RPG mechanics

[Anonymous No.2534740]

Just curious: What are /vr/'s preferences on RPG mechanics?

>What kind of character progression do you prefer? (e.g. leveling up, stats increasing randomly after battle, other / elaborate)

>What kind of battle system do you prefer? (e.g. turn-based, action RPG, other / elaborate)

>How do you think an RPG should handle skills? (e.g. buying them from shops, learning them at level up, learning them when equipping items, other / elaborate)

[Anonymous No.2534758]

>>2534740
>doing market research for your shitty indie game
Either fuck off to some other board, or be up front with your intentions.

[Anonymous No.2534779]

HOMM style

>stats level up based on class
>a limited selection of skills to level up after battle
>skills can also be learned by buying them in shops, from enemy encounters, from gurus, from scrolls in treasure boxes, from sharing between characters, from universities, and in new towns.
>tactical turned based battles with finite enemies and also enemies that spawn every week

[Anonymous No.2534786]

>>2534758

I'm just trying to stimulate discussion because /vr/ doesn't get much traffic. I've actually started at least 60% of new threads in the past few days.

[Anonymous No.2534789]

No RNG because people will save scum to get results.

Pick or roll for stats 1-10 at start. Bonuses should be rare and important.

Skills should derive from stats, and you can get trained or +1 to +3 to the skill. I just like the crunch of Dark Heresey 2/WH40k.

[Anonymous No.2534794]

>>2534786
Did you start that stupid fucking axiom verge thread? You're goddamn cancerous. Don't shitpost because you're bored or think you're curating shit. Who gives a shit it's a slow board? That's why we're here. It ain't even slow. /diy is slow, you can predict your own post number.

[Anonymous No.2534827]

>>2534789
>something is exploitable ergo we should cut it out
that's not how it works. people will cheat regardless. or do you think save scumming is just limited to rng abuse?

also
>roll
yeah that's rng

[Anonymous No.2534835]

>>2534786
>I've actually started at least 60% of new threads in the past few days.
Then please stop, because things have been noticeably worse.

[Anonymous No.2534837]

>>2534758
I've seen miserable pieces of shit and this faggot right here.

[Anonymous No.2534848]

I've always like Elder Scrolls' approach with stats and skills leveling up as you use them. I just don't understand why they shoehorned an experience level system into the mix, and even made enemies scale with the player's level.

[Anonymous No.2534878]

>>2534827
RNG for skill challenges is bad design for computer RPGs because the player will lose out on content, even if he should be able to get it by all rights, just because of a bad RNG.

80% success rate on a history knowledge check to get some nice background knowledge or to get a later bonus on a speech check? But RNG and you get 81 so you don't ever get to see that even though you as a player want that and spec'd yourself to be fucking fantastic at it, but you didn't because RNG? Bam, quickload.

Or even worse, you're trog the barbarian, and you only have 20% chance to do it? Well you only need to quickload like 5 times to convince the diplomat you're a brilliant scientist and then you get that totally OOC content. What a nightmare.

It's okay for tabletop because the DM can play around it, or better yet, doesn't even check you if it's plot important and something you're good at. What do you do? Techpriest has 130% chance of fixing the gellar field, but botches it. Now the game is over, no one can recover, and there's no reason to have even had him check.

[Anonymous No.2534958]

I tend to find that stat distribution isn't too hard to get right in games. Only when there are too many skills or stats and they could be consolidated into one.
One mechanic I really like in RPGs is action commands in fights. Games like Mario&Luigi/ Paper Mario implemented these pretty well, and I'd love to play more with these in them.

Here's one question I have for you blokes- saving: save points, or at any time from pause menu? I think save points in RPGs are more significant because saving before a fight versus whenever can kinda cheese some games. What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.2534964]

>>2534835
There's nothing wrong with that. It's pretty common behavior in a lot of forums.

[Anonymous No.2535069]

>>2534848
Oh wow, it never occurred to me to have a system like that without the experience levels. That would be amazing.

[Anonymous No.2535079]

>>2535069
>>2534848
>using basic attacks strengthens/trains the attack stat or weapon specific stat
>using magic strengthens magic
>using items strengthens items powers or potency of items found
Something like that? Seems kinda cool.

[Anonymous No.2535118]

>>2534740
>What kind of character progression do you prefer?
None. Prefer for character stats to remain static throughout the game. Only upgrades are skills/abilities. Equipment upgrades as well are okay, but would prefer not to have them

>What kind of battle system do you prefer?
If it is turn based, "puzzle combat" is the best. Or very harsh so that dying is a distinct possibility every single combat

Prefer Action RPG, like Dark Souls

>How do you think an RPG should handle skills?
I think Golden Sun's Djinn system was perfect. The Djinni themselves bestow skills, having a certain allotment of them bestowed certain class/skill combinations, and using the Djinni bestowed buffs respective to the element of the Djinn so that subsequent skills of that type were stronger. I also thought it was perfect that the Djinni were on cooldowns, and that using a Djinn for the skill it provided caused it to function as if it didn't exist. If you used one, your class, stats, and skills would be as if you were lacking that Djinn, which (could have) added an element of strategy to the battle.

Maybe you could set yourself up so that using a buffing Djinn at the start of battle would cause a character to fall into a class with other buffs, and you might use that character to do a first round of buffs. Then, when the Djinns reset, maybe the character got powerful magic or got high defense with some heals, making the character's role in the battle potentially a dynamic one rather than a static one, and allowing you to form a battle plan based around that.

It's a shame no one (that I'm aware of at least) has taken and overhauled the Djinn system into something that utilizes its full potential

[Anonymous No.2535129]

>>2534758
fucking conspiritard

[Anonymous No.2535130]

>>2534789
how the fuck would an RPG not use RNG

[Anonymous No.2535132]

What game has the best permanent stat boosting items, mechanic and frequency-wise?

[Anonymous No.2535159]

>>2535132
I'd say Fire Emblem. The items make a hugely discernible difference and there are few of them, so you have to be very selective.

[Anonymous No.2535485]

>>2534740
There is no 'best' mechanic there is only the mechanic that interacts best with the rest of the game.

