Skill Level and Skill Threshold?

[Bloodlust]

Heh,this might be the first time that i actually saw kaghan posting a valid comment

 

[Nekid]

decided to stick my nose into this forum

I've read through most of what is said here, and there is something I would like to add in regards to grouping certain skills.

As a character, you have a certain upbringing. You could have been a person that brawled with your hands or with a big stick.

You could have been a person that was charasmatic and got along with everybody and was able to talk outta situations and get what you wanted by trading.

You could have been a person that kept to yourself and read books; you learned to repair stuff, how stuff works and survival tricks you could use in the wild.

You could have been brought up as a thief, so you learned the tricks of the trade: stealing, lockpicking, sneaking around, setting traps and learning the ins and outs of gambling.

Then you could have been raised with a firearm in your hand, learning to have steady hands, patience and sharp eyes.

{I know the above could be argued that environments could also expose you to a wider array of skills then the above let you. By saying you've been raised in a crime environment, but spent time doing your homework(reading). My response: you obvisouly have to draw the line somewhere not only for balance but for semi-half-assed reality}

Grouping them makes sense in the true ways of Role-Playing; you are being somebody that you make up, not somebody that is going to make the game the easiest for you.

Shadowrun for the Genesis was a good transition from P&P to RPG. Why? Because the game allowed for you to successfully play the game as various characters equally. You could be a computer hacker, but yet still procede through the game well enough; you could make lots of money, buy the best stuff and equip NPC's. As a warrior you could become a really good fighter and go through the game that way. And etc...

The main opposition to grouping skills is that it will unbalance the game. Yeah...it will unless you set the game up to have a path for each and every character type. For Fallout, this is extremely hard and would require VERY dedicated scripting througout the entire game to provide an equalness about it.

There is another group to consider, combat and non-combat. Perhaps it could work under the principle of this: You can pick a group as your enviroment: crime, army, medicine, books, or boxing(martial arts). Then an item outside your "group": 9mm pistol, bozar, laser pistol, brass knuckles, knife, darts, first aid kit, big doctors bag, black ninja getup(?), lockpicks, some drug that induces sleep, an unexploded land mine, a computer or pip-boy, repair kit, mirrored shades, mirrored shades(yes it is supposed to be repeated), loaded dice, tent. It could also be brought on by teachings

So in the sense of Roleplaying:
"Johnny grew up in a crime filled enviroment, his entire life he has been stealing, rigging up "accidents" for payment, and just general mischief. He also happened upon a laser pistol when he was young and has had limited practice due to scarceness of ammo."

From this, Johnny's enviroment(group) would be "crime", and his item would be energy weapons.

How it could be implemented would be like this: For Johnny, every 5 pts you put into crime, it would raise everything under crime by 2. And his energy weapons would act like the ole' tagged skill. BUT Johnny would not be able to put into any other "group", but he could put onto the individual skill.

Example: Johnny could not advance "medic" but he could advance either first aid or doctor.

If a point is put directly into a skill under the tagged "group", then it would increase faster than normal, but less then a tagged...1.5 just for sake of an example.

If Johnny was brought up in a hospital and takes on the "group" medic, then every 2 pts into medic, the first-aid and doctor skill would go up by 2.

By working the above, it returns the same as a tagged skill does. for every pt you put in, you get two out. so the amount you need to put in to increase all skills under the "group" by two is dictated by the number of skills under the "group".

Phew....

Now the comment to the original post.

That system is indeed nice and does restrict to a more realistic RPG approach; per your diplomat going to sniper from saved up skills points. But this is down to the way people play their games. People cheat, import items, etc... If a person wants to play it like an RPG then they will (or atleast should) have the self discipline to follow basic realistic guidelines, ie) not saving up skill points to drastically change your character.

For the previous Fallouts, certain skills have been handicapped as there is not alot you can do with them. There is events though that require a high "non-useful" skill, but not enough to make you want to tag em. {was going to say something else here but I forgot what it was...}

ON the other hand though, by implementing this system, it gives more depth and feel to the game, as well as that little bit of thoughtfulness that just completes a game. ie) I can only become really good at something if I practice.

Now finally conclusion to the entire post:

It really comes down to how people treate/play their games. If they play RPGs like what they are meant to be then the "grouping" system will make sense (for further "support" check the premade characters for fallout2, notice how no tribal has either big guns or energy weapons as tagged skills? due to their environment, it doesn't offer the oppurtunity to know about these things), and your system will make sense too.

Its essentially the difference of exploiting a bug and not exploiting a bug; are you willing to play the game like it is meant to be played or do you want to play the game how ever you please?

EDIT: I hope this is readable and understandable...spelling mistakes aside

EDIT: I also agree with Ratty about problems stemming from the game instead of the SPECIAL system...but his exploiting Daggerfall illustrates my point about how people play their game. ALTHOUGH I am NOT saying that this an excuse for games full of exploits and unbalancedness. There is a line with this as well; kinda like the old luck exploit with the Pariah's dog. It is an exploit you don't come across all the time, and something that you could easily deny doing.

