Lockpicking is like...

 

I've got a key in my inventory, I press the key, drag it over a door and now I have a "Put the key in keyhole and turn, then turn handle"-minigame. Is my character retarded? My Rogue is supposed to be good at picking locks, not me, let him handle it. I feel that it needs to be a natural part of the game and not some sort of "interlude" and it's own game by itself.

 

Yes, Inventory Management is a mini-game in a sense but it's more like "Folder Organization" on your harddrive, it's not "hacking into computer" exactly.

 

I can think of one thing that would be fluid, effective, and integrated. You press "Thievery", hover over the chest, a small "bar" that you need to drag by Right-Clicking (left or right). Simple, fast, easy with a risk of failing ofc.

 

* Photoshop ~*

 

Here you go, conceptual (would need to be less apparent ofc), attachment.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Osvir

Well, to satiate your apparent fondness for technicalities, in almost any RPG's inventory system, your goal is to fit as much item value as possible (be it monetary or utility value) into the allotted space and/or allotted weight limit as possible. Therefore, it requires effort on the player's part to determine the relative values of all the items happened upon and to decide what to pass on whenever the space becomes filled in between opportunities to sell or make use of said items. In Tetris, blocks are cleared and you get a score as a reward for your object-positioning efforts. In an RPG inventory, you get money and/or item use as a reward.

 

That's not the inventory management. That's the economy part of the core gameplay, and only exists because you want wealth in other parts of the game. You can't take that out of the game and still call that a game. For a start, the inventory management system doesn't include stuff coming into the inventory or going out, that's a part of the core gameplay, the economy systems of the game. Just think about trying to take that out and make a game by itself, if you have to add things to it, then it's clearly not a game by itself, therefore not a minigame. The Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Bioshock minigames? You could easily take them out and play them on their own.

 

Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

 

I can easily accept that you have arbitrarily decided to ignore the very definition of "engaging." However, I decided, instead, to attempt to point out your potentially unintended choice of words in lieu of deciding to assume that you voluntarily embrace irrationality. But, again, you're so busy trying to win your one-man "Who's the rightest?" competition that you've rendered my actions moot.

 

To involve intensely? I must assume that you're the one that doesn't know the definition. That **** does not involve me intensely, it's not engaging in the slightest. Perhaps you can't accept that other people get engaged by different things, I don't know.

swinging a sword with any skill is a process. skilled fighters aren't just going to flail their arms around. They are going to decide where to aim. They are going to time the swing so that they can hit the opponent while they are vulnerable while minimizing their own vulnerability. Then they are going to decide what to do next. They aren't going to stand next to their opponent and take turns swinging. But that's what we see in game. The stats simulate everything else.

 

Telling a convincing lie is a process. Stealing something from someone's bag or picking a pocket is a process. The player inputs his decision making into the game and lets the character's skill perform those actions. I don't want to perform the menial tasks. If I wanted a game where I controlled the processes my character was going through, I'd play an action game. If the next Assassins Creed wants to include lockpicking minigames, by all means go for it. As someone told in their story up above, it fit well into The Elder Scrolls games because they are more action oriented. But in an RPG like this, I just don't have any interest in it. My role in a cRPG is to be the decision maker. The decision of breaking into a house or stealing someone's locked treasure is fun. Picking a lock is not fun in my opinion. Especially when its the same basic process every time. In my opinion obviously.

Lockpicking is like...

 

I've got a key in my inventory, I press the key, drag it over a door and now I have a "Put the key in keyhole and turn, then turn handle"-minigame.

 

They should actually do that just to parody lockpicking minigames. You literally cannot fail unless it's the wrong key.

That's not the inventory management. That's the economy part of the core gameplay, and only exists because you want wealth in other parts of the game. You can't take that out of the game and still call that a game. For a start, the inventory management system doesn't include stuff coming into the inventory or going out, that's a part of the core gameplay, the economy systems of the game. Just think about trying to take that out and make a game by itself, if you have to add things to it, then it's clearly not a game by itself, therefore not a minigame.

 

You actually just supported my point. Moving things around in an inventory interface isn't a game, just like kicking a soccer ball around isn't a game. Kicking a soccer ball around while keeping it within a boundary and trying to get it into a goal IS a game. Its being a game relies directly upon the existence of more factors than the existence of the soccer ball and your ability to kick it around.

 

The Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Bioshock minigames? You could easily take them out and play them on their own.

Not one have I cited that those two minigames were not standalone games. I was blatantly referring to the recent Fallout/Elder Scrolls lockpicking mechanics (as they are so similar to one another), which do not function as a game without the skill system in place, or the loot and area-accessability content in place. They serve only to interactively emulate a process.

