RP decisions, branching

Relien · Feb 24, 2006

Today I've seen a topic on ESF, where the OP said that fighters should be able to bash open locks. I remember many of you saying that one of the key elements of an RPG is to be able to solve various problems differently, according to your character's abilities, with which I agree.

However, when this would be done extremely, the game could be terribly boring and the different character builds could become only a cosmetic choice. I'm talking about such elementary tasks like opening a door or getting past an obstacle. I wouldn't want to be able to overcome every single problem in "my class's way". Every character would go through exactly the same situations, and the only difference would be the manner in which he would get out/through these situations. Something like "Look, an abyss, I wonder what's the diplomat's path over it..." I think in order to put more significance to the character building there should be some places only certain characters can get to and some things only they can do. Of course that means such places/things wouldn't be required to finish the game. Either they would be sidequests or there would be another way.

There would still be different problem solving for different chars, but that should mean that there would be multiple ways to accomplish a MAJOR task, maybe even major plot branching as a result of taking a specific path.

So basically my question is about branching. Considering the impact of branching to the amount of game content, where approximately does your ideal RPG lie between the completely branching one and the "universal" one that contains only trivial branching like the fighter/mage/thief style of opening locks?

Vault Dweller · Feb 24, 2006

Relien said:
However, when this would be done extremely, the game could be terribly boring and the different character builds could become only a cosmetic choice.

Not really. First, there should be a difference between *quietly* unlocking a door and loudly bashing it, attracting attention of everyone within 100 meters. Second, not all doors could be bashed open. Sure, it's silly to have your Conan-like barbarian with a big-ass axe being defeated by a wooden door. However, a steel door is an entirely different matter. Third, class-specific ways should be different, they shouldn't lead to the same point where a different method will automatically unlock the next area. Fourth, unlocking a door is not a quest or a decent challenge. It's a minor element, and could be handled in similar ways (lockpicking, bashing, lock melting, etc). It's better than forcing all characters to take the same mandatory skill.

So basically my question is about branching. Considering the impact of branching to the amount of game content, where approximately does your ideal RPG lie between the completely branching one and the "universal" one that contains only trivial branching like the fighter/mage/thief style of opening locks?

Whatever provides different, logically fitting options with reasonable consequences for different characters. Basically, we are talking about good & interesting design here.

Here2Argue · Feb 24, 2006

I think a good mix of simple branching (Hi, I'm a warrior, I bash.) to remind the player that its a role playing game, combined with a universal system that restricts some content based on the characters choices (I'm too stupid to be the head wizard) would work best, in my opinion.

The more complex something is, the longer it takes to digest/play. Gets more bang for your septims. (hmmm.. hot coffee mod, anyone?)

Blahblah Talks · Feb 24, 2006

I think you need to have a possible solution to every challenge/quest for any possible character build. It doesn't always have to be the same, or unique to the character build. For example, if confronted with a locked door, the thief could pick, the fighter bash and the mage find a mercenary to pick/bash it (or cast Knock). As VD said, each possible solution should affect the world appropriately, and when faced with a similar challenge down the road, the same character should (sometimes) be forced to find another solution. (i.e. another way in, bribe a guard, etc.)

GhanBuriGhan · Feb 24, 2006

Vault Dweller said:
Relien said:

However, when this would be done extremely, the game could be terribly boring and the different character builds could become only a cosmetic choice.

Click to expand...

Not really. First, there should be a difference between *quietly* unlocking a door and loudly bashing it, attracting attention of everyone within 100 meters. Second, not all doors could be bashed open. Sure, it's silly to have your Conan-like barbarian with a big-ass axe being defeated by a wooden door. However, a steel door is an entirely different matter. Third, class-specific ways should be different, they shouldn't lead to the same point where a different method will automatically unlock the next area. Fourth, unlocking a door is not a quest or a decent challenge. It's a minor element, and could be handled in similar ways (lockpicking, bashing, lock melting, etc). It's better than forcing all characters to take the same mandatory skill.

So basically my question is about branching. Considering the impact of branching to the amount of game content, where approximately does your ideal RPG lie between the completely branching one and the "universal" one that contains only trivial branching like the fighter/mage/thief style of opening locks?

Click to expand...

Whatever provides different, logically fitting options with reasonable consequences for different characters. Basically, we are talking about good & interesting design here.

Good summary.

Relien · Feb 24, 2006

Vault Dweller said:
First, there should be a difference between *quietly* unlocking a door and loudly bashing it, attracting attention of everyone within 100 meters. Second, not all doors could be bashed open. Sure, it's silly to have your Conan-like barbarian with a big-ass axe being defeated by a wooden door. However, a steel door is an entirely different matter.

Yes, I agree, but that's not the extreme I was talking about. If there was some goal behind the closed door that would require you to quietly get in, then only chars with some lockpicking skill could do it. That's ok. I was talking about the design where you can reach/accomplish absolutely anything you see, only differently for different classes.

Third, class-specific ways should be different, they shouldn't lead to the same point where a different method will automatically unlock the next area.

