Support NeoGAF

[dude]

dude: What about the situation where you end up with a character - ten hours in, say - that you're not really *enjoying* roleplaying? You're seeing whizzbang spells all around you and you're feeling that your sword-based character isn't as enjoyable, and you don't particularly want to play it any more.

You could - and indeed, probably *should* - restart the game, but that's ten hours of gameplay you're going to have to toil through and at that stage I can see many players just saying 'fuck it' and moving on to some other game. A respec is - potentially - a way of saving the game for them.

So, in your example, I decide to play my character as a snarky asshole mage who shoots sarcastic comments all the time, mid game I decide I'm not having fun and that I want to play the game as a brutish but good-hearted warrior guy. The solution is to have some way, in the game world and logic, to have my character be reborn as a new person with an new personality, skills and whatnot? To minimal effect? Unless this is a Doctor Who RPG, this ruins role-playing entirely.

The most frustrating thing that can happen in an RPG is to realize after 15 hours of gameplay that the character you build is useless.

And I absolutely don't accept that this should be regarded as the player's fault.

I 100% agree with you, but think respecing is just not the solution. The solution is to make more builds viable and make it clear how to make a serviceable build (as I said, in party based RPGs, serviceable is all you really need). And if you want a some min-maxed uber character, you can do that at a later play-through after you learned the system.

The respec at the start of the game is a full respec iirc, because the intro area is treated as a sort of tutorial. But this is basically just the first hour or less of the game.

Old World Blues offers a trait respec and a face respec. They are designed as one time respecs in the advanced AutoDoc. They are presented as a "psychological reevaluation" and facial reconstruction surgery.

The reason why the trait respec was put in OWB is because they added a trait in the DLC which would basically lock the level cap at the default 30 instead of the 5 level increments each DLC offered, which is something some players were asking for. By putting the trait respec inside the DLC, it gives players a chance to actually use that without having to create a new character to play all over again.

I can accept a post-tutorial respec, as that would lead to less immersion breaking (if the tutorial is handled like in BG2 at least.) As for the OWB respec... That's more of an eeehhhhh.

 

[peakish]

I think "unlimited" respeccing is silly in RPG's, but here's an easy solution: let players choose when starting the game if they want to be able to or not. No backing out afterwards. I would call this mode "Copper man".

 

[scytheavatar]

I don't agree, at least in this particular situation. You say that the game would have to be *designed* around a respec, but, well, why? Assuming you don't permit the player to completely rebuild their character for every encounter (the extreme end, of course!) what's inherently problematic about designing it around no respec and then plugging in a couple of emergency outs?


dude: What about the situation where you end up with a character - ten hours in, say - that you're not really *enjoying* roleplaying? You're seeing whizzbang spells all around you and you're feeling that your sword-based character isn't as enjoyable, and you don't particularly want to play it any more.

You could - and indeed, probably *should* - restart the game, but that's ten hours of gameplay you're going to have to toil through and at that stage I can see many players just saying 'fuck it' and moving on to some other game. A respec is - potentially - a way of saving the game for them.

Respec makes a game *a lot* easier, like 100 times easier, because the pressure on you to be smart and careful with your character build disappears. The learning curve of an RPG gets dumbed down greatly and there's the possibly of you abusing the skill tree by dumping points on easy to use skills early then putting all the point on overpowered skills later when you have access to them. That's why Kingdoms of Amalur got so easy and had a hard time keeping the challenge up.

 

[duckroll]

I 100% agree with you, but think respecing is just not the solution. The solution is to make more builds viable and make it clear how to make a serviceable build (as I said, in party based RPGs, serviceable is all you really need). And if you want a some min-maxed uber character, you can do that at a later play-through after you learned the system.

Sure, I think everyone agrees with this in -theory-. Respec is never a solution in itself, but a brute force option which elevates the frustration of a player trapped with flawed options. But remember, it is easier to say "let's design a balanced game where every single combination is totally viable and players are expected to be happy with any choice they make", but it's much harder in practice to make it work.

In the event where it becomes apparent that it is POSSIBLE that a player could get trapped in a late game situation in an unsatisfactory position, it is preferable to have some sort of respec option to make the game playable for such a player, rather than having the only option being restarting the game from scratch.

The trick then is in how you present such an option if you do need one, and how you ensure it doesn't become a sort of exploitable crutch for those who do not really need it.

Ideally of course a game would not NEED a respec. But hey, shit happens.

 

[Lancehead]

Actually, I believe it's the other way around. In a party based RPG, it's much easier to remove the strategic elements of any one individual character because most of the strategic elements are in the party composition. To give an example, if your thief is min-maxed to hell with 18 dex and such he still wouldn't be that big of an advantage over a less strategic thief with 14 dex because you really just need serviceable thief for you party. Imoen, as a 7th level thief, could act as the sole thief until the end of ToB. You just need the characters to have assigned roles, how they are built is less relevant than games like Diablo or the Witcher, where the whole burden of the gameplay lies on a single character.
That's why BG2 got away with giving some its companions really bad ability scores (I will again invoke Anomen's 12 Wisdon, for a cleric, and he was still a serviceable character until the end of the game.)

My point is, lack of strategy can affect roleplaying. You want to play a certain style, so you create a build for that, then realise you made a mistake, so now you have to assign part of your role to one your companions. Which is why you have to strategise your build, so you know what your role is in your party and what you want from your companions.

 

[EviLore]

I have no issue with limited respeccing that makes sense within the game world. For example, going to a monastery and enduring the training there to expand your mind but wither your body in exchange, whether that means redistributing some stats or reassigning some skills.

Or, even, leave specialization for later in the game, so that critical choices are made when you're more informed about how the game plays and how you want your character to handle things. Can leave it open-ended, too, so that you can go back in a different direction as part of a proce-----wait, I'm just describing Planescape: Torment now ;b

 

[aliencowz7]

So the choices here are either no / limited respecs which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase that prefer to be able to use such a feature or allowing respecs and asking a portion of the playerbase to just not make use of them if they so choose?

One of those options seems rather selfish in comparison to the other for me and I just don't think its satisfactory to just throw up your hands and say oh well, devs can't create a game without allowing respecs to effect it negatively so no respecs.

(for clarification when I say limited I mean like a single one early in the game type deal, I think paying a appropriate price for a respec is a fair compromise.)

 

[EviLore]

So the choices here are either no / limited respecs which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase that prefer to be able to use such a feature or allowing respecs and asking a portion of the playerbase to just not make use of them if they so choose?

One of those options seems rather selfish in comparison to the other for me and I just don't think its satisfactory to just throw up your hands and say oh well, devs can't create a game without allowing respecs to effect it negatively so no respecs.

Morrowind should have a big arrow on the screen telling you where to go, because a lot of people will get lost and frustrated otherwise. Not wanting the option for a giant arrow is selfish.

This is a hardcore game for fans of Baldur's Gate and Torment and Icewind Dale, not something that should be aimed at appeasing the lowest common denominator whatsoever.

 

[duckroll]

So the choices here are either no / limited respecs which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase that prefer to be able to use such a feature or allowing respecs and asking a portion of the playerbase to just not make use of them if they so choose?

One of those options seems rather selfish in comparison to the other for me and I just don't think its satisfactory to just throw up your hands and say oh well, devs can't create a game without allowing respecs to effect it negatively so no respecs.

No, the choices are no respec which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase which might be unintentionally making poorly informed choices early in the game either because of poor documentation, or not paying enough attention, or limited respecs which can help elevate some of these concerns without making the game dumb.

There should never be concern for players who "like to use such a feature". I don't know any serious RPG player who actually likes respecs in a positive way. Respecs are always a "oh shit, I think I fucked up, crap" option. It's not a gameplay "feature".

 

[dude]

Sure, I think everyone agrees with this in -theory-. Respec is never a solution in itself, but a brute force option which elevates the frustration of a player trapped with flawed options. But remember, it is easier to say "let's design a balanced game where every single combination is totally viable and players are expected to be happy with any choice they make", but it's much harder in practice to make it work.

In the event where it becomes apparent that it is POSSIBLE that a player could get trapped in a late game situation in an unsatisfactory position, it is preferable to have some sort of respec option to make the game playable for such a player, rather than having the only option being restarting the game from scratch.

