Party based RPG's shouldn't have non-combat skills.

[Reinhardt]

Character A does 20 damage a round and Character B does 2 damage a round. With others falling somewhere in the middle. Now, design the rest of the game so players are equally compelled to take all of the character types.

Easy. Give every enemy high armor so both character will be equally useless.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

actually, there are 11 skills for 6 person party. Even brain dead characters can max 2 two of them. Technically 6man party of brain dead folks can max and cover all skills.
Now talking about standard party members... Lintzi and Jaethal together can cover all with nice bonuses.

See, I want to separate choice and consequences of party planning to cover skills versus all the checks being high with extra d20 factor. Even if there are exceptions in game, it doesnt change the big picture.
It wouldnt be so bad if it would require some toughtful planning to cover all bases, but as it stands its trivial with any party composition.

Play the game more and get back to me. You're talking with someone who has played for 500 hours.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[J1M]

The idea that there should be more skills than you can cover with your party is terrible. Shocked at how many are suggesting it.

if your party covers all the skills, why bother implementing skills in first place? So you can make meaningful choice of NOT grabbing something on purpose?

For something like Kingmaker, many people will find character building and party planning to be as enjoyable as the rest of the game. Skills serve as a layered constraint on the party-building. It serves a purpose, but maybe not the purpose you would like it to.

In a game with a more holistic approach, as described in the part of my post you decided not to quote, you would be choosing between skills and combat or social effectiveness. A more impactful decision than whether you want to pick mechanical locks or hack electronic ones.

 

[Crispy]

It boggles my mind how blatantly sheep disregards the first-time, "virginal" (shut up) player approaches to RPGs and those who prefer to play spoiler-free, blindly, who will happily (but carefully) accept and choose non-combat skills at chargen.

You may say that replayability is just as important as that first experience in an RPG, and I have no particular argument against that (other than to state I've never been a fan of replaying RPGs), but I think it's a specious argument in this case. How can one judge a game that forces the player to make choices when he first starts out and condemns those choices for even existing in the first place simply because the game can be replayed? How does the developer counter that? Should the developer counter that?

I have a strong suspicion, as a specific example, that Cleve has introduced plenty of red herrings in Grimoire. Intentional or not, we may never know for sure everything that "works" or "doesn't work" in that game, which may leave the more autistic among us (lukaszek) in a cold sweat at night for the rest of their days. But I don't care. I want there to be ambiguity and mystery when creating my characters. I want to be rewarded when I finally discover I made the "right" choice. I want to be ultra super smug when I ultimately behold, dreaming a dream, hoping against all hope, that my non-combat skill choice of baked goods identification and categorization specialist pays off when facing off against Voklor the rye-bread-allergic hill giant because I *knew* to arm my front-line fighters with *Jewish* rye and not that nasty brown *Russian* rye, dammit!

It's just a silly, silly argument. This is just a silly, silly topic. Stop cheating in your RPGs, for fuck's sake.

 

[a Goat]

It boggles my mind how blatantly sheep disregards the first-time, "virginal" (shut up) player approaches to RPGs and those who prefer to play spoiler-free, blindly, who will happily (but carefully) accept and choose non-combat skills at chargen.

You may say that replayability is just as important as that first experience in an RPG, and I have no particular argument against that (other than to state I've never been a fan of replaying RPGs), but I think it's a specious argument in this case. How can one judge a game that forces the player to make choices when he first starts out and condemns those choices for even existing in the first place simply because the game can be replayed? How does the developer counter that? Should the developer counter that?

I have a strong suspicion, as a specific example, that Cleve has introduced plenty of red herrings in Grimoire. Intentional or not, we may never know for sure everything that "works" or "doesn't work" in that game, which may leave the more autistic among us (lukaszek) in a cold sweat at night for the rest of their days. But I don't care. I want there to be ambiguity and mystery when creating my characters. I want to be rewarded when I finally discover I made the "right" choice. I want to be ultra super smug when I chose, dreaming a dream, hoping against all hope, that my non-combat skill choice of baked goods identification and categorization specialist pays off when facing off against Voklor the rye-bread-allergic hill giant because I *knew* to arm my front-line fighters with *Jewish* rye and not that nasty brown *Russian* rye, dammit!

It's just a silly, silly argument. This is just a silly, silly topic. Stop cheating in your RPGs, for fuck's sake.

Here's protip for you. Works for most RPGs out there, well almost. If present:

Lockpick>speech>computer science/some kind of magic unlock>pickpocket>remaining non-combat skills

Games where this approach doesn't work are rare.

 

[Crispy]

Is that the best you can do, sheep?