 

[Sander]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

I've read through most of what is said here, and there is something I would like to add in regards to grouping certain skills.

As a character, you have a certain upbringing. You could have been a person that brawled with your hands or with a big stick.

You could have been a person that was charasmatic and got along with everybody and was able to talk outta situations and get what you wanted by trading.

You could have been a person that kept to yourself and read books; you learned to repair stuff, how stuff works and survival tricks you could use in the wild.

You could have been brought up as a thief, so you learned the tricks of the trade: stealing, lockpicking, sneaking around, setting traps and learning the ins and outs of gambling.

Then you could have been raised with a firearm in your hand, learning to have steady hands, patience and sharp eyes.

Gee, welcome to Traits.

{I know the above could be argued that environments could also expose you to a wider array of skills then the above let you. By saying you've been raised in a crime environment, but spent time doing your homework(reading). My response: you obvisouly have to draw the line somewhere not only for balance but for semi-half-assed reality}

Grouping them makes sense in the true ways of Role-Playing; you are being somebody that you make up, not somebody that is going to make the game the easiest for you.

...
So? How would this 'problem' be remedied by grouping skills? Would it suddenly make combat less powerful or doctor more powerful? No, in fact, it won't. It's just a new way of assigning points to skills for, really, no reason other than 'I like it that way'.
Yet again shall I say: why would you change it like this? What's the problem you are trying to remedy?

Shadowrun for the Genesis was a good transition from P&P to RPG. Why? Because the game allowed for you to successfully play the game as various characters equally. You could be a computer hacker, but yet still procede through the game well enough; you could make lots of money, buy the best stuff and equip NPC's. As a warrior you could become a really good fighter and go through the game that way. And etc...

And how is that really different from Fallout? The fastest way to complete the game is by utilizing science, sneak and speech. But a lot of different ways are possible too.
And the problem with Fallout was quite small, since it allowed for a lot of valid ways to play throught the game. SPECIAL wasn't entirely balanced for the game, however. Go read this thread.

The main opposition to grouping skills is that it will unbalance the game. Yeah...it will unless you set the game up to have a path for each and every character type. For Fallout, this is extremely hard and would require VERY dedicated scripting througout the entire game to provide an equalness about it.

Wait, what? Bullshit. It's just a covert way of putting classes in the game. It makes it extremely unprofitable to do anything but stay within your starting class, which is exactly what Fallout's SPECIAl system was designed to avoid, like GURPS.

There is another group to consider, combat and non-combat. Perhaps it could work under the principle of this: You can pick a group as your enviroment: crime, army, medicine, books, or boxing(martial arts). Then an item outside your "group": 9mm pistol, bozar, laser pistol, brass knuckles, knife, darts, first aid kit, big doctors bag, black ninja getup(?), lockpicks, some drug that induces sleep, an unexploded land mine, a computer or pip-boy, repair kit, mirrored shades, mirrored shades(yes it is supposed to be repeated), loaded dice, tent. It could also be brought on by teachings

So in the sense of Roleplaying:
"Johnny grew up in a crime filled enviroment, his entire life he has been stealing, rigging up "accidents" for payment, and just general mischief. He also happened upon a laser pistol when he was young and has had limited practice due to scarceness of ammo."

From this, Johnny's enviroment(group) would be "crime", and his item would be energy weapons.

How it could be implemented would be like this: For Johnny, every 5 pts you put into crime, it would raise everything under crime by 2. And his energy weapons would act like the ole' tagged skill. BUT Johnny would not be able to put into any other "group", but he could put onto the individual skill.

Example: Johnny could not advance "medic" but he could advance either first aid or doctor.

If a point is put directly into a skill under the tagged "group", then it would increase faster than normal, but less then a tagged...1.5 just for sake of an example.

If Johnny was brought up in a hospital and takes on the "group" medic, then every 2 pts into medic, the first-aid and doctor skill would go up by 2.

By working the above, it returns the same as a tagged skill does. for every pt you put in, you get two out. so the amount you need to put in to increase all skills under the "group" by two is dictated by the number of skills under the "group".

Phew....

Yet again: why are you trying to change it like this? What are you trying to achieve by implementing a form of classes in the game, which really add nothing and in fact force the player into one of several roles you have predefined. It's also even more unbalancing because it's clear that certain 'roles' are more powerful than others, since for 'crime' and 'army' it's more tagged skills than for 'medic', while medic was already underpowered and 'crime' and 'army' were already very important.

Now the comment to the original post.

That system is indeed nice and does restrict to a more realistic RPG approach; per your diplomat going to sniper from saved up skills points. But this is down to the way people play their games. People cheat, import items, etc... If a person wants to play it like an RPG then they will (or atleast should) have the self discipline to follow basic realistic guidelines, ie) not saving up skill points to drastically change your character.

