Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

Yep, let me specialize in spork combat, and let it be terrible but fulfilling if I can complete the game that way. BG2 for example would let you specialize in weapons like katanas but would warn you that they were rare and that you might spend a large chunk of the game without a good one (until your fifth playthrough when you beeline for celestial fury of course!). Abilities and specializations absolutely should not be equally viable, and we should not be able to repec. Just inform the player as transparently as possible about the consequences of those character decisions. "Spork specialization: terrible in every way, except at the cafeteria."

 

[Almighty]

I don't think it's good comparition because i remember elephant gun being OP or is it just my memory ?

I never made it too far into Arcanum(I don't think I did at least), but I do remember guns being a little weak. Until i got the Elephant Gun that is. That just made enemies fall before me with ease. That might change toward end game though. That reminds me I should really start Arcanum up again one day.

That's exactly like Age of Decadence then.
A game where even your "kill count" can help you in a dialogue check as an intimidating tool, for instance.

Too bad that game's combat is unforgiving to say the least. If that little demo was anything to go by that game enjoys killing you at pretty much every possible chance it can. It has been a while since I played the demo so my info might be a little dated, but if anyone tries it out expect to die and die often.

With that said that game looks like it will be interesting enough for me to pick up assuming I can get it for a good price.

 

[marrec]

Sorry but you are minority, no one want that from RPG game.

Well, there are a few of us, but its an interesting conversation. I grew up in an era of no respecs and punishing failure for bad specs. BG and Fallout were especially hurtful. If they can design a transparent system in which I am given all the information to make the correct decision, then, I am down. If they make an impenetrable system where the only knowledge is gaines through fucking up, then I am still down. Its Obsidian for shits sake I will eat up whatever they put out. To me though, arguing against respecing based on the harsh reality of life in a genre of gaming that embraces the SOS style of save is a bit daft.

 

[Lancehead]

I'm not even sure I agree with that, to be honest... mostly because I think there is value in playing through a game as a limited character. Not every ability is equally useful in the real world and it can make for a very different (and probably lengthier) path to accomplish the same goals. To my mind, it's a much less artificial, more interesting way to allow people to increase difficulty than just adding a hard mode. As long as it's clearly indicated that certain options may result in a more difficult game, I think unbalanced skills are totally fine. I would say what should be really balanced is not the usefulness of abilities, but how much interesting content investing in those abilities provides. At least when I'm playing an RPG, while my PC's goal may be to get to the end as fast as possible, my goal is to actually experience the world in which that character lives--a skill that just makes it easier to do the same thing doesn't add very much for me as a player, while a comparatively "useless" ability that adds to the content I can experience is great. Maybe it should even be a combination of both--the less "useful" skills from a gameplay standpoint offer more unique content, incentivizing them even for people who aren't just looking for a challenge. I might be totally alone in that thinking, though.

I don't see where we're disagreeing.

Your post talks about different build varieties leading to different experiences (even including varying difficulties), which is what I advocate in a good RPG. My post was talking about viability rather than balance. Take the example of Fallout 2 where I create a madman, and start attacking settlements every which way like a psychopath. Obviously this build is much more difficult to play as (my character will probably die pretty soon) than any of the numerous more "sensible" builds. But the player is not dealt with poorly by the game in that example, and it is not a bad build. It's a viable build where the consequences of the PC's actions are apt.

Skill balance depends very much on whether the game is single character or party based. In a party based game, you can toy with strengths and weaknesses of various classes and skills, as long you allow for well-rounded parties. You have less leeway in single character games because each build should be viable for majority of the game's content.

 

[subversus]

Well, there are a few of us, but its an interesting conversation. I grew up in an era of no respecs and punishing failure for bad specs. BG and Fallout were especially hurtful. If they can design a transparent system in which I am given all the information to make the correct decision, then, I am down. If they make an impenetrable system where the only knowledge is gaines through fucking up, then I am still down. Its Obsidian for shits sake I will eat up whatever they put out. To me though, arguing against respecing based on the harsh reality of life in a genre of gaming that embraces the SOS style of save is a bit daft.

excuse me but how can you get bad specs in Fallout? You can complete the game with almost every kind of build unless you try to screw it on purpose.

 

[Sentenza]

excuse me but how can you get bad specs in Fallout? You can complete the game with almost every kind of build unless you try to screw it on purpose.