Yes, that's what I think. I'm not against some (or even the majority of) branches being only temporary though, or occasional crossings of different paths.

Fourth, unlocking a door is not a quest or a decent challenge. It's a minor element, and could be handled in similar ways (lockpicking, bashing, lock melting, etc). It's better than forcing all characters to take the same mandatory skill.

Of course, but a great portion of the whole game is composed of such minor elements. The way to branch is making some classes unable to accomplish these small tasks.

Vault Dweller · Feb 24, 2006

Relien said:
If there was some goal behind the closed door that would require you to quietly get in, then only chars with some lockpicking skill could do it.

Or a Conan-like character can go to a nearest thieves den, kick the shit out of them, drag one by the ears toward that door and ask him nicely to open it. Yes, it's very easy to code (think of it as of asking someone to join your party, having them to perform some tasks, and then kicking them out).

Of course, but a great portion of the whole game is composed of such minor elements. The way to branch is making some classes unable to accomplish these small tasks.

As long as there are other ways to accomplish larger tasks. I believe that your actions, not class, should define what you can and can not do. Using the example above, if you deal with the thieves in such a manner, I don't think they would be very enthusiastic about dealing/helping you out in the future.

Relien · Jun 5, 2006

VD's comment in the Age of Decadence forum made me return to this thread after quite some time, just to clear some things up a bit:

Vault Dweller said:
We don't have single point trials where you get a chance to apply your different skillsets and everything else before and after is the same.

That's what I meant when I talked about elementary tasks and "cosmetic branches", where the storyline as a whole doesn't feature any real branching and is the same for every character.

Doing a quest as a grifter, for example, would be completely different than doing a quest as a knight or a loremaster or a thief. Quests are, basically, goals; how you reach those goals is up to you.

Perhaps I somehow failed to express myself properly, but this I had in mind when I wanted to limit the situations each character can find himself in, based on his skills. The quest goal stands, but each way is, as you said, completely different, going through a different chain of situations/actions.

The extreme variant would be only one final goal (I am ignoring multiple endings now), where even the main story milestones would be different for each class. Obviously, this would require much work on the developer's side, and multiple replays to fully appreciate the game.

Anyway, I'm very glad that with AoD you didn't take the easy path, and I must say I'm looking forward to this game more and more. Very best of luck with it.

Vault Dweller · Jun 5, 2006

Thanks.

obediah · Jun 5, 2006

Blahblah Talks said:
I think you need to have a possible solution to every challenge/quest for any possible character build.

I disagree (surpise!). I think you should allow for any reasonable build to complete the game, but throwing in sidequests that aren't equal opportunity is fair game. In the real world, you can solve all problems with all skill sets, and I don't see a problem with implementing this in game.

In fairness, I don't generally replay games, so I don't mind fake-branching if it is convincingly done. So while allowing everyone to do everything is convenient, it's not essential. Finding your character unable to complete a task because of your decisions can be rewarding as well as frustrating.

Drakron · Jun 5, 2006

Err ... Conan was a thief (and a good one).

*runs*

Claw · Jun 5, 2006

Hmm, he could sneak and climb, but I don't quite recall him being terribly good with lockpicks or at picking pockets.
I recall him surviving many adventures through a mix of seducing women and running away, with some fighting against impossible odds thrown into the mix.

Drakron · Jun 5, 2006

Perhaps but he is NOT Arghnold.

DarkSign · Jun 5, 2006

obediah said:
Blahblah Talks said:

I think you need to have a possible solution to every challenge/quest for any possible character build.

Click to expand...

I disagree (surpise!). I think you should allow for any reasonable build to complete the game, but throwing in sidequests that aren't equal opportunity is fair game. In the real world, you can solve all problems with all skill sets, and I don't see a problem with implementing this in game.

In fairness, I don't generally replay games, so I don't mind fake-branching if it is convincingly done. So while allowing everyone to do everything is convenient, it's not essential. Finding your character unable to complete a task because of your decisions can be rewarding as well as frustrating.

I have to agree. But there becomes a responsibility to make sure that there's enough side content for people to have fun. As long as that's done, Im fine for different quests for different folks. It allows you to make a unique experience when you know the skillset a character has.

Lumpy · Jun 5, 2006

On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

Slylandro · Jun 5, 2006

Well in most games bashing/unlocking doesn't just apply to doors, it also applies to locked chests/crates/barrels/whatever. KOTOR II solved the problem by making it so that you risk breaking fragile items whenever you bashed open container locks. These items would be broken into components that could then be used in the crafting system.

Mefi · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

Make the quest dependant on some sort of check if it is patently designed for a particular character class/build.

And there's nothing to say that the chest can't be brought back to the questgiver for opening if the character doesn't have the requisite skills to open it (skill check again). And you could even allow the local thieves guild to open it.

Lots and lots of possibilities and options providing the engine allows for some basic checks on the character and you are willing to accomodate choices in resolving the quest.

spacemoose · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

By making a party based game! Preferably with companion NPCs you meet, not create at the start.

Lumpy · Jun 5, 2006

Spacemoose said:
Lumpy said:

On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

Click to expand...

