Respec?

[Aldereth]

Respec is more suitable for Action cRPG and MMO but have little place for a story driven one. Let's face it, you can come up with a plot to explain and spend the resource to develope something like dual class in AD&D rules. But a full respec would involve unlearning skill. That would kind of break the story most of the time. Beside, for a story driver cRPG, it is much more appropriate to have your character be a sum of all he has done, mistake and all.

[Rubicon]

You can say "for you" as many times as you'd like. Doesn't change the fact that respeccing is a significant step on the road to Dragon Ageism. If you want another DA - please go wait for it on DA forums. Don't try to bringing bad features into a promising project.

 

Ok, so its clear that you believe that your opinion is the one that matters and anything you disagree with should be insulted by insinuating I would have them make Dragon Age. So I suggest you don't try bringing unnecessary restrictions into a promising project.

[BasaltineBadger]

Just include it as a cheat code, and not a feature.

[Farbautisonn]

Contrary to claims above, people do respec iRL. If you stop using your skills they get rusty. If you focus on new skills you can learn. Real people are forced to retrain for new careers all the time when they're laid off or their industry goes away. If you are a physically powerful fighter, but you stop working out, your muscles will weaken. A person really could respec their physical skills (hitting with a greatsword) into mental skills (book learning) by sitting around a university getting a PHD.

 

If respec doesn't feel righ to you, then don't use it.

 

Really? Rusty means forgetting? I havent spoken french regularily in more than 10 years, but I would be fluent again in 2 to 3 months if I lived there again. On the same note I can field strip a G3 blindfolded in no time compared to person who has never encountered the rifle and I havent touched a G3 in more than 21 years. I stopped boxing thai when I was 22, and 17 years later Im slightly more chubby, but Im betting I could still beat a novice in a ring. Im now a family man, with a flat, mortgage, debt, exwife and kids. I "respecced" by your definition long ago.

 

Your skills get rusty, sure... but they do not go away. You will always have an edge in the fields you once were profecient in before, if you decide to return or have to use them again.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[PsychoBlonde]

I wish the system was flexible enough that respecialization was simply never needed. That's my ideal. Every attribute point, every skill selected, has viable utility towards progression. It's a bit of a pipedream, I understand that. But I still ask that it be aimed for as far as is reasonable.

 

This can actually be done if you create the system in such a way that you can have access to all the abilities but switch between loadouts, and most of your power customization comes from gear, so you can swap out your Frost Mage stuff for Fire Mage stuff if you're having a hard time getting into Frost Mage.

 

I have yet to see a game that makes explicit in the manual which builds are good and which aren't. Heck, this depends a lot on your personal playstyle, anyway. Some builds are good for people who like to charge in. Some builds are good for those who like to play more cautiously. Here's the thing, though--it's very difficult to tell which is which, particularly if you have a complex system with a lot of options.

 

So what if it's not "realistic". It's not "realistic" to believe that somebody would only know half the available spells or sword moves, either. Or that they progress by learning one new move at a time. Or that they can quadruple their combat effectiveness in a week. "Realism" is a null argument.

[Ieo]

From the Known Information thread:

 

Josh Sawyer on respec

Source: Somethingawful

]Things I am in favor of in RPGs:

 

* Allowing the player to respec advancement choices (e.g. skills, feats, spells, etc.) at specific points in the game.

* Tying the respec to something that is explained in the context of the world (e.g. a trainer NPC of some sort or at least a location where the character can spend time).

* Imposing a non-trivial cost to the respec.

* Tying respec capability to level of difficulty and/or game modes.

 

Things I am not in favor of:

 

* Allowing the player to respec the base aspects of a character (e.g. class, race). Especially when it comes to companions, many of these concepts are too integral to what the character is all about.

 

I have been making RPGs for 13 years. During that time, I have directly watched literally hundreds of people play these games and indirectly heard many more describe their experiences. I've seen expert players, moderately-experienced players, and people who are new to RPGs. It brings me only misery to see someone stop playing a game because they slowly realize they made an irrevocable strategic mistake due to their own ignorance, lack of experience, or even careless reading of a description.

 

I think it is good to allow advanced players to lock off respec options and I think it is good to put an in-game cost and location restrictions on when/where respec can occur, but I think it is extremely valuable tool, even for experienced players. In a system that allows myriad options, it is extremely easy for a player to make a choice that is valid and grants a benefit but does not produce the outcome they expect (e.g. produces an orthogonal rather than directly complementary/stacking benefit).

[Sacred_Path]

I guess you must be at my end of the spectrum then (= immensly enjoy character building) to just start over with a new character if you realize you've screwed up your skill selection.

