Can you respec?

[Creslin321]

5th time now. We are not discussing mods. We are discussing actual game design. We cannot have a debate when one side does not understand what is being debated.

 

----------

 

Nice cherrypick, but you missed my point.  My point was that respec has existed as a concept for a long time.  It is not a new invention of casual games.  Respec even exists in pen and paper games.

 

Your entire casual theory hinges on the idea that respec is just something that younger casual gamers want, and "real" RPG players never respecced back in the 90's.  But this is clearly not true.  The fact that there were respec mods for just about every CRPG in the 90's proves that there was a desire for respec even back then.

 

So I'm sorry, but the argument that only "filthy casuals" want respec is bunk.

[Ohioastro]

I started playing computer games with Wizardry I and I'm in my 50s.  I played D&D with the original three little books before they were hardcover.  So, no, I don't own a console, nor am I a casual in any sense of the word.  I really like roguelike games on computers, for a point of reference.

 

Some people like chess and go.  Some people like complex simulations or competitive games; I don't do multiplayer computer games because I enjoy face to face tabletop games more.

 

One of the things that years of doing these sorts of things has done is to lead me to respect the idea that there are a lot of viable approaches to gaming.  I like the IE games for a combination of tight tactical situations - basically, enjoyable puzzles; character development; and interesting stories.  Along with these things there are a bunch of bells and whistles that have accumulated around these sorts of games.  Some I find valuable; others I don't.  For example, there are a lot of repetitive mechanical tasks - ones with zero challenge, but that cost time - that ended up being associated with roleplaying games. (e.g. limited inventory but tons of loot - so that if you're willing to slog through the tedium of a bunch of mouse clicks you can get as much money as you want.)  Associating optimal game play with tedium is a terrible idea, and this is the sort of thing that really should have died decades ago.

I think that a lot of roleplaying vets have jumbled together the essential and the inessential, and in places like RPG Codex this problem is especially severe.  Some people, for whatever reason, simply can't step back, try and understand what others are saying, and respect alternative points of view. 

 

I've played enough games that I've seen a lot of variations in concepts, and respec is just another tool in the kit.  It can be used well, or it can be used poorly.  For example, there is a nifty roguelike called TOME (te4.org).  It's a fun, tough game - and there is a limited, but very handy, respec (for the most recent skill points that you gained, in town only.)  You can try out a skill, see how it works, and then either stick with it or change the last few points.  It's actually really handy in getting to know a complex game and how it works.  In this game the lore actually seems friendly to some sort of respec (abilities from former lives or the like), which is why I think that it might work.

 

Now it also might not, and in the end none of us are designing the game.  There might be more useful things for the developers to work on.  But I do think that it could be an interesting addition, and not everything along these lines is a battle between the virtuous veterans and the evil casual tide.

[Stun]

Incidently, to tie up some loose ends here...

 

Okay so you argue the issue is game design.  I'm assuming that the implication here is that if respec is added, it will change many other aspects of the game.  Much like how games designed for console always have a "console optimized" UI even on PC.

 

Sooo I'm going to say this is absolute BS.  Adding a respec option in the game literally changes nothing else.

Bull sh*t.

 

1) The game has named NPCs who were specifically designed by Obsidian and are tied to the narrative. A Respec feature, which allows for the player to respec these NPCs, would change those NPCs. Sagani is a ranger. The game treats her as a ranger. Her backstory is about her being a ranger. Her Pet is fleshed out - its name given, and species defined. Now here come the Creslin321's of the world: "hey, I want Sagani to be a mage!". "Hehehe, I just respecced Sagani and made her a better ranger with a different pet!"

 

2) Choice & Consequence Eliminated. PoE has a remarkably dynamic character building system where build choices are actually tough to make. Every choice has a consequence. A Respec feature eliminates that. Ok, You could argue that this would only apply to people who decide to use the respec feature. But a game that offers optional easy-outs like a "reset-yer-stats" button has already done its damage. Its Choice & Consequence element has been cheapened because the consequences are meaningless. Whether the player uses the respect feature or not, he knows that he doesn't have to live with his decisions if he doesn't want to and that he doesn't need to start over if he wants to try again. if the game allows you to bypass the consequence, then there's no friggin consequence.

 

3) Replay value is changed. Already discussed on this thread so I won't go into details. People who would have eagerly replayed this game with a different class, or with the same class but without the 'build mistakes" they made the first time around, will no longer feel the need to, because they were able to change classes/fix their build mistakes the first time they played the game.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[Tildryn]

Grognards are basically the cancer of RPG communities.

 

Fortunately Obsidian didn't listen to them when implementing other QoL features such as the stash, area looting, bringing the classes to be less lopsided in ability, and numerous others.

 

People like that will fight against any change on the very basis of "It wasn't this way before." There were people like that decrying game improvements when the BG games came out, and there will be people like them ten years from now, when other game design improvements are made, fighting because it's not like the RPGs they know today.