The trick then is in how you present such an option if you do need one, and how you ensure it doesn't become a sort of exploitable crutch for those who do not really need it.

Ideally of course a game would not NEED a respec. But hey, shit happens.

Did anyone really need a respec in the old IE games? I mean, even if you built you character like shit you still had some awesome companions to offset this. You could get away with a fighter with 13 strength because you had Minsc. I'm saying we don't need a respec because we didn't need it in the spiritual predecessor to this game. i'm not requesting the impossible here, just what I have seen done before.

My point is, lack of strategy can affect roleplaying. You want to play a certain style, so you create a build for that, then realise you made a mistake, so now you have to assign part of your role to one your companions. Which is why you have to strategise your build, so you know what your role is in your party and what you want from your companions.

Well, what I'm is that you shouldn't need to strategies your build. In BG2, just having a class with abilities that make even remote sense (like a cleric with 12 Wisdon) made you useful enough. i see no reason this game wouldn't work just as well.

 

[whalleywhat]

So the choices here are either no / limited respecs which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase that prefer to be able to use such a feature or allowing respecs and asking a portion of the playerbase to just not make use of them if they so choose?

One of those options seems rather selfish in comparison to the other for me and I just don't think its satisfactory to just throw up your hands and say oh well, devs can't create a game without allowing respecs to effect it negatively so no respecs.

(for clarification when I say limited I mean like a single one early in the game type deal, I think paying a appropriate price for a respec is a fair compromise.)

Is it more selfish to want one game tailored to your preferences or every game tailored to your preferences?

 

[duckroll]

Did anyone really need a respec in the old IE games? I mean, even if you built you character like shit you still had some awesome companions to offset this. You could get away with a fighter with 13 strength because you had Minsc or some other guy. I'm saying we don't need a respec because we didn't need it in the spiritual predecessor to this game. i'm not requesting the impossible here, just what i have seen done before.

Well, this is a good point. It is especially worthwhile noting that Project Eternity is designed to have a companion for every single existing class. Which is why every tier which adds a class also adds a companion. The reason stated is that they are meant to provide the player with a variety of options to offset the weaknesses of their player character.

 

[WanderingWind]

So the choices here are either no / limited respecs which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase that prefer to be able to use such a feature or allowing respecs and asking a portion of the playerbase to just not make use of them if they so choose?

One of those options seems rather selfish in comparison to the other for me and I just don't think its satisfactory to just throw up your hands and say oh well, devs can't create a game without allowing respecs to effect it negatively so no respecs.

(for clarification when I say limited I mean like a single one early in the game type deal, I think paying a appropriate price for a respec is a fair compromise.)

Well, considering on the tenants of role-playing is, well, playing a role, it's a definite feature of the genre. It's one of the things they've used to really tear down the genre in order to acquiesce to people who really don't seem to enjoy role-playing games. They don't think equipment is necessary. They don't think traveling is important. They don't think living with choices is important. They don't think unique worlds are important.

The question becomes - where do you draw the line between making a game accessible and making a game that is designed by committee, for a committee and appeasing no group of players. A small project like this seems aimed directly opposed to the entire mindset that leaves up with "RPGs" like DA2 and ME. Which, however you feel about the quality of either, you can't argue that they're anything that totally pleased the crowd a isometric, party based CRPG is aimed at.

 

[marrec]

So, in your example, I decide to play my character as a snarky asshole mage who shoots sarcastic comments all the time, mid game I decide I'm not having fun and that I want to play the game as a brutish but good-hearted warrior guy. The solution is to have some way, in the game world and logic, to have my character be reborn as a new person with an new personality, skills and whatnot? To minimal effects? Unless this is a Doctor Who RPG, this ruins role-playing entirely.

I agree with you, but now I want a Doctor Who RPG.

Also I think most people are not talking about a class reset or even a job reset. Just a skill reset.

I 100% agree with you, but think respecing is just not the solution. The solution is to make more builds viable and make it clear how to make a serviceable build (as I said, in party based RPGs, serviceable is all you really need). And if you want a some min-maxed uber character, you can do that at a later play-through after you learned the system.

