What type of game system?

[Metabot]

Mind you, I'm not saying they should use these exact systems, all I'm saying is which would you prefer to be the inspiration.

[Syraxis]

I kind of like class-less RPG mechanics, OTOH I feel class based mechanics with extensive customization are the better way to go.

[Tigranes]

I actually like class systems for party-based RTwP combat - it could be a flexible party system, sure, but a no-barriers system like SPECIAL isn't necessary when you have 6 slots in your party, and helps give more immediate shape to your team.

 

Or you could have a classless system where each character's progression is incommensurate - e.g. every NPC is so story-bound and has a unique 'soul' that they have their own path, a la Torment. That's not bad either, though that way tends to limit customisation and thus replayability quite a bit.

[Nefastus]

Agreed Tigranes. The restriction of on the fly customization and freedom that comes with class systems is more than counterbalanced by the ability to manage and develop a party. And the restriction in playstyle for a given class actually enables developers to make more interesting and unique, recruitable party-members. Personality and class often go hand and hand, and so it's hard to write a compelling, robust character that one player could play as a mage/thief and another as a barbarian.

[Humanoid]

My personal, somewhat idealistic preference would be to have a somewhat stripped down, relatively simplistic mechanics system - largely because my RP preference leans towards a more interaction-based, almost-adventure-like game. Torment for example, made very little use out of a significant proportion of the D&D ruleset, swathes of which may as well have not been implemented if not for the licence requirements. Ultima 7 was an RPG in which the player had to pay little, if any, attention to stats at all.

 

That said however, I concede that such a system in the context of what we know about this particular game, may not be such a great fit. Specifically, elements such as the desire for tactical combat and interesting party member ability diversity can be at odds with a very simplified system. So to that end, I guess my rambling is a bit off-topic.

 

 

For this game, I'm thinking something halfway between SPECIAL and Vampire - keep the separation between the hard-to-raise core stats and emphasise development in more specific vocational skills from the former; and the task-based experience gain and background-weighted skill selection of the latter.

 

The last point in particular is particularly relevant in that it sort of simulates a class-based system to ensure NPC diversity in a party-based game, without being a rigid straitjacket and forcing you to select party members based not on their character but on the meta-level of their class. *cough* Wynne

Edited September 15, 2012 by Humanoid

[Tychoxi]

I love SPECIAL.

* Classless/skillbased

* I can choose which attributes/skills (or equivalent) I drop points into during level-up.

* The way your attributes affect options and gameplay, intelligence affects your ability to process information and come with new dialogoptions or interact with machinery, perception can change what the game shows/tells us, etc.

* Skill- and stat-checks (or equivalents).

 

* Of course, since its fantasy, "Intelligence" will affect your magic instead of, say, your character's intelligence. *sigh*

* I would assume too that companions will have defined classes, so that's what we'll get probably (I don't really mind much about classes being there I must say).

Edited September 15, 2012 by Tychoxi

[Tigranes]

Ultima 7 was an RPG in which the player had to pay little, if any, attention to stats at all.

 

Which was why it had the worst combat in the history of good RPGs. Like, Superman 64 bad.

 

I see what you mean, but as you say I think it's more for adventure-y title.

 

Oh, yes, one thing I really really want to see - trainers a la Arcanum. I thought it was brilliant - expend skill points to get better in a linear fashion (e.g. increasing gun accuracy) but speak to a trainer to get nonlinear passive upgrades. Imagine if there was a nonlinear trainer system integrated in the world - that is, there are different dodge trainers who train you in different dodge bonuses, but because they pursue different schools of fighting you can't learn them all. So while you are expending skill points in dodge to become better at the core idea of dodge, you must actually explore the world, talk to trainers, ally with them, do quests with them, to decide what kind of master dodger your character becomes - e.g. at dodging arrows or swords, dodging in heavy armour, dodging 'offensively'.

 

That would end up being a pretty significnat part of the entire system though. I'd be happy with any trainer model where you don' t just earn abstracted XP and spend it.

[Skyhawk02]

I don't really like systems that involve a lot of randomness, especially for things like persuasion attempts, but even for combat its nicer if a weapon does a specific amount of damage (taking into account damage reduction, armor piercing, etc.) I hate seeing the amazing weapon I just purchased deal like, 3 damage in one hit and then 50 in another. It also makes it so that you could do the same thing over and over without changing anything until you rolled a higher number, rather than needing to use tactics to get through a battle.

[Humanoid]

The trainer idea is neat and certainly adds a bit of flavour - it doesn't have to be as specific as one trainer has one unique style, but more along the lines of regional, or school-based fashions. Think learning how to play football like a Brazilian or like an Englishman.

 

I do think that breaking down dodge like that example is being overly specific though - but that may just me my preference towards simplicity poking out. I'm thinking more along the lines of abstracting dodge into a particular combat skill, say for instance swordsmanship. A trainer from one region may emphasise a defensive armour-and-shield technique, another towards a stylish fencing-esque agile fashion, and another may emphasise a reckless berserker style.