For the previous Fallouts, certain skills have been handicapped as there is not alot you can do with them. There is events though that require a high "non-useful" skill, but not enough to make you want to tag em. {was going to say something else here but I forgot what it was...}

ON the other hand though, by implementing this system, it gives more depth and feel to the game, as well as that little bit of thoughtfulness that just completes a game. ie) I can only become really good at something if I practice.

Yet the perceived problem has still not been firmly established. The perceived problem is that people can advance certain skills without having used them.
However, again, in the Fallout world there is little use for certain skills. Say Science or Doctor, so what this does is make the 'lesser' skills even more underpowered, since they're harder to advance, while it makes the 'better' skills even better, since they're easier to advance.
In fact, this has already been implemented in the game, but only with certain skills that weren't being used much. Outdoorsman, lockpicking and first aid are prime examples of this, since their use gives you experience.

Now finally conclusion to the entire post:

It really comes down to how people treate/play their games. If they play RPGs like what they are meant to be then the "grouping" system will make sense (for further "support" check the premade characters for fallout2, notice how no tribal has either big guns or energy weapons as tagged skills? due to their environment, it doesn't offer the oppurtunity to know about these things), and your system will make sense too.

No, the grouping system doesn't make more sense. It only makes sense if you are stuck in the thought of predefined classes being the best way to define a history for a character. By not putting the player into predefined classes but giving him more freedom, you allow the player to be a lot more creative in his roleplaying.

 

[RPGenius]

You can pick a group as your enviroment: crime, army, medicine, books, or boxing(martial arts).

This requires that you are brought up in an area that could house all of those enviroments, and do it realistically.

Then an item outside your "group": 9mm pistol, bozar, laser pistol, brass knuckles, knife, darts, first aid kit, big doctors bag, black ninja getup(?), lockpicks, some drug that induces sleep, an unexploded land mine, a computer or pip-boy, repair kit, mirrored shades, mirrored shades(yes it is supposed to be repeated), loaded dice, tent. It could also be brought on by teachings

Yay! Let's unbalance the game by giving people a bozar, or a laser pistol. Hell why not take Advanced Power armour mk II, that doesn't fit in a group, right?

 

[Ashmo]

I could see a trait system similar to Arcanum's work, but that'd really just be the same thing Fallout already has, with different labels.

Grouping skills like this, OTOH, is just a way to make the system more class-based -- the exact same thing Fallout tried to avoid.

 

[Nekid]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

Gee, welcome to Traits.

Traits are what you are born with...not what the enviroment makes you. (should be, but isn't exactly clean cut like that).

...
So? How would this 'problem' be remedied by grouping skills? Would it suddenly make combat less powerful or doctor more powerful? No, in fact, it won't. It's just a new way of assigning points to skills for, really, no reason other than 'I like it that way'.
Yet again shall I say: why would you change it like this? What's the problem you are trying to remedy?

I like it this way...yeah, didn't quite think that one all the way through. It was in an attempt to answer the problem of: "You can operate a high powerd plasma rifle, but you can't figure out how to load/fire a 9mm." or "you can do a complex surgery, but don't know the first thing about a bandage". My having them under "groups" then it links them...twas an attempt to solve that problem.

And how is that really different from Fallout? The fastest way to complete the game is by utilizing science, sneak and speech. But a lot of different ways are possible too.
And the problem with Fallout was quite small, since it allowed for a lot of valid ways to play throught the game. SPECIAL wasn't entirely balanced for the game, however. Go read this thread.

Hrm...can't remember what I meant by this, if I remember I might edit.

Wait, what? Bullshit. It's just a covert way of putting classes in the game. It makes it extremely unprofitable to do anything but stay within your starting class, which is exactly what Fallout's SPECIAl system was designed to avoid, like GURPS.

What I meant was each quest could be done several different ways...not have different quests for everybody depending on the character you were playing. Sorry bout that.

Yet again: why are you trying to change it like this? What are you trying to achieve by implementing a form of classes in the game, which really add nothing and in fact force the player into one of several roles you have predefined. It's also even more unbalancing because it's clear that certain 'roles' are more powerful than others, since for 'crime' and 'army' it's more tagged skills than for 'medic', while medic was already underpowered and 'crime' and 'army' were already very important.

The system outlined before isn't adding classes anymore then FO already does...it just happens to be more obvious this way. Are you saying a person with pure combat skills is the same "class" as a person with pure diplomatic skills?

I'm trying to change it to try to align it in the sense of upbringing. I think the rest of what you said relates to the misunderstanding that different upbrinings would have completely different paths, instead of just having different ways of completely quests.

Ultimately, it is, as said above, trying to remedy the whole "i'm a good doctor, but i can't treat a minor cut".

If a point is put directly into a skill under the tagged "group", then it would increase faster than normal, but less then a tagged...1.5 just for sake of an example.

This could be tweaked depending upon the "group" it's under. It was just an example of a number I threw in; I know this isn't a perfect system yet I haven't seen a perfect system for this either.

And about being forced into roles...that would kinda be the point of a Role Playing Game. If you are good at a bringing destruction and chaos...are you going to solve a problem by talking?

