling about with his slingshot out was that a challenge was presented (moving rupees to hit) and a scoring system was set up for the purposes of that challenge (because a challenge, by definition, has rules and constraints). So, why is it that a minigame is so evil, and why are examples of things no one wants to see in the game the only things that get to be labeled as minigames? "I don't want to see my characters suddenly playing soccer, or playing Mario Party, and therefore minigames are bad." Also, why can't a game mechanic, minigame or no, incorporate both character skill AND player skill? The better your character is, the less difficult the challenge to the player. But it could still be a complex and enjoyable challenge. And who says it has to be twitch-based, or based on some other super specific skill? There are an awful lot of conclusions being drawn based on some awfully specific paramaters here. If you've got examples of minigames you think didn't work, then what would you do to those minigames to make them work better within their respective games? I would very much like to read about that, as opposed to "I ate food that tasted bad once, so now I don't eat food anymore." Why something didn't work, or why you don't like something is FAR more important than the simple fact that you didn't.