Common pitfalls of CRPG games to avoid

[Randomthom]

While considering classes & levelling, something I'd like to see NOT making an appearance in PoE is the dreaded re-spec.

 

For those who aren't aware, "re-spec" or re-specialisation long-hand is the act of undoing and then re-assigning all your character's historic development choices.

 

It is common and indeed necessary in games like MMOs where the goalposts can move and different skills are required. It's also common in ARPGs where character story is practically nil and it's all about the finer details of the build.

 

I feel it devalues and trivializes player choice and makes a mockery of "roleplay"... It's like re-writing your own history to fit with what you need.

[Elerond]

 

I've never been keen on the TES mechanics, as far as I am concerned 3.5e has a huge edge over it. However, TESO did do the "classless" system as well as it can be done, IMO. D&D isn't perfect but as far as rulesets go, it is my favourite.

 

I disagree strongly. IMO TESO is a textbook example of how not to do a classless system.

 

I agree with that statement that TESO's classless system is very flawed. I would look more towards systems like Rune Quest, Hero Quest, Rolemaster or GURPS if you want see what good classless RPG system looks like.

[Kjaamor]

Fair shout, PJ. I agree on the Galadriel and Arwen beauty side of things, but then again when your character is written in as being exquisitely beautiful to the point of being almost beyond compare, then your casting is going to be a bit tricky. I would agree that both Haldir and Arwen were played by actors who were quite heavily set. To me it seemed strange that he chose someone as relatively heavily set as Liv Tyler for Arwen, when someone more Elfin, like Winoa Ryder or even Miranda Otto, might have been a better choice.

 

The heavily set Elves in LotR meet their nemeses in The Hobbit, of course, with some of the skinniest and undwarf-like dwarves I have ever clapped eyes upon.

 

My understanding of Tolkein canon is likely to be forever battered beyond repair through the films, to a lesser degree, and hammering the **** out of Lord of the Rings online.

 

Elves are supposed to be anorexic?

 

Yes, that's what I said. Please ignore my actual post, which you quoted, that says nothing of the sort. I meant that elves are supposed to be anorexic. My actual post was simply a diversion I used to squeeze through my actual point that elves are supposed to be anorexic. I would've got away with it to, had you not been on hand to completely ignore what I wrote and leap towards what anyone else would've thought of as the wrong conclusion, but was right because of reasons.

 

Well done.

 

 

I'm not against limitations either, as they are necessary. I'm against those that feel arbitrary or are there "just because".

 

I'm for a classless class system. An oxymoron if you will, because you do have classes...but not as limited as before. The limits are more common sense and not imposed.

 

"You want to use a bow? You cannot learn that, you are class X, and class X does not use bows. because reasons!"

 

"Just because" generally stems from either gameplay balancing (A wizard gets cool spells which a fighter doesn't get, so the wizard has his melee efficiency compromised by, amongst other things, not being able to use two-handed weapons) or from attempts to preserve stylistic themes (Clerics use blunt weapons in keeping with the widely-held [though suspect] belief that historically men of the cloth used weapons that did not "spill blood").

 

Either the classless class sytem is an oxymoron or else the system in the IE games is already the system you suggest. When you talk about making it less limited and more "common sense", you're simply moving the bar in specific areas within the existing class setup to something you personally feel is more to your taste. It is just as much a class system.

 

Lephys uses the rather more sensible 3.5E analogy; that no class limits should be hard, but skill focus should be rewarded. That point of view at least has some practical limits in the conversation of class vs classless. I still feel that I'd rather have their classically distinct and sacrificial 2E counterparts.

 

At any rate, the class vs classless system will rage on, but my main point was that PoE is a game aping a handful of games that all (P:T excepted) had class systems that were integral to their gameplay.

[Moragauth]

 

I've never been keen on the TES mechanics, as far as I am concerned 3.5e has a huge edge over it. However, TESO did do the "classless" system as well as it can be done, IMO. D&D isn't perfect but as far as rulesets go, it is my favourite.

 

I disagree strongly. IMO TESO is a textbook example of how not to do a classless system.

 

Well to put it another way, it's about the only "classless" game I've enjoyed on the PC. However, I am not really one for classless systems, they've never held intuitive appeal to me. D&D tends to allow about as much customisation as I like.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Moragauth

[Elerond]

 

 

I've never been keen on the TES mechanics, as far as I am concerned 3.5e has a huge edge over it. However, TESO did do the "classless" system as well as it can be done, IMO. D&D isn't perfect but as far as rulesets go, it is my favourite.

 

I disagree strongly. IMO TESO is a textbook example of how not to do a classless system.