Yet the perceived problem has still not been firmly established. The perceived problem is that people can advance certain skills without having used them.
However, again, in the Fallout world there is little use for certain skills. Say Science or Doctor, so what this does is make the 'lesser' skills even more underpowered, since they're harder to advance, while it makes the 'better' skills even better, since they're easier to advance.
In fact, this has already been implemented in the game, but only with certain skills that weren't being used much. Outdoorsman, lockpicking and first aid are prime examples of this, since their use gives you experience.

The problem is not only that of the above, but also about the relation of skills.

It doesn't make the "better" skills advance faster. But yes it does make the "lesser" ones harder to advance because of the whole fact that you don't use em, so why can you be good at them? The reason they are perceived as lesser is because there is not alot you can do with them in the current FOs. This issue of "lesser" and "better" comes from the gameworld, not from the implentation of the skill system. And they won't be hard to advance if you use them. (Why would you advance something that you don't use? Your opposal to this, I think anyways, is based on the fact that you think FO is a "do anything you want and not worry about reality/consequences" game.)

You always talk of game balance, but you haven't addressed the issue of FO reality. Can you become better at something practical if you have never done it or read about it? I'm not sure of your experiences so I can not relate an example to you. For me, I have never had any experience being a doctor...so does it make sense that the first time I pick up a scalpel I can perform complex surgeries?

One problem I guess I have is how you can refute the original point by silencer about the advancement of skills...when the entire schooling system everywhere is based on starting simple(small amout of skill points) then learning new stuff(gaining skill points) so you can do complex stuff with it(high skill points).

Skill math:
0% you've just been born
10% you learn to count
20% you learn to add and subtract
40% you learn to multiply and divide
50% you learn expontials
60% you learn order of opertions
70% you learn complex algebra
80% you learn about limits
100% you have learned basics about calculus
120% you learn applications of calculus, single-variable
140% you learn basics of multi-variable calculus
180% you learn applications of multi-variable calculus
(Where I'm at and from here it is just applications to my field (No more math classes ever!!), so my understanding will improve, but what I can do with math is limited to what I learned.)

Now, take this example to FO...a person that hasn't read/practiced math isn't going to be able to solve a triple integral all of a sudden.

No, the grouping system doesn't make more sense. It only makes sense if you are stuck in the thought of predefined classes being the best way to define a history for a character. By not putting the player into predefined classes but giving him more freedom, you allow the player to be a lot more creative in his roleplaying.

Well then I have to ask, what is the best way of defining somebody? If it isn't how the person is brought up and what they know or anything to actually do with the person...then what?

So freedom is saying "I'm going to be a doctor with mad gambling skills, can shot guns, live in the wilderness and can sneak around like a ghost. I'm going to have the strength of a grizzly, perception of a hawk, endurance of a long distance runner, charasima of a world leader, intelligence of Einstien, agility of a cheetah, and the luck of Lucky Luke."

But I do agree with you that by making him tag skills, that you are "forcing" a character to go with skills he tagged and will have to play the game using only those skills.

This requires that you are brought up in an area that could house all of those enviroments, and do it realistically.

True. Example: different start towns...but a quick convergence to the main idea. The first hour is unique quests, depending on the character, just to get you a start, then you converge.

Yay! Let's unbalance the game by giving people a bozar, or a laser pistol. Hell why not take Advanced Power armour mk II, that doesn't fit in a group, right?

What good is a bozar with no/limited ammo? Knowing about the bozars in NCR, what is the difference between starting with a bozar at the temple of trials with no ammo then starting no bozar? There isn't enough .233, or oppurunity to make a bozar of any use early game. Hack a char with a bozar, one clip at the temple of trials with everything the same, play the game like a newb(no skipping, going through klamath, den etc.. in "order") and see how much having that bozar changes the game. And if that doesn't help you, then substitute the bozar(best) with a normal mingun(worse-ish). If you play through, town by town, questing, your "advanced" weapon you start with doesn't offer you a huge advantage.

And this could work well if the ammo of certain weapons happen to be restricted early on.

Oh, and for those peolpe that like skipping ahead and like your games easy, I got source code(!!!!) of a game for you!

#include <iostream>
#include <conio.h>
using namespace std;
void main(){
	char Ch;
	cout << "Press any key to win!\n";  
	Ch = getch();
	while(Ch!=NULL){cout<<"You WON!\n";return;}}

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

Traits are what you are born with...not what the enviroment makes you. (should be, but isn't exactly clean cut like that).

Skilled, good natured and arguably fast shot are learned traits, gecko skinning was a trait. So really if you want to get that pedantic about it rename trait to be more descriptive?

I like it this way...yeah, didn't quite think that one all the way through. It was in an attempt to answer the problem of: "You can operate a high powerd plasma rifle, but you can't figure out how to load/fire a 9mm." or "you can do a complex surgery, but don't know the first thing about a bandage". My having them under "groups" then it links them...twas an attempt to solve that problem...