 

The HR and Bioshock minigames are standalone games. The outcomes of those games are then substituted into an effect in another area of the game.

 

Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

 

Technically correct: the kind of correct that says "I know what you meant, and what you meant made perfect sense, but I'm going to ignore that fact and insist that you could only have meant some other technically-possible meaning of your words, which I'm now bestowing upon what you've said because it makes me feel better."

 

To involve intensely? I must assume that you're the one that doesn't know the definition. That **** does not involve me intensely, it's not engaging in the slightest. Perhaps you can't accept that other people get engaged by different things, I don't know.

 

"intensely" is actually an adverb whose meaning is in NO way a direct part of the meaning of "engaging." Otherwise, if you were "engaged in conversation," any conversation you could ever have would be "intense." I actually posted the exact definition of the word several replies back. Since you didn't acknowledge my doing that in any way, shape, or fashion, I can only assume you disregarded it completely.

 

"Engage: to occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons)". I stated that a minigame is "more engaging" than the "click'n'do" method. So, unless you're suggesting that clicking on a locked chest or door, then waiting for your character to perform a 2-second jiggle-my-hands-around animation, then being informed of the results of their attempt occupies more of your attention and/or effort than an interface that literally requires further action on your part before anything else happens, I don't even understand what you're even trying to say.

 

So, if you meant something other than the base definition of "engaging," then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but I had no way of knowing. I clarified the specifics of my understanding of the usage of the word, and you merely replied that I was wrong, and insisted that you meant the exact words you stated. Nothing more.

 

I'm not trying to annoy you here by breaking this down so far, but I don't appreciate all of my efforts and attempts and explaining my reasoning and showing my work, so to speak (specifically to avoid misunderstandings and obvious questions that would've existed in the absence of such details), being not only ignored, but also reduced to the accusation that my only argument is that I childishly cannot accept differing opinions.

Lockpicking is like...

 

I've got a key in my inventory, I press the key, drag it over a door and now I have a "Put the key in keyhole and turn, then turn handle"-minigame. Is my character retarded? My Rogue is supposed to be good at picking locks, not me, let him handle it. I feel that it needs to be a natural part of the game and not some sort of "interlude" and it's own game by itself.

 

Perhaps I should say that lockpicking is a significant process, whereas swinging a sword is not. To put it another way, if you're holding a sword, and you're physically capable of swinging it in any capacity, you don't TRY to swing the sword. You simply swing it. Whereas, if you come upon a locked lock, and break out your lockpicks, you still have to TRY to pick the lock. You could fail to pick the lock, but you will not fail to swing a sword (again, assuming here that the only factors involved are your own skill and ability, and that no other outside forces act upon you during the attempt.)

 

Using a key on a lock essentially becomes a single action, because your brain handles it all at once, and it always takes the same (tiny) amount of time. You know ahead of time that the key fits the lock, and that it opens the lock, so you think "open the lock," and you perform the appropriate motion with your hand using the key. For the purposes of simplicity, I was referring to "processes" as tasks that require multiple actions that vary in complexity, duration, and number.

 

I've already accounted for the existence of locks of trivial difficulty in my proposal for a working lockpicking interface by suggesting that locks below your skill level would not prompt the interface, and would, instead, simply be unlocked. However, this is not because lockpicking is not a more involved process than using a key, but instead is because your character's skill has caused both of them to require the same amount of time, no matter how many steps are involved.

 

You may be against the choice to implement a lockpicking interface within the game, but that doesn't change the fact that the lockpicking process is inherently more involved than a single action and could rationally be represented by an interface that represents the process in more detail than reducing it to a single mouse-click. Basically, there is a reason for such a mechanic to be implemented, as opposed to there being absolutely no reason for it's existence as a potential design choice.

 

I can think of one thing that would be fluid, effective, and integrated. You press "Thievery", hover over the chest, a small "bar" that you need to drag by Right-Clicking (left or right). Simple, fast, easy with a risk of failing ofc.

 

That would function, but I see no benefit to immersion, depth, or dynamics from a simple action that in no way represents the lockpicking process, much less in any kind of enjoyable manner. Even if you dismissed the thought, the back of your mind would wonder "why did THAT action unlock the chest, as opposed to something else?" It would be like having to type "bananas" to make your character attack. Clicking, while not representing an attack any more than typing an arbitrary word would, does not have the detriment of requiring as much time as typing bananas and unnecessarily hindering your control over the timing of issuing attack orders. Which sort of brings me to why I feel that a lockpicking "minigame" might work better than a "click'n'pick" interface.