For instance if you were making a lightning fast paced action game and wanted to add RPG mechanics the best mechanics would be the one that require the least input with few or zero points to distribute.

While a slower tactical game would be best with the reverse

[Anonymous No.2535524]

>You can talk to party members and they say different things depending on your location
Does this count as a mechanic?

[Anonymous No.2535546]

>>2535130
An RPG is basically a strategy game with some exploring.

Think about all the strategy games that don't use RNG.

[Anonymous No.2535731]

>>2535069
Been done. You must avoid jrpg threads to not know about it. Romancing Saga does it, and FF2 has an early version of it where your party can beat each other up to gain health and defence.

[Anonymous No.2535737]

>>2534958
Aye, save points are okay. They're the decent middle ground but I kind of like it when you can only save in towns. Save at any time is pointless, might as well just use godmode because you're never in danger unless you choose to be.

[Anonymous No.2535747]

>>2535130
No critical hit mechanic.
Choose where to allocate your stats, and damage is done based on basic math (if you have 18 attack and the enemy has 10 defense, you do 8 damage every time).
Enemies are in preplaced, unmoving positions.
If anything, it's actually easier to have no RNG, it cuts down on complexity.

[Anonymous No.2535749]

>>2535737
Yes and no. The things I loved about retro games in my youth I find tedious at 31. I just don't have the time these days. Save states keep me playing the retro titles these days. I'm not married and I don't have kids though I've come close a time or twenty. My sister is a complete fuck up. I've got 3 nieces/nephews and she just turned 20. One is in 2nd grade... I'm constantly picking up one of her kids or babysitting another. It's family... wtf can you do? The bright side is I've started playing retro titles with the oldest. My niece is a bad ass at double dragon 2 for her age.

[Anonymous No.2535751]

>>2535749
Long story short. I'd never finish a retro rpg these days without a save state.

[Anonymous No.2535756]

>>2535751
Some of those dungeons are long as fucking hell...

[Anonymous No.2535768]

>>2534958
I'll join the pleb club and prefer saving at any time (excluding battles maybe), for some games I even want multiple save games at once. Having limited save points may work with a story-based RPG that features no significantly difficult battles, but replaying parts over and over again just because I can't beat that final enemy before the next save point is simply annoying.

One of my favourite RPGs is Daggerfall. Despite a few flaws it does so many things so damn right - a shame the development was so rushed it ended up being buggy and unfinished in some parts while being poorly balanced and easily exploitable in other parts.
It introduced the "learning by doing" skill system which made the TES series famous and already features the spellmaker, a directional combat system (which I prefer to that of the later games) and tough battles that can always turn out fatal if you're not careful. My only complaint regarding the topic of this thread are the random stat bonuses when leveling up. Sometimes you get 3 additional strength points, at other times only 1.

[Anonymous No.2535783]

>>2535768
I've actually followed guides for FF to max my HP at 9999. I'd get a battle before the next level and fight it multiple times for the better stat bonuses. I'm such a dork. There's no real difference in gameplay at 9000 hp versus 9999. I wish the option wasn't there. Just a pointless time sink.

[Anonymous No.2535987]

>>2535747
What if enemy has 18 defense and my attack is 10? Will my attack heals them because it's -8? Will I deal 0 damage? Will it just be 1 damage?

And will the attack always hit? Or say the enemy has 10 agility and I have 9 accuracy. Does that mean my attacks can never hit?

[Anonymous No.2535994]

>>2535524
Come to think of it, is there an RPG where you control your party members' dialogue (and not just your main character)? Most of the time you can only choose what the main character would say, even if when in combat you can control other character. It's as if you were playing a different game in dialogue mode.

[Anonymous No.2536005]

Dying gives you a penalty and there are no reloads. Your progress is kept. I think traditional dying doesn't work in an rpg since its not primarily skill based.

If the battles are turn based they need to be fast and animations should have a disable option.

Every character should have several skill builds but not be a jack of all trades. Skill points are learnt on lvlups, and the game should contain info on what various skills lead to. A respec option is good to avoid gamefaq powergaming, it should take effort to gain it however.

[Anonymous No.2536049]

>>2534878
This is a perfect description of why I hate modern gamers so much. You think the whole game should be smooth sailing and that any time that things get a little rough, the only sensible thing to do is reload a previous save and do it again until you get the perfect result.

They will make idiotic assumptions like 80% should really mean 100% and that any time you fail a roll with an 80% chance that you've been fucked over by the RNG.

Reloading five times because you failed a 20% chance roll is fucking pathetic. If you're going to just cheat your way through a game, why would you bother even playing it in the first place?

The whole point of a game is the game part. It's making decisions and then dealing with the consequences of them. But modern gamers have no concept of that. They want their "perfect run" where they see 100% of the content on one go though. Even if they had to save scum a thousand times over the course of it, check up the most optimal best strategies and information before even starting and play the game with a youtube video running beside them the whole time.

Now we're in a position where game devs can't even think about putting mechanics like that in their games because it's just assumed that the people playing it will just cheat the system any way they can anyways.

You're just like those retards who say Final Fantasy II is a trash game because it's possible to exploit the system. Ignoring the fact that doing so completely ruins it or that playing along with the system actually leads to a really interesting and fun game. Nope, all that matters is that you CAN exploit it so everyone will and think the game sucks.

Congrats on being a shitty gamer and part of the reason game design is progressively getting worse and worse.

[Anonymous No.2536054]

>>2535747
That sounds like the absolute most boring system imaginable.

[Anonymous No.2536060]

>>2536049
The problem is that people today somehow think they're "locked out of content" if they play in a certain way and obviously can't obtain certain things, like playing as a character with low intellect in Fallout or playing as any character other than Red in SaGa Frontier.

There's this weird horror vacui in the minds of certain people that won't let them accept the consequences of their actions and the fact that path X is going to lock you out of Item A.
I won't say is something only young people have but it is indeed more common in the last generation of players.

And 4chan's extremist all or nothing mentality only amplifies that.

