Player skill vs Character skill

[Lady Evenstar]

At 1 Int the PC should be too dumb to take the high int character's advice. ;-)

 

This may also be a good place to post that I'd strongly prefer that the game limit dump stats. You shouldn't be able to make a stat lower than the game is willing to punish, and I don't see it as worthwhile to spend a lot of development time on characters who should find it difficult to remember which end of their weapon to hold.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Lady Evenstar

[Merin]

I want to role-play the character. Ideally I make the character, decide said character's personality and skills, and make in-game decisions based on what I think said character would try, want to try, etc.

 

I want the game mechanics to look at the character I build and somehow judge the effectiveness of my character's actions based on the statistics of my character.

 

The only real weight of success I want on my shoulders is if I'm telling my character to do the things that fit my character concept. If "succeeding" or "winning" are important enough to me, it behooves me to pick a character concept and build that is viable to "succeed" or "win."

 

I hope that adequately explains my stance of picking "mostly based on character skill, with influence from player skills"... I'd almost pick the last option, except I cannot divorce myself from the fact that in choosing my characters personality and stats I am having at least a significant influence on how successful the character will be at tasks.

[Adauli]

Player "Skill" from chosing the right tactics/strategy but all actions should be based on the skill of the chars and not any special skill of the player.

[themanclaw]

I picked mostly player skill, as I find more enjoyment out of playing the character than the character playing me.

[Knott]

Hmm, effectively it seems to be relevant wether certain attributes/abilities are present in the game or not. F.ex. if there are no INT stat in the game, then effectively you become the brains behind the character. And in FPSrpgs, no DEX/AGI would mean those factors depend on you.

 

If a stat is included in the game however, then that stat should be relevant.

[ogrezilla]

Hmm, effectively it seems to be relevant wether certain attributes/abilities are present in the game or not. F.ex. if there are no INT stat in the game, then effectively you become the brains behind the character. And in FPSrpgs, no DEX/AGI would mean those factors depend on you.

 

If a stat is included in the game however, then that stat should be relevant.

that's a good way to look at it.

[Piccolo]

Ideally, combat in an RPG (whether it's real-time, RTwP, or turn-based) should always be character skill-based for the most part, but still very engaging and enjoyable for the player. The player should feel very involved, but their skill (whether it be twitch reflexes, tactical decisions, etc) should never override character skill.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Actually, in the OSR movement there are some really convincing arguments about concentrating on player skill. On the other hand, implementing (for example) a trap-finding method such way would a) get boring in subsequent playthroughs, b) eat up a fair amount of resources better spent elsewhere. Regardless, I think player skill is important.

[NerdBoner]

this is a rather unexpected topic from what i thought was a veteran crpg community...

 

i would hope, and assume, that player skills come into play only when solving puzzles (perhaps aided by character intellect) and when using tactics in battle...the rest of the time it should be character skill.

 

lets be real, how many of us know sh1t about tracking? i assume that will be a character skill, not a player one. (example)

[Flying Magician]

Totally on player skill. You should have known the all classic cRPGs were meant to look like modern FPPs. Only the technical limitations didn't allow for that.

[AW8]

In this kind of game? Mostly if not completely on character skill. Forcing the player to click at the right moment would just feel like an insult after spending an eternity on molding your character's skills/abilities/spells/gear/tactics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually, in the OSR movement there are some really convincing arguments about concentrating on player skill.

OSR?

 

Depending what OSR is, I might want to see these arguments.

[ilintar]

The "player skill based" approach basically either means FPP / RTS style micromanagement (combat) or minigames (non-combat).

 

Up to date, I have only seen one cRPG handle non-combat minigames correctly and that's Betrayal at Krondor (okay, on second thought, Pazaak in KoTOR also makes the list). The reason for that is that minigames might be fun and innovative the first three times you play them, but then usually become a tedious and repetitive chore. Plus, a focus on minigames in a cRPG game makes many skills that are supposed to be important for your character irrelevant, since you can usually beat the minigames anyway (hacking in Deus Ex: HR being a prime example). The BaK approach of word-locked chests was fun simply because each puzzle was different, so it presented a challenge (and the really nice touch was that the puzzles containing especially valuable items actually referenced in-game lore, so you were rewarded for exploring the game world).

 

Therefore, I think it would be better to use character skill for most checks and use player skill only for things that aren't tied to character skills anyway. As for combat, implementing sufficiently many tactical options (BaK again comes to mind with its use of positoning, LOS blocking and movement-related spells) makes combat enough player-skill based without adding unneccessary "action-rpg" elements to a classical RPG title (I'll play StarCraft if I want to practice kiting my units while casting abilities around).

Edited October 2, 2012 by ilintar

[Wintersong]

I hated all those lockpicking minigames in Mass Effect. Not really a fan of action combat like in Bethesda's games. I do suck due to lame reflexes while my character, which happens not to be me, in theory should be at least more competent than me in those skills that I don't really have but him/her supposedly has.

 

Taking the decissions about what weapon use, which items, training of new skills, conversation choices or combat tactics, is ok to be controlled by me (it would be some kind of movie if not!). But stuff like swinging the sword and such? My character is the expert one.

 

I do agree with the knowledge/intelligence of my character limiting some of my options though, like in conversations for example.