Science and lockpicking

[Protheus]

I totally support the oldschool system. I am actually sort of okay with the new minigame, but it gets old really quick. They should've made it always possible to play the game but it to be incredibly, just impossibly hard if you have no skill and lock/pass is too hard. And if your skill surpasses the lock level you should skip the minigame entirely.

 

[laclongquan]

Skill + INT>= locklevel : skip minigame, auto success.
Otherwise minigame.

 

[Black Angel]

Damn, should've voted for Others but to show where my money's at, I've already put my vote into old-school methodology.

But to further elaborate on my Others option, Skill level + dice rolls, influenced by Luck stat (if any), which can then also be brute-forced either through pure physical strength (breaking through with your body/kicks, which can be reinforced with the use of crowbars) or explosives. Can even make use of companions with good lockpicking/hacking skills, or even group efforts to open big doors like vaults, bunkers, or large storage rooms.

 

[laclongquan]

Dice roll just encourage save reload.

Infact, this is just a pnp mechanic that absolutely not fit computer game media. You keep put dice roll in (or random number mechanism) and you keep wondering why gamers reload like mad~

 

[Gizmojunk]

Why should anyone care if they reload; why should roleplayers suffer for the habits of non-roleplayers, in a roleplaying game? If they take it out we lose support for it, then we lose the impartiality of the setting, along with any means of determining if the PC could have succeeded or not on their own, by their own means. Without it, there is no way to unpredictably fail at anything.

 

[laclongquan]

blah blah blah I dont want to lose my precious PnP mechanism blah blah

That's how you sounded.

To go at it point by point :

1. "Why should anyone care if they reload"; A fuckload of people care. Go by the complaints and bragging of lots of people about savescum and irongamers... There's a fuckload of people caring about this issue.

2. "why should roleplayers suffer for the habits of non-roleplayers, in a roleplaying game?" Pure hysteric, is how you are saying. And I dont get this point of your by the way, if it exist, which is why I say hysteric.

3. "If they take it out we lose support for it, then we lose the impartiality of the setting, along with any means of determining if the PC could have succeeded or not on their own, by their own means."

Impartiality is a funny word to use in regard to dice roll mechanism (or random number generator). Dice roll mean you could lose despite being having a good skill, just for the hell of it.
4. "Without it, there is no way to unpredictably fail at anything."

Hysteric, again. it's not like you can not fail at games, considering the level of gamers. Not a snark, by the way, just an objective conclusion from the majority of threads asking for helps in games~

 

[Black Angel]

People reload because they're stuck, either they're genuinely stuck because of bad rolls or they're stuck because they think they can attempt lockpicking/hacking stuff while having low skill level. How to prevent them from getting genuinely stuck in the first place? Give them more options. If they broke/jammed the lock, give them options to brute-force it either with explosive or by having high STR/crowbars. If they just can't open it by themselves because of low skill level, give them options to let companions do the job.
And obviously, provide another route to finish the task. Maybe put the key/keycard somewhere where players can reach it, either through pickpocketing or find it somewhere hidden in the levels. Or give them opportunities to convince NPCs to open the door.
And if it's optional content, well, why should we care if someone didn't make good enough build to reach said optional content?

 

[Gizmojunk]

That's how you sounded.

Not at all, but there is no telling you that, as per your post.

A fuckload of people care.

This doesn't answer the question; it simply states that there are people who care, but why do they give a damn? And why should anyone else give a damn that they do?

Pure hysteric, is how you are saying. And I dont get this point of your by the way, if it exist, which is why I say hysteric.

This doesn't make sense in English; I doubt that you understand the point that you you disagree with. It just seems that way based on your wording, and I suspect it is purely reflex gainsaying of something that sounds restrictive. Do you not understand that an RPG's principle function is to determine when to say 'no'?

Impartiality is a funny word to use in regard to dice roll mechanism

Impartiality is actually the end-all point to having the dice rolls.

Hysteric, again. it's not like you can not fail at games...

Read what you quote. Failure is not the point; the point is unpredictable failure.

I don't think that you understand the way the dice rolls work. They are not purely random, they are weighted by the PCs skill and aptitude. They ensure that an expert generally succeeds, while a novice usually fails a lot until they improve a lot. The dice ensure that even the expert can fail—some of the time; this is life. Experts fail some of the time... just not very often.

