Reinforcing Choice in RPGs with strict level caps

[ranger19]

The recent escapist focus on choice made me think of this. You know when you're playing an RPG, you level up, and have to decide how to spend your newly acquired skill points? That's a fun decision.. should I invest more in my sword or my shield? Level up my fireball or unlock that cool lightning attack? These decisions make the game fun, and make the character yours. One reason why RPGs are great.

But sometimes, when you're playing the game, you'll keep levelling up, and you'll find that you'll eventually have enough points to get nearly every skill by the end. Personally, I don't like that. Eventually you max out all your character's skills, and then he's not a cool fireball specialist or something anymore: he's a master at everything. While that might sound cool for a moment, it means that everyone else who plays the game long enough will have the same exact character, and I think that's not as fun.

Do people agree with me or disagree? I'd rather max out my character and have a number of skills not maxed out, so his maxed skills are special, and the character is unique. When you can max a character out completely, it means the choices you made through the game about what to specialize were only temporary choices: sure, then you only had a fireball, but now you've got everything. I'd rather honor those choices.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i think it is fun that way also, but at the same time i'd like to have the choice after beating the game once (or through a mod) to be able to allocate points where i want and how many i want.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Depends on the gmae really. I mean, Fable was good, because it wasn't a level up system where it makes you pick skills, it was all optional. So you could be the god-among-men, or you could be a melee specialist with heal life or something.

Also, when the choices are too restrictive, I tend to suffer from what I call Dragon Age Syndrome. Basically, the limit on possibilities for a single character means it is very difficult to build a character without relying on one or two set tactics every single fight, so I end up constantly making new charcaters so that I can use new methods and play styles (I've done that so much that I've never finished Dragon Age).

 

[Irridium]

This is why I don't like most "RPG's" these days. No matter how you try to build your character, in the end he/she will end up with the same old powers.

What would be sweet is if you leveled up one set all the way(lets say you choose to tank, and level up those skills to the max) you get access to a few special skills unique only to that class. But to get to them you'd have to invest most of your XP into that class.

Its why I loved Dragon Age. You could either become a master at using your sword+Shield, Dual Wielding, ect. Or distribute your skills more evenly and become decent at everything, but a master of nothing.

But its personal preference I guess.

 

[GiantRaven]

I agree wholeheartedly and honestly I wouldn't mind if the system was a little more strict and reinforcing.

 

[Simple Bluff]

That happens a bit in Western RPGs. In Fallout 3, even with maximum intelligence (and that perk that gives you 3 extra skill points) you won't be able to max out everthing. Same with ME and Dragon age, maybe more. And yes, I agree that it's a good idea.

While we're on the subject, I just want to say I always liked it when games allowed you to replay the whole game (after completing it) with your weapons, equipment and stats carried over, like in FF: Crisis Core. That thing they did in LOZ: Wind Waker was cool too (i.e. let you read secret messages if you started the game over again after clocking it). It works especially well in JRPGs, and I'd love to see it more often.

 

[WanderingFool]

I agree with you, OP. One of my problems with FO3 was that at level 30, I could be "almost perfect" skill wise, and than have the option to pick the almost perfect perk. It was great when my sniper was low level, but now I have complete master of every weapon...

Also, when the choices are too restrictive, I tend to suffer from what I call Dragon Age Syndrome. Basically, the limit on possibilities for a single character means it is very difficult to build a character without relying on one or two set tactics every single fight, so I end up constantly making new charcaters so that I can use new methods and play styles (I've done that so much that I've never finished Dragon Age).

That what I personally liked about DA:O. I couldnt max everything, and I had to plan how I wanted to play and build. I also liked what they did with Alpha Protocol, where you could choose to be a combat, stealth, or tech master, or any combination there of... sucks that the AI and Boss battles made combat the only sound and logical choice...

 

[GiantRaven]

That happens a bit in Western RPGs. In Fallout 3, even with maximum intelligence (and that perk that gives you 3 extra skill points) you won't be able to max out everthing. Same with ME and Dragon age, maybe more. And yes, I agree that it's a good idea.

Fallout 3 and Mass Effect are particularly bad examples to use. With Fallout 3 it's perfectly possible to max out everything if you plan accordingly and even if you just pick skills normally you can still end up with a large proportion maxed. The same is true with Mass Effect where you can max out about 75% of your skills.

 

[ranger19]

Also, when the choices are too restrictive, I tend to suffer from what I call Dragon Age Syndrome. Basically, the limit on possibilities for a single character means it is very difficult to build a character without relying on one or two set tactics every single fight, so I end up constantly making new charcaters so that I can use new methods and play styles (I've done that so much that I've never finished Dragon Age).

Its why I loved Dragon Age. You could either become a master at using your sword+Shield, Dual Wielding, ect. Or distribute your skills more evenly and become decent at everything, but a master of nothing.

