What type of game system?

[Tychoxi]

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.

 

Yeah maybe the best way would be if it was like SPECIAL with classes, there would be the different classes each having specific set of skills. It would be akin to SPECIAL with universal attributes (or whatever they are called here) but each class would have say 15 skills, around 8 would be universal and the rest would be defined according to class, some classes would of course share some of the non-universal skills. I could also accept less skills per class (like 9 instead of 15, with 4 universal, 5 class-specific).

 

Something more akin to SPECIAL than D&D, but without the intelligence stat, at least not in the way it's used in Fallout.

 

 

ah, I so hate you! (well, not really).

[Delterius]

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.

 

Yeah, Bethesda is hardly trying to balance their character creation systems, so my fear isn't all that realistic. But it is something to ponder.

 

And I don't think I ever had any reason not to take whatever companion I wanted in the IE games. A good class system is designed with multiple roles in mind, and a good class based RPG should require most if not all of those roles. Thieves and Fighters don't (and shouldn't) do the same things, not even if you don't consider thief-specific skills.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Delterius

[oldmanpaco]

There have been sooooooo many classless games recently that I'm tired of them. I want my fighters to be fighters, mages to be mages and thieves to be useless.

[Tamerlane]

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).

While I share your distaste for the jack-of-all always being the best, I think that that largely stems from The Elder Scrolls being solo affairs. The renaissance hero is ideal in an Elder Scrolls game because you need all those things to be fully effective but you can't rely on anyone but yourself for them. In a party-based game, you're probably going to get a lot more mileage out of a bunch of min/maxed characters than six magethiefwarriors.

[Lohi]

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.

I was talking about stats more than skills. With some systems only a few types of builds are really good. The tradeoff is between "viable" and "has difficulty". But if each combination of skills was viable you'd have more choices.

 

Yes there are tradeoffs. If I drop strength to make charisma better that is a tradeoff. However by doing that I had better still end up with a viable character. Most games have you discover only later that charisma is only used in a couple places and that you're stuck with a gimped character unless you reroll. Of course on second or third replay players know this stuff but for the first time player you're really unsure what matters. I'd like a system where you can not completely gimp yourself out of ignorance because you mistakenly thought you were making some valid tradeoffs.

[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).

While I share your distaste for the jack-of-all always being the best, I think that that largely stems from The Elder Scrolls being solo affairs. The renaissance hero is ideal in an Elder Scrolls game because you need all those things to be fully effective but you can't rely on anyone but yourself for them. In a party-based game, you're probably going to get a lot more mileage out of a bunch of min/maxed characters than six magethiefwarriors.

 

I don't have any problems with a jack of trades, or even with jack of trades being one of the best choices. My issue is when there's no point to not being a jack of all trades. The game is designed around it: Skyrim guilds do not even require competence for you to become their leader, as opposed to, say, Morrowind.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Delterius

[Metabot]

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.

I was talking about stats more than skills. With some systems only a few types of builds are really good. The tradeoff is between "viable" and "has difficulty". But if each combination of skills was viable you'd have more choices.

 

Yes there are tradeoffs. If I drop strength to make charisma better that is a tradeoff. However by doing that I had better still end up with a viable character. Most games have you discover only later that charisma is only used in a couple places and that you're stuck with a gimped character unless you reroll. Of course on second or third replay players know this stuff but for the first time player you're really unsure what matters. I'd like a system where you can not completely gimp yourself out of ignorance because you mistakenly thought you were making some valid tradeoffs.

 

I guess we agree then in a way, however I think that it should still be possible to make "nonviable" characters which is simply a result of giving the player the freedom to make different characters. It could be that rather than being "nonviable" there's just a better way to make a character. Obviously there will always be the best way to make a character given what kind of character you want to make. If you make it so that no matter what you choose you're going to end up with just as good of a character that lessens the weight of your decisions. I mean if your character is simply "gimped" it doesn't mean it's nonviable, it just makes the game a little more difficult, which is fine.