Same goes for Baldur's Gate, actually. So I have no idea of what he's talking about.

 

[marrec]

excuse me but how can you get bad specs in Fallout? You can complete the game with almost every kind of build unless you try to screw it on purpose.

Same goes for Baldur's Gate, actually. So I have no idea of what he's talking about.

Of course you can certainly finish the game, some skill builds are much more punishing than others though and if you didn't have a very good idea of what you were doing you could royally fuck up.

Of course, you'd want that in any RPG I'm not arguing against a punishing or challenging build. Just the idea that respeccing somehow takes away from the immersion of the game.

 

[EndcatOmega]

A game where even your "kill count" can help you in a dialogue check as an intimidating tool, for instance.

Does look like what I want- and it's nice to see someone keep the flag for flying for that type of RPG other than these kickstarters and Spiderweb Software- but I'm worried about that sentence- I do want NPCs to react to what they've heard about me but I also don't want them to actually be psychic.


"I know who you are. You are walking death, a plague in human form. Where you step, blood flows like a river. But such iniquities can be ended by a righteous soul!"
"...I've slaughtered every npc I've met, up to and including the Brahmin, how do y- ah, whatever, this was a mass slaughter run anyway. Meet the post-apocalypse!"

 

[Sharp]

I don't see where we're disagreeing.

Your post talks about different build varieties leading to different experiences (even including varying difficulties), which is what I advocate in a good RPG. My post was talking about viability rather than balance. Take the example of Fallout 2 where I create a madman, and start attacking settlements every which way like a psychopath. Obviously this build is much more difficult to play as (my character will probably die pretty soon) than any of the numerous more "sensible" builds. But the player is not dealt with poorly by the game in that example, and it is not a bad build. It's a viable build where the consequences of the PC's actions are apt.

Skill balance depends very much on whether the game is single character or party based. In a party based game, you can toy with strengths and weaknesses of various classes and skills, as long you allow for well-rounded parties. You have less leeway in single character games because each build should be viable for majority of the game's content.

So what do you consider a nonviable build? You mentioned a guns build in Arcanum, which I haven't played, but it seems like you're primarily complaining that it's really hard because there aren't many good guns? Does it actually reward you with less content if you do make it past the first couple of towns primarily using guns, or is it just the difficulty that you're concerned with? I don't think the madman example is really the same since you're not talking about the actual stats or abilities there.

 

[Sentenza]

Does look like what I want- and it's nice to see someone keep the flag for flying for that type of RPG other than these kickstarters and Spiderweb Software- but I'm worried about that sentence- I do want NPCs to react to what they've heard about me but I also don't want them to actually be psychic.

They aren't. And the writing is quite good, too.

Of course the combat can be a bit punishing, as other comments were suggesting a little above, but nothing I couldn't manage.

 

[mclem]

I'm not quite sure I see the issue with the *option* of respeccing. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm actually inclined to agree with that; I'm often happy to play an interesting character I've stumbled into rather than rebuild it into something minmaxy, but people needn't be forced into it.

Worst comes to the worst, offer an achievement for 'completing the game without respeccing'. A reward for keeping it 'true' without making those who made some unwise decisions have to replay a bunch of content.

 

[marrec]

I'm not quite sure I see the issue with the *option* of respeccing. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm actually inclined to agree with that; I'm often happy to play an interesting character I've stumbled into rather than rebuild it into something minmaxy, but people needn't be forced into it.

Worst comes to the worst, offer an achievement for 'completing the game without respeccing'. A reward for keeping it 'true' without making those who made some unwise decisions have to replay a bunch of content.

Sounds like a great solution.

 

[Zeroth]

So Feargus has been on the kickstarter comments section for hours now hangin out and answering questions by the bucketloads... here's a tidbit I thought somebody might find interesting:

Publishers *bow*

 

[EndcatOmega]

They aren't. And the writing is quite good, too.

Of course the combat can be a bit punishing, as other comments were suggesting a little above, but nothing I couldn't manage.

And turn-based, I see. Things really are looking up for the genre...

We haven't heard a peep about Eternity's system, have we? I assume some form of Stat + Skill and 3d6 or d20.

 

[Sirot]

Seems like quite a few people of upgrading their pledges from the early-bird amount of $20 to a higher tier. I went to make my pledge when the tier was sold out and when I came to the donation selection page, there were 2 out of 25000 spots available. Snagged a sweet $20 early-bird.