The most use I ever got out of respeccing was to roll back my build by a couple hours because I took the wrong train-track back when I got that awesome Katana and thought I'd be a fucking NINJA. Obviously that's not going to be everyone's use case, but respeccing isn't all about min/maxing (which I like to do as well). Obviously building a set of skills that are all viable and work well together is a noble goal and they should strive to achieve it but it's pretty much impossible. Having the option to respec is an easy solution that will not affect design one way or another.

Also having the ability to respec makes for great experimentation during your second and third and fourth playthroughs. I know that traditionally RPGs are not too focused on experimentation initially, but during a subsequent playthrough I don't see why you should be limited.

Edit:

Hell, even if you didn't allow respecing until NG+...

Oh shit, don't get me started on NG+.

 

[scytheavatar]

Sure, I think everyone agrees with this in -theory-. Respec is never a solution in itself, but a brute force option which elevates the frustration of a player trapped with flawed options. But remember, it is easier to say "let's design a balanced game where every single combination is totally viable and players are expected to be happy with any choice they make", but it's much harder in practice to make it work.

In the event where it becomes apparent that it is POSSIBLE that a player could get trapped in a late game situation in an unsatisfactory position, it is preferable to have some sort of respec option to make the game playable for such a player, rather than having the only option being restarting the game from scratch.

To me it's preferable to have the player restarting the game from scratch, then have the game become too easy and boring and to have the replay value killed because of Respec.

 

[aliencowz7]

No, the choices are no respec which in turn screws over a portion of the playerbase which might be unintentionally making poorly informed choices early in the game either because of poor documentation, or not paying enough attention, or limited respecs which can help elevate some of these concerns without making the game dumb.

There should never be concern for players who "like to use such a feature". I don't know any serious RPG player who actually likes respecs in a positive way. Respecs are always a "oh shit, I think I fucked up, crap" option. It's not a gameplay "feature".

RPGs are my main genre and I love having at least some form of respec available even if I have to work for it simply for experimentation reasons. I get attached to the characters I play which leads to not wanting to start over to try new builds. I think my original post was a bit to vague in that I don't want anything dumbed down I simply think its a feature worth having in any genre with as much customization as RPGs have.

Respecs don't need to make a game any less hardcore, devs just need to be mindful of balancing the game accordingly which I have no doubt obsidian is capable of should they decide to go that route.

 

[mclem]

Did anyone really need a respec in the old IE games? I mean, even if you built you character like shit you still had some awesome companions to offset this. You could get away with a fighter with 13 strength because you had Minsc. I'm saying we don't need a respec because we didn't need it in the spiritual predecessor to this game. i'm not requesting the impossible here, just what I have seen done before.

But then you've got the inherent feeling that your character isn't very heroic. As an intentional choice, that's fine. As an accidental choice, it sucks. What's your hypothetical 13-strength fighter *for*?

You don't want the game to feel like the NPCs are carrying your character from encounter to encounter!

Edit: Actually, an RPG deliberately structured along those lines could be fun, though. Gorion's Ward is a brain in a jar!

 

[dude]

RPGs are my main genre and I love having at least some form of respec available even if I have to work for it simply for experimentation reasons. I get attached to the characters I play which leads to not wanting to start over to try new builds. I think my original post was a bit to vague in that I don't want anything dumbed down I simply think its a feature worth having in any genre with as much customization as RPGs have.

Respecs don't need to make a game any less hardcore, devs just need to be mindful of balancing the game accordingly which I have no doubt obsidian is capable of should they decide to go that route.

This is not a balancing issue though, this is not about how well the system works. This is about role-playing. You said yourself that you get attache to the character, how do you explain that respecing? Did your character mind and body altered suddenly? This is the problem.

Well, this is a good point. It is especially worthwhile noting that Project Eternity is designed to have a companion for every single existing class. Which is why every tier which adds a class also adds a companion. The reason stated is that they are meant to provide the player with a variety of options to offset the weaknesses of their player character.

Yeah, this is what I meant when I said party-based RPGs make any one character less important thus allowing for more creative "builds".