[Doug Piranha]

Voted for SPECIAL, but I would like to see something like Arcanum, only more sophisticated. Diverse skills, without useless ones, more complex magic system, and more detailed and farther reaching backgrounds that act like classes.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I like AD+D but I would rather they make their own personal system that is geared to the world they are establishing. In the kickstarter Mr Sawyer refers to the use of the soul as a source of magic. This would suggest that are basing a magic system around that which is very exciting.

[Rubarack]

For myself I'd love something like 4e D&D or Final Fantasy Tactics. I loved Baldurs Gate for the tactical aspect but you were breaking the game with every decision because AD&D was never meant to be balanced. Something designed around tactical combat would be ideal for me.

[OldRPG'sAreGood]

Voted for AD+D, as I ain't a big fan of SPECIAL kind of system when it comes to a party-based game, as it wasn't really special in Fallout:Tactics. Though I don't know, it might work in a more RPG-ish game, as Tactics was more of an, well, tactic game.

[Bos_hybrid]

I enjoyed special more, but I feel as thought that's because it was used better in the FO games, rather than it being a better system. (ex low INT = dumb PC, rather than just not knowing certain things that those with high INT did)

 

Whatever Obs use I want there to be consequences for the skills/abilities we select/upgrade.

[Majek]

I don't really care, to be honest. I'll just put my trust in Josh ( and others) and take whatever i get, i know i'll like it.

[Sensuki]

I just hope it's not like Dragon Age. God that was awful combat.

[buggeer]

I simply love SPECIAL. But the main reason is the fact that I prefer having a high "speech" skill and solving all I can with this. If the game mechanics or plot will make solving everything with speech impossible I'd prefer the elder scrolls system.

[Undecaf]

I'd prefer a system similiar to SPECIAL, as I find that kind of system more rewarding to play with.

[Lapsed Pacifist]

GURPS. But out of these choices, I suppose a system like SPECIAL would have to do. I would really prefer a system with no levels at all. Instead, completing quests earns you experience points that you can invest in skills, attributes and traits. And there has to enough meaningful choices of where to put experience points to make every character different - a pure mage must have different attributes, skills and traits then a fighter or a thief. This is one area where SPECIAL produced less then optimal results (it was way too easy to make a master of everything character), and where GURPS really shines.

 

Oh, and one other thing I would really like to see is something like GURPS disadvantages - negative traits that you can pick at character creation that limit you character in some ways, but provide extra points to spend on other things. This is another thing that allows different characters to be unique.

[Monte Carlo]

Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief

 

That is all.

[Labadal]

Of the three options listed, the second one is the one I prefer for this kind of game. If I'm going to have 4-6 characters, let me choose a class for each. Or let them have pre-set classes, just make characters different from eachother. If it was an rpg with only one character, the SPECIAL system works great.

[Piekokas]

As I already stated in another post I choose SPECIAL over any other option, but adapting the SPECIAL system to a fantasy themed RPG.

About SPECIAL and party members, after playing Fallout 1 and 2, I don't see the issue here. I never had any problem making a nice party (although most times I only had 1 or 2 companions...).

[agent12345]

Something like SPECIAL, but please don't do that thing where higher INT means you get more skills to spend per level and so you end up feeling dumb if you don't max INT.

[ghostdog]

At first I voted SPECIAL, because after the Underrail demo I'm replaying fallout and I'm having a blast.

But then I remembered that I also had a lot of fun with the AD&D implementation in BG and IWD and since it's going to be a party-based RPG, classes are better IMO. Class combinations make things more interesting, since each class has its specialties and its limitations. Classless character creation is great but mainly with single player games like Fallout and Arcanum. Yes, you could have followers, but it wasn't a real party. So, AD&D, or something similar. And heaven forbid, not something like the newer D&D versions, since IMO they translate badly into video games. I believe an AD&D-like system with even more flexibility (let's not forget its limitations weren't so good for Torment) would be the best option.

 

I hope there will be enough available party members to make varied party combinations.

Edited September 16, 2012 by ghostdog

[japol]

Playing a Fantasy game with a S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system wouldn't feel right to me,beside my belief that it is a very good system.

It is just that i have associated it with the Fallout games and i would like it only in a ''modern'' themed game.

Edited September 16, 2012 by japol