 

Well to put it another way, it's about the only "classless" game I've enjoyed on the PC. However, I am not really one for classless systems, they've never held intuitive appeal to me. D&D tends to allow about as much customisation as I like.

 

 

Have you not played any of such games like Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Shadowrun Returns, Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Divine Divinity, Divinity 2, Fable Lost Chapters, Jade Empire, Darklands, The Witcher, Witcher 2 or King of Dragon Pass or did you find all (that you have played) of them be unenjoyable experiences? 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Elerond

[Moragauth]

Divine Divinity yes, the rest, no. I played DD too long ago to recall it, really. I remember it had a well designed ability system in that there were limits on just how powerful your character could become. The majority of the rest are on my "to play" list. The thing is, I can still find them enjoyable, even if I dislike the design of the mechanics, as with, say, Morrowind or Oblivion.

[Gromnir]

While considering classes & levelling, something I'd like to see NOT making an appearance in PoE is the dreaded re-spec.

 

For those who aren't aware, "re-spec" or re-specialisation long-hand is the act of undoing and then re-assigning all your character's historic development choices.

 

It is common and indeed necessary in games like MMOs where the goalposts can move and different skills are required. It's also common in ARPGs where character story is practically nil and it's all about the finer details of the build.

 

I feel it devalues and trivializes player choice and makes a mockery of "roleplay"... It's like re-writing your own history to fit with what you need.

am not sure if we can express just how much we disagree.

 

the more complex the game system, the more helpful is a respec. have absolutely no idea why you would think that adding character story elements decreases the benefit (and possibly the need) for respec. when bioware made dragon age they didn't skimp on story elements compared to most story-driven rpgs. unfortunately/fortunately dragon age did not arrive with a set o' three hardbound books o' a few hundred pages that would explain the actual way in which the rules worked. even after our first play through o' dragon age, we still had only the most limited notion o' the manner in which the character development choices translated into actual game efficacy. dragon age were a new system with relative complex rules mechanics and 

 

neverwiner nights 2 were also having complex character development options. combinations of abilities, feats, classes, and skills were making for a great deal of complexity. bg/bg2 were almost childish simple compared to nwn2 and motb. the thing is, for the serious rules junkie who weren't satisfied with choosing fighter or wizard and then just hoping for the best at level-up, there were literal dozens o' rules books that explained d&d. you didn't mistake your way into a viable fighter/bard/rdd/wm build. by the same token, you could mistake yourself into complete and utter uselessness by choosing feats and classes that looked like fun, but had poor synergy. nevertheless, for the folks that wanted to metagame the rules, there were all those d&d resources available to 'em.  oh, and all the story in the world wouldn't makes a broken character more fun to play in nwn2. frustrating is Not fun.

 

so, is poe gonna be more like bg/bg2 or closer to da or nwn2 insofar as complexity is concerned? am gonna bet it is closer to da. unlike nwn2 or even fo:nv, many/most players is gonna be coming to poe without any useful knowledge 'bout the rules or game mechanics.  the more complex the rules is, the more likely it will be to makes possible the broken or useless character. similarly, the more complex the rules is, the more likely it will be to find specialty builds. respec is a natural and reasonable option for a game with complex rules and extreme limited meta-knowledge o' those rules. gots absolute nothing to do with story.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aelysia]

Monks.

Couldn't agree more

[Randomthom]

Gromnir, your eloquent words have swayed me and also made me think, if I don't want a particular feature to be in, all I have to do is not use it.

 

As a long-time pen & paper player I tend to see these things coming somewhat and don't usually end up with weak builds. Consequently Dragon Age caught me somewhat by surprise (not having a pre-existing p&p ruleset that I knew back-to-front) but I still managed to muddle through.

 

I think respec should at least come at a cost to the player like it did in Mass Effect (I think it was 10,000 element zero in ME2, I can't remember what it cost in 3 or if it was even possible). I feel that it makes the game world feel less real if a character who has been... say an amazing archer all their adventuring career suddenly forgets how to do that but becomes a master swordsman instead. I'm sure there's roleplaying ways to justify such a dramatic shift in abilities but they don't sit well with me...

[Gromnir]

Gromnir, your eloquent words have swayed me and also made me think, if I don't want a particular feature to be in, all I have to do is not use it.

 

As a long-time pen & paper player I tend to see these things coming somewhat and don't usually end up with weak builds. Consequently Dragon Age caught me somewhat by surprise (not having a pre-existing p&p ruleset that I knew back-to-front) but I still managed to muddle through.