But then you've got the inherent feeling that your character isn't very heroic. As an intentional choice, that's fine. As an accidental choice, it sucks. What's your hypothetical 13-strength fighter *for*?

You don't want the game to feel like the NPCs are carrying your character from encounter to encounter!

They'll do it anyway. Unless you create a uberman you have to have some companions with you to help you or you're dead. Your 13 strength fighter put those points somewhere else, like maybe Wisdom, which is a bad choice strategically for a fighter, but it'll give you appropriate dialogue options so that you feel like you're playing the character you created. If your intention was to create a super-fighter and you gave him 13 strength I attribute that to human error.

 

[WanderingWind]

But then you've got the inherent feeling that your character isn't very heroic. As an intentional choice, that's fine. As an accidental choice, it sucks. What's your hypothetical 13-strength fighter *for*?

You don't want the game to feel like the NPCs are carrying your character from encounter to encounter!

I'm totally fine with playing a game where I'm not Superman with a Sword. You're not supposed to be the best at everything, so somebody in your party will be better at something than you.

 

[marrec]

This is not a balancing issue though, this is not about how well the system works. This is about role-playing. You said yourself that you get attache to the character, how do you explain that respecing? Did your character mind and body altered suddenly? This is the problem.

But isn't a role-playing game about experiencing the story presented as a character that you've built? If that character that you've built happens to not allow you to experience the story, you should not be penalized by having to restart the story from scratch.

 

[Hargenx]

I think you can change the "personality", but this has to be some gradual, after a few conversation, you can make the walk from bad to good, is normal IRL, why not in a game?!

This conversation, make me remember my little cousin playing Black Mesa, and wandering, "WHERE I HAVE TO GO NOW?!"... LOL

Holding-hands is the worst thing the devs bring for us, THE WORST!

 

[aliencowz7]

This is not a balancing issue though, this is not about how well the system works. This is about role-playing. You said yourself that you get attache to the character, how do you explain that respecing? Did your character mind and body altered suddenly? This is the problem.



Yeah, this is what I meant when I said party-based RPGs make any one character less important thus allowing for more creative "builds".

It's simply the lesser of two evils in my viewpoint. I prefer to just overlook the fact that I am taking a moment to effectively change my characters vocation rather then having to train for years to do so as opposed to saying oh yeah I really like playing as this character but you just sit right there while I go create an entirely new human being from scratch so I can see how these spells look.

That breaks immersion for me far more then respecs ever will.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I'll just play it when it comes out and enjoy it for what it is.

 

[marrec]

I'll just play it when it comes out and enjoy it for what it is.

Ya, so will everyone else.

The only reason this is even a discussion is because we're passionate about RPGs but happen to have a differing view on what can take the enjoyment level from 99 to 100. I don't think anyone is going to say 'FUCK THIS GAME' if it has respeccing or not.

 

[Corto]

I'll just play it when it comes out and enjoy it for what it is.

Too far away man. Let us have some fun just imagining what it could be.

 

[dude]

But isn't a role-playing game about experiencing the story presented as a character that you've built? If that character that you've built happens to not allow you to experience the story, you should not be penalized by having to restart the story from scratch.

This is a big problem in RPGs, especially when it comes to "evil" choices. This is a story problem - The aim should be to have quests to fit as many character types as possible. When that doesn't happen, well, it's a problem, but not one that warrants respecing in my book, because it ruins the story much more than having fewer quests or options.

 

[water_wendi]

Here are some of Sawyer's responses regarding respec he made on Formsrping:

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228984689241632788
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228751457120189960
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228568999162573331
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228980975848139190
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/229483906036940694
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228366303377780612

i love this man. Personally i am all for no respec option.. it should just be in a Hardcore or Ironman type mode.

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

What about a 1-time use respec item? Something that can only be obtained by doing a series of side-quests?

 

[marrec]

This is a big problem in RPGs, especially when it comes to "evil" choices. This is a story problem - The aim should be to have quests to fit as many character types as possible. When that doesn't happen, well, it's a problem, but not one that warrants respecing in my book, because it ruins the story much more than having fewer quests or options.

But if you don't respec then how is it going to ruin your story?