 

In combat, you're fine with clicking to attack, because you're simply indicating that you wish for your character TO attack, and what it is, in the game world, you'd like them to attack. A click performs both of these actions admirably. However, if you want your character to attack differently, you must issue some other order. You have more than a single "attempt to kill" button when issuing attack orders, and you may have to change what you're doing depending on how combat pans out. Whereas, with a locked item, you have ONLY the option of clicking to attempt, or not-clicking to not attempt.

 

Even though it is possible to complete an action within the lockpicking process (such as fixing a tumbler in place and out of the way, such as in the Oblivion system *which is purely an example and is not being endorsed in its entirity*) without actually completing the entire process, the game usually just reduces the whole process to a single command. If the developers don't have the time or resources to avoid doing this (after getting the more priority systems and content implemented), then so be it. I will not insist that a more in-depth mechanic is necessary to the whole game. But I will insist that is a logically sound design decision, whether or not it gets implemented.

Hitting the opponent while not being hit yourself would be a better equivalent to picking the lock. Just swinging the sword would be like putting a lockpick in the lock. I could put a lockpick in a lock and jiggle it around just as easily as I could swing a sword. Effectively swinging a sword in a fight is a MUCH more difficult process than effectively picking a lock.

Edited November 30, 201213 yr by ogrezilla

Hitting the opponent while not being hit yourself would be a better equivalent to picking the lock. Just swinging the sword would be like putting a lockpick in the lock. I could put a lockpick in a lock and jiggle it around just as easily as I could swing a sword.

 

That's actually kind of what I was getting at.

 

Just swinging your sword = a single action. Doing all the things necessary to not die, get into the correct position, and swing your sword in various ways until your opponent lies dead = a more involved process comprised of many actions.

 

Inserting a set of lockpicks into a lock = a single action. Performing all the subsequent actions necessary to effectively bypass all the tumblers in a lock with your lockpicks = a more involved process comprised of many actions.

 

I'm not seeing how that does anything but reinforce my previous response.

 

Effectively swinging a sword in a fight is a MUCH more difficult process than effectively picking a lock.

 

I understand what you're saying, but you're dealing with factors outside of my argument. "Effectively swinging a sword" refers to more than whether or not you've successfully swung your sword. Whether or not you've swung your sword isn't dependent upon whether or not it strikes something. Just like whether or not you've inserted a lockpick into a lock and/or moved it isn't dependent upon whether or not you successfully unlocked the lock.

 

You can swing a sword (no matter how skillfully) without killing something, and you can jiggle a lockpick within a lock without unlocking it. This is exactly why killing a foe is a process and swinging a sword is a single action, just as picking a lock is a process and inserting a set of lockpicks into a lock is a single action.

 

The process of killing a foe COULD happen to require only a single swing of the sword (if the opponent were, say, a rat), or it could require 20 minutes worth of dodging and sword swings (if the opponent were, say, a dragon.) In the same way, the process of picking a lock COULD require one simply twist of the lockpicks (if it's the lock was crafted by a child and is made of cheese), or it could require 10 minutes of extremely delicate lockpick finagling (if the lock was crafted by the most technologically advanced locksmith in the world to house some artifact of the gods.)

 

Which is exactly why, in a minigame-mechanic system, locks that your character skill well exceeds should be reduced to a single action, and locks that are still actually tricky should require multiple actions, assuming the goal is to somewhat-accurately represent the process of lockpicking as well as combat somewhat-accurately represents the process of killing a foe.

Not one have I cited that those two minigames were not standalone games. I was blatantly referring to the recent Fallout/Elder Scrolls lockpicking mechanics (as they are so similar to one another), which do not function as a game without the skill system in place, or the loot and area-accessability content in place. They serve only to interactively emulate a process.

 

You are just arguing for arguiing's sake, I'm not going to bother anymore. They function as a game on their own, as does the hacking game, they might be short and not fun at all, but they're minigames. The skill system is part of them, it's just one variable that makes the game harder or easier, it could easily be sequential or random. Also the Bioshock and Deus Ex: HR minigames also rely on skill systems of their own, and you had no problem describing them as minigames, proving my point.

 

"intensely" is actually an adverb whose meaning is in NO way a direct part of the meaning of "engaging."

 

Me: Hello Collins English Dictionary, what do you say to that?

Collins English Dictionary: Engage, 3. to involve (a person or his attention) intensely; engross; occupy

Me. What about you American Heritage Dictionary, do you have anything to add?

American Heritage Dictionary: Engage, 4. To attract and hold the attention of; engross

Me: That doesn't say intsensely?

American Heritage Dictionary: Engross, 1. To occupy exclusively; absorb

Me: I guess you're right, that could definitely be described as intense interest. Anything to add Random House?

Random House Dictionary: 3. To attract and hold fast.