[Metabot]

I don't really understand the antipathy to class based systems. There's a point to them. They're intentionally limiting. i voted personally for a SPECIAL like system but maybe one tuned to a party based game. I think it would force the player to make their own classes, but the game should be tuned so that the player has to create classes that work together and support each other sufficiently. Also, I don't see why intelligence in a fantasy RPG has to "only" affect magic, why can't it do both? Maybe their would be a speech or diplomacy skill as well.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Metabot

[Tigranes]

Agreed, dodge is probably not the best example, but I was just running with it. It certainly could work for more primary skills like weapons, and especially could work well with magic. It'd make a nice difference from AD&D fighters where you just click 'Level Up'.

[Metabot]

Ultima 7 was an RPG in which the player had to pay little, if any, attention to stats at all.

 

Which was why it had the worst combat in the history of good RPGs. Like, Superman 64 bad.

 

I see what you mean, but as you say I think it's more for adventure-y title.

 

Oh, yes, one thing I really really want to see - trainers a la Arcanum. I thought it was brilliant - expend skill points to get better in a linear fashion (e.g. increasing gun accuracy) but speak to a trainer to get nonlinear passive upgrades. Imagine if there was a nonlinear trainer system integrated in the world - that is, there are different dodge trainers who train you in different dodge bonuses, but because they pursue different schools of fighting you can't learn them all. So while you are expending skill points in dodge to become better at the core idea of dodge, you must actually explore the world, talk to trainers, ally with them, do quests with them, to decide what kind of master dodger your character becomes - e.g. at dodging arrows or swords, dodging in heavy armour, dodging 'offensively'.

 

That would end up being a pretty significnat part of the entire system though. I'd be happy with any trainer model where you don' t just earn abstracted XP and spend it.

 

I love the idea of regional trainers. I think that you should be limited though to one school. I had a very similar idea to make the Elder Scrolls game more interesting and to replace the perk system.

[twincast]

Depends on the party size, really.

Small party: class-less.

Large party: class-based.

In general I prefer point-buy systems over classic leveling, but I like both.

[Jozape]

Something more akin to SPECIAL than D&D, but without the intelligence stat, at least not in the way it's used in Fallout. No classes, lots of traits, some racial and background limitations like Planescape: Torment, and stats affecting everything from dialog to combat.

[Skyhawk02]

I don't really understand the antipathy to class based systems. Their's a point to them. They're intentionally limiting. i voted personally for a SPECIAL like system but maybe one tuned to a party based game. I think it would force the player to make their own classes, but the game should be tuned so that the player has to create classes that work together and support each other sufficiently. Also, I don't see why intelligence in a fantasy RPG has to "only" affect magic, why can't it do both? Maybe their would be a speech or diplomacy skill as well.

 

My problem with class based systems is that you have to make all the choices about your character before you have even played the game yet.

 

I also have a problem with the ability scores from games like Baldur's Gate because I feel like if I don't min/max then I am making an inferior character. I would appreciate a system that let's me roleplay the kind of character I want to play without punishing me for creating a poorly designed character.

[Lohi]

I like SPECIAL in some ways because I don't like pure class based systems. Though I liked GURPS better than SPECIAL. Definitely a points based system over class based.

 

Skill based ala Elder Scrolls: has problems for me because it gives you little chance to improve skills you rarely use. It rewards "practicing" by reusing a skill over and over for no good reason. Whereas a point based system like Fallout I could put points into energy weapons before I ever found one, and plenty of books out there to learn some basic engineering from.

 

D&D: ok for the 70s though. The ruleset got too weird over time I think. Too hard to create the character you want in their class system, and early D&D tried to solve with too many custom classes in Dragon magazine. Alignment I always felt was the stupidest thing ever, however I did like how Planescape: Torment handled it. I also liked how Planescape handled classes, when the nameless one changes classes there it's like remembering some of your past and forgetting others. So Planescape felt like the only place where the silly parts of D&D made sense. D&D did keep number of stats to a reasonable level though, but the later merging of skills and feats felt really cumbersome and confusing. Multi-classing seemed like an attempt to break away from classes but didn't go all the way to dumping them; plus multi-classing was used to often for minimaxing builds.

 

Fallout & SPECIAL: was ok mostly. However it felt often like you could create bad characters too easily. Ie, the game handled stupid character and could be funny, but you could severely gimp yourself this way. Some stats were dump stats and not much penalty for ignoring them. The perks systems seemed too powerful at times and were crucial to some builds. I also felt that Luck was out of place here; there were one or two stats too many.

 

Overall I'd like to see something really balanced. Ie, accepting the default stats, ie, all 5s, should allow you to have a character just as heroic and viable as a specialist who focuses only one a couple of stats. Dump stats shouldn't exist, you should always feel like you're giving up something in order to get that extra point. And going back to fallout 1, a system that allows the non-combat player to succeed is nice.