I am happy either way!

 

[Sharp]

Sounds like a great solution.

Short of coming up with some way to make respeccing actually make sense within the game world (which they could definitely do if they wanted), I don't understand why respeccing should be part of the game proper, period. If you just want to experience all the writing in the game and don't really care about having your decisions impact the game world, why not just read the script? Respeccing as a console command makes sense, just like something like item spawning--things that make the game easier to complete even if they break immersion, for people who find the game too challenging or just want to unlock content--but making it a core part of the gameplay mechanics to the point where you get an achievement for not doing it seems strange to me.

 

[Sentenza]

Publishers *bow*

An educated guess:

 

[patapuf]

almost at 1.7 Million, they got more money today than yesterday.

 

[Lancehead]

So what do you consider a nonviable build?

A non-viable skill or build is one which is not applicable from start to finish of the game.

Note that "finish of the game" does not necessarily mean end of the story campaign. In the example of the madman, the game ended when the PC finally bitten off more than he could chew.

You mentioned a guns build in Arcanum, which I haven't played, but it seems like you're primarily complaining that it's really hard because there aren't many good guns? Does it actually reward you with less content if you do make it past the first couple of towns primarily using guns, or is it just the difficulty that you're concerned with?

Guns in Arcanum is a major skill around which you can build your character, yet they're pretty damn ineffective. The rate of fire is very slow, the damage output is very low and ammo is extremely scarce; all of those factors make the game ridiculously frustrating. It's not about difficulty but about effectiveness, whether they work or not. That is, they don't solve the problems they're is supposed to. For at least first half of the game, guns are ineffective. It may have gotten better in the second half, I don't know, but that doesn't matter because they weren't useful in the first half. They're non-viable.

I don't think the madman example is really the same since you're not talking about the actual stats or abilities there.

Okay, what about a character in, again, Fallout 2 who doesn't have any investment in combat skills? It's more difficult than a build with a combat skill focus, but it's effective, it works, it solves problems, from start to finish of the game. And you get a drastically different experience.

 

[Woorloog]

I'm pretty sure Sawyer's talked about respeccing on Formspring some time or other, but if I had to guess I'd say respeccing goes against his design philosophy. That skills you invest in should be useful from start to finish of the game.

Maybe not against but it doesn't sound compatible.

No respeccing is fine if every skill, perk, ability, spell and etc. are useful from start to finish. It is quite possible to gimp oneself in many games (though rarely makes finishing the game impossible, just very difficult).
I've never seen or played a single game where this would be the case though.

EDIT if there is no respeccing, at least make sure the player can plan their complete build before starting the game...

 

[HoosTrax]

I've never seen or played a single game where this would be the case though.

One would hope that this (balance) is something that is less of an issue to get right in the age of free crowdsourced beta testing.

 

[Woorloog]

One would hope that this (balance) is something that is less of an issue to get right in the age of free crowdsourced beta testing.

Wish, not hope. There is bound to be something sub-par or overly specialized, even after the beta testing. This is always the case...

 

[Lancehead]

Another point I'd like to add is that the player shouldn't have to rely on metagaming to make the PC effective.

No respeccing is fine if every skill, perk, ability, spell and etc. are useful from start to finish. It is quite possible to gimp oneself in many games (though rarely makes finishing the game impossible, just very difficult).
I've never seen or played a single game where this would be the case though.

EDIT if there is no respeccing, at least make sure the player can plan their complete build before starting the game...

New Vegas does a very admirable job, though.

 

[Sharp]

A non-viable skill or build is one which is not applicable from start to finish of the game.

Note that "finish of the game" does not necessarily mean end of the story campaign. In the example of the madman, the game ended when the PC finally bitten off more than he could chew.



Guns in Arcanum is a major skill around which you can build your character, yet they're pretty damn ineffective. The rate of fire is very slow, the damage output is very low and ammo is extremely scarce; all of those factors make the game ridiculously frustrating. It's not about difficulty but about effectiveness, whether they work or not. That is, they don't solve the problems they're is supposed to. For at least first half of the game, guns are ineffective. It may have gotten better in the second half, I don't know, but that doesn't matter because they weren't useful in the first half. They're non-viable.