[Anonymous No.2536063]

Levelling up basic stats through grinding

Learning new skills through experience points (though it would be cooler if RPGs required you to stop by schools, skill masters, etc to get the basic skills that become usable with experience instead of just buying them or getting them attached with new weapons/armor

For RPGs I really don't mind turn-based battle systems at all.

[Anonymous No.2536067]

First off, I like something that's not too convoluted. I like traditional character progression, however I don't want it affecting other kinds of progression (like skill learning) in a detrimental effect. I don't like the idea of learning that if I'm past some level because I decided to put a bit more work, I can no longer get some skill, etc.

I like any system as long as it's not too convoluted. Something simple that doesn't take too much time to learn. Same with action RPGs which I also like. I can go as simple as Dragon Quest I, but fuck anything that tries too hard to be weird and innovative and ends up not being intuitive at all.

I would say learn skills at level up, but make it so you can also learn some of them without leveling up. Absorbing skills from classes/enemies/items are pretty appealing to me, specially if they don't have too many limitations in the way. One of my favorite systems is FF9.

As an extra, I would like to say that while I play many games with random encounters, I think the best option is still to put physical enemies in the field that you can (with some degree of difficulty) avoid.

And another thing that extremely annoys me is too high encounter rate mixed with puzzles. Standing around a room trying to push blocks and levers left and right while fighting every 3 steps can be a bit of a pain in the ass. Otherwise, I'm not going to complain too much about high encounter rates if the game is good enough in any other aspects.

[Anonymous No.2536070]

>>2536060
Yes exactly. I think partially because these days most people only play a game through once so they want to feel like they "got everything."

[Anonymous No.2536072]

>>2535546
>I can combine any two genres by throwing the word "basically" into my shitty post!

[Anonymous No.2536083]

>>2536070
>I think partially because these days most people only play a game through once so they want to feel like they "got everything."

I guess there are more reasons than that.
Now games are much more accessible than before and piracy makes game readily available compared to the 80's or 90's, coupled with the fact that the industry is huge now there are really more games than necessary.

I guess you can say the advancement in tech created a generation of "bulimic" players, I see that a lot in teenagers todays and even people in their late twenties, there's this kind of morbid hunger for games that will be consumed in a few hours and then steadily forgotten. I guess internet made this worse by making guides and FAQ more accessible, meaning people won't be stuck for weeks in a level trying to figure a puzzle or something and will progress steadily, and that is also the biggest culprit in the new mentality of "elitistic" people who finished most of their games while reading a guide and have the balls to call themselves hardcore.

Also, games now cost a lot less than back in the days, internet distribution and things like Steam Sales or Playstation network makes lots of games available for ridiculously low prices.

It's the same business model of fast foods like McDonald's, people are fed enormous quantities of food, most of which is of extremely low quality and they're assuefied so much their hunger keeps on growing and don't even care whether they're eating trash or not. That of course damages anyone but the ones on top of the pyramid, but still it's Panem et Circenses at its finest, no one will complain as long as they're entertained.

tl;dr: Capitalism ho, motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.2536087]

For my tastes the perfect one would be a blend between the SaGa system and Etrian Odyssey.

You wouldn't gain traditional levels or experience points. Your stats would grow based on what you did in combat. So swinging a sword increases strength, loosing health in combat can make you gain more hit points at the end etc. I would also tweak it so that missing would increase your hit rate for example.

Skills would be somewhat similar to Etrian in that there would be many skill trees with useful abilities to unlock and the flip side of having a large number of skills at your party's disposal allows for very nasty monsters to fight. So you have to be prepared to deal with status attacks, debuffs, insta kills and that kind of stuff.

Skill progression would be tied to your stat growth. So using a sword will build both strength and sword skill. As your strength and sword skills increase it opens up both sword abilities, strength based abilities and combination sword/strength abilities for example.

[Anonymous No.2536095]

>>2536083
There are even people who will shit on someone else for having played an emulated version of a game saying it's not a "pure" experience. While at the same token they beat that same game using FAQs and see nothing wrong with it. The world is crazy pants these days.

[Anonymous No.2536096]

>>2534740
>>What kind of character progression do you prefer? (e.g. leveling up, stats increasing randomly after battle, other / elaborate)

Leveling up, preferably with some way to influence the growth of at least some stats--just as long as it's not customizable to the point where all characters become interchangeable.

>What kind of battle system do you prefer? (e.g. turn-based, action RPG, other / elaborate)
I love classic turn-based battle, but action RPGs can be fun, too. I prefer turn-based as I generally don't play RPGs for action.

>How do you think an RPG should handle skills? (e.g. buying them from shops, learning them at level up, learning them when equipping items, other / elaborate)

I like a combination of level up (character-specific and general) and learning/earning moves. I also like when skills are refined/upgraded in some way, such as reaching a certain level, using the move frequently, story unlocks, etc.

[Anonymous No.2536097]

>>2535485
The word "best" appears nowhere in OP's post. "Preferences" are a personal thing and not a declaration of what is objectively best.

[Anonymous No.2536102]

>>2536049
Congrats on asserting yourself as a real man because you play games better than strangers you'll never meet.

[Anonymous No.2536104]

>>2536083
Would you say it's a blessing or a curse to have so many games available in and outside the market?

There's a huge difference between owning and being able to play 1-10 games for a year or two, and a bajillion of them on internet and through emulation. Nobody, not even kids have enough time to just pick one game and be really interested in trying to find every god forsaken secret or finish it twice, then do the same with another hundred. As a kid you may have dreamed of having this nice collection of games, but the sad truth is you wouldn't play half of them.

[Anonymous No.2536117]

>>2535987
Accuracy and evasion would be RNG so they wouldn't be in this theoretical game
In your theoretical scenario, the damage would be zero like in the fire emblem games. A good balance would be to include both magical and physical attacks and defences, so a character strong in magic will be weak physically and vice versa, with balanced characters being stronger than the weak ones but weaker than the strong ones, kinda like a red mage.

[Anonymous No.2536120]

>>2536102
It's got nothing to do with being a real man or anything as silly as that. But people who think an 80% chance should mean that it's a 100% chance and will save scum every time they get a result they don't like aren't just ruining the game for themselves. Since that's how so many people play these days, their behavior is influencing game design and leading to games with a lot less complexity.

