What role should player skill have in RPG combat?

[Bluelaughter]

There really is too wide a definition of 'player skill'. As said above, different games will pander to different types of it. Eg action/reaction time skill, number crunching skill, higher-level strategy like figuring out tactics or attack plans, etc.

If player skill isn't a factor, then what's the point?

 

[Zantos]

It kind of defies the point of stats if it's all skill based, but entirely stat based games can be incredibly dull. I like somewhere in the middle, I need to sort out my loadout and strategy, but it's weighed in mostly on my stats. The Witcher did a pretty good job of that I thought.

 

[Gylukios]

Should movies be funny or sad? Should food be sweet or savory? Should stories be short or long? To answer your question, skill should have ever imaginable role. Just in different games.

Challenge Accepted. Movies should always be funny, nobody pays money to see someone else's miserable life (at least I don't). Food should be savory, your drink should be sweet. Stories should be short, but feel long.

On Topic: The problem I have with stat and skill-build type games is that I always end up thinking about my character's builds before playing the game or while I'm not playing it so as to not screw up the build. If I have a build in mind, much of the game is spent in annoyance as I try to complete the build, and then the rest of the game is spent laughably cutting down everything in my way. One half of the game spent in annoyance and anticipation and one half spent in boredom means I didn't really get to play the game and certainly didn't enjoy it.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, gotta say that all combat systems will seem flawed to some people. Personally I found the combat system in Dark Souls to be absolutely atrocious with very poor controls and that's the primary reason I gave up on it, then there's plenty of people out there who will swear on their mother's graves that it's the best thing ever.

It all comes down to personal preference basically.

 

[Shavon513]

I wasn't a huge fan of the Kingdoms of Amalur demo, either. It wasn't the button mashing, flippy style of combat that turned me off, however. I couldn't get into the story, get attached to my character, and the game felt...cartoon-ish, almost as if it was a game meant for kids. In fact, it's potentially a good way to introduce young teens into rpgs.

I think rpgs should be geared towards players who love story, characters, worlds and want a lot of room to create their own journey in the game world (without actually being the developer!). The game shouldn't reward people who have better reaction time (go play a shooter or some button mashing action or platforming game, instead, if that's what you're looking for.) or have accurate, twitchy fingers. Rpg's should be stat and skill based. The player should figure out from codex, journal, and mission entries and logs how to build a good character, how to solve missions and puzzles, without the game handing them the answers.

Just imo, of course. Games aren't quite built this way anymore, it seems, anyway.

 

[ecoho]

i think the first fable had it right. make the game reward being skiled but make it so its not required to be skilled to play.

 

[Naeras]

My favorite RPGs are the ones where the combat actually required skill, with stats and weapons being either a strategic choice or a carrot on a stick. See Tales of Symphonia and Dark Souls as examples.

The turn-based approach can also work if the tactical elements of the game are up to it, but other than that, deciding combat based on stats alone is just boring, imo. Dice rolls shouldn't win the combat. Players using the characters and the class correctly should win the combat.

 

[Condiments]

I'm quite frustrated with the gaming community on this subject, as lot of people would opt to say, "Yeah numbers and strategic thinking are boring, lets have dumbed down hack and slash games with some dumbed down RPG elements."

More character driven RPGs abstract direct player involvement from things like swinging your sword because the gameplay wants you to focus on different things. Its inherently more cerebral in nature, akin to strategy games. You certainly don't complain about not being able to control every unit's firing rate when you're playing starcraft, because you're too busy building bases, and ordering troops around.

Lets see more diversity in our games, and less of the same ol' crap. I like action games to, but I don't like playing them all the time. Get out of your gamer box for once.

 

[Something Amyss]

The point of RPGs is they use the character's skill instead of yours.

So, just out of curiosity, do you intentionally make mad decisions when a character has low intelligence or a similar stat?

 

[Condiments]

The point of RPGs is they use the character's skill instead of yours.

So, just out of curiosity, do you intentionally make mad decisions when a character has low intelligence or a similar stat?

Actually some earlier RPGs would alter dialogue choices depending on your intelligence score.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suzr79q_9lk&feature=related

 

[Xaryn Mar]

The point of RPGs is they use the character's skill instead of yours.

So, just out of curiosity, do you intentionally make mad decisions when a character has low intelligence or a similar stat?

I for one do. That is what roleplaying is after all.
I do the same when tabletop roleplaying.

As to the OT: The players skill at twitch/targeting etc. should not play any role in a true RPG. The stats and abilities of the character(s) you are controlling should. After all you are not playing yourself but the character.

 

[Duskflamer]

The only player skill that should come into play is the player's ability to analyze the situation and direct their characters accordingly, as well as properly preparing their characters before a battle. Leave me needing to be accurate to the shooters, leave my needing to memorize attack combos to fighting games, just let me be the general commanding my troops, and let the troops' ability determine the outcome of my decisions.

 

[DementedSheep]

Depends on the game. I usually only like heavily stat based combat if you are controlling an entire party.
When they blend rpg and action I don't mind damage, critical hit chance, whether or not you can use a weapon, cooldown times, how easy it is to hit (for example crosshair sway) and of course which skills you have access to being stat based but I hate it when you line up a shot or hit someone in the face with a sword but it misses because of a dice throw and I prefer to be dodging and blocking myself.