An awful lot of games offer classes that reward the player early but aren't so good later on, or vice versa. I suppose you could argue that all of those games are terrible, but I still don't see why this makes guns nonviable. Early guns really were frustrating and inaccurate, and the only reason they got as much use as they did was because they were relatively easy to train with in comparison to a longbow. Maybe the real problem is that Arcanum got it backwards--a gun build should have been easier than something like an archer build for the first half of the game, to reflect the reasons guns were actually used in real life. From my perspective, in an intelligently designed world, any style you choose has to be viable, simply because if it were totally useless it wouldn't exist in that world.

All that being said: the real measure of whether the gun build was useful was whether it meaningfully altered the game experience for you. It seems to me like it did--you probably had to hunt for ammo, pick your battles very carefully, and die a lot. That may not be the kind of gameplay that you actually enjoy, but it still sounds like a perfectly reasonable candidate for a major skill (assuming, again, that there was an actual good reason for your character to specialize in guns, like ease of use or firepower in the late game, in fitting with the game world).

Okay, what about a character in, again, Fallout 2 who doesn't have any investment in combat skills? It's more difficult than a build with a combat skill focus, but it's effective, it works, it solves problems, from start to finish of the game. And you get a drastically different experience.

Sure, that's a great example. I think most of us agree that both combat and noncombat skills should be viable builds, provided it's done intelligently. That doesn't mean that I should be able to get out of every single fight by smooth talking or bash my way around every problem, though (not that I think that's what you're saying). Just because I can specialize in guns doesn't mean guns need to solve every problem in the game, at least not from my perspective.

I think you're right that we don't really disagree about this... I think you just don't want skills that sound cool but are actually useless in most situations to be selectable as major skills from the getgo. I do kind of agree with that, but only because if something really requires training (hence is worth making a major skill) there has to be a reason for the player character to pursue that skill in the first place. Obviously there are a lot of people who are talented at fairly useless things, but those things don't need to show up in the character selection sheet, as they can be roleplayed without any substantial impact on the game. It's just that in a fully realized world, I don't see that as being an issue.

 

[Woorloog]

New Vegas does a very admirable job, though.

Almost. Not quite up to my standards. There are worthless perks and some skills and attributes are too limited and pointless (survival is useless if not playing HC, IMO; Perception is worthless without DLC (due to conversations), lockpicking is useless since 25, 50, 75 and 100 points in it matter.
Also, don't like having both unarmed and melee skills, and their perks arbitarily require one or the other skill but affect both.

But regardless, i need to plan my build beforehand in New Vegas, i need to calculate when i need attribute increases etc. I don't like that (and i don't even power play, i make odd builds etc but to execute them i need to calculate them beforehand or the character won't be as i want it to be).

Hmm. Don't really know why i pitched in here when i'm not particularly interested in Project Eternity. They need to make the world very interesting... BioWare failed with Dragon Age world, so fucking generic and boring, worked much better as more locale-centric in DA2)

 

[Perkel]

Worst comes to the worst, offer an achievement for 'completing the game without respeccing'. A reward for keeping it 'true' without making those who made some unwise decisions have to replay a bunch of content.

Sounds like a great solution.

Problem with this assumption is human will and game design (especially in RPG).

If you go that way then why there shouldn't be god mode in options or auto-win battles ? or every quest be possible to do with every class. Or if we already taking this road would we allow people get to end game without playing 90% of game. Yeah we will give them achievement after that.

Why do you think there is mod for disabling Fast Travel in Skyrim ? I use it not because i am hardcore gamer but because i have weak will and fast travel in game like Skyrim kills most crucial element "exploration". Only after disabling Fast Travel i noticed that this game is fun (beside story and dialogs).

No-respec policy is one of designer choices to annouce to player that your choice who you will be in game is critical and should be choose wisely. This is design and not something to make player mad.

Respec make any choice of skill meaningless and it kills character progression because there isn't any with respec.


edit:

Part of what makes fun in RPG is creating character which is unique to you.

Also as we talk about game design i think there should be a way to tackle the most serious problem in RPG.

Save/Reload function. I think giving players easy save/reload system is bad option for roleplaying. How many times in Fallout NV did you completely lock door ? I didn't do that even once because there was always with me save reload function. Same with choices how many times have we reloaded game because we didn't like outcome of choice we made ?

That is in my opinion one of the problems that holds storytelling. I mean because of that we don't know what would happen afterwards. Maybe now it is a bad option but in few hour that bad option was critical to achieving something better overall ?