Ultimately, it is, as said above, trying to remedy the whole "i'm a good doctor, but i can't treat a minor cut".

Those aren't so far fetched, would someone who has only ever used automatic pistols know how to operate and reload a cap & ball pistol? Okay it's a stretch that they'd suddenly become a bad shot but unless you split the aiming part of the skill from the care, maintenance you're always going to have some shortfall in this area.

As for doctors, you can argue that they've spent so long specialising that they have forgotten basic first aid. I'm sure that high flying surgeons would be pretty useless as a GP, with out some refresher courses.

Basically while the SPECIAL system wouldn't be hurt by a tune up there's nothing really wrong with it that appropriate level design wouldn't fix. Rather than completely overhauling a proven system.

 

[Nekid]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

Traits are what you are born with...not what the enviroment makes you. (should be, but isn't exactly clean cut like that).

Skilled, good natured and arguably fast shot are learned traits, gecko skinning was a trait. So really if you want to get that pedantic about it rename trait to be more descriptive?

Skilled, good natured, and finesse, yeah, doesn't really fit anywhere.

Fast shot could be explained by being ADD; you just can't concentrate long enough to aim a precise shot, you just point and pull the trigger.

Finesse...just is awkward to me. If you can hit places that do high damage(critical hit)...why do you do less damage overall? I can understand in melee, but not ranged. (this is considering SPECIAL at the same time)

Skilled, could be rewritten. Kinda. But not really...not that is completely coherent. "You don't learn as fast as others, but enjoy practicing." (very rough...but it can be applied to some people i know; slow at learning new concepts but excel at applying it through practice.)

Good natured can be rewritten: regardless of how you are brought up, some people are just passive.

And gecko skinning is a perk .

Like I said though, it isn't clean cut, but traits make up the person regardless of environment; you are born with it.

Those aren't so far fetched, would someone who has only ever used automatic pistols know how to operate and reload a cap & ball pistol? Okay it's a stretch that they'd suddenly become a bad shot but unless you split the aiming part of the skill from the care, maintenance you're always going to have some shortfall in this area.

It can kinda be explained in this sense: small arms and the like have a certain amount of recoil, a trajectory, and noise. Big guns have different values the above. And energy weapons have no recoil, no trajectory, little noise(?) but dissipation(does less damage the farther away a target is due to particles in the medium of transportation of the projectile/beam). If you have handled only big guns, the whole no recoil on a energy weapon would just be weird to you, plus the compensation for trajectory. And etc...so when those are taking into consideration, you can explain aim to an extent.

One element that might help with the whole gun relation thing, is the idea of understanding the technology. How do you know that this gun takes this ammo? And how do I operate it or fix it?

You need a certain amount of skill for you to identify and use a weapon. An example from another is X-Com. You can pick up the alien plasma weapons...but can't use them until you have researched them. So when you pick up a vindicator with a BG of 20%, it will say "This is a big gun. You don't know what ammo it requires nor how to even load it." But once you have a big BG skill, you know how to load it and what ammo it uses. This could allow a progression of weapons throughout the FO world; even if you could get the best weapon early on...it doesn't mean you know how to use it.

As for doctors, you can argue that they've spent so long specialising that they have forgotten basic first aid. I'm sure that high flying surgeons would be pretty useless as a GP, with out some refresher courses.

I'm not saying they would be the best first aiders. By adding to the "medic" group, you increase your understanding of medical supplies and of the body organs/functions. A revamp to the system I outlined is that when you add to the "group" the actual skill points under the "group" would not increase the number beside them...but you would be better with them.

The SPECIAL system I think is fine. Good design, crappy implentation. (I'm tinkering with the skill system...not the str,perc,etc...)

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

Like I said though, it isn't clean cut, but traits make up the person regardless of environment; you are born with it.

And like I said that can be easily fixed by renaming traits, as in the section not the actual choices.

It can kinda be explained in this...

It can be explained in a dozen different ways, but for those who are so anal retentive that they want to revamp the skills such explanations don't always satisfy.

I'm not saying they would be the best first aiders. By adding to the "medic" group, you increase your understanding of medical supplies and of the body organs/functions. A revamp to the system I outlined is that when you add to the "group" the actual skill points under the "group" would not increase the number beside them...but you would be better with them.

Say what?

The SPECIAL system I think is fine. Good design, crappy implentation. (I'm tinkering with the skill system...not the str,perc,etc...)

The skills are as much part and parcel of SPECIAL as the stats and traits, and the only really crappy implementation was that there wasn't enough for some skills/stats to do.

 

[Nekid]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

It can kinda be explained in this...

It can be explained in a dozen different ways, but for those who are so anal retentive that they want to revamp the skills such explanations don't always satisfy.

My explanation (I think anyways) does apply to the current way.

I'm not saying they would be the best first aiders. By adding to the "medic" group, you increase your understanding of medical supplies and of the body organs/functions. A revamp to the system I outlined is that when you add to the "group" the actual skill points under the "group" would not increase the number beside them...but you would be better with them.

Say what?

see above, and shadowrun (genesis version anyways).