 

I think respec should at least come at a cost to the player like it did in Mass Effect (I think it was 10,000 element zero in ME2, I can't remember what it cost in 3 or if it was even possible). I feel that it makes the game world feel less real if a character who has been... say an amazing archer all their adventuring career suddenly forgets how to do that but becomes a master swordsman instead. I'm sure there's roleplaying ways to justify such a dramatic shift in abilities but they don't sit well with me...

yeah, we can see adding a cost of some kind. even a smallish xp penalty wouldn't disturb us too much if obsidian wanted to make respec available but extraordinary.  nevertheless, with a new and complex rule system for which we has no documentation, am recognizing the possibility o' building a character that is functional poor. no matter how much the developer is attempting to balance so as to make bad characters impossible, the potential for bad or superior builds will exist and increase as does the complexity o' the system.   respec can be a useful safety net for players... and the developers. even so, we don't need respec to be free. 

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[NWN_babaYaga]

I havent read all the 12 pages but I love low magic adventures or settings where magic and witchcraft etc. is something exotic and suspicious. So witches and sorcerers are always already" guilty" if something strange happens you know (captured first and asked later about it so to say). But i also love the D&D world which is very magical everywhere but there i prefer the lower levels because the big magical events dont come into play to much just yet... So magical things in crates and barrels are a no go for me. Same with daggers +1 which you collect only to sell them again at the magical smithy shop.

[Lephys]

I think respec should at least come at a cost to the player like it did in Mass Effect (I think it was 10,000 element zero in ME2, I can't remember what it cost in 3 or if it was even possible).

Was that really a "cost," though? I mean, you could easily get that much element zero, with a little planet-scanning effort. You could get all element-zero-based upgrades and still have enough left over for at least a couple of respecs. And, really, I don't see anyone ever legitimately having a reason to respec more than once.

 

I can't remember if you could do it in 3, either... I think you could?

[Gromnir]

 

I think respec should at least come at a cost to the player like it did in Mass Effect (I think it was 10,000 element zero in ME2, I can't remember what it cost in 3 or if it was even possible).

Was that really a "cost," though? I mean, you could easily get that much element zero, with a little planet-scanning effort. You could get all element-zero-based upgrades and still have enough left over for at least a couple of respecs. And, really, I don't see anyone ever legitimately having a reason to respec more than once.

 

I can't remember if you could do it in 3, either... I think you could?

 

am thinking if poe is similar to mass effect 2 or 3 wherein only meaningful customization beyond class choice is deciding which 2 abilities not to be eventually maxing out, there will be considerable negative backlash.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Infiltrator_SF]

 

 

I think respec should at least come at a cost to the player like it did in Mass Effect (I think it was 10,000 element zero in ME2, I can't remember what it cost in 3 or if it was even possible).

Was that really a "cost," though? I mean, you could easily get that much element zero, with a little planet-scanning effort. You could get all element-zero-based upgrades and still have enough left over for at least a couple of respecs. And, really, I don't see anyone ever legitimately having a reason to respec more than once.

 

I can't remember if you could do it in 3, either... I think you could?

 

am thinking if poe is similar to mass effect 2 or 3 wherein only meaningful customization beyond class choice is deciding which 2 abilities not to be eventually maxing out, there will be considerable negative backlash.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I think it's an atrocity to bring up ME in this discussion. The game is obviously an action/rpg hybrid compared to PoE, a pureblood RPG.. so it' not really fair to compare the shallow RPG elements of that game to PoE - it's more fair to compare it to changing perks on the fly in CoD.

 

If there is a respec, I'd put it in the form of a potion you get in a side-quest, only if you play your cards right, and only once. That's it.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Infiltrator_SF

[pseudonymous]

One thing that bugs me sometimes in RPGs is if they get too linear. I really loved the open quality of Baldur`s Gate and thought it was lost in the sequel and in the Icewind Dale games. Not that they were bad or anything, but you were more restricted as far as exploration went. Where BG had 30-40 more or less optional areas you could explore when you wanted to, or even skip entirely, ID had a series of zones you could only do in one order, with too little side questing and player choice. Some scripting is OK though, just not the entire game.

 

Except exploring those areas only rewarded you with mindless combat from the boring trash mobs.  BG itself is just as linear as Icewind Dale but requires you to leave the tracks to engage in the mindless combat with the boring trash mobs because there simply isn't enough quest experience to level your party.  

[Lephys]

am thinking if poe is similar to mass effect 2 or 3 wherein only meaningful customization beyond class choice is deciding which 2 abilities not to be eventually maxing out, there will be considerable negative backlash.

Agreed, but, the game was only being referenced as having a cost to re-spec (Mass Effect 2, at least).