The value of high skill/ability is to be able to succeed on demand (when it counts), but still there is no absolute guarantee. Such is life. Why do you think they put the dice in? (It should be obvious.)

 

[laclongquan]

In short, Unpredictable failure, a new way of saying your dice fall on side 1 or 2 .

Like I said, mah pressssious daaaaise.

And before you take up the argument "...this is life." Boyo, we are talking about computer gaming, not tabletop gaming.

The big difference of computer gaming is that you cant ever take up the kind of argument "game simulate life", like you do with tabletop gaming. You just cant. The media separate the user from the game through TWO separate filters: computer screen AND the game itself. Aka computer games always are artificial as fuck to a player, and you cant ever make users immerse in it.

This is different from tabletop, because there's two element that affect an user's experience: the GM AND the players around the table. People is a social animal, so the two can affect an user much much deeper than you can think. Thus tabletop gamer can say to "immerse" in the experience, the game.

But never computer gamer.

EDIT: rewrite the sentence since someone keep, I dunno, falling back on reader incomprehension. It certainly can be that I wrote not clearly but someone's excuse sound so suspicious.

 

[Gizmojunk]

In short, Unpredictable failure, a new way of saying your dice fall on 1/2.

What? Even assuming a typo that does not seem to make sense. Did you mean 'dice fail' or 'dice fall' —neither makes sense. If you did mean that the dice fail on half [?], that is simply inaccurate, and you should already know that.

And before you take up the argument "...this is life." Boyo, we are talking about computer gaming, not tabletop gaming.

D&D shipped with a solo adventure. In that adventure, the player runs their PC, and rolls the dice for themselves, and their enemies. A cRPG is far more reactive than a static book; both are written by humans. As for the human DM... it is not impossible to have a software DM, but it is certainly too costly at present. Still... A good game is a good game, and there are plenty of good cRPGs, (and plenty of bad PnPs).

Fallout actually hints that the whole game might be a simulation; real or not, it plays like one. Even Bethesda (clueless as they are about it) latched on to that, and included it in their branding art.

Spoiler

The big difference of computer gaming is that you cant ever take up the kind of argument "game simulate life", like you do with tabletop gaming. You just cant.

Of course one can. Just argue at the appropriate level of abstraction. Dice do that; they abstract the situation—that's the point of using them for it.

The media separate the user from the game through TWO separate filters: computer screen AND the game itself. Aka computer games always are artificial as fuck to a player, and you cant ever make users immerse in it.

This does not make any sense, or if it does to you... it has never been an issue for me; roleplaying in Fallout is superb. At this point, I think it is time to ask you which Fallout game do you consider to be the better roleplaying game, and why. I do believe that a serious answer will clear up any misunderstanding of perspective between us and/or anyone else reading this. We might well be talking at cross purposes.

This is different from tabletop, because there's two element that affect an user's experience: the GM AND the players around the table. People is a social animal, so the two can affect an user much much deeper than you can think. Thus tabletop gamer can say to "immerse" in the experience, the game.

But never computer gamer.

This is BoguS. Define what you personally mean by 'Immerse'.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Why should anyone care if they reload; why should roleplayers suffer for the habits of non-roleplayers, in a roleplaying game? If they take it out we lose support for it, then we lose the impartiality of the setting, along with any means of determining if the PC could have succeeded or not on their own, by their own means. Without it, there is no way to unpredictably fail at anything.

I'd say because it's fundamentally good video game design to assume that the majority of players aren't "roleplayers" in the traditional sense. In fact, it's still something to account for in actual tabletop roleplaying (Not that they're the majority, rather just that they exist). Metagaming and "rollplayers" who are there primarily for the crunch always exist and to me you want to build the skeletal frame of your RPG mechanics with them in mind rather than roleplayers acting on honor code. People actively RPing and avoiding metagaming should be something that is nice and rewarding to the player themselves, but it shouldn't be the expectation for your video game.

If you build a system wherein skill obstacles/locked off areas are skipped by simply save/reloading you are creating a massive imbalance between roleplayers and metagamers, and for the metagamers (Which are the majority playerbase) you've created a laughably ineffective system that effectively is just a nuisance. Now, this is fixed with alternate methods. Your timestamp suggestion is really good and would solve this issue, but in a world where that's not possible static skill DCs are the better method for a video game.

 

[Black Angel]

I'd say because it's fundamentally good video game design to assume that the majority of players aren't "roleplayers" in the traditional sense.