Me: None of these sound anything like my experience with lock picking minigames.

Edited November 30, 201213 yr by AwesomeOcelot

I'm not talking about the things we can control in a fight. We don't control all of the little details in effectively swinging a sword in a fight. We tell the character where to go and who to swing at; their stats decide everything else. Misses, hits, blocks, crits, dodges and everything like that. It all gets represented by the character just swinging away while the character stats actually do all the work. We have no control over any of it beyond "stand here and swing at this guy." I think lockpicking should be the same way. We tell the character to stand here and pick this lock and let their stats decide if they do so or not.

 

Again, we do NOT have any control over the effectiveness of a sword swing because it is decided by character skill. We don't have control over the effectiveness of a picked pocket. We don't have control over the effectiveness of a bluff. We tell the character to do these things and the stats of that character decide if they are successful or not. I don't see why picking locks should be any different.

 

I also just don't enjoy the lockpicking "minigame" in any game I have ever played. That's obviously purely an opinion, but I find them to be a boring waste of time.

Edited November 30, 201213 yr by ogrezilla

Swinging a sword is not a process. It is an action.

 

Nitpicking this point - you're wrong. Any martial skill is a process. Or at least, you learn any martial art this way.

 

With a kick aimed towards an opponent's knee, you learn the process. Lift leg, extend foot, pull foot back, re-ground leg. If you don't learn this process, you have no form. You're wild, executing what your body believes to be a kick. Marital actions are structured, they are not wild or innate to humans. They are not motions that come naturally.

 

Swinging a sword in the martial sense requires practice. You simply cannot pick up a sword for the first time and swing it correctly, under any martial system I know of. There is form. How you hold the blade, how you maintain your stance, how you strike and where. There is a step by step process you learn for wielding a sword and making a simple strike with it. Every strike is made with this learned process, which is increased in speed until it seems smooth, one motion instead of 10 steps. In time, after much instruction and practice it might become merely an "action" and not a process, but any action can be broken down into a process. Infinitely many times. All things are processes in the world, down to the molecular level and even further down below that level, to who knows how far.

 

As for lock picking, there is no reason to waste development time or a player's time doing a mini-game to open a door or a chest. This isn't an ARPG, this isn't an action game, this isn't an adventure game, this isn't a lock picking simulator. There is no value to adding a barrier to opening doors and chests when there certainly will be one already: a character skill-based check.

 

The only thing is, I would suggest we emulate 'real life' by structuring how lock picking works. Many PnP games have systems like this, but basically, let's say there are 5 levels of the lock picking skill

 

Dunce

Dumb

Bad

Good

Master

 

 

When you find a chest, you get one opportunity to open it with your lock picking skill. Anyone, even anyone without a skill in lockpicking, so long as they have a tool to pick with, can attempt. Dunces can open Master Locks. But, the chance of doing so is very, very low. Master Lock pickers will always suceed to open chests below their mastery level and have a chance to fail against locks greater than or of their level of mastery. If you fail to pick a lock, you can attempt to use a spell to open it once. If you don't have the spell or you fail with that, you can force open the chest. Breaking the chest has a chance to destroy items inside it and requires a character with a large strength pool to open it.

 

Some chests should be open-able with a special key which can be obtained by answering a riddle, killing a special foe, finding it in the dungeon, etc. - point being, no mini-games, but give us many opportunities and strategies to opening locked things, with various levels of consequence and difficulty.

Edited November 30, 201213 yr by anubite

Another fundamental difference between the inexperienced lock picker and the master is the time it takes to pick a lock. Yes a master can almost automatically pick any simple lock, but he can also do it with an economy of motion and a minimum amount of noise.

 

I'm not sure of the best way to model this. Perhaps a modifier to the skill check depending on how likely the attempt is to be detected? After all, the rogue will exercise some judgment regarding how likely he is to get away with the attempt. Maybe some type of meter showing the pick success rate against an increasing likelihood of being caught?

You are just arguing for arguiing's sake, I'm not going to bother anymore. They function as a game on their own, as does the hacking game, they might be short and not fun at all, but they're minigames. The skill system is part of them, it's just one variable that makes the game harder or easier, it could easily be sequential or random. Also the Bioshock and Deus Ex: HR minigames also rely on skill systems of their own, and you had no problem describing them as minigames, proving my point.

 

No, I was actually trying to make the point that, despite how flexible the definition of "minigame" can be depending on just how technical you want to get, and despite exactly which of the mechanics in question you want to claim should officially be called "minigames" and which ones shouldn't, what you can call them or not call them has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they serve any kind of purpose in the suggested implementation being discussed in this thread.