Obsidian isn't a lazy group of college kids with RPG-Maker copying FFVI, they're the Mount Rushmore of CRPGs. Having an option to Respec isn't going to make them design the quests and encounters any different.

 

[dude]

What about a 1-time use respec item? Something that can only be obtained by doing a series of side-quests?

I could be fine with that to a degree I guess. I mean, BG2 had that item with the coolest Edwin respec

Basically as long as it's not an abusable always-there system.

 

[whalleywhat]

I'm playing NV right now and haven't been able to tell whether Karma shifts have much to do with skill based choices e.g. ones that have a Medicine or Speech requirement. I think it definitely plays a role in your reputation though. I wouldn't want for that stuff to feel less meaningful.

What if someone was to say that it wasn't fair that they got locked out of Legion missions after completing too many NCR missions?

 

[mclem]

I'm totally fine with playing a game where I'm not Superman with a Sword. You're not supposed to be the best at everything, so somebody in your party will be better at something than you.

I'm not really talking about 'not being best at everything' as much as I am 'not being *good enough* at anything'.

Well, this is a good point. It is especially worthwhile noting that Project Eternity is designed to have a companion for every single existing class. Which is why every tier which adds a class also adds a companion. The reason stated is that they are meant to provide the player with a variety of options to offset the weaknesses of their player character.

In principle, that's great. Provided you can find them. I'm assuming the companions aren't just going to be thrown in your face at the start!

That said, thinking back to BG, don't you encounter many of the companions there just on travelling the roads between Candlekeep, The Friendly Arm and Beregost? That's reasonable enough.

 

[water_wendi]

I'm playing NV right now and haven't been able to tell whether Karma shifts have much to do with skill based choices e.g. ones that have a Medicine or Speech requirement. I think it definitely plays a role in your reputation though. I wouldn't want for that stuff to feel less meaningful.

What if someone was to say that it wasn't fair that they got locked out of Legion missions after completing too many NCR missions?

Iirc there is only one thing that Karma has an effect on. Everything else is faction based.

 

[Zeliard]

The key to solving a lot of these issues is transparency. Let the players know what they're in for so they aren't creating some heavily stunted build off the bat. Much of what Sawyer and others are talking about can be solved to a large extent by communicating these things to the player beforehand.

If a form of respecing is in the game, it should be in a way that is totally congruous to the role-playing elements and the story.

In Torment they did this perfectly with being able to switch between classes; Nameless One had lived countless lives and had previously been a fighter, mage, and thief, so his act of changing class was basically him recalling a past life and remembering those skills.

If Project Eternity follows a similar concept I'd be fine with it. But some blanket do-over is where it would just feel jarring. On some level you have to live with the decisions you've made in the game, or else what's the point?

 

[duckroll]

Anyone know when we can expect Sawyer's big update today?

 

[dude]

I'm not really talking about 'not being best at everything' as much as I am 'not being *good enough* at anything'.

That could happen, but your party is just 6 people, everyone has it's uses. As long as you don't make clearly unwise choices (like a mage with 9 int) you should be serviceable.

In principle, that's great. Provided you can find them. I'm assuming the companions aren't just going to be thrown in your face at the start!

That said, thinking back to BG, don't you encounter many of the companions there just on travelling the roads between Candlekeep, The Friendly Arm and Beregost? That's reasonable enough.

Beside the very beginning of the game, there was no part of either BG game where you went a prolonged amount of time with less than 6 characters. I assume PE would be somewhat like that, seeing as how companions were one of the biggest features in those games.

 

[Almighty]

Here are some of Sawyer's responses regarding respec he made on Formsrping:

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228984689241632788
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228751457120189960
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228568999162573331
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228980975848139190
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/229483906036940694
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228366303377780612

Oh Sawyer. All those years trying to make main stream games has made you soft I see.

Joking aside he did remind me that FNV did it and I didn't hate it. Though if they did a better job describing how your stats effected your skills it probably wouldn't of been needed. Glad this game is on the PC because all New Vegas needed was a tool tip that would pop up with detailed info.

Still FNV was way ahead of F3 in that respect. That stupid goddamn book they made you use at the start was pretty useless. Full of flavor text and nothing else pretty much. Thanks Bethesda.