[Rubicon]

Hooray Josh Sawyer! My opinion exactly!

[Gleipnir]

So, when I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation?

[Rubicon]

So, when I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation?

 

Nope! Because you are an awesome and creative gamer, and you would never lower yourself to a respec!

[Frisk]

I was able to think of one scenario where respeccing would make perfect sense in a RPG - if you have a sci-fi or cyberpunk themed game where people can "upload" skills to their brains or have a brain-interface where they could insert a "skill chip".

 

PE is not one of those games, so....

[Ieo]

So, when I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation?

 

This is a dumb question. If you failed a combat situation, then reload and try a different combat tactic--something all players (except those on Trial of Iron) should do as second nature. If it's really too difficult, then lower the difficulty setting of the game. We already know Josh's stance on the topic; he would allow respec, but not make it insta-easy.

[Althernai]

So, when I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation?

If you are at one of a few specific points in the game, you are not playing in Expert Mode or on a high difficulty and you are willing to pay the non-trivial cost associated with it, then yes. Realistically, I don't think most of the people posting in thread will ever use it.

[Farbautisonn]

From the Known Information thread:

 

Josh Sawyer on respec

Source: Somethingawful

]Things I am in favor of in RPGs:

I've seen expert players, moderately-experienced players, and people who are new to RPGs. It brings me only misery to see someone stop playing a game because they slowly realize they made an irrevocable strategic mistake due to their own ignorance, lack of experience, or even careless reading of a description.

I disagree with Sawyer here. If people quit a game because they made a mistake or because they were careless, then that should have consequenses. You dont charge a fiend at level 1 and expect to live either. I dont know any CRPGs that penalized you to the point where the game was impossible, because you couldnt respec. You just had to consider other options and other strategies.

 

I get Sawyers point though. He doesnt want to turn people away. But this game is made for fans and financed by fans. I think all of us have CRPG experience and most of us also have d20 pen and paper experience as well. Most of us fuss alot about caracter creation and put genuine thought into what we choose and do not choose. That should have benefits and drawbacks too. I dont think we should aim for a game that is by default so easy to change the odds of, to the point where any challenge becomes trivial. If people want a "respec" option make it the "easy" option on the difficulty slide. Not the vanilla experience.

[Gleipnir]

So, in conclusion. When I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation.

Never make a feature that is abusable, just because you would not abuse it.

If the cost is too much, then no one would use it.

[Ieo]

So, in conclusion. When I get into trouble with a difficult enemy, I just respec my characters to suite the situation.

Never make a feature that is abusable, just because you would not abuse it.

If the cost is too much, then no one would use it.

 

You don't read very well (i.e. at all). Answer Sawyer's ideas on implementation.

[Juneau]

For me this particular issue will all boil down to how the character creation and explanation of the skills are handled.

 

If it is well done and it's blatantly obvious that if you want to do x,y and a hint of Zeebra then you need to put your attribute points into 'these areas'. Your starting skill will do this 'insert decent description' and your race will cause you problems when you meet 'insert enemy race'.

 

In situations like this I have nothing against starting over again or sticking it out until the end.

 

Though I see no reason why the "introductory quest chain with the how to play your character" allows you to respect (Elder Scrolls Style) cannot work here.

 

 

If it turns out however that it will be impossible to fully explain what everything will do and a lot will come down to "you have to find out" then some form of skill reinvestment system should be included. As much as I want to have a challenging game I don't want to find myself 30 hours into a 170 hour total play time game and realise I royally screwed up with points because something wasn't explained and have to live with it.

 

Yes you can't respec in RL however this ISN'T real life.

[Ieo]

I disagree with Sawyer here. If people quit a game because they made a mistake or because they were careless, then that should have consequenses. You dont charge a fiend at level 1 and expect to live either. I dont know any CRPGs that penalized you to the point where the game was impossible, because you couldnt respec. You just had to consider other options and other strategies.

 

I get Sawyers point though. He doesnt want to turn people away. But this game is made for fans and financed by fans. I think all of us have CRPG experience and most of us also have d20 pen and paper experience as well. Most of us fuss alot about caracter creation and put genuine thought into what we choose and do not choose. That should have benefits and drawbacks too. I dont think we should aim for a game that is by default so easy to change the odds of, to the point where any challenge becomes trivial. If people want a "respec" option make it the "easy" option on the difficulty slide. Not the vanilla experience.

 

It really doesn't sound like he'd design a mechanic that was easy to abuse, at least; we're talking about a guy with significant high-level system design experience, not your average GM either, who's able to infer statistical player behaviors in terms of abuse and choices better than pretty much anyone on the forums here. I don't think any respect implementation should be easy, certainly--maybe you lose a whole experience level. (Realism is also never a good argument in game design, and Sawyer recently responded to that assumption directly). I think this is ultimately fine as a difficulty setting or part of a mode.

