I've been looking specifically at skill points and how they work as well as the 'skilling up' process. I always find myself drawn to the RPGs that are about skill points rather than levels
Alternity.
It's that simple. You can find the books in Trove. No system was more completely into the "everything is a skill" philosophy than OG Alternity (1998 edition; keep clear of the 2018 printing).
There are no feats, or abilities, and classes are only really defined by getting a discount on skills. Certain skills have feat-like components but these are only to clarify specific mechanical situations specific to the usage of that particular skill.
I've always thought it's down to personal preference with that sort of thing.
Well this illustrates a difference between computer vs paper systems. "By doing" is inherently MECHANICALLY implementable in a computer based system (although a GM can approximate that by awarding skill improvements; but acts of GMing by fiat are their own discussion).
EVERY computer based system will lean into feats because evaluation of the complexity of achieving a narrative objective is not something a computer can do. It's in the realm of GM fiat.
I do like it when games add onto that with skillbooks systems of some sort. Basically offering different avenues for the player to build up their characters' skills and abilities, and allowing the player to stack or overlap those different approaches as they play.
(IE, chop wood, build small shack, skill improves, explore, eventually discover some home improvement book where you can learn more working knowledge on building, skill improves some more, etc etc)
Aye. I've seen a few games that manage to synergize exploration with the rest of the gameplay in pretty cool and natural ways.
Sadly there's a lot of other games these days that tend to rely on a lot of (fetch) quests to motivate or steer players into exploration. Which then often lead to achievement-styled checklists and "collectathons". Can't remember any specific scenarios I can describe, but I remember this sort of vibe in Darksiders 2, a lot of the Dead Island/Dying Light games, and some of Elder Scrolls Online.
IE, forcing players to follow along a linear path (usually with a dull and meaningless backstory), which often leads to a backlog of incomplete sidequests, which often don't flow intuitively with normal gameplay, and rarely is the reward even worth the level of hassle involved.
I've ranted before about how much I hate Xcom 2's RNG which is meme'd on for how bad it is and I hate on Rimworld as well really
What's the story with XCOM 2 RNG? I didn't notice, though I know the first one was infamous for those 90% shots.
What was super BS RNG was X2 long war. Random infiltration times forcing you to solo and duo missions, which is something that most people never signed up for. That really failed IMO, at least initially. I gave up .
I made a whole thread about it once because I decided to finally have a playthrough of it in my backlog lmao basically the only way to really win it is to be extremely autistic about getting everything setup beforehand. I got to the end game finally after taking my time to properly play through it and I could have maybe cheesed it but I simply could not be arsed.
Agreed. Though I liked the game. Just not as much as EU/EW.
No what pissed me off the most was they knew they had a bullshit RNG but they then tripled the HP on a lot of the bosses and other nonsense like that and like other players It seems like there's one set of maths for the enemy when it comes to shot chance and another set for the player.
Right. In EU/EW, the beefiest enemies had like 14 HP. In X2, they took it to 11. The whole thing demands combos. They overcomplicated it. IMO.
I hate games like that with a passion there's no getting round it, obviously there's going to be some degree of tweaking to account for the fact that you're up against NPCs that are never that amazingly designed. There are devs out there though that take it way too far. They also gave some special aliens extra turns when they could have picked literally anything else and it was so obnoxious. It's a shame because I liked the story, but you could never get me to play that kind of game again though.
I don't wanna say hey XCOM isn't hte game for you, but I do believe it is a game that is at its core risk management. It's somewhat self-tortuous. I don't always play XCOM. But it eases my mind sometimes.
Alternity.
It's that simple. You can find the books in Trove. No system was more completely into the "everything is a skill" philosophy than OG Alternity (1998 edition; keep clear of the 2018 printing).
There are no feats, or abilities, and classes are only really defined by getting a discount on skills. Certain skills have feat-like components but these are only to clarify specific mechanical situations specific to the usage of that particular skill.
Well this illustrates a difference between computer vs paper systems. "By doing" is inherently MECHANICALLY implementable in a computer based system (although a GM can approximate that by awarding skill improvements; but acts of GMing by fiat are their own discussion).
In a paper system "skills centric" is contrasted with "feats centric". A feat is a prescriptive action your character can take, whereas skills are typically a narrative mechanism. The player states their intent, the gamemaster evaluates the difficulty of that intent, and then a test is performed to see if the character has the skill to overcome the difficulty of achieving their intentions.
EVERY computer based system will lean into feats because evaluation of the complexity of achieving a narrative objective is not something a computer can do. It's in the realm of GM fiat.
I do like it when games add onto that with skillbooks systems of some sort. Basically offering different avenues for the player to build up their characters' skills and abilities, and allowing the player to stack or overlap those different approaches as they play.
(IE, chop wood, build small shack, skill improves, explore, eventually discover some home improvement book where you can learn more working knowledge on building, skill improves some more, etc etc)
Aye. I've seen a few games that manage to synergize exploration with the rest of the gameplay in pretty cool and natural ways.
Sadly there's a lot of other games these days that tend to rely on a lot of (fetch) quests to motivate or steer players into exploration. Which then often lead to achievement-styled checklists and "collectathons". Can't remember any specific scenarios I can describe, but I remember this sort of vibe in Darksiders 2, a lot of the Dead Island/Dying Light games, and some of Elder Scrolls Online.
IE, forcing players to follow along a linear path (usually with a dull and meaningless backstory), which often leads to a backlog of incomplete sidequests, which often don't flow intuitively with normal gameplay, and rarely is the reward even worth the level of hassle involved.
What's the story with XCOM 2 RNG? I didn't notice, though I know the first one was infamous for those 90% shots.
What was super BS RNG was X2 long war. Random infiltration times forcing you to solo and duo missions, which is something that most people never signed up for. That really failed IMO, at least initially. I gave up .
Agreed. Though I liked the game. Just not as much as EU/EW.
Right. In EU/EW, the beefiest enemies had like 14 HP. In X2, they took it to 11. The whole thing demands combos. They overcomplicated it. IMO.
I don't wanna say hey XCOM isn't hte game for you, but I do believe it is a game that is at its core risk management. It's somewhat self-tortuous. I don't always play XCOM. But it eases my mind sometimes.