 

[TD_Knight]

Depends on what type of an RPG you want. And since the term 'RPG' means a lot to different people, you're probably not going to get a great deal of consensus on the whole skill-based vs stat-based gameplay argument.

Someone who mainly plays turn-based RPGs or RPGs with pause and play mechanics would probably be opposed to skill-based gameplay, since they'd feel 'true' RPGs were the ones they played way back on the PC in the 90s and early noughties.

Also, the definition of 'skill' seems kind of loose.

You could have a great deal of skill when playing puzzle games, but less so when playing some sort of arena-FPS.

Likewise, you could be skillful at number crunching the heck out of some D&D-esque RPG until your character/party is a hilariously broken, Cthulhu slaying wrecking crew, but if you have terribad reflexes and hand-eye coordination then you're not going to be good at lightgun games.

 

[Lunar Templar]

why is this a question? last i checked there's room for both types of RPG

 

[Xaryn Mar]

Depends on what type of an RPG you want. And since the term 'RPG' means a lot to different people, you're probably not going to get a great deal of consensus on the whole skill-based vs stat-based gameplay argument.

Someone who mainly plays turn-based RPGs or RPGs with pause and play mechanics would probably be opposed to skill-based gameplay, since they'd feel 'true' RPGs were the ones they played way back on the PC in the 90s and early noughties

Try late 80s and early 90s and all the way up till today.
Remember, that kind of games were not that different from the tabletop rpg's of the time (with the glaring obvious difference of having a GM). Both were (and are) essentially number crunching/optimising systems and the roleplaying part came from imagining that you were playing another person/race/whatever and not necessarily playing in an optimal way if your character would not behave that way.

So in essence you wrote your own story of your character(s) into the overarching plot of the game (whether the crpg kind or the work of a GM and the rest of your rpg-group).

 

[somonels]

The point of RPGs is they use the character's skill instead of yours.

So, just out of curiosity, do you intentionally make mad decisions when a character has low intelligence or a similar stat?

So, out of my curiosity, is intelligence a skill? I might be from a bizarro-world, but intelligence has always been a stat, a stat that I don't consider having anything to do with making decisions more or less mad, unless the gap is VAST and in favor of the maker. Perhaps you mean a wisdom stat, if there is no madness or insanity mechanic in place. Consider yourself nerd-schooled, frat boy.

As for making decisions on behalf of the character, well, there is the consideration that a player cannot wholly ignore his own much more extensive knowledge in regards to the game, plot, mechanics and how these actions may affect it. In D&D the GM, as far as my experience goes, does sometimes interrupt and say, 'Dude, you have 9 intelligence, how the hell can you determine the volume of a statue? And, no, I do not mean the loudness.' Video games do implement this, conditional choices based upon stats has been implemented in many of them, 'Fallout' games for instance, are supposedly hilarious to play through with a dimwit character.
The lack of skills or stats HAS to limit a character. Giving the player a chance to apply their OOC knowledge is a GM or game designer failing to uphold the game's integrity. So, yes, I would make character decisions based on my own knowledge, *strokes epic hobobeard* I am an opportunist.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, out of my curiosity, is intelligence a skill? I might be from a bizarro-world, but intelligence has always been a stat

that's rather pedantic, since a lot of games do not distinguish the two, or treat things like your skill with a weapon as a stat as well.

a stat that I don't consider having anything to do with making decisions more or less mad, unless the gap is VAST and in favor of the maker.

Was supposed to be "bad," so I'll ignore the future comments on madness and just address this:

Perhaps you mean a wisdom stat

Often, the definitions of "intelligence" within games are used interchangeably with "wisdom."

Again, pedantry.

Consider yourself nerd-schooled, frat boy.

I can see why "school" would be used here, since that's about the only place pedantry has any real value.

As for making decisions on behalf of the character, well, there is the consideration that a player cannot wholly ignore his own much more extensive knowledge in regards to the game, plot, mechanics and how these actions may affect it. In D&D the GM, as far as my experience goes, does sometimes interrupt and say, 'Dude, you have 9 intelligence, how the hell can you determine the volume of a statue? And, no, I do not mean the loudness.'

But intelligence =/= knowledge!

Sorry, that was pedantry. You should probably consider yourself "schooled."

Video games do implement this, conditional choices based upon stats has been implemented in many of them, 'Fallout' games for instance, are supposedly hilarious to play through with a dimwit character.

You mean like Fallout 3, a game where you can be a master marksman without taking the relavent SPECIAL stat?

I mean, sure, there's VATS, but it's optional and finite.

Sure, they offer a few, limited dialogue options, but they don't really impact how you see the world. They even have a shooter system set up that greatly benefits even the clumsiest character if their player is skilled.

The lack of skills or stats HAS to limit a character. Giving the player a chance to apply their OOC knowledge is a GM or game designer failing to uphold the game's integrity. So, yes, I would make character decisions based on my own knowledge, *strokes epic hobobeard* I am an opportunist.

So you're okay with metagaming intellectual situations, just not physical ones. Gotcha. That's what I was trying to determine in the first place.