 

You identified both Bejeweled AND Skyrim lockpicking as minigames, and yet one blatantly functions as a skill-mechanic in a larger RPG FAR better than the other does. My point is that, regardless of whether or not they could technically stand on their own and function as something that would fit the loosest description of "game" imaginable, the ideas I'm advocating here are only those that are designed to specifically represent and deepen (quantifyably deepen, not "automatically makes everyone like them" deepen) certain character skill process interactions in an RPG.

 

I went out of my way to elaborate on exactly what I meant when referring to "minigames" very, very early in this thread, as I realized that trying to refer to an in-depth mechanic without using that word would simply cause confusion. So, I don't understand how trying to better explain myself when you keep trying to correct me on semantics that are beside the point. Since I'm referring to interfaces that aren't designed specifically to fulfill all the aspects of a game, by themselves, I felt the need to distinguish, but "minigame" is the closest thing to what I'm describing that I know to use as a label.

 

So, I apologize for arguing for the sake of claryifying my point when it seems to be misunderstood. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

 

Me: Hello Collins English Dictionary, what do you say to that?

Collins English Dictionary: Engage, 3. to involve (a person or his attention) intensely; engross; occupy

Me. What about you American Heritage Dictionary, do you have anything to add?

American Heritage Dictionary: Engage, 4. To attract and hold the attention of; engross

Me: That doesn't say intsensely?

American Heritage Dictionary: Engross, 1. To occupy exclusively; absorb

Me: I guess you're right, that could definitely be described as intense interest. Anything to add Random House?

Random House Dictionary: 3. To attract and hold fast.

Me: None of these sound anything like my experience with lock picking minigames.

 

Well, since you're obviously correct and aren't focusing on a specific degree of usage of the word, I guess I'll have to start snapping into a Slim Jim whenever I "engage" in conversation with someone from now on. Or maybe we'll just have to start punching each other in the face while we talk, or conversing only whilst hanging from helicopters. Because, clearly, it is impossible to engage in an activity without doing so to an intense degree. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

Again, we do NOT have any control over the effectiveness of a sword swing because it is decided by character skill. We don't have control over the effectiveness of a picked pocket. We don't have control over the effectiveness of a bluff. We tell the character to do these things and the stats of that character decide if they are successful or not. I don't see why picking locks should be any different.

 

I also just don't enjoy the lockpicking "minigame" in any game I have ever played. That's obviously purely an opinion, but I find them to be a boring waste of time.

 

You have a good point. But it's still slightly sliding past the point I'm trying to make.

 

Look at the two methods we're comparing like this:

 

In yours (aka, "no minigame" mechanic), the skill-usage interface essentially IS the general gameplay interface. In mine (the "minigame" mechanic), the skill-usage is separated out. You're suggesting that mine is creating player control where, with yours, there was none. You said the player doesn't control pickpocketing. BUT, if you've got to use the regular gameplay interface to move your character to the pickpocket target before his skill check can handle the pickpocketing action, and it's possible to be caught if you walk straight up in front of the target, then the player is actually controlling part of the success of the pickpocket. Even if your character is a VERY good pickpocket, you, the player, COULD fail to initiate the pickpocket command before the target NPC turns around, even though your character would never have made such a mistake on his own.

 

So, in this way you are directly controlling a factor in the outcome of a successful pickpocket, one that is completely separate from your character's skill check. Sometimes, which items you manually choose to pilfer actually affects the likelihood that you'll get caught. It is the same as in combat. Opponents in combat move in various ways, use different abilities at different times, and change their behavior on the fly, requiring you, the player, to directly control certain aspects of your character (movement, ability usage and timing, etc.) REGARDLESS of their combat experience and stats and expertise. In the process of killing an enemy, you might have to specifically move your character out of harms way before the task is done, even if you use only one type of attack (and therefore only 1 skill-check over and over again).

 

You welcome this amount of control, rather than insisting that the character's combat prowess be used as an entire "combat-check" to decide how he handles these dynamic factors in combat. Just as you're totally fine with having to partially make sure you don't get caught pickpocketing by your own actions, rather than having your character just automatically take care of all the factors involved.

 

The only difference with my suggestion for lockpicking is that it has its own interface, because a lock cannot spot you, or move, or change its behavior, or use special abilities. The ONLY effect on it, in the non-"minigame" system is the skill-check. So, in that way, it gets more simplified than almost any of the other skill mechanics. I mean, with bluff, you get a separate interface (the dialogue interface), and you usually have to choose the right things to say to get TO the bluff choice before being able to choose it. Sometimes you even get several choices, based on how high your character's bluff skill is, or with varying amounts of truth to them, with different NPCs reacting better or worse to different types of bluffs. At the very least, it's broken down into more individual, controllable steps and affected by more factors than lockpicking.