 

The reason that Obsidian didn't implement the ability to respec has jack **** to do with their grand design, and everything to do with there not having been the time to implement it as an option before the game was released. A checkbox at game creation - as has been suggested here several times - just like Path of the Damned, which has to be decided at the time the new game is started, would have made everyone happy because those who did not want the opportunity to respec would simply not select that option when they begin.

 

The fact that, despite this having been proposed, people are still bitching against it, makes it quite clear that it's a bunch of selfish, domineering, controlling and miserable grognards who cannot stand that someone might want a 'modern feature' in 'their' game. Spoiler alert, grogs: It's not yours, and you are not a valiant shining guardian order. I, and most of the people playing the game, are not some horde of unwashed 'casuals'. We've played the IE games, we've played the games since, and we're playing this one too. We have as much footing as you do. You are not some 'old guard' manning the walls of True Gaming. You are not special. In fact, you're the reason that 'PC RPG Gamers' get a reputation for being alienating pricks.

 

Deal with it.

[Creslin321]

Incidently, to tie up some loose ends here...

 

Okay so you argue the issue is game design.  I'm assuming that the implication here is that if respec is added, it will change many other aspects of the game.  Much like how games designed for console always have a "console optimized" UI even on PC.

 

Sooo I'm going to say this is absolute BS.  Adding a respec option in the game literally changes nothing else.

Bull sh*t.

 

1) The game has named NPCs who were specifically designed by Obsidian and are tied to the narrative. A Respec feature, which allows for the player to respec these NPCs, would change those NPCs. Sagani is a ranger. The game treats her as a ranger. Her backstory is about her being a ranger. Her Pet is fleshed out - its name given, and species defined. Now here come the Ohioastro's and Creslin321's of the world: "hey, I want Sagani to be a mage!". "Hehehe, I just respecced Sagani and made her a better ranger with a different pet!"

 

2) Choice & Consequence Eliminated. PoE has a remarkably dynamic character building system where build choices are actually tough to make. Every choice has a consequence. A Respec feature eliminates that. Ok, You could argue that this would only apply to people who decide to use the respec feature. But a game that offers optional easy-outs like a "reset-yer-stats" button has already done its damage. Its Choice & Consequence element has been cheapened because the consequences are meaningless. Whether the player uses the respect feature or not, he knows that he doesn't have to live with his decisions if he doesn't want to and that he doesn't need to start over if he wants to try again. if the game allows you to bypass the consequence, then there's no friggin consequence.

 

3) Replay value is changed. Already discussed on this thread so I won't go into details. People who would have eagerly replayed this game with a different class, or with the same class but without the 'build mistakes" they made the first time around, will no longer feel the need to, because they were able to change classes/fix their build mistakes the first time they played the game.

 

 

1. The respec solution I proposed specifically said you can't change class, so there goes that argument.

 

2.  Once again, the same argument with easy difficulty applies here.  Easy difficulty removes consequence.  Not going ironman mode removes consequence.  And yet, the people that choose these things are probably still enjoying the game.  It's not up to you, me, or anyone to tell someone else how they can best enjoy the game.

 

3.  If you can't change class, you still have lots of replay value.  Also, why aren't you complaining about the fact that you can create as many adventurer characters of whatever class you want?  Doesn't this "damage replayability?"

[Stun]

The reason that Obsidian didn't implement the ability to respec has jack **** to do with their grand design,

What?

 

It has Everything to do with the grand design.

 

No, more than that. It has everything to do with Josh Sawyer's entire philosophy behind gaming. Respeccing is degenerate gameplay by definition. It's a 4th wall-breaking exploit that isn't much different at its core than save scumming and metagaming. Josh spent the last 2 friggin years trying to design a system with perfect balance, where there's no bad builds, No trap build options, and no dead-end consequences. And he did it for no reason BUT to insure that a respec feature wouldn't ever be needed.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[Creslin321]

 

The reason that Obsidian didn't implement the ability to respec has jack **** to do with their grand design,

What?

 

It has Everything to do with the grand design.

 

No, more than that. It has everything to do with Josh Sawyer's entire philosophy behind gaming. Respeccing is degenerate gameplay by definition. It's a 4th wall-breaking exploit that isn't much different at its core than save scumming and metagaming. Josh spent the last 2 friggin years trying to design a system with perfect balance, where there's no bad builds, No trap build options, and no dead-end consequences. And he did it for no reason BUT to insure that a respec feature wouldn't ever be needed.

 

 

 

---------------

 

This is an actual quote from Josh Sawyer:

 

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).