I don't think I should feel special for simply playing a game the way it was designed and dealing with random numbers being random. The sad state of affairs is that I apparently am.

[Anonymous No.2536138]

>>2536095
Well, on one hand I can understand them because savescumming and bragging is a thing.

Though on /vg/ I was lynched for posting a screenshot from gamefaqs to talk about the graphics of a game and some "elitist" said I've never played the game and I was talking bullshit, fun thing he was the one who talked about games he never played out of spite saying he oneshotted bosses left and right, pic related
And you know what's funnier? People actually thought I was the liar and he was the cool guy making sick burn comments.
>>2536104
>Would you say it's a blessing or a curse to have so many games available in and outside the market?
Hard to say.
My main worry is that the market is flooded with games, there's just too much stuff and the level of quality is overall pretty low today, granted that there are still very good games around.

The problem is that our society is too fast, first work, then food and now games too have been suffering from this, that is also why the mobile game business is florid and is seen as the next big thing, people just don't want to spend time on a videogame anymore, you know all the people who rant about games being too short? They're the same who won't play titles like Dragon Quest VII because "it's too long" or aren't interested in games focused on replay value and experimenting.
One of the most common complaint I can remember is that if you can't unlock all contents in a single run the game is badly designed, oh and of course all the shit about writing and stories being more important than gameplay and so on...
But I digress, if you ask me, it's good to see so many people are coding and designing games nowadays, it isn't the same as it was with the C64 but it's good nonetheless, of course there are downsides but in the end as long as you, the single player, have some discipline I guess there are only advantages for the individual in this situation.
For the industry and community as a whole?
It's not good at all I fear.

[Anonymous No.2536148]

>>2536120
>Since that's how so many people play these days, their behavior is influencing game design and leading to games with a lot less complexity.

Well, they're not retro so who cares, amirite?

[Anonymous No.2536162]

>>2536138
That's just 4chan for you. Anything that someone can possibly give you shit for, they will. I always find it a little funny when someone is trying to be overly elitist.

>>2536104
Ultimately I think it's good. It can lead to the situation of over saturation where people feel they have so many games to play that it's hard to find one to focus on.

But on the other hand, having such a massive number of games available increases the chances of you finding something that really appeals to you specifically and that's pretty great.

I actually don't think the ration of good games to bad games is that much different today as it ever has been. But the difference is that these days games are being made for far more and more varying demographics of players.

So some people say Angry Birds is a terrible game, even though they know that it has a ton of fans who play it obsessively. So is Angry Birds good because many people enjoy it? Or bad because it doesn't fit what that person sees as being the basis of a good game? I think the answer is both, whether it's good depends on your point of view and what you want to get out of a game.

[Anonymous No.2536165]

Level ups are fine, but a balance between customization and pre-selection would be great. Like, I love planning out skill trees and stuff and being able to, say, choose which elements my mages use. However, if everything is fully customizable then all characters are blank slates and the game's cast seems dull and lifeless. I can't think of a game that really pulls off the balance I'd like. If that description made you think of the perfect RPG, lemme know.
I like random chance to have some say in how the game plays out. Helps keeping things from becoming too predictable and boring.
Battle systems that go a step beyond "choose an attack and then watch it happen" are welcome as long as they are not frustrating and overly complex. Like, enemy groupings and attack patterns in Phantasy Star 2-4(especially 3) are one of my favorite things about the series. In Lunar, you have to keep in mind enemy and party placement and figure out who can get to whom. Mother 3 had the rhythm attacks.
I don't like getting attacked while I'm trying to figure out what I want to do, which is how some active-time-battle games play out.

[Anonymous No.2536168]

>>2534786
appreciate you trying to up the traffic op

[Anonymous No.2536169]

>>2536148
I care because although I grew up on retro games and still play a ton of them, my interest isn't limited to them. I like new games as well so I'm invested in contemporary games also staying high quality.

[Anonymous No.2536171]

>>2536169
There's plenty of retro RPGs out there to sate you. For modern games, vote with your dollar, stop blaming everyone else, and stop expecting game companies to remain stagnant in order to satisfy you personally.

[Anonymous No.2536176]

>>2535132

This is the only way to "level up" human characters in Final Fantasy Legend. You have to buy stat-boosting items to increase their HP, Strength and Agility. The only way to boost Defense (temporarily, at least) is by equipping armor.

>>2536087
>Your stats would grow based on what you did in combat.

That wasn't until Final Fantasy Legend II, actually. In FF Legend 1, Mutants gain stats on a totally random basis. What you do in battle doesn't actually play any role in determining which stats will increase, or how often.

FF Legend 1 has some incredibly awkward RNG, for that matter. A lot of things just don't work the way they should. For instance, it's probably impossible to have Mutants learn an ability like P-Blast, because the RNG never goes anywhere near the values needed to generate it.


I agree with you, though. I think the PS2 remake of Romancing SaGa had the right idea. Stats increased as a result of what you put in application, you would sometimes learn new skills by using a specific weapon repeatedly, and you could also purchase training in various skills. My only gripe is that stats are too slow about increasing in the first place. There's a lot more grinding than there should be. I would have preferred if the pacing were more like SaGa Frontier, which gave stat boosts after practically every battle.

[Anonymous No.2536181]

>>2536176
>I would have preferred if the pacing were more like SaGa Frontier, which gave stat boosts after practically every battle.

But that's one of the main reasons Frontier was too easy, too easy to get stats and too stat centric, the Glirandly trick is proof of that.

[Anonymous No.2536234]

>>2536171
That's what I do. Really there are always more games I want to play than I have time for so it's all good. The universe has given me both Etrian Odyssey and Monster Hunter so I really shouldn't complain. Just had a little ranty moment there.

[Anonymous No.2536259]

>>2536176
Yeah, that is one of the issues with the first SaGa game, but it's got my favorite box art which is why I chose it.

[Anonymous No.2536337]

>>2536120
If the dc is 80 and you have 80 skill, yes you should just be able to get it. (dnd does this and has done it since srd with the take ten feature)

If the difficulty is 85, you should just fail.