I'll be honest that until now I still know jackshit about tabletop roleplaying games, but isn't this being disingenuous? A video game design made for people who don't play them is...good? Now, if you're arguing that presentation and even tutorials are in place that help ease new players getting into it, then I can understand. But for the *entire* game designed in such a way to accommodate not only never played it, but also people who won't ever play it?

If you build a system wherein skill obstacles/locked off areas are skipped by simply save/reloading you are creating a massive imbalance between roleplayers and metagamers, and for the metagamers (Which are the majority playerbase) you've created a laughably ineffective system that effectively is just a nuisance.

It's only a nuisance if there's no other alternatives in place in case of getting stuck, though. Fallout, for example, has always lets you blow up certain doors with explosives, and the TC mods like Fallout 1.5 correctly lets you bruteforce your way through locks with crowbars. In games like Arcanum you can even use regular attacks to bruteforce your way into locked doors/windows/chests.
If you attempt to pick locks with low skills, then it's just the risk that you get completely locked off of the content of whatever it is being locked, no? Like, choice and consequences and all that jazz?
If people abuse the save-load mechanic to succeed that 1% chance to open a lock... now that isn't really the game's fault that players resorts to degenerate gameplay, isn't it?

 

[Atomic Postman]

I'll be honest that until now I still know jackshit about tabletop roleplaying games, but isn't this being disingenuous? A video game design made for people who don't play them is...good? Now, if you're arguing that presentation and even tutorials are in place that help ease new players getting into it, then I can understand. But for the *entire* game designed in such a way to accommodate not only never played it, but also people who won't ever play it?

I wasn't hugely clear so I will elaborate. I believe there's a difference between video game RPG fans and tabletop RPG fans. They're not exclusive to one another (myself being both, obviously) and one is not superior or inferior to the other, but your video game RPG audience whilst they (ideally) value everything that comes with having choice, concequence and diverse potential for characters, aren't roleplaying in the traditional sense when they play. Not in the same way someone really "gets into character" at a DnD table. At least in my experience. Video game RPGs are adaptions of tabletop RPGs, in a very stringent way it's like movie fans vs book fans of a certain adapted property. A movie adaption can be absolutely appealing to book fans, but if you made a sequel or something where to enjoy it properly you had to be a book fan, I'd say it wasn't well conceived.

I'm not talking about casualization or whatever, and I think this argument is difficult to understand if you don't play tabletop but my point is that the majority of video game RPG players, in the way they play their characters in the games would be considered "metagamers" if they acted the same way in tabletop, and as in a video game stuff like savescumming is par for the course, it's better to design your mechanical limitations with the metagamers in mind rather than the roleplayers. For example, Speech checks in Fallout 3. They have a dice roll system. A dedicated tabletop style roleplayer might fail a 42% chance roll, and just carry on anyway going "Okay, my character was not convincing enough to make this check. I'll just accept this failure as part of the narrative" whereas the VAST majority of players are just going to reload until they pass. Thus you get New Vegas's system, wherein you get solid skill check DCs, and the former roleplayer can still do what he did before, but the latter metagamer cannot.

 

[laclongquan]

I am a savereload guy myself, so i do make use of this feature.

But a challenge in a game, say a skill check, can be bypassed due to reload a lot... it's bad design. It ENCOURAGES players to repeatedly reload. Whatever dev's intent, that is the final result.

THAT is why I dislike the dice roll system. Random number in skill check is too destructive. And savereload mechanism become an overpowered game mechanism.

Savereload is too useful in other parts of a game as it is. There is no need to push it in skill checks.

 

[Gizmojunk]

But a challenge in a game, say a skill check, can be bypassed due to reload a lot... it's bad design.

On this we agree.

It ENCOURAGES players to repeatedly reload. Whatever dev's intent, that is the final result.

THAT is why I dislike the dice roll system. Random number in skill check is too destructive. And savereload mechanism become an overpowered game mechanism.

Savereload is too useful in other parts of a game as it is. There is no need to push it in skill checks.

I know of no better system (despite the exploit-ability of it, by those who would); it's simply the best at what it depicts & determines. All threshold systems create either the infallible or the incompetent PC, unless they include a mini-game as part of it, and that adds direct influence from the player—which makes it even worse. That makes it akin to watching a movie or television show, and shouting hints at the protagonist—with them taking the advice.