 

[a Goat]

Dude I'm not joking, I'm giving you protip on how to feel smug in every single rpg you play

 

[Crispy]

Then I guess you answered your own question. Time to Retardo the thread.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

those who prefer to play spoiler-free

Are there still any ? We're the last of a dying breed old chap. Now it's play for an hour and talk about the game for weeks over the internet. Fuckin' net killed discovery and independant thoughts.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Actually a pretty thoughtful OP.

Vault Dweller How is Colony Ship approaching this?

I don't really see it as a problem that needs solving. From day one a party was a group of specialists (fighter, mage, rogue). Want to be able to pick locks and steal shit? Get a rogue but your rogue won't be as good at fighting as a pure fighter, etc. A trade-off is always the best way to handle such things.

 

[Tigranes]

The idea that there should be more skills than you can cover with your party is terrible. Shocked at how many are suggesting it. The first playthrough is the most important, and giving a choice on the character creation screen that decides which half of quest solutions are simply not available to you from the middle and end of the game with no knowledge about them is horrible design. As is locking players into only a few options based on a character creation choice.

If I play a game once, and blind, I still don't want a party that can pass every skill check the game has to offer. Maybe games shouldn't have more joinable NPCs than there are slots in the party? Heaven forbid that there are 21 classes for a party of 6, because how should the player choose? Why am I even playing? Why am I even rolling characters and choosing shit on level up? What's the difference between my 'chosen' party and a bot playing on god mode?

Having meaningful choice means, by definition, being unable to tell exactly what will be the bestest choice with 100% clarity, because then there is no choice. It also means being unable to experience every branch of that choice in one go, because then there is no choice.

To have a meaningful tradeoff, you must lose things as a consequence of your choice. If you built a fighter heavy party and don't have enough points for lockpick, you will never know (in your single blind playthrough) what you missed out on all those locked containers. Fine. Where's the problem? Does it keep you awake at night and you can't resist but savescum or restart or cheat to find out? That's your problem.

 

[J1M]

So many things I disagree with in this thread.

The idea that there should be more skills than you can cover with your party is terrible. Shocked at how many are suggesting it. The first playthrough is the most important, and giving a choice on the character creation screen that decides which half of quest solutions are simply not available to you from the middle and end of the game with no knowledge about them is horrible design. As is locking players into only a few options based on a character creation choice.

These problems largely arise from the idea that all characters should be nearly as effective as each other in combat. When you build a party, you should be deciding which types of challenges and content they will be good at and for that to be interesting the scope of the decision has go beyond just "combat" or "skills". RPGs need to abandon the notion that everyone is equally useful for all aspects of the game. It is more interesting to consider if your party should have an easy time with goblins/traps/negotiations/etc and that's what the player should be thinking about when allocating a party spot.

It's difficult to explain this succinctly without talking about specific games, so just imagine you had to design an RPG and the number one design objective was that each character had to have a different level of effectiveness in combat. ie. Character A does 20 damage a round and Character B does 2 damage a round. With others falling somewhere in the middle. Now, design the rest of the game so players are equally compelled to take all of the character types.

If I play a game once, and blind, I still don't want a party that can pass every skill check the game has to offer. Maybe games shouldn't have more joinable NPCs than there are slots in the party? Heaven forbid that there are 21 classes for a party of 6, because how should the player choose? Why am I even playing? Why am I even rolling characters and choosing shit on level up? What's the difference between my 'chosen' party and a bot playing on god mode?

Having meaningful choice means, by definition, being unable to tell exactly what will be the bestest choice with 100% clarity, because then there is no choice. It also means being unable to experience every branch of that choice in one go, because then there is no choice.

To have a meaningful tradeoff, you must lose things as a consequence of your choice. If you built a fighter heavy party and don't have enough points for lockpick, you will never know (in your single blind playthrough) what you missed out on all those locked containers. Fine. Where's the problem? Does it keep you awake at night and you can't resist but savescum or restart or cheat to find out? That's your problem.

I find it very odd that you would cut out the majority of my post, which you happen to agree with, and then post a reply as if you were presenting a different argument. (Added back for the casual observer's amusement.)

 

[Tigranes]

I strongly disagree with your argument that having "more skills than you can cover with your party is terrible", and everything else you said in the first paragraph. And the nature of my disagreement doesn't really have a lot to do with where you go in paras 2&3.

I'm fine with all that stuff about characters that are useful in different ways, but to me that doesn't solve the problem where any given party can easily cover all skills and all challenges. That's a largely separate problem that doesn't "largely arise from" the equal effectiveness doctrine. Whether the characters all have similar combat efficiency or not, I would still advocate a skill point scarcity where any given party cannot effortlessly cover every single available skill and challenge.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[laclongquan]

IIRC Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehyrs do this thing.

It's supposedly possible to have a party of all skills, IF you manage to twist them all into unspeakable builds.

Since I never like that kind of shit, my party was almost always lacking in one thing or another.

Anyway, "should" is a fucking terrible and limpwrist way of impose your will on your game design. Make your game, present it, and we'll laugh at your face for your nerdy knowitall GMness. Or we might cheer you on instead.

Consider there's a bunch of warhammer (pc) games nobody care about, I am certain the first response is overwhelming.

 

[Yosharian]

I'm not entirely certain but I suspect there's some insight to be gleaned here by considering the origin of the diverse skill system, i.e. D&D, or more generally speaking, tabletop role-playing games.

A diverse skill system allows a PnP player to play a game that she or he wants to play. If I make a character that specialises in creating forgeries, I can fool the BBEG's henchmen into thinking that I really am a Dungeon Inspector, thus allowing me access to his Inner Sanctum. Or I can create a poisoned potion using Alchemy then Bluff the BBEG into thinking that its an Elixir of Immortality that I've just accidentally dropped at the start of the battle and oh what a shame if someone were to snatch it up and drink it before me... Of course that strategy would work well on a dumb BBEG and less well on a smart one...

A diverse skill system in a PnP game allows players to play the game their way, but in a CRPG there are by definition a limited number of ways to play, as envisaged by the CRPG designers. You can't just do whatever, you can only do what the game designers created for you to do. And creating lots of meaningful ways to solve problems, quests, etc is extremely time-consuming and costly. Much easier to just create a bunch of pseudo-choices that are actually just the same choice. (Decline)

Anyway, OP you say that it's pointless to create obstacles gated by skill checks, but as I've already explained, good use of skills gives players ways to solve a problem, rather than just throwing up a set of obstacles so the player can solve them all. You gave these examples: "Need to pick locks? Steal some key item? Disarm trap? Hit something from afar? Talk your way through?"

My response to that would be that quests should be designed so that, by solving one of these problems, the player is able to complete the quest. They don't need to do it all, because that would be absurd.

Rather than the game being full of quests or activities designed specifically for each skill (i.e. This is the lock-picking quest/activity, this is the stealing quest/activity, this is the quest/activity that requires trap disarming, this is the quest that requires the Speech skill), each quest or activity within the game should have multiple solutions. Example: you need to get inside that vault - you can pick the lock, or disarm the traps in the vents and climb through them, or sweet-talk one of the guards, or pickpocket his key, or alternatively just kill every motherfucker.

But whatever you do, you've chosen the method, and that's at the heart of role-playing - making decisions on how to play the game. In other words, every quest/activity in the game should attempt to include every skill or playing style in the game.

That we're even debating the possibility of removing non-combat skills entirely indicates how far this genre has fallen, honestly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Actually a pretty thoughtful OP.

Vault Dweller How is Colony Ship approaching this?

I don't really see it as a problem that needs solving. From day one a party was a group of specialists (fighter, mage, rogue). Want to be able to pick locks and steal shit? Get a rogue but your rogue won't be as good at fighting as a pure fighter, etc. A trade-off is always the best way to handle such things.

does it mean that you will be able to gather such party that every check out of combat will be doable?

Hypothetically speaking and excluding content requiring certain choices or party members, yes, although such party will be very weak in combat and won't be able to handle tough fights and access content such fights unlock.

 

[TemplarGR]

Party based RPGs TACTICS games shouldn't have non-combat skills...

 

[TemplarGR]

Responses in bold. Trust me, I've played over 500 hours of Kingmaker so far. You will fail many checks throughout the game and the game usually offers multiple ways of doing things, but you'll still fail. There are what, 16 skills in the game in a 6 person party? If you don't save scum and live with consequences it's a very interesting experience because of the skill checks. Alignment isn't the only thing that matters.

The game was released 4 months ago... And on top of it, you spend half your days making posts here... Dude, you are either lying or you should search your feet for roots...

 

[Viata]

Intentional or not, we may never know for sure everything that "works" or "doesn't work" in that game

Now I want a party based RPG where the dev says every class is useful, while in fact a good bunch of them is quite useless middle to end game and you are fucked if you select them(more so if you party is composed of those useless classes). Same for skills.

 

[TemplarGR]

Now I want a party based RPG where the dev says every class is useful, while in fact a good bunch of them is quite useless middle to end game and you are fucked if you select them(more so if you party is composed of those useless classes). Same for skills.

Most if not all party based RPGs do that dude... All of them contain some OP and some UP/borderline useless classes no one ever picks unless he wants more challenge...

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

The game was released 4 months ago... And on top of it, you spend half your days making posts here... Dude, you are either lying or you should search your feet for roots...

Granted, a lot of that time was time I was away from my computer and left the game running. But I played a lot of it, that's for sure.

 

[Neanderthal]

I'd like opportunity to send out my companions on solo missions occasionally, if it makes sense.