People who play hardcore (meaning no save/load on player death and stick with every choice even bad) can already prove how much fun sticking to your choices in RPG can be.

I fear that problem won't go away in future but it is worthwile to think about it maybe some game designer will come with an answer to that.

 

[Dennis]

almost at 1.7 Million, they got more money today than yesterday.

mo' money mo' RPG

 

[dude]

Personally, I want to builds to be of not that much value. I mean, I don't want to be thinking too much about my build. I want to be able to role-play my game through, this is not Diablo. There should be no strictly unwise choices (other than truly stupid ones, I mean), and the game should be playable even with a more... creative build (to the extent logic allows, of curse), but let those who like to better plan their character enjoy the fruits of their labour by allowing it to be stronger. You can finish BG2 with a non-strategically built character, but if you plan ahead and create a Kensai/Mage you can enjoy yourself slaughtering lichs later.

Thi worked great in BG2 in general, where character weaknesses are characterizations and you have other party members to offset for those weaknesses. I also like how in BG2 there are some characters with weirdly chosen abilities (like Anomen's low Wisdom score) just to make them real, that's what abilities are for, give personality to the character.

So I'm against respeccing, I would even say vehemently so.

 

[Aselith]

So Feargus has been on the kickstarter comments section for hours now hangin out and answering questions by the bucketloads... here's a tidbit I thought somebody might find interesting:

lol! This probably could have worked out if that had offered to double whatever funds they got via Kickstarter and then handle publishing and distribution but they're too greedy and leery of risk to do that.

 

[Eusis]

lol! This probably could have worked out if that had offered to double whatever funds they got via Kickstarter and then handle publishing and distribution but they're too greedy and leery of risk to do that.

Hell, I imagine not taking ownership would've helped a lot. Ridiculous to have it kickstarted out of passion for them, only for some fuckoff publisher taking the rights to the creation away.

 

[turk128]

I'd say that a good RPG shouldn't have any bad decisions that a player may make.

You meant gameplay-wise not roleplay-wise but I'll used this to talk about how the new "yes, but..." rule of roleplaying is wrong.

"Yes, but..." implies that the player's decisions are always right and it's up to the system to compensate. Besides this being blatantly wrong, storytelling-wise, wrong decisions are what leads to more interesting consequences.

 

[Delusibeta]

Looks like they'll cross the 170k mark in a couple of hours' time. It seems to have settled at roughly $100k/day, which is the fasted growing Kickstarter outside of the usual starting/finishing boosts I can think of.

 

[dude]

You meant gameplay-wise not roleplay-wise but I'll used this to talk about how the new "yes, but..." rule of roleplaying is wrong.

"Yes, but..." implies that the player's decisions are always right and it's up to the system to compensate. Besides this being blatantly wrong, storytelling-wise, wrong decisions are what leads to more interesting consequences.

Actually, it's the other way around. In role-playing there are no wrong choices because weird choices like having a priest with lowish wisdom or making a bard that is not a Blade (still using BG2 metaphors here) make the story and characters more interesting even though they go against any strategic considerations. This means "wrong" gameplay (strategic) decisions can lead to better role-playing, so the game should let you play such a character without making you suffer too much for it. A good RPG let's you viably play a wide spectrum of creative builds because that's the character you want to play and not because that the way to "win", thus it must have the least possible number of "wrong" gameplay choices.

Again, that's not to say there shouldn't be better builds than others, the game should just not be about the builds. I don't care about builds, I don't want to think about them when building my characters, but if that's you thing you should be able to do it and have a kickass character. This is sort of how it worked in most IE games. Just having a party of six helps because any one character is just a part of a whole crew which can offset more weaknesses, as long as the character is not a liability or completely useless.

 

[JDSN]

Some publishers just wanna watch the world burn.

I kinda hope they add a 5 million tier in which they make a miniseries abotu their hilariously absurd interactions with shitty publishers and exec agents, Brian Fargo could guest star.

 

[Eusis]

You meant gameplay-wise not roleplay-wise but I'll used this to talk about how the new "yes, but..." rule of roleplaying is wrong.

"Yes, but..." implies that the player's decisions are always right and it's up to the system to compensate. Besides this being blatantly wrong, storytelling-wise, wrong decisions are what leads to more interesting consequences.