The rng should also be stateful for your gam, so you can't save scum any rolls, like xcom. It plays random, unless you reload and notice you get exactly the same rolls for everything. Stops save scumming.

>then you argue against it because you're retarded and complain about games and players that save scum and cater to them

[Anonymous No.2536354]

I acutally love to grind, I don't know why but I enjoy overleveling my characters. Also tactical RPGs are by far my favorite, ARPGs seem a bit shallow for me unless they have big worlds.

[Anonymous No.2536397]

>>2535987
what about
damage=attack-defense/2
if the opponent didn't use a defense option in its previous turn and
damage=attack-defense+1 if it used defense

[Anonymous No.2536426]

Coming out of left-field I really liked ICO (kinda like an action-rpg in gameplay), so I would probably just allow some character stat/skill/magic choices at the start and stick to that. Then concentrate on getting the combat and story right.

[Anonymous No.2536458]

>>2536337
This is what I was referring to.

>80% success rate on a history knowledge check to get some nice background knowledge or to get a later bonus on a speech check? But RNG and you get 81 so you don't ever get to see that even though you as a player want that and spec'd yourself to be fucking fantastic at it, but you didn't because RNG? Bam, quickload.

If you have an 80% chance, that's what it is. That's a 20% chance of failure, one in five. 80% sounds like a lot but it's a long way from 100%. Anyone who save scums because they landed on the 20% end instead of the 80% end is a loser.

Even worse is this bullshit,
>Or even worse, you're trog the barbarian, and you only have 20% chance to do it? Well you only need to quickload like 5 times

It's one thing to save scum when you feel "justified" that you should have succeeded on that 80% roll. Reloading multiple times so you can turn a 20% chance into a 100% one is laughably pathetic.

[Anonymous No.2536553]

>>2535747
I've often imagined how a system with one-to-one mechanics in damage calculation would work out. Perhaps it would encourage temporary buffing items for battles, maybe enemies with higher defense have mechanics where you must attack certain ways or areas to lower their defense (like Mother 3's Barrier Trio for example where you must attack with a certain element during different stances to do any damage).

[Anonymous No.2536572]

>>2535749
>>2535751
Good point, sometimes it adds unnecessary difficulty, which can make the game tedious and excruciating. Even today I just have a hard time when I need to find a save point and have to say go back to the beginning of the dungeon. I feel like it may just be a nostalgic thing for me, because I unfortunately do not have as much patience for it anymore.

[Anonymous No.2536587]

>>2536572
This is why I like temporary save states. The kind that let you save anywhere, but the save deletes itself once you've loaded it. It allows you to quit the game any time you need to, but keeps being able to make long dungeons that test the player's resource management. Fortunately that's standard for a lot of RPGs and ports of older RPGs now.

I would also like to see for certain RPGs to use a save system similar to Animal Crossing which marks when you started playing and then penalizes you if you then play without saving. It's really just another save scum deterrent but works well.

[Anonymous No.2536643]

>>2535130
It'd be a deterministic system, I know a few roguelikes use this (off the top of my head, The Slimy Lichmummy has a fun deterministic battle system). You'd use basically the same formulas to work out damage or whatever but you wouldn't do an RNG roll, so like for example at level 7 using the broadsword against a kobold your attack would always do 50 damage, against an orc it would always do 30 because of how your attack and their defense works out with whatever formula. Probably if you used an RNG it would average out over time so you'd do an average of 50 damage per hit to a kobold, but this way it's more fair I guess?.

The next question is how do you add that spice that misses and critical hits give? You could have a hybrid where you do deterministic damage but roll for dodges or criticals. You could have a system where you dodge every 10th attack or every 20th attack is a crit. There's probably a bunch of cool systems I don't know about cause I'm not a system design fetishist dude

>>2535747
>Enemies are in preplaced, unmoving positions.

What about rather than randomly triggering battles a background process runs where the player is a high mass object in space and the enemy is another mass which is attracted to the player, a physics simulation is run so when the player moves it affects the path of the enemy (which is orbiting towards the player) in unpredictable ways until the eventual collision of the two masses starts the battle. A deterministic system with hard to predict results!

[Anonymous No.2536705]

>>2536643
>What about rather than randomly triggering battles a background process runs where the player is a high mass object in space and the enemy is another mass which is attracted to the player, a physics simulation is run so when the player moves it affects the path of the enemy (which is orbiting towards the player) in unpredictable ways until the eventual collision of the two masses starts the battle. A deterministic system with hard to predict results!

There are RPGs that have already done this, like for example, in the Saga II remake on the DS but without the weird orbiting movements you're describing. The enemies are just attracted to you.

[Anonymous No.2536772]

>>2536705
There are also some where the enemies are on screen and moving around randomly so you engage in battle if you run into one. But, the sprites are invisible so you don't know where they are.

[Anonymous No.2536784]

>>2534740
The d20 system is always great to use in place of simple percent-based RNG
>2d20
>First roll determines whether or not you're successful
>Second roll determines how successful you are

[Anonymous No.2536839]

>>2536587
I like it. And you have a good point about quicksaves that I suppose I haven't appreciated over the years. Even something like Super Mario 3 utilized this pretty well.

[Anonymous No.2537375]

>>2536784
The d20 system already calculates the degree of success based on the first roll, though. You're just making it more convoluted.

[Anonymous No.2537384]

>>2536587
>I would also like to see for certain RPGs to use a save system similar to Animal Crossing which marks when you started playing and then penalizes you if you then play without saving. It's really just another save scum deterrent but works well.
So that's how the Mr. Resetti thing works?

[Anonymous No.2537392]

>>2537384
Yep. You try to save scum, and Mr Resetti will take up at least 5 minutes of your time with his drivel even blasting through his speech as fast as humanly possible.

Also, it gets longer every single time you do it, and eventually starts culminating in you having to perfectly duplicate typing out a sentence like "I promise I will never, ever, ever, ever forget to save the game again." And sometimes he'll make you do another one.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't distinguish a loss of electrical power from a voluntary attempt to scum, so if your power goes out, you get a lecture. My apartment's juice fizzles at least once a week, so I was getting Resetti lectures on my wii pretty much monthly.