The SPECIAL system I think is fine. Good design, crappy implentation. (I'm tinkering with the skill system...not the str,perc,etc...)

The skills are as much part and parcel of SPECIAL as the stats and traits, and the only really crappy implementation was that there wasn't enough for some skills/stats to do.

I assumed that the SPECIAL system, the way most people talk about it, encompassed the entire char screen, but wasn't sure. And that was what I meant about crappy implementation; it wasn't balanced because there wasn't enough to do with everything. The best solution to the entire "problem" with SPECIAL is, as I'm sure has been said before, is make it so each skill is a viable choice to have tagged and advance.

 

[Sander]

Re: decided to stick my nose into this forum

What I meant was each quest could be done several different ways...not have different quests for everybody depending on the character you were playing. Sorry bout that.

Ah yes, and how is that different from Fallout?

The system outlined before isn't adding classes anymore then FO already does...it just happens to be more obvious this way. Are you saying a person with pure combat skills is the same "class" as a person with pure diplomatic skills?

What? You're making no sense whatsoever.
Look, as I've said before, the effect of grouping the skills in that way is that it becomes unprofitable to invest into anything but your tagged group, and you can't take unique tag combinations that you could take in Fallout. It throws together all the combat skills, for instance, which means that investing in anything but the combat skills if you have them tagged is going to be unprofitable and, moreover, if you specialize in combat, you can't specialize in anything else. Hence it's a cheap way to create roles in a game that doesn't need or want them.

I'm trying to change it to try to align it in the sense of upbringing. I think the rest of what you said relates to the misunderstanding that different upbrinings would have completely different paths, instead of just having different ways of completely quests.

No, it doesn't. It comes purely from the way in which you're trying to revamp SPECIAL so that to your mind you can put everyone into little boxes that say 'He was brought up a warrior' and 'He was brought up a sneak'.
Have you ever seriously seen someone who has been brought up like that? Someone who was diplomatic and hence never did any martial arts, or someone who was a thief and hence didn't ever do any fighting? Even in today's world, on which you're basing these groupings, that doesn't make sense, let alone in Fallout's world.

And about being forced into roles...that would kinda be the point of a Role Playing Game. If you are good at a bringing destruction and chaos...are you going to solve a problem by talking?

Have you completely and entirely missed the whole point of the Fallout GAME??
One of the major points of Fallout was that it was originally based on GURPS, a system that allows, now get this, class and role-less character development. Just like SPECIAL does. The whole point of those systems was to give the player more freedom over his class and not force him into certain roles.

And to answer your inane question about destruction, chaos and talking. Yes, yes you would, if you were playing the right type of chaos and destruction-bringing character.

The problem is not only that of the above, but also about the relation of skills.

It doesn't make the "better" skills advance faster. But yes it does make the "lesser" ones harder to advance because of the whole fact that you don't use em, so why can you be good at them? The reason they are perceived as lesser is because there is not alot you can do with them in the current FOs. This issue of "lesser" and "better" comes from the gameworld, not from the implentation of the skill system. And they won't be hard to advance if you use them.

Lost your reading ability? I said in the Fallout world some skills are used less. This doesn't actually make them underpowered if used in places where they matter, but the fact of the matter is that Combat skills are probably the most powerful skills in the gamesand in the world, you're going to be using them a lot because there's a lot of opportunity to use them. The same cannot be said for speech, because you need someone to talk to and something to convince him of, or of Doctor because you need broken limbs to use that skill.

(Why would you advance something that you don't use? Your opposal to this, I think anyways, is based on the fact that you think FO is a "do anything you want and not worry about reality/consequences" game.)

...
Stop mouth stuffing and go develop a brain. I never said anything about being able to do anything in Fallout without reality or consequences, mainly because the game revolved around the consequences of your choices.

You always talk of game balance, but you haven't addressed the issue of FO reality. Can you become better at something practical if you have never done it or read about it? I'm not sure of your experiences so I can not relate an example to you. For me, I have never had any experience being a doctor...so does it make sense that the first time I pick up a scalpel I can perform complex surgeries?

Ugh. That's first of all the point of having a background. Second of all, practice also comes from 'dry practicing'. It is assumed that, if you want to increase some skill, you've been practicing 'off-camera'. Have a little bit of imagination, kid.

One problem I guess I have is how you can refute the original point by silencer about the advancement of skills...when the entire schooling system everywhere is based on starting simple(small amout of skill points) then learning new stuff(gaining skill points) so you can do complex stuff with it(high skill points).

Skill math:
<snip math>
Now, take this example to FO...a person that hasn't read/practiced math isn't going to be able to solve a triple integral all of a sudden.

You're a hoot kid. Multi-variable math being the end of mathematics. Hah!
Again, your lack of imagination is amazing. You're assuming that if you put points into a skill it just appears out of nowhere, instead of that the character used to practice a lot and hence got better at it.

Well then I have to ask, what is the best way of defining somebody? If it isn't how the person is brought up and what they know or anything to actually do with the person...then what?