But its personal preference I guess.

Irridium, you certainly seem to have nailed it with the personal preference bit.


To everyone else: I get that it can be fun to make your character totally awesome, but why does totally awesome have to mean having every single stat maxed out? If I maxed out my character by maxing my fireball so it down rains fire from the heavens while at the same time making my shield is nigh unbreakable, my character would feel totally awesome even if his archery skills, for example, aren't top notch.

It probably all does come down to personal preference yet again. I suppose I simply like the restriction so that every maxed out character has different strengths.

 

[TPiddy]

This is a problem in most RPG's, but the opposite is also a problem, where you have WoW or Diablo syndrome and after a few months everyone knows the best 'builds'. My problem with Dragon Age was that the Archer build sucked. If you took a rogue it would be almost stupid to not go dual wield backstab as that was by far the best build. It's tough to properly balance everything to give you several 'best' builds, which is ultimately what you want to give the user the most choice.

Where Dragon Age did get things right, is with mages. Several schools of magic, several combos that worked with each other. Sleep / Horror, Grease / Fire, Paralysis / Storm... and when you added Battle Mage to it, that gave you even more possible builds and combos, and all of them were good. Too bad they handi-capped themselves with only one mage origin story.

 

[MikailCaboose]

That's one of the things I liked about Morrowind and Oblivion, where to make a skill good you had to use it. Then it just came down to the stat bonuses with a level up, but then it usually followed with what you did to level up.

 

[lapsed_pacifist]

@OP

Good point mate. It's difficult to know at the start, without Googling, how your choices will affect your game. I suspect many games know time, for most people, is at a premium and will let you unlock nearly everything on your first run.

But I like to focus. I feel a little cheated when I work my arse off and realise near the end it was for nothing. Saying that, a lot of RPGs pad out worthwhile skills with useless crap.

Kind of makes no difference sometimes eh?

 

[DustyDrB]

Seems like most of us agree here. Having the option of becoming a master of all things seems enticing until you actually have done it. Then it is just boring. Being able to feel vulnerable is essential to the overall experience in any game, let alone RPGs. Being a "god" character takes that away, and too many RPGs encourage you to be that "god" character and offer nothing to those who want to be specialized. Aside from that, it's a better role-playing experience when you're specialized.

 

[Zacharine]

Firstly, I somehow find it equally ridiculous that when you reach a point (max level cap) you suddenly stop advancing as if by magic.

The solution would in my mind rather be two-fold:

1. Perks, special skills, more powerful attacks, unique spells etc offered at level up as a limited and somewhat randomized choice. But never things like 5+ with pistols v +5 with SMGs, but rather stuff like Advanced Fireball v +2 natural armor. You know, unrelated advantages. And make them such that they are not offered as a list that slowly unlocks (ala FO3/NW) but as a one-time random opportunity that might not repeat for a specific ability/perk/spell. In the example above, you'd have to forgo the natural armor (possibly forever) if you wish to gain the A. fireball. Choose the armor, and you'd might not get the better fireball again in a later level up.

Same could in fact be done for quest rewards, ala Age Of Wonders.

The above would be totally unrelated to normal skill advancement.

2. Make better use of the skills applied. Having 4 different weapon skills do nothing if choice of weapon type does not significantly change the gameplay experience. This is one of the stubling blocks of FO3. You can just max out one weapon stat and forget all others. Lockpicking is useless, if Hacking can get you mostly the same items and into the same places.

In this I feel Arcanum has done a lot better than many others. The steampunk v magic really forces choices: Do I want to use Disintegrate, or be able to craft robot pets? Sure, I can get both with sufficient levels, but then I will loose the majority good effects from the magic v tech 'karma' meter. If I play as a mage, I will need to pay attention to my stamina meter - it acts both as blunt damage health bar as well as mana pool. On the other hand, if I want to spam grenades, use repeating rifles or technological armor, then I need to invest time (and skills) into hunting down schematics and parts. Stamina will mean less, but suddenly talking, charisma and lockpicking mean more.

 

[alinos]

it kinda depends on the game i think, though i think in most circumstances i would prefer not to be able to max everything, which is why they now tie powers to good or bad so you can't access them all

but yeah it was what pissed me off most about mass effect 2, ME1 had a large number of stuff to pick from and your char could be different each run though, in ME2 each class's limited options with regards to skills made it so there was really only one way to roll each class's skills. which further detracted from the whole RPG thing, to what made me feel like i was playing a Third person shooter/conversation engine

 

[AlternatePFG]

Yeah, one of things that bothered me most about Fallout 3's Broken Steel addon, is by level 30, you get a perk that can get you 9 in all SPECIAL stats. It pretty much killed any kind of specificity you could have, coupled with the fact that by 30 you pretty much have 100 in every skill.

Like others have said, Dragon Age did it pretty well. You had specialize, or you could have a generalized character.

 

[Irridium]

Also, when the choices are too restrictive, I tend to suffer from what I call Dragon Age Syndrome. Basically, the limit on possibilities for a single character means it is very difficult to build a character without relying on one or two set tactics every single fight, so I end up constantly making new charcaters so that I can use new methods and play styles (I've done that so much that I've never finished Dragon Age).

Its why I loved Dragon Age. You could either become a master at using your sword+Shield, Dual Wielding, ect. Or distribute your skills more evenly and become decent at everything, but a master of nothing.

But its personal preference I guess.

Irridium, you certainly seem to have nailed it with the personal preference bit.


To everyone else: I get that it can be fun to make your character totally awesome, but why does totally awesome have to mean having every single stat maxed out? If I maxed out my character by maxing my fireball so it down rains fire from the heavens while at the same time making my shield is nigh unbreakable, my character would feel totally awesome even if his archery skills, for example, aren't top notch.

It probably all does come down to personal preference yet again. I suppose I simply like the restriction so that every maxed out character has different strengths.

This is actually used in MMO's, like WoW.

You know, Tanks, DPS, Healers, and others. While they may not be good at everything, what they are good at makes them look totally fucking badass.

I've seen tanks shrug off damage that would kill anyone else in one hit. I've seen DPS players take things out faster then I could click my skills. I've seen one healer become the sole reason a party didn't fail a battle.

Point is, excelling in one area differentiates yourself a lot better then being great at everything like everyone else.
P

 

[ranger19]

So many things to say! And I'm glad that the majority of the responses agree with me [grin].

That's one of the things I liked about Morrowind and Oblivion, where to make a skill good you had to use it. Then it just came down to the stat bonuses with a level up, but then it usually followed with what you did to level up.

True, that was a good system. But at the very least, a player is more likely to use a skill he's invested heavily into, so at least it's not completely off.

This is a problem in most RPG's, but the opposite is also a problem, where you have WoW or Diablo syndrome and after a few months everyone knows the best 'builds'.

While this is true in multiplayer games, I think single player games are okay here. If I play Dragon Age by myself, it won't matter if the archer is worse than the other one as long as it's not so bad as to make the game extremely difficult. MMOs and the like do suffer from that.

Spoiler: snip

Firstly, I somehow find it equally ridiculous that when you reach a point (max level cap) you suddenly stop advancing as if by magic.

The solution would in my mind rather be two-fold:

1. Perks, special skills, more powerful attacks, unique spells etc offered at level up as a limited and somewhat randomized choice. But never things like 5+ with pistols v +5 with SMGs, but rather stuff like Advanced Fireball v +2 natural armor. You know, unrelated advantages. And make them such that they are not offered as a list that slowly unlocks (ala FO3/NW) but as a one-time random opportunity that might not repeat for a specific ability/perk/spell. In the example above, you'd have to forgo the natural armor (possibly forever) if you wish to gain the A. fireball. Choose the armor, and you'd might not get the better fireball again in a later level up.

Same could in fact be done for quest rewards, ala Age Of Wonders.

The above would be totally unrelated to normal skill advancement.

2. Make better use of the skills applied. Having 4 different weapon skills do nothing if choice of weapon type does not significantly change the gameplay experience. This is one of the stubling blocks of FO3. You can just max out one weapon stat and forget all others. Lockpicking is useless, if Hacking can get you mostly the same items and into the same places.

In this I feel Arcanum has done a lot better than many others. The steampunk v magic really forces choices: Do I want to use Disintegrate, or be able to craft robot pets? Sure, I can get both with sufficient levels, but then I will loose the majority good effects from the magic v tech 'karma' meter. If I play as a mage, I will need to pay attention to my stamina meter - it acts both as blunt damage health bar as well as mana pool. On the other hand, if I want to spam grenades, use repeating rifles or technological armor, then I need to invest time (and skills) into hunting down schematics and parts. Stamina will mean less, but suddenly talking, charisma and lockpicking mean more.

Interesting thoughts, though I'm not sure I like the randomness. It would suck not being able to get spells you want/enjoy because things came out wrong. Also, if you don't like sudden level caps, I could imagine a game giving you less and less upgrades as you near the cap, so when you reach the cap you've plateaued, to be more to your liking (check this out if you're interested in reading more).

 

[Netrigan]

That happens a bit in Western RPGs. In Fallout 3, even with maximum intelligence (and that perk that gives you 3 extra skill points) you won't be able to max out everthing.

With the Broken Steel add-on, I came real close. By the end of the game all my S.P.E.C.I.A.L.s except for Intelligence were maxed out (it was one short), while I had only two skills without 100 points.

And there are ways of getting 100 points in all skills at the original level cap. It's really on what perks you add and finding all the skill books.