Plus on the storytelling side it's really obnoxious to have situations like Starcraft II's from what I heard which sounds like some stupid "yes you are always right" bullshit that's so terrible as to be offensive for interactive story telling.

For gameplay? I think if you have respecing it should come at a heavy cost. Etrian Odyssey for example allows it... at the cost of 10 levels. Which can be somewhat of a pain to regain, so it's not a decision to make lightly.

 

[dude]

How do you even explain respeccing from a in-game perspective and not completely ruin the immersion?

 

[Sharp]

How do you even explain respeccing from a in-game perspective and not completely ruin the immersion?

There are ways to do it without breaking immersion if you have deities in the game. That's not to say I've seen it done really well, though. And usually where I've seen it done it's a reward for reaching the end of the line with one spec, not something you can do on a whim because you decided you didn't like your spec anymore.

 

[turk128]

Actually, it's the other way around. In role-playing there are no wrong choices because weird choices like having a priest with lowish wisdom or making a bard that is not a Blade (still using BG2 metaphors here) make the story and characters more interesting even though they go against any strategic considerations. This means "wrong" gameplay (strategic) decisions can lead to better role-playing, so the game should let you play such a character without making you suffer too much for it. A good RPG let's you viably play a wide spectrum of creative builds because that's the character you want to play and not because that the way to "win", thus it must have the least possible number of "wrong" gameplay choices.

Again, you're talking about gameplay not roleplay.


Example: you decide to spec a paladin. Then proceed to play it like a dark paladin by being the most bloodthirsty a-hole you can be when it comes to story decisions. That should lead to 'good' townspeople and authorities treat you like a you are a horrible person, and in doing so, cut you off from certain quests. This would be role-play.

Gameplay-wise, it would seem to be a little more of a hassle to play a dark pali, but you might get access to the black market or open up more nefarious options to quests or access quests goody two-shoes wouldn't have access to.

 

[Sothpaw]

I'm intrigued; is this a preference for a medieval (as presented in Tolkien etc) tech level, or a dislike of guns in particular?

I'm a gun owner and frequent the range. I just prefer a fantasy setting where gunpowder doesn't exist.

Not a huge deal for me though, I'll just make it so no one in my party uses guns.

 

[water_wendi]

Fixed for Obsidian Game!

Speaking of which, I do hope there's more non-combat stuff for people who invested in physical stats- MOTB had the lodge, and a few flashbacks you could only see with high CON, but the game still heavily rewarded high CHA and WIS.

With you there 100%!

 

[mclem]

No-respec policy is one of designer choices to annouce to player that your choice who you will be in game is critical and should be choose wisely. This is design and not something to make player mad.

I think part of it may be that I don't feel that any game I've played that has a 'no respec' rule has really offered sufficient information to allow the player to make what I feel is a sufficiently *informed* choice, at least not without accumulating the information from experimentation.

 

[water_wendi]

An educated guess:

With what money?

 

[dude]

Again, you're talking about gameplay not roleplay.


Example: you decide to spec a paladin. Then proceed to play it like a dark paladin by being the most bloodthirsty a-hole you can be when it comes to story decisions. That should lead to 'good' townspeople and authorities treat you like a you are a horrible person, and in doing so, cut you off from certain quests. This would be role-play.

Gameplay-wise, it would seem to be a little more of a hassle to play a dark pali, but you might get access to the black market or open up more nefarious options to quests or access quests goody two-shoes wouldn't have access to.

Hmm... Isn't that what I said?
Now, I assume that in your example playing a dark Paladin is the worst strategic plan (you said it's more of an hassle), but you do it anyway because that's what you want to play your character as. You might be treated badly by authorities, but I'm saying it shouldn't just lock a whole bunch of quests for you - It should also open new ones that fit your evil character. I'm saying that in a good role-playing game, the player doesn't have suffer for making a "wrong" decision, there should be multiple ways to enjoy the game. In role-playing, there are only different paths, no wrong paths - In gameplay, there are definite worst strategical paths.

There are ways to do it without breaking immersion if you have deities in the game. That's not to say I've seen it done really well, though. And usually where I've seen it done it's a reward for reaching the end of the line with one spec, not something you can do on a whim because you decided you didn't like your spec anymore.

I don't know, I'm used to D&D where respeccing is not even close to existing. It seems weird to me you could just... change yourself mid-game. I mean, that's who you are. Even deities can't sufficiently explain that.