First of all, those are all only *parts* of any person. The main defining point of any character in a role-playing game is (or at least should be) the player behind the character, because the player decides how the character is going to behave. Your idea of forcing that player to choose from about six types of background limits the player in his imagination and limits the freedom of the system. Hence, it sucks.

So freedom is saying "I'm going to be a doctor with mad gambling skills, can shot guns, live in the wilderness and can sneak around like a ghost. I'm going to have the strength of a grizzly, perception of a hawk, endurance of a long distance runner, charasima of a world leader, intelligence of Einstien, agility of a cheetah, and the luck of Lucky Luke."

Yeah, if you use FALCHE and cheat all that. Did you even design a character in Fallout? There were limits to how much a person could do. But your system stops someone from being good with small guns, having studied some medicine and being a dirty little pickpocket. Hence,

True. Example: different start towns...but a quick convergence to the main idea. The first hour is unique quests, depending on the character, just to get you a start, then you converge.

Okaaaaay. And you still don't see how the fact that there are about five roles, and those five roles determine everything about your character is limiting?

 

[RPGenius]

And about being forced into roles...that would kinda be the point of a Role Playing Game.

That really isn't the point of role playingm the point of Role-Playing is creating a concept you'd enjoy playing. Not being forced into a certain type of player, who plays one way and one way only.

(Why would you advance something that you don't use? Your opposal to this, I think anyways, is based on the fact that you think FO is a "do anything you want and not worry about reality/consequences" game.)

One of these days, I'll be stuck in a padded cell cawing at the walls and screaming "They Don't UNDERSTAND!" And it'll be because of people like you. Fallout was all about the fact that everything you do has an effect, whilst allowing open ended gaming.

Example: different start towns...but a quick convergence to the main idea. The first hour is unique quests, depending on the character

Yes because you, who has been arguing that things aren't realistic enough, can argue that we have a town where everyone is either a medic or needs one.
Not to mention a town where EVERYONE is a diplomat, and they spend all their time talking thier way into and out of anything.

 

[GhostWhoTalks]

I think combining skills is a bad idea. A case could be made for combining repair and science & doctor and first aid, but as far as other skills are concerned you really shouldn't touch them. Fallout wants to avoid becoming a level-less system, and the first step towards the creation of a level-less system is the creation of generic categories for skills and abilities.

I'm very wary of ideas which lead to the fomentation of level-less ideas in the context of Fallout. And this covers the skill synergy idea as well. You may very well have "rogue" skills or "science" skills but I don't see any compelling reason to involve synergies here. In D&D skill synergies help characters which are fundamentally non-magical keep up with characters who can utilize magic. The skill system also has movement skills and some break ups of skills which would be difficult to utilize in fallout (like balancing) or part of the same skill in fallout (knowledge architecture versus profession architect).




As far as the skill "threshold" idea goes the only way I could see implementing it is if the threshold for your ability to improve your skills by use was based on your character level (so low level characters couldn't just sit their all day "practicing" a skill to improve it) and skills which were used less often "improved" faster. So you would have a base value determined by your stats; which would only be altered when your physical stats changed or perhaps by some perks/traits, and then you would have an "augmentation" value which would be determined partially by skill use and partially by skill point investment; thinking about it a little bit more it might even be for the best to keep those two value separate so that practice doesn't amp up the skill point cost of a skill. Doing so increases the complexity of the character screeen and the process of leveling up, so I'm not so sure that this is a good idea even armed with that knowledge.

All in all I'm still quite leery about progressive skills in a level and experience based system.


If Fallout was like Deus Ex (1 not 2) where experience directly purchased skill increases, then perhaps it might be easier to have a progressive skill aspect to the game, but I simply don't foresee that kind of change happening to Fallout.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I think combining skills is a bad idea. A case could be made for combining repair and science & doctor and first aid, but as far as other skills are concerned you really shouldn't touch them.

A case could be made for anything. SPECIAL, like any system, isn't perfect there always will be some room for improvement. A skill is only useless if the designers don't allow for any opportunities for it to be used. Though out of all the skills in Fallout I still think energy weapons is the most superfluous in the game when you've already got small & big guns to aim with and science & repair to look after the technical aspects of handling an energy weapon.

But it's all moot until they release some details of the game. More than likely skills will be of the talk to an npc will increase your speech skill ilk. So you'll run around a town saying hello to everyone at least twice and turn into an uber orator.

 

[Gangor]

It seems to me that the problem could be solved with a compromise: The character earns skillpoints as he earns experience (although this is probably hidden from the player) and these are allocated on the basis of use, with the chance of a skill point being allocated for a given successful action increasing as the character is awarded more skill points. In this way the character would improve in skills (s)he practices, but endless repetition of actions would not reward the player. The player could, I suppose, endlessly practise a skill in the hope that there is an available skill point, but this would be largely unrewarding.