 

 

In what way can you interpret this to mean anything close to what you attributed to him in your post?  He flat out says here that he is in favor of respec so long as you can't change class/race for narrative purposes.  Which sounds completely reasonable to me.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Creslin321

[Stun]

1. The respec solution I proposed specifically said you can't change class, so there goes that argument.

Ha! who's doing the selective responding now? Did I not cite rebuilding Sagani as a better ranger and giving her a different pet? And how it would go against her story, her personality, and the game world's lore?

 

2.  Once again, the same argument with easy difficulty applies here.  Easy difficulty removes consequence.

It does no such thing. a character who decided to max out Lore and put no points in mechanics, will not be able to disarm high requirement traps, or open high mechanics required locks.... on ANY difficulty. That is the consequence of Build choices - a consequence that's rendered completely NULL if the game gives you the option to respec your character so that you can reassign your skill points, so that you can give yourself a high mechanics score, so that you can disarm those traps that you didn't anticipate.

 

 

3.  If you can't change class, you still have lots of replay value.  Also, why aren't you complaining about the fact that you can create as many adventurer characters of whatever class you want?  Doesn't this "damage replayability?"

I'm not complaining about the ability to create a whole party because even that option carries a consequence. It's a choice you have to make. If you create a whole party, you are consciously choosing to pass up using the Developer created NPCs, who come with their own banter, their own stories, their own quests etc. Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[Tildryn]

 

Ha! who's doing the selective responding now? Did I not cite rebuilding Sagani and giving her a different pet? And how it would go against her story, her personality, and the game world's lore?

 

 

 

 

Ha! Literally nobody even suggested doing that! Therefore you just made a textbook strawman argument! Logic is hard!

[Stun]

 

Ha! who's doing the selective responding now? Did I not cite rebuilding Sagani and giving her a different pet? And how it would go against her story, her personality, and the game world's lore?

 Ha! Literally nobody even suggested doing that! Therefore you just made a textbook strawman argument! Logic is hard!

 

Really?

 

 

4. Every character in your party will be respeccable.

 

Please let me know what the issues are with that solution.

^that's Literally the poster I'm responding to and the specific issue I'm responding to.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

I just gotta say, I tried playing BG2 with a minmaxed party and it was much less enjoyable than working around the limitations of the recruitable characters in the game.

 

I feel much the same about P:E.

 

Respec would ruin that. If it was in the game, the game would have to take its existence in the account. Not using it would be intentionally gimping myself. That's a completely different experience than trying to make the most of what is in the game.

 

(And, again, I have nothing whatsoever against console cheats, savegame editors, or mods that let you respec to your heart's content. Just not in the 'canonical' game.)

[Creslin321]

 

Really?

 

 

4. Every character in your party will be respeccable.

 

Please let me know what the issues are with that solution.

^that's Literally the poster I'm responding to and the specific issue I'm responding to.

 

 

You do realize that right above the number 4 that you quoted from my post it says:

 

3.  Respec will essentially just let you choose every level up benefit again, but will not let you choose a new class or race.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and just assume that you maybe missed that part, but I hope that you can appreciate our frustration here lol.

[Creslin321]

I just gotta say, I tried playing BG2 with a minmaxed party and it was much less enjoyable than working around the limitations of the recruitable characters in the game.

 

I feel much the same about P:E.

 

Respec would ruin that. If it was in the game, the game would have to take its existence in the account. Not using it would be intentionally gimping myself. That's a completely different experience than trying to make the most of what is in the game.

 

(And, again, I have nothing whatsoever against console cheats, savegame editors, or mods that let you respec to your heart's content. Just not in the 'canonical' game.)

 

------

 

If respec is an option that you choose when you start the game, then you are no more gimping yourself by choosing not to have respec in your game, as you would be if you chose hard difficulty over easy.

 

It just lets you customize your game experience to your liking.

[Stun]

You do realize that right above the number 4 that you quoted from my post it says:

 

3.  Respec will essentially just let you choose every level up benefit again, but will not let you choose a new class or race.

Choosing your Animal Companion IS one of the level up benefits of the ranger class.

 

So, yeah, you'll need to edit your 'proposal' to say: "3. Respec will essentially just let you choose every level up benefit again, but will not let you choose a new class or race, or any level 1 benefit.

 

And then come back here and explain how respeccing will solve the "bad build choices" problem, since those can still be made at level one, after you've already chosen your class.

 

Otherwise, stop pretending that my Sagani Scenario wouldn't occur with a respec feature since it absolutely would.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Let me put it this way: if they cave and put in respec, I hope to Woedica they make it a startup option you can't change while playing.

[Creslin321]

 

You do realize that right above the number 4 that you quoted from my post it says:

 

3.  Respec will essentially just let you choose every level up benefit again, but will not let you choose a new class or race.

Choosing a Ranger pet IS one of the level up benefits of the ranger class.

 

So kindly edit your 'proposal' to say: "3. Respec will essentially just let you choose every level up benefit again, but will not let you choose a new class or race, or any of your class's level 1 abilities.