 

[laclongquan]

On this we agree.



I know of no better system (despite the exploit-ability of it, by those who would); it's simply the best at what it depicts & determines. All threshold systems create either the infallible or the incompetent PC, unless they include a mini-game as part of it, and that adds direct influence from the player—which makes it even worse. That makes it akin to watching a movie or television show, and shouting hints at the protagonist—with them taking the advice.

You are purely bias on behalf of dice roll system, that is all. All the reasons you provide, is pure bias. "I like dice roll system the most, so it is the best system. All others can not compare to it. Because."

You must have a minimum level of skill to have a dialog line appear. What's so hard to understand about a simple system like that? Either you know, or you dont. 100 times reloading wont help you in that case.

With dice roll, you can reload until you get it. It's ridiculous~

 

[Gizmojunk]

You are purely bias on behalf of dice roll system, that is all. All the reasons you provide, is pure bias. "I like dice roll system the most, so it is the best system. All others can not compare to it. Because."

The reasons are fine, and previously explained in detail; you just ignore them. Because.

You must have a minimum level of skill to have a dialog line appear. What's so hard to understand about a simple system like that? Either you know, or you dont. 100 times reloading wont help you in that case.

Because knowing doesn't guarantee success. Have you never entered a password incorrectly? Have you never messed up opening a combination lock, and had to start again? Did you ever drop your keys? How about ever break your phone? You certainly knew what you were doing—yet failed at it. Have you never had an accident?

With all of their constant practice (and incentive to win), does every NBA player always —always— sink the shot? There is this thing in football called a fumble; do you think they don't know better than most how to hold onto a football? They still fumble it once in a while; it's unpredictable... but also less likely for very experienced players. This is what the dice depict; this is why the dice are used.

This is why an expert can confidently succeed in the moment—usually.

Spoiler

*The guard returns at 73 seconds.

With dice roll, you can reload until you get it. It's ridiculous~

That's the design flaw. It would be better if the game recorded every action to the PC_profile; a per-PC saved game that records their life as it played out. The game could allow quitting at any time, and resuming right where they left off; jam the lock, and the lock is jammed—no matter how many times you reload (for that PC).

*Possibly the game could auto-save (or allow manual saves) at internal checkpoints; just in case of power loss, or file corruption. That way it would have a reasonably recent backup, but no baby-stepping.

 

[laclongquan]

Hardy hah hah

You are taking real life examples, movie example... And I did say game media has two level of separation in user experience to ever make a realistic game: the computer screen itself, and the act of playing it. Real life has the latter (actual doing) but not the former, and movie has the former (watching what happened), but not the latter. Thus you will find that there's this concept in game: player skill and character skill. They are derived from the two level of separations.

Like I said, you want dice roll system so you will find, if not this then that, reasons to introduce it in a game. B.I.A.S

I will consider this question closed, with you losing the argument when you introduce real life and movie arguments into the topic. If you want to continue, please use the game arguments.

 

[Gizmojunk]

It is you who are biased; you want a deterministic approach; I want a plausible one.

While not technically of course (computers must use entropy), the UI could be dice-less if the game would visually & mechanically react to what the dice merely imply. Animations for tripping, missing in combat, slipping on wet ground; alternate ambulatory animations for drunkenness, and crippled limbs, and overburdened PCs; and the variations for running.

*But in practice, the player wants to know the numbers; why that stuff is happening. In IcewindDale 2, I remember my PCs always getting one-shot killed by goblins, due to the difficulty setting. It was only when the combat log showed that they were +27 to strike & damage that I understood.

I will consider this question closed, with you losing the argument when you introduce real life and movie arguments into the topic. If you want to continue, please use the game arguments.

That is a cop-out. The game depicts the PC's life, and you beg to exclude examples of the game systems that depict that life; systems that you dislike, and would rather not argue against... because they do their job well.

As for your beliefs about the computer screen affecting the player experience, I already told you I see none of that, and have no problems from it.

I suspect that you might be meaning that the visuals are detached from the player, and that somehow this affects so-called 'immerzion', but when one doesn't consider it detrimental to the experience one doesn't give a— one simply doesn't notice or care about it.

 

[laclongquan]

Your points and my points are presented on this clearly for everyone else to see.

Whether you accept my point is irrevelant, since I will not discuss any more if you dont use game arguments.

Game is not Movie, and Game is not Life~