 

In other words, with the other skills, your character's skill rating provides you with the tools you need to complete a process (defeating an opponent in combat, pickpocketing without getting caught, etc.), but it allows you some control over HOW that process is completed. With lockpicking, it just either completes the process for you or doesn't.

 

So, you could have an RPG that's perfectly playable and fine with lockpicking handled entirely by your character's skill and stats, just as you could allow equipment to be handled entirely by your character's skill and stats (shouldn't your experienced warrior always pick the better armor, rather than allowing you to equip whatever you want on him?). But that system would OBVIOUSLY be less fun. Why? Because you don't get to affect it.

 

Thusly, lockpicking is a process that is complex enough for it to be reasonable to allow some dynamic range of factors for the player to overcome, just as is done with the other processes involving skill checks (to whatever extent). The main difference is that there is precedent set for it to be reduced to a single action in most previous RPGs, whereas there is no precedent for other processes to be reduced to a single action. Also, the implementations of the "minigame" interface mechanics that games HAVE used have not been the best designs (i.e. character skill not factoring in enough, not being as dynamic as they could be, etc.).

 

And @Anubite, I don't know if you missed one my posts or not, but you took that one line completely out of context. No matter how many things are involved with swinging a sword effectively, "effectively" takes into account factors OTHER than the character's skill at swinging the sword, some of which are handled by the player in combat (like maneuvering through fireballs and arrows to make sure the character lives to make it within melee range, because you cannot swing a sword from 30 feet away "effectively") rather than being included in the skill check on the sword swing.

 

"Effectively" using a lockpick isn't as simple as aiming it and making contact with the lock. While your character may possess the expertise necessary to swing his sword effectively rather than ineffectively, he will not automatically decide to perform different actions depending on the specifics of his foe, and he will never swing the sword so effectively that he makes 19 swings in a single swing. Yet, a lock may require 19 lockpick movements that take longer than the duration of a sword-swing. This is precisely why there's often a little duration bar that the player must wait for while the character makes a lock-picking attempt. The ONLY purpose of this bar is to more realistically emulate the complexity of the lockpicking process.

 

All I'm saying is that, A) the lockpicking process is complex enough to be emulated in more depth than a single instant action, should one choose to do so, and B) IF you choose to do so, some kind of controllable interface that allows you to interactively overcome certain factors (exactly like strategically moving your characters in combat and choosing and timing their ability uses) would achieve this goal to a better end than simply waiting while the attempt takes longer.

Absolutely no bloody minigame. If it's marketed and we've pledged money for an RPG, it's better damn well also be an RPG. Your character skills decide success or not, not how easy it is to beat a stupid minigame.

Unless the game includes action sequences where it actually matters how fast the character picks the lock I hope there is no delay for picking the lock. It adds no value to a game designed like the IE games were. It just wastes a little time. The "minigame" method just gives me something to do while wasting my time. I don't play these games to pick locks. It just isn't a fun process. I have never thought to myself "man I can't wait to find a locked door so I can pick it!" Its something that needs to be included, but the enjoyment is in having the character skill to get past the lock. I have no interest in simulating the actual process of picking a lock. Not even a little bit.

^ Well, whatever doesn't float your boat.

 

Some people don't play the game to fight things, or hate reading quest dialogue, and yet calling quest dialogue or interactive combat a waste of resources would be silly. I don't play the game specifically to pick locks, but I like to experience some degree of what my character is doing. I'm playing the role of my character, which is exactly why, when I discuss RPGs with my friends, I say things like "Oh, you killed that guy? I totally let him live. u_u" when referring to differences in our gameplay choices. Hell, it's the basis for the enjoyment of pretty much any genre of game that involves controlling a sentient entity. Immersion. The player controls choices and actions from the shoes of someone with a different skillset, in different scenarios.

 

A first-person shooter isn't called a role-playing game, but you take on the role of a character, with a gun. I can't accurately take down 17 people with an MP5, but my character can, and I can directly control his skills. Obviously an FPS has a different setup and control scheme, but the immersion, in whatever form, is still what makes it enjoyable.

 

So, yes, to some degree, you want to experience things AS your character with all these skills, even if it's not in a first-person view. You get to be awesome at combat, and you get to cast spells, and you get to overcome challenges and shape the story. Lockpicking is just another task in the world that you could experience to various degrees of immersion. It is a challenge to pick a lock, so it could be nice to experience part of that challenge as a skilled lockpicker. Doesn't mean it's mandatory. But it makes sense as a possibility.