 

And I honestly don't see respeccing as a major way to "change the odds"--rather, I see speccing as a way to match player styles on the average. But I can certainly see the min-maxers trying to switch everything up.

 

Edit to add:

For me this particular issue will all boil down to how the character creation and explanation of the skills are handled.

 

If it is well done and it's blatantly obvious that if you want to do x,y and a hint of Zeebra then you need to put your attribute points into 'these areas'. Your starting skill will do this 'insert decent description' and your race will cause you problems when you meet 'insert enemy race'.

 

In situations like this I have nothing against starting over again or sticking it out until the end.

 

Though I see no reason why the "introductory quest chain with the how to play your character" allows you to respect (Elder Scrolls Style) cannot work here.

 

 

If it turns out however that it will be impossible to fully explain what everything will do and a lot will come down to "you have to find out" then some form of skill reinvestment system should be included. As much as I want to have a challenging game I don't want to find myself 30 hours into a 170 hour total play time game and realise I royally screwed up with points because something wasn't explained and have to live with it.

 

Yes you can't respec in RL however this ISN'T real life.

 

In-game tutorials are another beast (with several threads discussing the pros/cons--more controversial than I thought). But I agree that a lot will depend on how simple or complex class skills and global skills end up being; D&D has a looooot. PE may not.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Ieo

[jivex5k]

I'd like to see respec in the game, but at a significant cost of time/resources to the player.

[nikolokolus]

God i hate respec-ing. Choices should matter.

[Rubicon]

God i hate respec-ing. Choices should matter.

 

Then don't respec. Problem solved!

[LadyCrimson]

I'm not fond of easy, constant ability to respec, but I don't have any serious issue with it being available in some form. My main issue with respec is - if you use it - it does tend to lessen the desire to replay a game/build and try new characters if you can just respec your current one to check out all the options.

 

You could do something like be able to respec only a couple times, maybe at certain points in the game (like a quest reward?) or something like that. That way people still have to be somewhat careful about their choices during a playthrough, but can feel safe in terms of not having an early "mistake" make them feel like they have to start over.

[Farbautisonn]

 

It really doesn't sound like he'd design a mechanic that was easy to abuse, at least; we're talking about a guy with significant high-level system design experience, not your average GM either, who's able to infer statistical player behaviors in terms of abuse and choices better than pretty much anyone on the forums here.

I know who Sawyer is and what he has done for CRPG's thanks . Just because he is a guru doesnt mean I shouldnt be able to disagree with the guy.

 

I don't think any respect implementation should be easy, certainly--maybe you lose a whole experience level. (Realism is also never a good argument in game design, and Sawyer recently responded to that assumption directly). I think this is ultimately fine as a difficulty setting or part of a mode.

Loosing an experience level will turn alot away too . As for realism I agree with Sawyer insofar as that realism should never take away too much from the enjoyment of the game. However, having said that, disregarding realism isnt bright either. If I were the DM Id ensure some penalties that could be felt throughout the game. A minus two to STA or INT or only a partial respec, and possibly one that hindered other stuff, but thats game mechanics and subjective taste. Something that had a real and significant cost. Dropping an exp level means little when you can "farm exp" by doing every single sidequest... which most of us will likely be doing anyway, not to farm exp, but to get everything. If the drop is permanent, then yes, sure, but if its something with negliable costs it really means nothing. And at that point Ill feel like Im playing "wow".

 

And I honestly don't see respeccing as a major way to "change the odds"--rather, I see speccing as a way to match player styles on the average. But I can certainly see the min-maxers trying to switch everything up.

You answered your own concerns. Most gamers, even the pen and paper afficionados do to some extent "min/max". If there is no penalty for doing so, then the gaming experience is trivialized. Not asking for EQ esque exp drops that cost you a week or three of casual gameplay here. I just want a permanent Penalty that discourages it to the point where it is a very significant choise. Just like RL when you jump from one career to the next. Starting from scratch in a new field isnt easy and it shouldnt be. We are after all "Roleplaying" in a "Roleplaying" game.

[Amentep]

I've never understood the point of respecing, personally. Wouldn't use it if it was in the game.

 

This may be because I'm an inveterate restarter of games and spend a great deal of time playing around with character creation. Heck in the Fallouts (all of them) I've picked perks and then kicked myself for not picking one that I realize later was "logically" better for the character I was going for.

 

But no character is "hopeless" to me. Unless s/he turns out like this, of course -

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I oppose respec, but I would also like to be able to choose all of the abilities for any party members.