 

For what it's worth, though (while we're briefly touching the topic), I do think the Mass Effect 2 and 3 ability trees had the right core idea, they were just wayyyyy too simplified. As most games that do that are. XCOM does it a little better (Support smoke grenades get a bigger radius, OR a greater alternate effect, etc.), but it's still pretty simplified. *shrug*

[Gromnir]

 

am thinking if poe is similar to mass effect 2 or 3 wherein only meaningful customization beyond class choice is deciding which 2 abilities not to be eventually maxing out, there will be considerable negative backlash.

Agreed, but, the game was only being referenced as having a cost to re-spec (Mass Effect 2, at least).

 

 

referencing cost o' me2 respec, you observed the following:

 

"And, really, I don't see anyone ever legitimately having a reason to respec more than once."

 

that is what prompted our reply regarding simplicity o' me2 character development. am agreeing that in a game with complexity similar to me2 there is far less legitimate cause for respec. ignoring pure aesthetics, choose class is most meaningful decision in me2. all other me2 choices is trivial. am not certain how deep character development will be in poe, but as complexity increases, so does the usefulness o' respec, particularly if the actual mechanics o' game is as obscure as they were in da:o. as complexity and obscurity increase, so to does the value o' respec. isn't simply a question of cost if one questions the potential need for multiple respec.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

My apologies, Gromnir. I didn't realize that was your point.

 

I wasn't really trying to link the two together (simplicity of ME + usefulness/necessity to respec). In any game, I still feel like you really shouldn't need to respec more than once. If you need to completely reset your character 5 times throughout a game, there's a problem. Plus, choices that are so freely undone whenever don't really carry as much weight as choices that are more permanent.

 

In a game like PoE, I could understand a complete lack of re-spec-ing, even. However, allowing it wouldn't be absurd or anything. BUT, I do think that multiple (or infinite) respecs starts to approach an actual unwanted dynamic. You could just respec any time you came up to a skill check you weren't adequate enough to handle, for one thing.

 

It effects too much inadvertently, as the only legitimate purpose of respecing is to allow the player to somewhat mulligan some of those far-reaching character build choices after getting a bit more of a handle on their precise effects, as related to that player's precise desires for his character. Not to just arbitrarily decide he wants a completely different character every 10 steps.

 

Hence the whole idea of a cost to do so in a lot of games. It's not that it's "simply a question of cost." Cost was just brought up as a favored way of limiting the act of respecing.

 

Just my perspective, of course.

[Silent Winter]

 

One thing that bugs me sometimes in RPGs is if they get too linear. I really loved the open quality of Baldur`s Gate and thought it was lost in the sequel and in the Icewind Dale games. Not that they were bad or anything, but you were more restricted as far as exploration went. Where BG had 30-40 more or less optional areas you could explore when you wanted to, or even skip entirely, ID had a series of zones you could only do in one order, with too little side questing and player choice. Some scripting is OK though, just not the entire game.

 

Except exploring those areas only rewarded you with mindless combat from the boring trash mobs.  BG itself is just as linear as Icewind Dale but requires you to leave the tracks to engage in the mindless combat with the boring trash mobs because there simply isn't enough quest experience to level your party.  

 

I disagree (mostly) - there were a fair few mini-quests (Ulcaster Dungeon, Firewine, Melicamp etc) that arose from wandering off the main quest path.  And the rewards were also more than the fighting and xp (items, weapons, armour, the sense of fulfillment that comes from helping a chicken in need).

[Gromnir]

 

In a game like PoE, I could understand a complete lack of re-spec-ing, even. However, allowing it wouldn't be absurd or anything. BUT, I do think that multiple (or infinite) respecs starts to approach an actual unwanted dynamic. You could just respec any time you came up to a skill check you weren't adequate enough to handle, for one thing.

 

 

assume for a sec that such nonsense does happen. would that be so bad?  yeah, you could very simple put various limitations on respec so that it wouldn't be something one could functional use frequent. have copper cost. have xp costs. have a re-trainer available only at stronghold. allow only one respec per level or X number of  levels. etc. is any number o' methods o' dealing with your concerns, but let us assume for a moment that respec has no such limitations other than perhaps a trainer located at stronghold and a copper cost. seeing as this is a single-player game, would it genuine matter if some number o' folks compulsively respec'd before every skill check? no doubt their hours o' gameplay would increase dramatically but if lephys or jack or bob did such a thing it would not bother Gromnir in the least.  the notion o' arbitrary respec seems unlikely as people will be thinking their choices is good ones until proven otherwise, but even if you allowed such arbitrary changes, so what? 