 

So, I'm curious... Why do you advocate the existence of obstacles that require a character skill in which you have absolutely no interest in order to overcome? Why not just replace all the door locks in the game with find-a-switch-to-open doors and drop the skill system and get rid of locks on chests? That would certainly save development resources.

Edited December 1, 201213 yr by Lephys

because I like knowing that I overcame an obstacle that I might not have been able to overcome had I made different choices with my character's development along the way.

 

And ya, I understand wanting to experience things as the character. But its still a game; I don't want to experience the boring stuff. I don't want to eat or go to the bathroom. I assume they get done because I don't starve and people will talk to me without mentioning that I smell like I soiled myself, but I don't want to do them. I don't want to put together the pieces of stuff it takes to craft something. I enjoy the gathering of materials and the outcome of creating something though. And I don't want to actually pick locks even though I enjoy the decision to unlock something I am not meant to be able to open and I enjoy getting the rewards it can provide.

 

It is a mundane task. I don't have any desire to simulate mundane tasks. I do enough of that in my own life. I do, however, enjoy the decision making process and possible ramifications that go along with picking a lock.As a skill, it is a valuable part of the game. As an actual in game activity, I want no part of it.

 

edit: I am aware that this is purely opinion. You are completely entitled to your own as well. Its not something that will cause me to quit playing the game or anything. I'll simply cringe a little every time I have to do it.

Edited December 1, 201213 yr by ogrezilla

^ Fair enough,

 

I think, if they have the time and resources, a pseudo-optional approach could be taken.

 

Say that, without the mechanic (just the skill system and skill check) you could only pick locks up to your skill level (1-100, for simplicity's sake). Well, maybe the interactive mechanic could come into play only to attempt locks with a difficulty that's within a small range above your skill (like 70-80 if your skill were 70, purely for example). Either that or there could basically be a toggle option. Either way, you could avoid it like the plague if you wanted to, or partake in it if you wanted.

 

That would be very simliar to the difference between difficulty levels, and/or the toggle that's often available for friendly-fire with AOE spells and such. *shrug*

Final thoughts... in Lands of Lore you press the Lockpicks and then press the chest. For me a Lockpicking "Mini-Game" could be as simple as that. Perhaps slightly updated that you have to do something as well (Right-Click+Hold Down+Drag back and forth somehow). Some locks you need to drag Up, Down, some games from Right to Left etc. etc.

 

Depending on your skill, lockpicks will break easier on Low Skill and hardly at all on High Skill.

 

Regardless we will encounter locked doors and chests, should lockpicks be an item or no?

Final thoughts... in Lands of Lore you press the Lockpicks and then press the chest. For me a Lockpicking "Mini-Game" could be as simple as that. Perhaps slightly updated that you have to do something as well (Right-Click+Hold Down+Drag back and forth somehow). Some locks you need to drag Up, Down, some games from Right to Left etc. etc.

 

Depending on your skill, lockpicks will break easier on Low Skill and hardly at all on High Skill.

 

Regardless we will encounter locked doors and chests, should lockpicks be an item or no?

it depends. If they are a limited item they should actually be limited either by being hard to find or by gold actually being limited and valuable. If including lockpicks as an item means I have to be careful about unlocking every lock I come across because I might run out of picks, then ya that's cool with me. Maybe I need to listen to some guards or explore a little more for clues to decide if breaking into a chest or a room is worth the resources. But if including lockpicks as an item just means I have to go buy more lockpicks for practically no money on occasion then no, that's just a waste of time.

 

I don't really remember ever having to carefully consider if I could afford to unlock something in any game with lockpicks; but then again I always have a character who is very good at picking locks which usually means I am using very few per lock. It is a decent way to provide some leeway to a party without a great thief without allowing them to open locked things very often due to a lack of resources.

Edited December 1, 201213 yr by ogrezilla

^ Well, whatever doesn't float your boat.

 

Some people don't play the game to fight things, or hate reading quest dialogue, and yet calling quest dialogue or interactive combat a waste of resources would be silly. I don't play the game specifically to pick locks, but I like to experience some degree of what my character is doing. I'm playing the role of my character, which is exactly why, when I discuss RPGs with my friends, I say things like "Oh, you killed that guy? I totally let him live. u_u" when referring to differences in our gameplay choices. Hell, it's the basis for the enjoyment of pretty much any genre of game that involves controlling a sentient entity. Immersion. The player controls choices and actions from the shoes of someone with a different skillset, in different scenarios.

 

That is self-insertion, a characteristic of a LARPS, not an RPG where you have a defined character. Everything you've outlined right there is straight out description of LARPS.

A first-person shooter isn't called a role-playing game, but you take on the role of a character, with a gun. I can't accurately take down 17 people with an MP5, but my character can, and I can directly control his skills. Obviously an FPS has a different setup and control scheme, but the immersion, in whatever form, is still what makes it enjoyable.