 

[water_wendi]

Hmm... Isn't that what I said? Now, I assume that in your example playing a dark Paladin is the worst strategic plan (you said it's more of an hassle), but you do it anyway because that's what you want to play your character as. You might be treated badly by authorities, but I'm saying it shouldn't just lock a whole bunch of quests for you - It should also open new ones that fit your evil character. I'm saying that in a good role-playing game, the player doesn't have suffer for making a "wrong" decision, there should be multiple ways to enjoy the game. In role-playing, there are only different paths, no wrong paths - In gameplay, there are definite worst strategical paths.

Ideally every type of playthrough should not only be viable but be gameplay dense when it comes to that particular playstyle. Dark Paladin should have choices unique to that path.

Like in Fallout: New Vegas.. when i was in Repconn with the Nightkin. i was a little bit shocked when i found out you can talk with their leader (hint: its Antler) and resolve things. If you dont Sneak past the guards you will never even know this happens. i love that kind of stuff.

 

[turk128]

There are ways to do it without breaking immersion if you have deities in the game. That's not to say I've seen it done really well, though. And usually where I've seen it done it's a reward for reaching the end of the line with one spec, not something you can do on a whim because you decided you didn't like your spec anymore.

Maybe there should be a consequence to respecing. Not sure I would take a chunk of levels thou, that'll just be punishing people who may be ignorant to the system or have the bad luck of picking that rare build that's barely useful in most quests ("I'd dig holes").

Treat it like a resurrection? i.e. a chunk of karma/reputation you built up with certain places/people/enemies get reset. In that way, roleplay-wise, it's almost like a second chance.

 

[The Technomancer]

Level cost works in games with unlimited encounters IMO, although its probably better in JRPGs with random encounters.

 

[water_wendi]

Immersion is a worthless objective for any developer to shoot for.

edit:

Maybe i should explain before i offend anyone. You dont need immersion as its defined in the gaming industry today to immerse the player fully. You need engaging content to immerse the audience. Civilization or HoMM has had me more immersed in the game than any game by any developer that prides themselves on "immersion."

 

[dude]

Immersion is a worthless objective for any developer to shoot for.

What? This is an RPG, if you're not immersed in it, it's doing a very bad job. In BG2, I actually felt bad for the character's I had to dump from my party, I felt bad about imaginary people, that's the kind of immersion I expect from PE.

All this talk of respec it just wrong. It might fit some Hack n' Slash game or JRPGs where the fun comes from designing your build, but this is not what this game should be about.

 

[Sharp]

I don't know, I'm used to D&D where respeccing is not even close to existing. It seems weird to me you could just... change yourself mid-game. I mean, that's who you are. Even deities can't sufficiently explain that.

Sufficiently powerful deities can explain just about anything Like I said, it's more of a reward at that point--if you've basically maxed out your level, learned all the appropriate abilities, and done all the unique quests, there's really not a lot of gameplay reasons left for you to stay as the character you are. I've seen it a lot in MUDs, where there are reasons you'd want to use the same character with a different spec rather than just restart the game.

Maybe there should be a consequence to respecing. Not sure I would take a chunk of levels thou, that'll just be punishing people who may be ignorant to the system or have the bad luck of picking that rare build that's barely useful in most quests ("I'd dig holes").

Treat it like a resurrection? i.e. a chunk of karma/reputation you built up with certain places/people/enemies get reset. In that way, roleplay-wise, it's almost like a second chance.

I actually quite like the idea of losing levels as a deterrent. You absolutely should be penalized for switching characters midstream, if it can happen at all. I'd almost argue that you should go back to square one, since you are basically a different character at that point. I realize that at that point you might as well just start the game over, but I kind of feel like that's the correct solution here anyway. If you want to respec with no consequences, there's always the console and mods.

Immersion is a worthless objective for any developer to shoot for.

In my experience, the odds of a developer creating an immersive game are a hell of a lot better than the odds of that same developer creating a game with a good story. Developers should absolutely shoot for immersion--it's what the best videogames do best.

 

[water_wendi]

Maybe i should explain before i offend anyone. You dont need immersion as its defined in the gaming industry today to immerse the player fully. You need engaging content to immerse the audience. Civilization or HoMM has had me more immersed in the game than any game by any developer that prides themselves on "immersion."

i edited my original comment to include this.