 

dunno. in light o' your concerns, we don't see a problem with respec. is ridiculous simple to impose functional limits that address your concerns. we came up with numerous practical hurdles that would deter frequent respec after only a few moments o' reflection. additionally, as this is a single player game, why should we genuinely care?

 

furthermore, if game is balanced well enough it shouldn't matter if you respec. there should be multiple ways to address every problem-- having numerous instances o' ideal routes is poor design. so perhaps availability o' respec would also promote better design on the part o' the developers. another win for respec.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[pseudonymous]

 

 

One thing that bugs me sometimes in RPGs is if they get too linear. I really loved the open quality of Baldur`s Gate and thought it was lost in the sequel and in the Icewind Dale games. Not that they were bad or anything, but you were more restricted as far as exploration went. Where BG had 30-40 more or less optional areas you could explore when you wanted to, or even skip entirely, ID had a series of zones you could only do in one order, with too little side questing and player choice. Some scripting is OK though, just not the entire game.

 

Except exploring those areas only rewarded you with mindless combat from the boring trash mobs.  BG itself is just as linear as Icewind Dale but requires you to leave the tracks to engage in the mindless combat with the boring trash mobs because there simply isn't enough quest experience to level your party.  

 

I disagree (mostly) - there were a fair few mini-quests (Ulcaster Dungeon, Firewine, Melicamp etc) that arose from wandering off the main quest path.  And the rewards were also more than the fighting and xp (items, weapons, armour, the sense of fulfillment that comes from helping a chicken in need).

 

 

The only item I can think of that is worth a specific trip off the beaten path is the Scroll of Cloudkill, you get better weapons and armor from the bandit camps during the main quest.

[pnhearer]

Ya know, as much as I enjoy reading everyones inputs here(and I really do). I can't help but think about this. You have a problem but don't poise a solution to it in most cases. Fact of the matter is, and I mean no offense by this to our friendly Developers, if they had thought of a better way to implement it, they would have done so already. Two heads is better than one sort of deal ya know. Just a thought.

[Gromnir]

Ya know, as much as I enjoy reading everyones inputs here(and I really do). I can't help but think about this. You have a problem but don't poise a solution to it in most cases. Fact of the matter is, and I mean no offense by this to our friendly Developers, if they had thought of a better way to implement it, they would have done so already. Two heads is better than one sort of deal ya know. Just a thought.

this is a wonderful excuse for having games never-ever improve. 'cause, y'know, if there were a better way, the smarty and clever developers woulda' come up with a solution already, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 

One thing that bugs me sometimes in RPGs is if they get too linear. I really loved the open quality of Baldur`s Gate and thought it was lost in the sequel and in the Icewind Dale games. Not that they were bad or anything, but you were more restricted as far as exploration went. Where BG had 30-40 more or less optional areas you could explore when you wanted to, or even skip entirely, ID had a series of zones you could only do in one order, with too little side questing and player choice. Some scripting is OK though, just not the entire game.

 

Except exploring those areas only rewarded you with mindless combat from the boring trash mobs.  BG itself is just as linear as Icewind Dale but requires you to leave the tracks to engage in the mindless combat with the boring trash mobs because there simply isn't enough quest experience to level your party.  

 

I disagree (mostly) - there were a fair few mini-quests (Ulcaster Dungeon, Firewine, Melicamp etc) that arose from wandering off the main quest path.  And the rewards were also more than the fighting and xp (items, weapons, armour, the sense of fulfillment that comes from helping a chicken in need).

 

 

The only item I can think of that is worth a specific trip off the beaten path is the Scroll of Cloudkill, you get better weapons and armor from the bandit camps during the main quest.

 

 

 There were a lot of useful items off the main quest path (and lots more in side quests you can do in the areas you visit to do the main quest). 

 

 Here are a few of them: a tome to raise your constitution, gauntlets of dexterity, golden girdle (improves armor class vs. slashing, the kind of damage that Sarevok does), a scroll of Protection from Magic (there were 5 of these in the whole game, **very** useful for the final fight), some of the best weapons in the game, several wands, the best armor for some classes etc.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Yonjuro

[pseudonymous]

Ya know, as much as I enjoy reading everyones inputs here(and I really do). I can't help but think about this. You have a problem but don't poise a solution to it in most cases. Fact of the matter is, and I mean no offense by this to our friendly Developers, if they had thought of a better way to implement it, they would have done so already. Two heads is better than one sort of deal ya know. Just a thought.

 

Well, it's not like we're asking anyone to play Arcanum or anything... oh wait.