 

You don't take on a role of a character in an FPS (Or in a game like Skyrim), the object on the screen is an avatar for the Player. The Player's skill determines success or failure, the Character does not exist. This is once again, self insertion, LARPSing.

 

An RPG has a defined character with his own intrinsic qualties that affect success/failure and his own personality. Within the confines of those personality constraints, the Player may act.

 

So, yes, to some degree, you want to experience things AS your character with all these skills, even if it's not in a first-person view. You get to be awesome at combat, and you get to cast spells, and you get to overcome challenges and shape the story. Lockpicking is just another task in the world that you could experience to various degrees of immersion. It is a challenge to pick a lock, so it could be nice to experience part of that challenge as a skilled lockpicker. Doesn't mean it's mandatory. But it makes sense as a possibility.

 

So, I'm curious... Why do you advocate the existence of obstacles that require a character skill in which you have absolutely no interest in order to overcome? Why not just replace all the door locks in the game with find-a-switch-to-open doors and drop the skill system and get rid of locks on chests? That would certainly save development resources.

 

Only if what you're after is a Computer LARPS insteaad of a CRPG. If at any point you're describing you, the player, experiencing the world directly you're in LARPS land. For pushing 40 years now, LARPS has not been a component of RPG.

If Project Eternity is supposed to be harkening back to the IE days, then keep lockpicking "mini games" out. I don't like then to start with, but they go against the status quo of attempting to give a reasonable simulation of actual pencil and paper roleplaying.

 

In my opinion anything that takes more skill than opening a door needs a skill check. The stats are there for a reason: they define what your character can and can't do. Turning on a sink tap takes no skill, so there's no check. Fixing the tap if it's broken takes more skill than normal, so there should be a skill check. The same idea should be the same for lockpicking. It's a skill...so there needs to be a check.

 

Even with Bethesda's skill systems it's still entirely possible for a player to whiz through master level locks if they're good enough at the mini game. Is it possible for someone with some basic lockpicking knowledge to occassionally get lucky and slip open a tricky lock? Sure. Even a blind horse finds water every once in a while. So if you happen to get a lucky roll, then you get lucky.

 

Let's let Obisidian spend more time crafting great dialogue, events, and player choices. Let's not see them spend time implementing minigame features that aren't required.

I'm all for "no minigame", since it would allow the player to use his skill, instead of using the characters skill.

IMHO, all actions should be based upon a chacters skill, not the players. That is, all actions apart from tactics, strategy, choosing equipment and so on.

The reason I don't like minigames is the same reason I don't like quick-time events. Either a character knows what he's doing, and doesn't need the players guiding hand, or he doesn't, and shouldn't be able to use the outgame player as a crutch.

You wouldn't allow players to enter their own, witty, dialogue-lines to circumvent a diplomacy, or bluff skill-check, would you? Why have it for lockpicking.

Instead allow other ways around it. Breaking locks, or even the whole chest open is a viable, albeit loud, option. Arcanum also had a spell to open locks, that explicitly alerted people in a radius (afaik), which seemed realistic enough to me. Just have some content designed for stealthy/thievy characters, so that they won't become all useless.

as someone else said and i agree, it is a waste of time to put a minigame that simulates a mundane task. it's a waste of time for those who make the minigame, as well as for those who will have to play it hundreds of times even if the character has the skill to do the action with 100% success by himself

1º no mini game, They suck, they allow to use the player skill to cheat on what the character could or could not do. And even if you have a Fallout 3 like system where you cant acces X type of locks because you lack the skill is still a shore and its not Fun per se.

 

2º the seocnd the I dont get the second question options, Skill like its stated sounds like Usual level up system and then you spend the the X point given to distribute in what ever you want.

Or a TES system that the skill levels up the more you use it.

 

So what i dont get is mixing the options in the Poll, one is a about minigames and the other is more intricate of how a "skill" should be improved that is related with leveling up.

That is tied with every other skill, like lets say traking, herbalism, diplomacy, and what ever other skill you can imagine the game should have.

 

For example i want a diferent leveling system. A system where gain Diferrent types of XP, and then you spend that XP to level up the skill you want, once you are in camp or what ever reflecting of your past expirinces and how to apply them to the skill you want to level up.

 

For example i picked Some locks and i gained Dex exp. once i reach camp the character can spend the Dex exp in dex related skill, like open locks, fraft traps, detect traps, etc.

Example B, I killed some Orcs so i gained combat exp, so in camp i apply it to level up my understanding of how to fight using my stregh better or how to apply my stregh to do a power blow, etc.

 

But thats just me.