A problem I have with RPGs

[Flishiz]

Have you ever wondered why in just about every RPG, the people you pick up are all skilled at whatever they specialize in, but also combat? Why does it seem appropriate that perfectly-skilled or talented members of a team, squad, etc, also have an outstanding combat ability, no matter what they do?

For example, in Mass Effect 2, I feel as if Mordin was only really given the STG background in order to justify his combat prowess, but I would have been perfectly comfortable if he had just stayed as the scientist and assisted the team that way.

I'm not saying that there are characters that should be unusable in combat that you can pick up as a part of a team, but rather trying to justify a lack of combat ability by buffering that character with other skills (such as making that character better at say, potion making or engineering, etc). In the end, useful as they may be, the still should suffer from being primarily a non-combatant, and while they aren't restricted from being used in combat, they should really have a more relegated role depending on what they specialize in. That way, a team will feel less like a squad of mercenaries, and more a diverse and interesting set of individuals who all band together for a common purpose.

 

[Legion]

In Mass Effect 2 they countered the insanity in the first game of having a veteran soldier who couldn't hit a barn door from 3 feet away. They compensated by making everyone reasonably proficient in combat and having varying degrees of expertise in other areas.

I do see what you mean though, my main gripe wasn't that, but how in Mass Effect you could customise your teams equipment, thus being able to make them have better armour/shields whereas in the sequel they got given standard armour and shields and that's it. As such, certain characters have a habit of dying extremely easily.

As much as I love how fluid the combat felt in Mass Effect 2, they most certainly did dumb down the character creation/levels/classes. I felt the difference between Zaeed, Garrus and Thane for example, was mostly aesthetic, the differences between them wasn't enough to have a huge impact.

I also don't see what this has to do with RPG's in general, it just seems to be related to Mass Effect 2.

 

[DividedUnity]

That way, a team will feel less like a squad of mercenaries, and more a diverse and interesting set of individuals who all band together for a common purpose.

So mercenaries arent a diverse group of individuals that band together to make profit. A common purpose?

OT: The characters are given multiple skills such as combat and a special ability ontop of that so when you choose a team you are not losing out on combat ability to gain certain special abilitys or buffs.

 

[cainstwin]

to take the mass effect 2 example, ur putting together the best team ever, to FIGHT an unknown enemy (sorta) so having a brilliant scientist who cnt use a gun wod be slightly silly.

 

[Hafnium]

Don't get the complaint really. How many would complain if some of the team-members were crap in combat? A lot probably.

Besides, what about the ship crew? The purpose of building the team is for the battles themselves, and The Illusive Man probably saw the point in having members skilled in combat.

Again, I don't understand why you would even be annoyed by this.

 

[Ascarus]

it's a story contrivance ... just like Leliana in Dragon Age, the one cloistered sister who happens to have a former life as a bard/assassin.

 

[Flishiz]

That way, a team will feel less like a squad of mercenaries, and more a diverse and interesting set of individuals who all band together for a common purpose.

So mercenaries arent a diverse group of individuals that band together to make profit. A common purpose?

OT: The characters are given multiple skills such as combat and a special ability ontop of that so when you choose a team you are not losing out on combat ability to gain certain special abilitys or buffs.

1: RPGs are often about defeating a power or authority or whatever, but it's never about being hired just to make profit. RPGs have to have interesting characters anyway, or else everything will feel samey, while the many, MANY mercenaries in other games are often the same stock characters, but I won't get into arguing about the Bioware archetype character mess (or that of a JRPG, for that matter as well) now.

2: I'm not saying that everyone should be unable to fight, it's just that they shouldn't always be evened out so that each character has an advantage and weakness. I just think it would be more reasonable to actually have a character or two mostly suck at combat (don't count buffs or special abilities, I mean if you're a computer hacker, would you really be able to use that in a combat area and still take as much damage as the giant, sword-wielding buddy next to you?).

 

[TheEndlessGrey]

Well for ME2 specifically, your team is the galaxy's absolute best (suited to completing the mission). It's probable there's at least one other scientist out there somewhere who is at least as good as Mordin as far as labwork goes, but they don't get recruited because they can't use a gun. We don't see the pile of candidates that were rejected before you see the mission goal that says, "Go recruit Mordin, he's on Omega."

 

[Frostwing]

The developers work hard on these characters though. If one were terrible in combat you would never use them and all that hard work would be for nothing. And while one or two people might use these characters most people won't. Aside from Mass Effect normally when you meet a person who joins your group they are an adventurer. If they weren't good in combat they would have died a long time ago and never met you. It is a Darwinian system. That is why everyone you meet is good in combat. How else could they have survived long enough to meet you?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

it depends on the game, some games the chartacters arent specialised in anything, and its up to you to either specialise them or to customise them in ways that fit the scenario

other games have the character's specialised. Are you saying that there should be some characters with specialisations that exist outside of combat, and their combat capabilities are overall weak?

I guess it doesnt make much of a difference to me but it would be interesting for a game to do that.

so for example, do you mean: if you have 5 characters A, B, C, D, E and E had lower efficiency in battle in every possible way, but having E in the party allowed you to find items easier outside of battle?

 

[Jandau]

it's a story contrivance ... just like Leliana in Dragon Age, the one cloistered sister who happens to have a former life as a bard/assassin.

Well, she's a sister precisely BECAUSE of her background as a bard...

