Skip to content
Drool wrote:The manual mentions that people of a higher rank get more respect and can get into places that normal folks can't, but for the life of me, I can't think of a time that actually happened. I mean, my level 50-60 team can show up in the Ag center wearing Power Armor and Proton Axes, and the old man still doesn't think I stand a chance.
So, yeah, it would be nice if level/rank had some sort of effect on the game world. Kind of like how the dude with the .223 in the Hub wouldn't give you his quest until you had enough of a Rep.
Game_Exile wrote:I love this idea, and I think that the focus should be taken off of stats in every part of the game. A low level cap and the ability to rearrange stats somewhat through "training" or whatever, would help shift planning away form character stats and into the game "world".
krellen wrote:it would also make the game less of an RPG, as who your character fundamentally is would make less difference in how you proceed tackling in-game challenges.
Game_Exile wrote:suz wrote:Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.
I would love to see you try and explain this.
Game_Exile wrote:Besides, Wasteland 2 will feature a playable party/faction, not a playable character.
grot wrote:I mean, how exactly do you hope to 'work out a combination of party members' without using individual character stats to define said party members?
grot wrote:If, as you argue, characters should be defined by 'the choices the player makes', then in a party-based game where the player is making decisions for an entire group, then...all of the characters will turn out the same.
krellen wrote:Whatever you think the definition of "role-playing" is as a word, the definition of "role-playing game" as a sub-genre of video games are those games that seek to replicate traditional table-top RPG experiences.
krellen wrote:If "making choices" becomes the defining feature of RPGs, not only are you taking away the ability to make choices in every other gaming genre, you are likewise relegating RPGs to a very tight definition of story and mechanics that require character/player "choices" to define gameplay.
Game_Exile wrote:And I never said that you should get rid of character stats altogether. I meant that planning should be shifted away from arranging character stats and into arranging things in the game world. Collecting XP and allocating character points after each level up until your characters become gods= bad design. Something like having the player find and choose members/recruits who have the right skills/stats, or alternatively, to spend resources retraining them= better design. More complex and interesting mechanics is what I'm after. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, but you should have tried to understand what I was saying before trying to call me stupid, stupid.
Game_Exile wrote:I think that the focus should be taken off of stats in every part of the game.
grot wrote:But I certainly didn't, and wouldn't, call you stupid.
grot wrote:Game_Exile wrote:I think that the focus should be taken off of stats in every part of the game.
That's a fairly totalitarian (and, I think, perverse) attitude to take towards RPGs, and actually, it doesn't gel with the position you've now clarified.
krellen wrote:Story AND Mechanics, as one unit. If role-playing games are games where you make choices (and, by assumption, those choices have in-game consequences), you have cut off a whole swath of games from being "RPGs", while likewise including a whole swath of games as "RPGs" that have traditionally not been so.
krellen wrote:Why should a game try to replicate a table-top experience? Because you're calling it an RPG, and that's what RPGs are as video games. It's like taking out the shooting from a shooter and then trying to call it a shooter because it has a linear story design.
shadowscythe wrote:So rather than a linear progression of ranks characters can start to be promoted into different roles based on the skills they mainly specialise in...and this changes how other people in the world respond to them and the quests they get access to...
ShadowScythe wrote:But it is an informed choice. You are the one building your character a certain way and as a result your character is being promoted into a certain field based on that build you intentionally created.
ShadowScythe wrote:And please don't derail this thread into an argument about how RPGs shouldn't have stats. There's got to be another thread specifically for that.
Game_Exile wrote:But why would you choose to build your character one certain way over some other? That is what I mean by informed choice.
Game_Exile wrote:Ideas like this are potential alternatives for some character stat mechanics (XP), and I wanted to bring it up. Notice, I tried to keep it short in the beginning, lol.
ShadowScythe wrote:Something I thought about while looking at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1764
In the original Wasteland, or rather from what I've played so far (up to Needles) when you gain enough experience you radio your chief and get a promotion at which point you can add +2 to your base stats. Meanwhile the skills follow a learn by doing system.
I was thinking, what if the promotion also had a more tangible effect than the addons to stats. Simple stuff like people respecting you more and treating you differently if you're at higher ranks but also more complex stuff like opening up new quest paths. Maybe higher rank characters get access to some other administrative duties as part of their new promotion which requires handling some bureaucratic elements within the organisation. Maybe players have to deal with the chain of command differently now that they're moving up...what if demotions are possible (minus the loss to stats though of course!) ?
Anyone else have any other thoughts?
grot wrote: Mind you, it could also be pretty problematic to figure out a middle ground between 1) a steady progression marker and 2) a semi-demi-quasi-realistic part of the gameworld. When it's just a unique method of keeping track of/building progression with fun throwaway references, you can treat it as that - a bit of fun. But if these promotions start being treated seriously by the game's setting, as genuine promotions, with associated quests and duties and all sorts, you're going to end up with obvious conflicts between RPG and world arising - if your evil party murders a bunch of orphans and steals their nun, can they gain a promotion directly as a result of their monstrous crimes? If yes, you end up with fidelity to the RPG system, but none to the game's internal logic, and if no, vice versa. I'd rather have the former than the latter, but it's still turned into an issue where there was none before.
Or, to use your example, let's say your party of Generals Argent commits a chaotic act that goes against the chain of command (sheeeeittt) and is demoted, en masse, to private. Obviously they wouldn't lose their stats, as you've said, but would they have to work their way back up through all the ranks, grinding XP without gain, before they could reach their former position and start receiving stat increases once again, or would they continue gaining stats as if they were starting the game fresh?
In short, I think the real nitty-gritty to get into here is the problem of making promotions genuinely relevant to the Rangers and how they're portrayed in-game without implicitly encouraging the player to play in a certain restrictive way.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests