Hello,

 

So, we all know what the fun and challenge of tactical combat is, but what about non-combat skills? Do you think there should be more about those skills but just one click action ? Maybe some kind of mini-games in which the statistics of your character would play an essential part ? Something that would resemble the lockpicking mini-game in principle in some other rgp's, or the hacking interface in deus ex 3 ?

 

Do you have your own idea of how those non-combat skills should work ?

No dialogue related minigames please. That just never works.

 

I'd much rather have different dialogue options (i.e. Persuade, Intimidate, Bluff... etc.) lead to slightly different outcomes, which Josh Sawyer seems to be advocating as well.

Edited September 23, 201213 yr by aVENGER

No skillrelated minigames please. "One click actions" do just fine if the results - failure or succes - are of the characters current level of competence. I also don't see why there would need to be a specific *extra* challenge other than getting high enough skill in non-combat activities. But if there would need to be such, I would go for limited attempts ("Your lack of skill has jammed the lock") and/or "tool" - i.e. lockpick - deterioration. It's not much a challenge in other way than making the player consider their chances and resources more, but I don't feel there needs to be a specific additional "player challenge". Your character is just as challenged or competent as you've made him/her to be.

 

If it then comes down to "But people will just reload and retry ad infinitum", I think that can be effectively discouraged by making the attempt take a bit of time where that's appropriate (the time being determined by skill vs task difficulty). If people would still want to go through the bore of spamming save/reload/retry, I'd say let them, if they eventually succeed, they've earned their reward (and that's something I'm not patient enough to do).

 

/2 cents

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

 

Yes.

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

 

You should think about the fact that when you are in combat, your brain is also part of the process. A good strategy in combat means victory. Success is a balance between your character statistics and your skills as a player, your ability to understand the mechanics of the gameplay and use that knowledge to succeed(try to send a mage with low hp and no armor in close combat, for example). So, the dogma of saying "I want to have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine", is something you should recognize that is limited in scope.

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

 

You should think about the fact that when you are in combat, your brain is also part of the process. A good strategy in combat means victory. Success is a balance between your character statistics and your skills as a player, your ability to understand the mechanics of the gameplay and use that knowledge to succeed(try to send a mage with low hp and no armor in close combat, for example). So, the dogma of saying "I want to have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine", is something you should recognize that is limited in scope.

 

I get to choose what my character does... but not if he succeeds.

 

In role-playing, at least in my opinion but I know many other RP'ers believe this as well, you are trying to decide what your character would do in a given situation. But you aren't trying to decide if they succeed.

 

So, using your combat example, I think my character would swing his sword. I tell the game to have my character swing his sword, and whether he hits or not is decided by his stats. I don't want to swing the sword for him (like TES games or DA2, for example, which still uses stats to determine overall effect but still.)

 

Similarly, my character comes to a computer that is encrypted. I decide that my hacker character, who has a high level of hacking skill, will try to break the encryption. Then the game decides, based on his skill, if he succeeds. I don't want to solve a word puzzle or mini-game... as fun as those can somtimes be (BioShock has ones I enjoyed) I'd rather not have them.

 

So, yes, I make DECISIONS for my character on what they will try to do. My character, I'm shaping their personality. But I'm not also acting like the master of proficiency and probability - I don't want to be my characters hand, nor the dice for that matter.

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

^--- This

 

It should be based on the characters stats / skills / traits (or whatever). You the player decide what your character should do and then your character do whatever you said... Then the stats decide if you hit, miss, fumble (hit yourself) and the enemies stats.

This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -

 

but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.

 

If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.

 

Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.

 

You should think about the fact that when you are in combat, your brain is also part of the process. A good strategy in combat means victory. Success is a balance between your character statistics and your skills as a player, your ability to understand the mechanics of the gameplay and use that knowledge to succeed(try to send a mage with low hp and no armor in close combat, for example). So, the dogma of saying "I want to have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine", is something you should recognize that is limited in scope.

 

I get to choose what my character does... but not if he succeeds.

 

In role-playing, at least in my opinion but I know many other RP'ers believe this as well, you are trying to decide what your character would do in a given situation. But you aren't trying to decide if they succeed.

 

So, using your combat example, I think my character would swing his sword. I tell the game to have my character swing his sword, and whether he hits or not is decided by his stats. I don't want to swing the sword for him (like TES games or DA2, for example, which still uses stats to determine overall effect but still.)

 

Similarly, my character comes to a computer that is encrypted. I decide that my hacker character, who has a high level of hacking skill, will try to break the encryption. Then the game decides, based on his skill, if he succeeds. I don't want to solve a word puzzle or mini-game... as fun as those can somtimes be (BioShock has ones I enjoyed) I'd rather not have them.

 

So, yes, I make DECISIONS for my character on what they will try to do. My character, I'm shaping their personality. But I'm not also acting like the master of proficiency and probability - I don't want to be my characters hand, nor the dice for that matter.

Well, what I propose with mini-games in which the stats of your character play an essential role, is kind of giving more definition, more precision to the decisions you want to give to your character, more resolution to that process. If for example you send your character to lockpick a door, you could have more control on how you want him to approach the problem, and the result would still be based on his stats.

 

I mean, when I am in combat, and when on paper my group is really too weak to win the battle, I can still try and win the battle with a good strategy (forcing the enemies to come to me one by one in a narrow hallway, focusing on the dangerous ones etc..)