[Anonymous No.2538389]

>>2536049
Let's reverse the question: since games are limited in the way of failures, and there's no GM that can work around the rolls to weave the story, why bothering with sprinkling everything, especially skill checks spread thin throughout the game, with random rolls, especially when you give the possibility to savescum? Why ignoring the big flaws of a system, and shoulder them to the bad players that rightfully are playing them for their worth?

[Anonymous No.2538515]

>>2538389
>Let's reverse the question: since games are limited in the way of failures, and there's no GM that can work around the rolls to weave the story

This is where our fundamental disagreement lays. It sounds like you're the kind of D&D player who if you have a thief that's good at say pickpocketing to the degree they have an 80% chance of success. And that if you made a pickpocket attempt and failed, you would expect the DM to fudge the roll, especially if it was important.

I fundamentally disagree with that. I respect some people like to play the game that way, but I think it completely breaks the experience. The whole point of having random chances is that they're random. Sure you're a great thief and you should be able to snatch that noble's purse no problem and get the secret plans that are inside. But then OHH FUCK, you failed your pickpocket attempt and he catches you. For me, that's where the real magic of D&D comes out. Where does the story go from there?

It's the same thing with video game. You ask
>why bothering with sprinkling everything, especially skill checks spread thin throughout the game, with random rolls, especially when you give the possibility to savescum?

Well I fundamentally think you shouldn't ever save scum out of situations like that because what's the fun in playing a game where you just win everything automatically? I don't see any at all, so to me having random chances thrown into the works makes the game itself more interesting.

You're maybe different. Perhaps you just want to get through it, see the whole story and know you didn't miss anything. So it annoys you that there are random chances thrown in there that might get in the way of that. And if that's your approach, that's fine but at that point why are you even playing a game? You're basically removing as much of it that's a game as possible. Which really just turns it into a movie that you have to click a button repeatedly to keep playing.

[Anonymous No.2538527]

>>2538515
>Which really just turns it into a movie that you have to click a button repeatedly to keep playing.
that describes arperguers alright

[Anonymous No.2538540]

>>2538515
There's no actual good reason for a videogame to ever have a percentage based skill check.

Because it's a game. You can in all situations substitute the imaginary character's skill with the players actual skill at playing the game by creating some sort of simulation to take the place of a random skill roll, and make it either easier or harder depending on the character's supposed familiarity and skill with the chosen task.

In terms of alternate consequences for failure, any decent game should obviously stay true to the goal of maintaining verisimilitude and stick to the ideal of providing believable consequences for all actions the player has available.

[Anonymous No.2538550]

>>2538540
>There's no actual good reason for a videogame to ever have a percentage based skill check.

And how do you feel about them in a game like tabletop D&D? The whole point of roleplaying games is to play the role of something else. I might be playing a thief, but I myself am not a thief. So it would be silly to base my thief's skill at pickpocketing with mine for example. The thief itself has a chance to succeed when stealing and the random dice rolls simulate that.

It's exactly the same with video game rpgs. Your thief has a certain chance to succeed in a steal attempt. But whether it's going to succeed isn't based on your skill as a player, the game is simulating the success based on how good it thinks the thief in question is.

If you want something like an RPG where you have more direct control and whether you hit a given enemy is based on your skill as a player as opposed to your character's skill then there's a whole genre right there for you. We call the Action RPGs.

But you have to keep in mind that traditional RPGs were born out of simulations of table top roleplaying games and they use random checks for a reason. Which isn't to say you have to like the genre, but many do.

[Anonymous No.2538558]

>>2538550
this is /vr not >>>/tg/ if I want to have a rollicking discussion about tabletop games I'll take it over there numbnuts.

I'm only talking about fucking videogames here what the fuck are you talking about?

Also, maybe if being good at something in real life and being good at something in a videogame, like lockpicking or auto repair or swordfighting or sneaking around had some sort of correlation they wouldn't be such a godawful waste of fucking time.

Who the fuck cares about RPGs I want better simulations and I want them now we have enough fucking RPGs

[Anonymous No.2538565]

>>2538558
>this is /vr not >>>/tg/ if I want to have a rollicking discussion about tabletop games I'll take it over there numbnuts.

Why doesn't it surprise me you're resorting to swearing and insults now?

Anyways, that aside I too am talking about video games. The same thing that makes random checks good in tabletop games is the same thing that makes them good in the video games that are based on them.

>Who the fuck cares about RPGs I want better simulations and I want them now we have enough fucking RPGs

And that's fine. Like I said, you don't have to like the RPG genre. I'm just explaining to you as someone who does like the genre, why I like some of the specifics of it, like chance based skill checks.

[Anonymous No.2538567]

>>2538558
>I want better simulations and I want them now
https://youtu.be/Uoomkw6cQwo?t=1h38m48s
FUCK YEAH!

[Anonymous No.2538568]

>>2538558
>I want better simulations and I want them now
Not him but are you perhaps German?

[Anonymous No.2538575]

>>2538558
>I want better simulations and I want them now we have enough fucking RPGs

Then what the living fuck are you doing trolling the retro games board? Let alone a discussion specifically about rpg mechanics? Go shitpost somewhere else please.

[Anonymous No.2538596]

>>2538565
>Why doesn't it surprise me you're resorting to swearing and insults now?
nigger where the fuck do you think you are

[Anonymous No.2538608]

>>2538575
because the marriage of the two is what produces the sexiest slut for me to jerk off all over

[Anonymous No.2538656]

>>2538596
One of the few boards on 4chan where we tend to get along pretty well. Thanks for working so hard to change that.

[Anonymous No.2538672]

>>2538656
Not giving a shit is literally the only reason I post here. If I had to start giving a shit I would immediately stop because I don't stay here for the fucking stellar quality of discourse. I know what those places actually are and I'm a little too belligerent for them to tolerate me right now.