By making a party based game! Preferably with companion NPCs you meet, not create at the start.

But then, you end up with the so dreaded Jack of All Trades, only with the skills spread among several characters. What's the point then?

Saint_Proverbius · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

Well, like VD said, there should always be a way. Bashing a door down should always be an option for fighters and mages, but as stated before.. It should draw a lot of attention for the most part. Of course, mages with things like TRANSMUTE spells should be able to bypass doors, walls, and so forth by turning them in to gooey mud and such. While that would tend to be quiet, it would be hard for anything not to notice that their once fortified door/wall was now a pile of nasty mud.

The whole point of a thief is getting around and doing kooky shit without raising eyebrows. Mages and fighters, for the most part, would have to draw some attention to what they're doing. Bashing or fireballing a door should be like setting off an alarm in the area. Bending bars or transmuting doors/walls should be a visible indicator that something is screwy.

Once the spell or bars are bend, it should be something that triggers a "SOMETHING IS BAD" type action for any NPC that's in visual range of the altered obstacle. If they can see it, they should call out to other guards, alerting them that something is up.. Any idle guards should start patrolling pronto. Things like that, until the player is found.

I disagree with VD that steel doors shouldn't be able to be bashed in, though. You should be able to beat down a steel door with a high strength and a nice blunt weapon like a warhammer. However, doing so should be really freaking loud.. REALLY loud. Bashing down a steel door versus killing a guard and using his key should be a mostly equivalent action. Sure, you can bash down the door, but you're going to have to fight the guards either way.

Lumpy · Jun 5, 2006

But there are the doors that aren't guarded by anyone, like the one at Sierra Army Depot, yet are still locked. That door forced me to put some extra points into lockpick, since, being one of the few places in the game that actually had a use for Science (one of my tag skills), I had to get inside it. A science character should have been able to use explosives to get past the door (Science to create the explosives + Traps to use them), a melee character should have been able to bash the door open, a character with energy weapons should be able to melt/desintegrate the door, a character with small guns to destroy the lock.

The advantage Stealth characters would have would be that that they would need some cheap tools - lockpicks, and a smaller skill. The energy weapons guy would need rare, expensive weapons, the small guns person would need a high skill, the melee one would need high strength.

Claw · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

I dare say there is no cookie-cutter answer for that. It's part of the design for the individual quest. If the player plays his character according to his role, making sensible decisisons, he shouldn't end up in such a situation.
Of course, sometimes it may be unavoidable that different characters end up in the same spot. But then, a good designer should know that in advance and plan alternative solutions for all character types in this case.

But there are the doors that aren't guarded by anyone, like the one at Sierra Army Depot, yet are still locked. That door forced me to put some extra points into lockpick,

Which door are you referring to? You get into the Depot with brute force, and once inside I don't recally any important door you need to lockpick.

obediah · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
Spacemoose said:

Lumpy said:

On the other hand, if you make certain quests impossible to certain characters, how do you give the player a clue that he can't do a certain quest? Say, there's a quest where you spend hours searching for a dungeon, then hours fighting monsters. Finding out that the chest with the objective is locked and as a fighter you can't open it isn't really fun. So such situations should be avoided, but how?

Click to expand...

By making a party based game! Preferably with companion NPCs you meet, not create at the start.

Click to expand...

But then, you end up with the so dreaded Jack of All Trades, only with the skills spread among several characters. What's the point then?

It's a different kind of game - the fun is in building a wickedly effective group of adventurers that can take anything thrown at them. It may not be RP under the codex definition, but it is a core component of PnP RPGs and what most early (and often very fun) crpgs focused on.

galsiah · Jun 5, 2006

obediah said:
It may not be RP under the codex definition, but it is a core component of PnP RPGs...

Sure, but I'd say that any decent DM would occasionally throw in problems he knows the party is currently incapable of handling directly. It's satisfying for the party to be able to cope in a straight forward way with many obstacles. However, most of the real fun is in being forced to adjust and improvize in the face of something more challenging.

In P&P any DM with imagination will be able to challenge any party when he wants to, no matter how well they imagine they've covered their bases. In a cRPG there is much more danger that the player will be able to form a party that can handle anything without much trouble.
You could avoiding this by using content that no party could possibly overcome without a challenge - which might seem contrived(?). Otherwise you either get no challenge, or you need to make sure every party has a weakness.

Building a party to overcome any obstacle is fun, but it's a lot more fun when you never quite succeed.

Saint_Proverbius · Jun 5, 2006

Lumpy said:
But there are the doors that aren't guarded by anyone, like the one at Sierra Army Depot, yet are still locked. That door forced me to put some extra points into lockpick, since, being one of the few places in the game that actually had a use for Science (one of my tag skills), I had to get inside it.

Use the Howitzer on it. *BOOM* No more door.

RP decisions, branching

Scholar

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Novice

Arbiter

Erudite

Scholar

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Scholar

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Scholar

Prophet

Erudite

Arcane

Administrator

Arcane

Erudite

Erudite

Erudite

Administrator