 

[kastamonu34]

I understand what you mean and I completely agree. But not all games are like that. For example in the KOTOR series the astro droid you have in your squad is completely useless in a fight, but he is used for his electronical skills. I would prefer if more games took an approach like that one.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

...or do you mean that there should be characters that are just overall weaker? I think that's alright, but the problem is that it can just remove them from the gameplay

If you have to pick 3 characters out of 10 and character #10 is weaker in every way, why would you choose them? what would be their purpose in the game?

you would have to justify their existance in some way, either:
1. their worthlessness takes a degree of skill to figure out
2. you are forced to use them, its just a matter of choosing when and where
3. if you max out everyone else, you might as well level them up

 

[DividedUnity]

That way, a team will feel less like a squad of mercenaries, and more a diverse and interesting set of individuals who all band together for a common purpose.

So mercenaries arent a diverse group of individuals that band together to make profit. A common purpose?

OT: The characters are given multiple skills such as combat and a special ability ontop of that so when you choose a team you are not losing out on combat ability to gain certain special abilitys or buffs.

1: RPGs are often about defeating a power or authority or whatever, but it's never about being hired just to make profit. RPGs have to have interesting characters anyway, or else everything will feel samey, while the many, MANY mercenaries in other games are often the same stock characters, but I won't get into arguing about the Bioware archetype character mess (or that of a JRPG, for that matter as well) now.

2: I'm not saying that everyone should be unable to fight, it's just that they shouldn't always be evened out so that each character has an advantage and weakness. I just think it would be more reasonable to actually have a character or two mostly suck at combat (don't count buffs or special abilities, I mean if you're a computer hacker, would you really be able to use that in a combat area and still take as much damage as the giant, sword-wielding buddy next to you?).

Hang on for just a minute. So youve gone from saying "That way, a team will feel less like a squad of mercenaries, and more a diverse and interesting set of individuals who all band together for a common purpose" implying making a profit for oneself isnt a common purpose to saying that "RPGs have to have interesting characters anyway". Just because mercenaries aren't the mindless do gooders in most RPGs who were [insert traumatic childhood event here] then they magically found that they wanted to save the universe for no apparent reason doesnt mean they arent interesting. The backstory and actions of most mercenary characters is alot more interesting than the usual copied and pasted protagonist thats present in most rpgs.

Also, youre stereotyping scientists. Why is it so hard to fathom the possibilty that maybe, just maybe scientists can actually fight just as well as a grunt in the military can? Is is that unforseeable that someone who first joined the military to fight realised it wasnt for them and opted for a career in a more scientific field? In a universe like mass effect it would make mor sense for the scientists to be combat worthy seeing as how many times everything seems to hit the fan in that game usaully ending in alot of dead scientists.

 

[Sebenko]

Play Mount & Blade.

You get some guys who are pretty useless in combat there.

Like that hero who starts at level 1 and is pretty much useless (Though because she's level one, you can put all the points you want into whatever skills without wasting skills she already had, since she had none.)

And that Jeremus. Don't go wasting any points on skills that aren't intelligence and surgery.


In other news, HL2 shows that all scientists are combat gods. Duh. That's why they're so good at fighting. Channelling the spirit of Gordon Freeman.

 

[BeeRye]

The developers work hard on these characters though. If one were terrible in combat you would never use them and all that hard work would be for nothing. And while one or two people might use these characters most people won't. Aside from Mass Effect normally when you meet a person who joins your group they are an adventurer. If they weren't good in combat they would have died a long time ago and never met you. It is a Darwinian system. That is why everyone you meet is good in combat. How else could they have survived long enough to meet you?

I think this covers it really. Wandering adventurers and the like would definitely need to be skilled in combat to survive, and if you are going to pick an elite team to take on a critical mission then they better have some combat expertise.

You could perhaps argue that the thing some RPGs might be missing is the backroom staff so to speak: the people with skills that are crucial to you, but never actually see action as part of your team. However, this almost certainly wouldn't work in traditional fantasy RPGs, unless you are going to have some convoluted system involving scryer's balls and telepathy.

Also, if you think about it, Mass Effect 2 did give you characters like this, they were just more story based characters. The Illusive Man provides you with the intel and resources you need for your mission to progres, while EDI makes useful contributions without being present, such as hacking the collector ship's systems. All in all this is probably a better way to handle it, as it keeps the characters in their proper places, and doesn't force the player to carry around inept members in their squad.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I understand what you mean and I completely agree. But not all games are like that. For example in the KOTOR series the astro droid you have in your squad is completely useless in a fight, but he is used for his electronical skills. I would prefer if more games took an approach like that one.

I always liked this attitude too. in games like Oblivion or Deus Ex I always focused on lockpicking or stealth and relied on being sneaky or a dirty fighter. It's great in an RPG when you feel like you have a squad who are not all grade A fighters and it adds an element of something like Firefly where there are 3 kick ass characters and everyone has a specific skill. I think mass effect covered it well by fleshing out the support roles quite well and also Mordin was a fucking sociopath scarred up like a football hooligan and hanging bodies outside his frakking medical clinic! so I would have never pegged him for a Doctor Pulaski.

 

[ghostinthenight]

it's a story contrivance ... just like Leliana in Dragon Age, the one cloistered sister who happens to have a former life as a bard/assassin.

Lol if you listen to the story-line for that character you'll see she wasn't a true "Sister", but hiding from her past Bard-master who has been trying to kill her, so that all ties in quite nicely with the actual story .

OT: I would honestly complain if I picked a character who was say, good at engineering, but sucked ass in battle, why would you even MAKE a character that is fundamentally useless in a main aspect of many RPGs?