 

And then come back here and tell us how exactly one is supposed to design such a respec feature that remembers the choices you made at level one, and magically prevents you from changing just them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't have to remember what you did at level 1...it only has to remember your race and class.  This is not difficult, there are plenty of games that do this.  And even IF you wanted a respec option that remembered what you did every level and only let you redo so much...that would not be difficult either.

[Stun]

It doesn't have to remember what you did at level 1...it only has to remember your race and class.

In that case, my Sagani scenario can occur.

[Creslin321]

 

It doesn't have to remember what you did at level 1...it only has to remember your race and class.

In that case, my Sagani scenario can occur.

 

 

------------------

 

So then just have the respec solution not let you change anything about companions that could be involved in the narrative like Sagani's pet, or a companion's homeland or background.

 

Once again, this isn't that hard to implement.

[Stun]

So then just have the respec solution not let you change anything about companions that could be involved in the narrative

That's just about everything. Everything up until the moment that the game lets you control them.

 

So you wouldn't be able to change her Archery talents either, since her narrative, her banter AND her storyline revolve around the fact that she's a L33t archer. You also wouldn't be able to re-allot her skills either since her narrative dictates that she's a Hunter (good at stealth), not, for example, a Lore master. So what's the point of respeccing your companions again?

Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[Creslin321]

 

So then just have the respec solution not let you change anything about companions that could be involved in the narrative

That's just about everything. Everything up until the moment that the game lets you control their level advancement.

 

So wouldn't be able to change her Archery talents either, since her narrative, her banter AND her storyline revolve around the fact that she was one of her tribe's premiere archers.

 

 

She's always going to be a ranger no matter what you do.  And besides, what's to stop me from giving her nothing but melee talents when she levels up naturally in my party anyway and then making her a melee fighter?

 

Is Sagini going to "object" to me giving her melee weapon talents?  Any game where the player has control is going to have some degree of ludo-narrative dissonance.  

 

Honestly, I think you're just being really nit picky at this point.  Not every single statistical thing in the game is going to fit the narrative.  For example, the fact that the same stat that determines how much damage a wizard does with his spells, also determines how likely he is to bend iron bars with his hands.

 

I don't think that "under specific situation XYZ the player might do something that could make a companion behave different from their narrative" is a good reason to completely shut a feature out.  I mean, there is clearly a continuum here, and I wouldn't want to let people turn Aloth into a dwarf fighter, but little things like speccing your archer into melee isn't that huge of a deal.  Especially considering that you can do that already...

[Stun]

She's always going to be a ranger no matter what you do.  And besides, what's to stop me from giving her nothing but melee talents when she levels up naturally in my party anyway and then making her a melee fighter?

Nothing. Nothing is stopping you from building her any way you want in subsequent level ups. That is, in fact, the CORRECT way to go about things in a good RPG when you're unhappy with a build. You're adapting to the situation presented to you. And unlike respeccing, adding skills to a character doesn't step all over believability or the story. (I am in fact, currently giving Sagani some talents to make her better in melee when she levels up. And it fits storywise. Most adventurers pick up new skills as they continue adventuring.)

 

Is Sagini going to "object" to me giving her melee weapon talents?  Any game where the player has control is going to have some degree of ludo-narrative dissonance.

Not at all. And this isn't ludo narrative dissonance. There's a HUGE difference, story wise, between having a character adapt to new challenges (giving a born archer some melee skills every time they level up because of party need), vs. Friggin rewriting that character and pretending that she never had the skills she came to you with in the first place (respeccing). Lets not pretend otherwise...or claim it's "nit picking" when it's a giant distinction that separates good RPGs from crap ones. Edited March 28, 2015 by Stun

[Tildryn]

I notice that you immediately jumped ship from the 'Josh Sawyer and Obsidian would never do respec as part of their grand design!' argument that you wittered on about for pages, without even acknowledging that you had been disproven, as soon as direct quotes from Josh Sawyer were produced that said he was happy to implement respeccing.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Tildryn

[Dongom]

Is there a save editor yet? 

[Creslin321]

Is there a save editor yet? 

 

---------------

 

I don't think so, but there IS a mod that allows you to respec your characters.  I linked it earlier in this thread, it's called IE Mod.

[aiqidar]

The option to respec should be included for the simple reason that the patches will invariably include balance changes, and the build that I have right now won't be the same as the same as after the patch. And not getting the patch isn't really an option since I'll need it to fix important stuff like broken quests etc.

 

That's what Path of Exile did (I haven't played it for a while so I'm not sure if it still happens, but it did back when I was still playing). If they altered the skills etc. in any way, they gave the player the option for a full respec. I know the console is an option, but using it is always a pain since I've got to keep track of stuff to make sure I don't give myself too much or too little. Plus, it's immersion-breaking.