You're fucking things up and making people roll their eyes by trying to maintain a false standard of decency, there are tons of other gaming forums on the net where you can put a name to your bullshit and people can be held accountable for the shit they say, but this is not that place. This is 4chan and you can suck a giant nigger cock you fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.2538687]

>>2538672
>Not giving a shit is literally the only reason I post here. If I had to start giving a shit I would immediately stop because I don't stay here for the fucking stellar quality of discourse.

Wow, that's actually a little sad. Look, if you want to troll then be my guest. But don't expect not to get called out and put down for it. :)

[Anonymous No.2538690]

>>2538672
>HURR I'm going full retard because this is totally the 4chan way and I have to fit in because unanimous is legion
A literal manchild if I ever saw one.

I wish faggots would stop saying what 4chan is about just to justify their shitty behaviour but oh well.

[Anonymous No.2538697]

>>2538690
I'd bet my left foot he's the guy who was bragging about starting a bunch of shitty threads when he saw how relatively slow this board is. Amazing how some people just reek of newness when they start visiting /vr/. At least he's honest about having nothing to add to the discussions outside of shitposting though. That's something.

[Anonymous No.2538716]

>>2538690
>>2538697
I'm sure if you guys want a hugbox where you can stay impervious to bullying and freedom of expression tumblr would love to have you

[Anonymous No.2538729]

>>2538716
We don't want that, or I certainly don't. I like it here, and I like the kinds of discussion it gives rise to. Such as has been in this thread which had a good amount of interesting discourse.

And I like that it's free and open for people like you to pop your head in and anonymously spew off whatever stupidity fueled venom is swirling in your head. You think your impotent troll rage is upsetting me? I'm reveling in it. You're acting like a bratty child throwing a tantrum and I get to laugh at you for it.

[Anonymous No.2538731]

>>2538729
>the jokes on you anon I enjoy being verbally abused that's why I'm continuing to bitch about it across several posts instead of ignoring the vitriol and continuing the original discussion like a person with fucking priorities

[Anonymous No.2538732]

>>2538716
>M...Muh hugbox
Holy shit, you're a pathetic little cunt.

YOU are the one who wants a hugbox, you said it yourself.
>Not giving a shit is literally the only reason I post here.
You're literally saying that the only reason you post in here it's because according to you it's okay to behave like an idiot because the majority of the users do, you're the one who desperately need a hugbox.
And let me tell you another thing big boy, every community on the internet is a hugbox, 4chins is a huge hugbox with little hugboxes when people come together to talk about things they like because they all supposedly share a common interest.

I post in here because I like old games and since I'm not a manchild that needs to swear gratuitously to affirm himself or feel part of the great community of 4chan®, I respect basic rules of decency in communication, I'm too old and have been here far too long to need to insult other people or shitpost in threads where there is actual content.

Now talk about RPG or get back to /v/ you little cunt.

[Anonymous No.2538734]

>>2538731
Yup. Welcome to 4chan. :)

[Anonymous No.2538739]

>>2534740
>Character Progression
Transparent, static, logical growths on level up. I like to know each level I'm going to gain +5HP, +2 Strength, and +1 Intellect. I don't like random growths because without a very large sample size, you run a high risk of getting screwed over. I don't like growths to be hidden because then I have no clue if I'm making the right call by staying a class or not, or I don't know exactly what's going on behind the scenes for my party. Being able to self allocate your stats is also preferred but not mandatory if they're linked to a class or some other choice.

>Battle System
Turn based if the system is pretty deep. I like to plan out each phase of combat and watch it play out like moves on a chessboard. Realtime isn't bad by any means, but I don't get the same satisfaction from mechanical mastery as I do from tactical/strategic mastery.

>Skills
Unlock them based on playstyle or stat growths. For instance, if you fight in melee with a hammer for a long enough time, you start to gain skills with that weapon. Or, if you're leveling strength, the skills you gain are based on strength. Possibly some combination of the two (Hammer users leveling agility gain different abilities with them than a strength user gets, for example.).

I actually prefer something closer to WoD's tabletop system, but that's pretty difficult to pull off in a video game.

[Anonymous No.2538740]

>>2538732
oh no the thought police are angry at me for using bad words someone help I'm so intimidated

let me reiterate, suck my fucking cock or talk about videogames you gigantic fucking cuck faggot nigger

[Anonymous No.2538742]

>>2538740
Stay mad, friend.

[Anonymous No.2538743]

>>2538742
that's my secret, cap

[Anonymous No.2538749]

>>2538739
>Transparent, static, logical growths on level up. I like to know each level I'm going to gain +5HP, +2 Strength, and +1 Intellect.
> Or, if you're leveling strength,

How would you merge these two? Straight just '+5HP, +2 Strength, and +1 Intellect' feels a little dull to me for some reason, but if the game gave an option of how your character would grow that could be interesting.

Such as let's say, that each level you earn a base of 3 stat points. If over the course of gaining a level you swung a hammer constantly you'd get 3 in strength. If you swung a hammer a lot but also used some magic to do buffs, healing whatever then you might get 2 strength and 1 intellect.

You could also combine it sort of Pokemon style. Where you have a base amount that your stats will go up each level but then it can be modified slightly by gaining more individual stat experience. In those games it's done by what monsters you train against, but it also could be based on how you use your characters a little like the SaGa system.

WoD would be super hard to implement in a video game environment, but I agree with you on it being pretty great in a lot of ways. Similarly the old West End Games Star Wars tabletop had some really interesting systems in it. That's getting on a tangent now though.

[Anonymous No.2538772]

>>2536553
The cool systems have enemies with single or very low hit points.

In savage worlds
Mooks have 1, elites have 2, solos have 3 or 4 and a single reroll or + a wild die to a single roll.
Warhammer has a lot more wounds but they want you to be able to feel crunchy so you can roll huge damage dice with huge bonuses.

I don't like savage worlds attributes or skills though. I like the simplicity of warhammer/or SPECIAL without skill points and only tags.

Your attributes are 1-10 and determine what you roll under for most checks. You tag the skills at creation (or learn them inna cool interaction with a skill master) so your int 50 or int 5 repairman with repair tagged at base needs to roll under 50 to make a challenging repair. If he had tagged the skill two or three times he'd get it at 60 or 70.