 

I was never really fond of the times in Fallout where you needed certain stats to see parts of the game. Ie, high charisma to get more quests, high luck for the random encounters, etc.

 

Then again I don't just want to see SPECIAL redone yet again. It should feel like its own system and not get in the way of the game or game play.

[WDeranged]

Something along the lines of SPECIAL would suit me fine, it's simple to understand and gives more than enough options for a computer RPG.

[Lohi]

Just a follow up. It would be interesting to have a bit of class system in the game but without a class system. Ie, if you join guilds you get access to abilities that others would not have. Fighters guild, wizards guild, etc. You could get a certain level of a skill without guild but would need affiliation with it to get the skill higher level. Guild is a bit cliched in some games, but could include things like just joining the city guard or having been in the army in the past.

 

Another way to add a bit of class system is to allow some starting templates for characters.

 

Since it will be party based, the class system is not totally out of place. You will have others who will take up the slack where you're weak. In Baldur's Gate you wanted a mix of character classes; but in Fallout you could do just fine if everyone was using small arms.

 

(On the other hand even though I say I like the skill based systems, I do know that 4 out of 5 times I play Fallout it ends up being essentially the same type of character at the end... )

[Tale]

The one thing I like about class systems is it gives them opportunities to be distinctive. The classes get to have different resource pools, ability pools, and gimmicks. You get your wizards that cast with mana, your necromancers that cast based on how many corpses are on the field, and your moneymancers cast based on how much change they can fling right at people's faces.

 

In a more unified system, each stat tends to have a specific purpose for all characters. Your magic user is intelligent, unless its healing magic, then he is wise. But what if I want a charming caster? Or a rogue who's really not as dextrous as he should be, but makes up for it with brute thuggery. He can jam a lockpick in that door so hard it'll open just to get him to leave it alone. Now, the problem with that kind of system is they have to build all those classes.

[Metabot]

The one thing I like about class systems is it gives the them opportunities to be distinctive. The classes get to have different resource pools, ability pools, and gimmicks. You get your wizards that cast with mana, your necromancers that cast based on how many corpses are on the field, and your moneymancers cast based on how much change they can fling right at people's faces.

 

Right exactly. No one character should be able to do everything. It defeats the purpose of a party.

[Metabot]

 

 

However it felt often like you could create bad characters too easily.

 

And? Choices and consequences.

 

Ie, the game handled stupid character and could be funny, but you could severely gimp yourself this way.

 

Again, and? That's the point. Give and take.

 

Some stats were dump stats and not much penalty for ignoring them.

 

That's just a matter of making all skills useful. Your previous criticisms would make skills less useful because it wouldn't matter what you picked.

 

The perks systems seemed too powerful at times

 

Another issue of fine tuning and balancing.

 

and were crucial to some builds.

 

This is another "...and?" That's exactly the point.

 

I also felt that Luck was out of place here; there were one or two stats too many.

 

Luck was useful in New Vegas at least. It's a matter of making each stat useful in some way and also a matter of making it so that if you don't have a high number in a certain stat you can't do certain things.

[Jozape]

Just a follow up. It would be interesting to have a bit of class system in the game but without a class system. Ie, if you join guilds you get access to abilities that others would not have. Fighters guild, wizards guild, etc. You could get a certain level of a skill without guild but would need affiliation with it to get the skill higher level. Guild is a bit cliched in some games, but could include things like just joining the city guard or having been in the army in the past.

 

That would be a very good way to insert 'classes' into the game. I'd love to see this kind of thing.

[Nonek]

I'd prefer a more organic systems that gave bonuses depending on ones background, the street raised urchin would have a natural affinity for rogueish skils, the foundling raised in a remote monastery would gain bonuses to lore and arcana etcetera. We then have a classless system but the npc's would still naturally excel in certain roles.

[Delterius]

My greatest fear of a class-less system is when it trancends 'Be Anything' (which is awesome) and becomes 'Be Everything Because You're Awesome' like in Skyrim (which proves that game balance in single-player games is important).

Edited September 15, 2012 by Delterius

[Humanoid]

The risk is somewhat lessened with a party though as you would naturally tend to specialise rather than generalise. And the backgrounds of each given NPC would give a nudge in the favour of such. Further, provided skill points/levels/whatever are distributed sparingly throughout the game, the character system (given that it's meant to scale into multiple games) would not have you hit the ceiling of any particular skill during the course of the first game anyway, let alone hit them *all* in the manner of Skyrim and its ilk.

 

The reverse fear I have is that I may end up having to ignore that cool thief NPC (because I will most likely be playing one) with the interestingly written personality and dialogue, and take the boring brash fighter instead, all because of a rigid class system. A classless, or loosely classed (e.g. dual-classing) system would let me instead develop that thief into some sort of swashbuckling fighter, who despite not being as tough as that burly seasoned veteran warrior, would be a valid and balanced option to take on roleplaying grounds.