 

[Sander]

It seems to me that the problem could be solved with a compromise: The character earns skillpoints as he earns experience (although this is probably hidden from the player) and these are allocated on the basis of use, with the chance of a skill point being allocated for a given successful action increasing as the character is awarded more skill points. In this way the character would improve in skills (s)he practices, but endless repetition of actions would not reward the player. The player could, I suppose, endlessly practise a skill in the hope that there is an available skill point, but this would be largely unrewarding.

..
This would be pretty unbalancing. Mainly because skills aren't used in the same proportions. In one small combat you'll probably use a combat skill some 8 times, at least. But the gambling skill, or the outdoorsman skill or even the speech skill is used less frequently, but would be of equal importance anyway. In other words, frequency of use does not correspond directly to usefulness.
More importantly, this system would stop people from creating the characters the way they want to see them.

 

[Gangor]

This would be pretty unbalancing. Mainly because skills aren't used in the same proportions. In one small combat you'll probably use a combat skill some 8 times, at least. But the gambling skill, or the outdoorsman skill or even the speech skill is used less frequently, but would be of equal importance anyway. In other words, frequency of use does not correspond directly to usefulness.
More importantly, this system would stop people from creating the characters the way they want to see them.

Of course skills aren't used in the same proportions by all players. Diplomats may never use fighting skills, for example. The biggest problem I can come up with is that sometimes skills are used without the player choosing to (ie traps, outdoorsman etc). For this method of skill progression to be used passive skill use would have to be replaced with something (in the previous examples, I suppose that would be with a perception check).
To your second point, of course frequency of use corresponds to usefullness - the challange for the designers is to give the player equal opportunity to use all the skills.
To your third, I find it debatable. Players will use the skills they wish to use, the character will then progress in those skills. How does that stop a player from developing the character they want? After all, they still have character creation, and they still will be able to choose perks. In fact, it will help players by adapting their characters automatically to their playstyle.

 

[Sander]

Of course skills aren't used in the same proportions by all players. Diplomats may never use fighting skills, for example. The biggest problem I can come up with is that sometimes skills are used without the player choosing to (ie traps, outdoorsman etc). For this method of skill progression to be used passive skill use would have to be replaced with something (in the previous examples, I suppose that would be with a perception check).
To your second point, of course frequency of use corresponds to usefullness - the challange for the designers is to give the player equal opportunity to use all the skills.

No it doesn't.
The fact that you can use a certain skill more ofen has nothing to do with how important it is. For instance, you can theoretically gamble a lot, but it isn't an important skill by any means.

To your third, I find it debatable. Players will use the skills they wish to use, the character will then progress in those skills. How does that stop a player from developing the character they want? After all, they still have character creation, and they still will be able to choose perks. In fact, it will help players by adapting their characters automatically to their playstyle.

Nope. Take, for instance, a perfectionist character. A character that only starts to do something when they're very confident about their skills. It'd be impossible to create such a character.
For this to work properly there would have to be equal growth opportunity for every skill, and that's almost impossible to do.

Besides that, this goes against the PnP design roots of Fallout as well.

 

[Gangor]

No it doesn't.
The fact that you can use a certain skill more ofen has nothing to do with how important it is. For instance, you can theoretically gamble a lot, but it isn't an important skill by any means.

If you do it a lot, then it becomes an important skill. Besides, like I said, it's up to the game designers to give skills equal utility. Flawed level design != flawed game system. Furthermore, I don't see why gambling can't just be reduced to a Luck check...

Nope. Take, for instance, a perfectionist character. A character that only starts to do something when they're very confident about their skills. It'd be impossible to create such a character.
For this to work properly there would have to be equal growth opportunity for every skill, and that's almost impossible to do.

There's no reason why that should work at all. The point of a RPG is to achieve a task with a character of given skills - it would be good game design to make play with a perfect character impossible.

Besides that, this goes against the PnP design roots of Fallout as well.

So? This is a CRPG after all...

 

[Sander]

If you do it a lot, then it becomes an important skill. Besides, like I said, it's up to the game designers to give skills equal utility. Flawed level design != flawed game system. Furthermore, I don't see why gambling can't just be reduced to a Luck check...

Completely beside the point.
Gambling never becomes important because there's only one point to it: earning money. That's it, there's nothing more you can do with it than that, and since earning money is in no way essential to almost anything (and there are far better ways to earn money), the gambling skill is, while useful, not important at all. Almost everything can be done without the gambling skill, but the same isn't (and shouldn't) be true for other skills.

Apart from that, gambling can require a lot of skill (poker, blackjack and the like) and are hence not just dependant on luck.

There's no reason why that should work at all. The point of a RPG is to achieve a task with a character of given skills - it would be good game design to make play with a perfect character impossible.

Not my point at all.
I was talking about it being impossible to play that kind of perfectionist character (which is something very different from a perfect character). As I explained, the kind of character that doesn't go about doing something until they're very good at it.

So? This is a CRPG after all...

...
Fallout was *designed* as to give an experience close to PnP when most games were moving away from that direction. PnP is an essential part of Fallout's design, hence why you don't ignore it.