No one needs granularity to 1% who gives a shit. Also no one should be able to spend skill points at level up. There's no reason trog the barbarian can learn science just because he levelled up. Int points = skill point bonus is also mega cancer. Any build in a fallout fame turns into a game breaker with 7 int or more, while trog can't even punch things effectively because he can't get enough skill points to raise his melee.

Stateful rng like xcom so save scumming gets you nowhere.

Permadeath with save anywhere to quit and a backup save for power outages.

No levels, earn XP units to unlock a single skill tag or feat, two units for an attribute or advanced feat.

[Anonymous No.2538847]

>>2538772
>There's no reason trog the barbarian can learn science just because he levelled up.

This is why I'm generally against class names. It makes little sense for a barbarian to learn some science since that's not something we associate with barbarians and it seems odd. But if he wasn't called a 'barbarian', if he was just a character who you had been using axes with, it could fit that he wanted to learn some science. Though I think having to do something in game to allow or boost it would be good. For instance finding a certain book gives you access to a set number of science points that you could spend at level up instead of more axe skill.

One of my favorite level up systems ever is actually from a roguelike.

Essentially there is a pantheon of gods that bestow power on you and how your stats and abilities develop is based on whatever god you are worshiping at a given time and how much they like you.

Most actions that you take will affect the various gods opinions of you. A simple example is that the fighter god likes it when you attack physically, but hates it when you cast spells. As you go through the game some of them will grow to like you and some will dislike you.

Each time you level up, you can choose to worship any god that is currently feeling favorable towards you. Then they boost your stats according to their specialties and will randomly teach you a skill out of the pool they have available to you.

I'm not sure how well the randomness of it would work in a full on RPG, but in a roguelike it works wonderfully and one of the reasons it's among my favorites of the genre.

[Anonymous No.2538936]

>>2538749
Oh sorry, I just started typing without fulling putting much thought into it. I was thinking a system sort of like Ogre Battle or FFT where your class determines your character growth -- someone who spends all of his time as an Archer is going to be fast and quick while someone who spends their life as a Mage is going to have a lot of MP to work with.

Things get complex when someone spends X amount of levels as an Archer and Y amount as a Mage though. You wind up with a mix of growths of both. That character won't have the raw MP pool of a pure mage, nor will he have the speed and dexterity of a pure archer. Instead, you wind up with a somewhat speedy mage who might supplement his magic with his high speed, casting a bunch of quick, weak spells faster than other mages could.

>>2538772
I also like systems with low amounts of points for stats and health. When you're playing an RPG where characters have tens of thousands of HP, +10 or even +100 HP is nothing but a drop in the bucket, but when you're dealing with someone who might only have a max of 30 to begin with, increasing that amount by even 1 has a noticeable effect.

[Anonymous No.2539096]

>>2534740
Turn-based and with as few random elements as possible, especially if it's a "strategy" RPG. As soon you as you start introducing luck into the equations the game is no longer about setting up strategic plans because you cannot possibly take into account critical hits, misses, or whatever random bullshit the game throws at you. Ideally you should be able to foresee things like this and plan ways to avoid them, not just have to suck it up and deal with it and plan only as far as the next turn because you can't possibly know what lies beyond it.

[Anonymous No.2539140]

>>2539096
Maybe it's just me, but I find it incredibly boring when I can perfectly predict not only whether my attack will hit but even how much damage it will do. To me that makes it feel less like a game and more like a puzzle. A puzzle being something you just figure out, and a game being a puzzle that keeps changing on you which you have to adapt with.

[Anonymous No.2539171]

>>2539096
>As soon you as you start introducing luck into the equations the game is no longer about setting up strategic plans because you cannot possibly take into account critical hits, misses, or whatever random bullshit the game throws at you.

Nothing is absolutely certain, just like in reality. But I agree with you that making luck a major factor these games make the strategic aspect pointless. It's just a lazy way to make the game challenging.

[Anonymous No.2539181]

>>2536120
Let's say it's some critical check that if you win it you get a new character or great item or something, and with that in mind you spent the whole game training your guy to excel in those checks only to get there and with an 80% chance still fail it. 15 hours down the toilet! Better start the game over and try again! I got no time for that nonsense, you bet your ass I'm reloading and trying again.

[Anonymous No.2539213]

>>2539140
It doesn't have to be 100% predictable, like "I move to square 3 and I know for certain enemy 7 will move to square 9". If it's like that you're manipulating the game more than you are playing it. But If you have 12 units of your own on the field and the enemy has 12 too, and nearly everyone's a different class it's just too chaotic to plan out any kind of strategy because there are 50 possibilities on each turn and there is no way to account for them, so you end up just winging it instead of strategizing.

In terms of just doing damage, if you know for certain an enemy has 20 health and you will do 18, it's a good incentive for you to use other units that can buff your attacker so he can do 22 damage and end the fight.

[Anonymous No.2539329]

>>2539181
Yes.

Certainly if you're the character that isn't supposed to know that shit, like your fighter archetype doesn't know how to pass the magic check and get the crazy magic storyline options. Sure.

But if your magey mc magerson loses 1/4 of his arc because RNG said no? Yeah, fuck it. Reload, it shouldn't even be a roll, it should be a check. Like 'is he a mage of skill 80? Okay, continue.' Not 'he's got an 80% chance of passing it'.

Most games I can think of do it this way, except Darklands (which still has a number of 'Success is certain' checks). Fallout, Planescape, Baldur's Gate all have dialogue choices that are just successes if you have the skill/attribute for it.

[Anonymous No.2539682]

Can you transfer your characters from Wizardry I to II and III?
Do they keep their stats and equipment?

[Anonymous No.2539779]

I've always admired the freedom of Final Fantasy Tactics and Diablo II was a great one too... I also liked dragons dogma and skyrim to a degree... tho the freedom of doing what ever the hell you want in Dark Souls is VERY satisfying, being the weapon itself having more of a move set towards a STR or DEX or MAG build.

[Anonymous No.2540905]

>>2539181
Okay, yeah that would suck but it's a pretty extreme scenario and I can't even think of a single game that comes close to anything like that. I was more talking about it in the context of combat scenarios.