 

[Perkel]

Anyone know when we can expect Sawyer's big update today?

Today :troll:

/s

I am too waiting. Tomorrow it will be even better day !

 

[Ledsen]

Oh Sawyer. All those years trying to make main stream games has made you soft I see.

Joking aside he did remind me that FNV did it and I didn't hate it. Though if they did a better job describing how your stats effected your skills it probably wouldn't of been needed. Glad this game is on the PC because all New Vegas needed was a tool tip that would pop up with detailed info.

Still FNV was way ahead of F3 in that respect. That stupid goddamn book that made you use at the start was pretty useless. Full of just flavor text and nothing else pretty much. Thanks Bethesda.

That won't help because people are stupid and don't read. The only way to teach people is to make them experience the consequences of their choices, which is why they put the respec after the player would have had a chance to use their build for an hour or so.

 

[Lancehead]

Joking aside he did remind me that FNV did it and I didn't hate it. Though if they did a better job describing how your stats effected your skills it probably wouldn't of been needed. Glad this game is on the PC because all New Vegas needed was a tool tip that would pop up with detailed info.

I think the respec in NV was done very well.

First they have you create your character. Then Goodsprings provides introduction to all the skills and the roleplaying elements. Once that's over the game asks for confirmation of your initial choices. Which is great because now you've seen things in application.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Still FNV was way ahead of F3 in that respect. That stupid goddamn book that made you use at the start was pretty useless. Full of just flavor text and nothing else pretty much. Thanks Bethesda.

They gave children a baby book to understand the simple concepts, it had to be done.

 

[wrowa]

That won't help because people are stupid and don't read. The only way to teach people is to make them experience the consequences of their choices, which is why they put the respec after the player would have had a chance to use their build for an hour or so.

I don't think that's true, really. The heart of the problem is that even with a good description the D&D(-like) ruleset is hard to grasp for people who aren't experienced in these things. They read the descriptions, they understand the content, but they don't necessarily understand the in-game consequences.

I think it's easy to dismiss these problems as someone who has already played a gazillion RPGs, be it on the PC or pen & paper, but for newcomers this stuff is pretty vague and most games don't do a good job in explaining. I also don't think that it's enough just to explain each stat and the way it's calculated, since as a newcomer the combination of, say, stats will probably rather puzzling: "Okay... I want to create a mage... Do I only need wisdom and intelligence? Will I need strenght at all..? How about vitality...? And what about luck... uh...".

 

[Almighty]

I think the respec in NV was done very well.

First they have you create your character. Then Goodsprings provides introduction to all the skills and the roleplaying elements. Once that's over the game asks for confirmation of your initial choices. Which is great because now you've seen things in application.

Which is why I said I didn't hate it. Though for me personally most of my problem came from the fact that the game still has the problem of devoting like 90 percent of the text in the character creation to flavor. The other 10 percent has the useful info. Personally I think it should be switched. The character creation screen is the most important part of the game and should have very little useless text.

I don't think that's true, really. The heart of the problem is that even with a good description the D&D(-like) ruleset is hard to grasp for people who aren't experienced in these things. They read the descriptions, they understand the content, but they don't necessarily understand the in-game consequences.

I think it's easy to dismiss these problems as someone who has already played a gazillion RPGs, be it on the PC or pen & paper, but for newcomers this stuff is pretty vague and most games don't do a good job in explaining. I also don't think that it's enough just to explain each stat and the way it's calculated, since as a newcomer the combination of, say, stats will probably rather puzzling: "Okay... I want to create a mage... Do I only need wisdom and intelligence? Will I need strenght at all..? How about vitality...? And what about luck... uh...".

Hence more tool tip info. I am not talking about just having the calculations shown either. Just have a tip pop up when you hover over strength for example that not only give you the calculations for what strength effects, but also plainly states something like extremely important for fighters(make sure you have plenty of this), not important for mages, semi useful for thieves.

I don't know if that will get rid of the need to respec completely, but it should cut down on it.

 

[The Technomancer]

Jeff Vogel wrote an interesting piece on character building and respeccing a while back.

One of my new, hard-earned rules of design has to do with training your characters. And, since it seems like every game and its cousin has some sort of level-gaining and stat-building these days, I think the rule is getting more relevant every day:

The number of decisions you have to make to build your character should be proportional to the amount of time you've spent playing the game. The more you play, the more you should decide.

Or, to put it another way ...

Whenever you make a decision about your character at the very beginning of the game, you are answering a question that hasn't even been asked yet.

 

[Zeliard]

I think many of you would be blown away by how often players will look directly at a description of an option, pause, seem to analyze it, and then select it without putting 2 and 2 together until much later.

When that happens and the error results in, let's say, ~15 minutes of lost time, as a designer I go, "Hey dummy, pay attention." When that happens and the error goes unnoticed for 5... 10... 20 hours, the problem is so far in the past that I would rather just sigh and slide an emergency exit button toward them.

As a non-system-related example, in Fallout: New Vegas, we pop up a message box before the end of the game. It says (paraphrased) HEY MAN THIS IS THE END OF THE GAME. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP PLAYING, YOU SHOULD NOT START THIS. BECAUSE IT IS THE END. AND THE GAME WILL BE OVER. Even so, a huge number of people missed it or claimed to have missed it, so we later had to hard-code in an extra auto-save game at that point.

I could take some sort of grumpy tough-guy attitude and say "Well, tough poo poo," but I don't think that's beneficial to me or the player.

This is where I disagree with the guy. If you are going to lengths to communicate a point to the player and they're still running into walls headfirst, you have to just cut your losses and realize that some players just won't ever get it. It isn't beneficial to other players to start taking into account what - let's be charitable and call them "less experienced" players - may or may not do.

The New Vegas save solution given in the example here is innocuous but if you don't say "tough shit" at some point, it means you are taking steps to make the game everything to everybody, and that never ends up well. Gotta draw the line somewhere, and preferably land on the side of "necessitates at least some vague form of conscious thought." Fortunately, Obsidian games habitually do just that, in contrast to many modern games.

Sawyer's line about some who "look directly at a description of an option (...) without putting 2 and 2 together until much later" however is a problem with certain individual players, not necessarily with the choices involved in character-creation and the overall design, nor with the many other players who won't have that issue because they're actually capable of reading.

If you aren't explaining it properly, that's one thing; good communication is absolutely key, and gameplay depth doesn't require abstruseness. If you are being transparent enough, and some players still don't get it, then the answer is simply to take the "grumpy tough-guy attitude" and move on.

I'm reminded of some podcast episode where Shawn Elliott related a story about some Irrational (heh) playtester or whatnot who persistently stared up at the ceiling while moving around, for no apparent reason. Well, you aren't going to design a Quake game with that player in mind, are you? Same thing should apply to these sorts of RPGs. Bioware is already taking care of the rest. :>

 

[whalleywhat]

Jeff Vogel wrote an interesting piece on character building and respeccing a while back.

This is interesting. It immediately made me think of both Fallout and the Souls games. In Dark Souls, your initial class choice doesn't matter at all after a little while, and you can level your way out of poor choices, and this only screws you over for PVP/Co-Op (and maybe some grinding).

 

[Lancehead]

Whenever you make a decision about your character at the very beginning of the game, you are answering a question that hasn't even been asked yet.

Yeah, this is a primary consideration in RPG design. One shouldn't have to rely on metagaming to create the character one wants.

 

[patapuf]

Jeff Vogel wrote an interesting piece on character building and respeccing a while back.

I think this is really important.

A lot of RPG's force you to make the most important descisions (build wise) right at the beginning of the game - when you know nothing about it.

 

[marrec]

If you aren't explaining it properly, that's one thing; good communication is absolutely key, and gameplay depth doesn't require abstruseness. If you are being transparent enough, and some players still don't get it, then the answer is simply to take the "grumpy tough-guy attitude" and move on.

Why is the answer tough poo-poo when there is a simple and effective design choice that does not harm the gameplay in anyway?

 

[water_wendi]

Once again Obsidian tells the truth and regrets it lol

This, the Skyrim PS3 technical issues, the New Vegas Metacritic stuff.. lol Its a good thing Kickstarter is here to stay.