>Should you be able to find hidden items before your character learns about them from a quest giver>should you be able to wield/wear everything you find or should items be locked behind specific traits/skills (eg. "this armor is too heavy for you") or simply you need to reach a certain level>should you be able to win fights with enemies [much]above your level by being a skillful player or does it make more sense to make them too hard to be practically possible without appropriate itemsI've been playing witcher enhanced edition recently, and I like the fact that you have to gain the skill off gathering herbs and read a relevant books to gather herbs, or that you need to read books about monsters to be able to loot them. Compared to witcher 3 that doesn't have similar looting system, but blocks you from using weapons and armor that is above your level it is much better.So what's the ideal balance between blocking you because your character isn't skilled yet, and allowing you to overcome obstacles with playing the game well?
I don't think having prior knowledge = a skill
Use that skill to make a less shit thread next time
Everyone and their mother can hack out an ogre tooth for a potion, but extract a pristine one for a more powerful version.
>>3691081>So what's the idealRelative to the intent of the developer and preference of the player. Fuck standards, fuck rules.
>>3691088would you get mad at me if i asked for your personal preference?
Player skill should not let the character excel at something they're supposed to be bad at, but dice rolls are a terrible way to enforce this, especially in a video game.No I don't have an idea ready how to do it better.
>>3691081>Should you be able to find hidden items before your character learns about them from a quest giverdepends on what you mean by find. if you mean literally stumbling onto an item because you were snooping around then yes of course. it sucks when you get a quest to collect 3 moongrass blades and they automatically light up on your minimap or compass so you magically know where to find it without ever looking for them. caves of qud did something interesting by having a cure for an illness have randomized ingredients that depend on your seed so every time you play you have to go through the process of researching the medicine before making it. maybe this metagaming prevention could be implemented in item locations so you have to ask a certain npc for directions every time you play.>should you be able to wield/wear everything you find or should items be locked behind specific traits/skills (eg. "this armor is too heavy for you") or simply you need to reach a certain levelmaybe in some extreme cases but generally no. especially not if the requirement makes no sense like "you need level 30 intellect to wield this staff". it's much better to let players use whatever they want regardless of stats but have the efficiency with which they can use depend on stats.>should you be able to win fights with enemies [much]above your level by being a skillful player or does it make more sense to make them too hard to be practically possible without appropriate itemsthis can't be a serious question. of course a good enough strategy should be able to carry you over any hurdle.
>>3691082/thread
>>3691092I know i would
>>3691081I believe it's best to place hard limits. Force players into roleplaying instead of giving them the freedom to powergame savescum.
>>3691092I prefer well made games made in varying styles because I'm not a robot.
>>3691115What if i am robot
>>3691117Then communication is useless to you because you'll follow your program over and over and over.
>>3691115You're just an open minded robot.
>>3691118As if you do not have your own program. You are blind to your own inner workings.
>>3691119>>3691120Nope.
>>3691095I don't like dice rolls either, it feels better when getting a skill enables you to do something always instead of raising your chance of success
>>3691121Hes right deluded meatcage. This is you:
>>3691176Nope.
>>3691081character skill == roleplayingIf you make it about character skill then there are no heavily defined roles. Literally everyone could be a smooth talking lockpick in Obliivon because the minigame.
>>3691081The only game I replay enough to know these things is dark souls. It's honestly hard to say too. In ds you generally can't get anything too great until about 50% of the way in, or else you're just using claymore. Elden ring was fun because you have tons of options. Ive done a run where by lvl 19 I had elenorea's arcane staff and was wielding it. In general I like being able to get stuff from the start if I know it's there rather than having to unlock it step by step in a tutorial. Of course elden rings greatest flaw is every time you start a new game you have to take literally 2 hours to run around and collect seeds and armor for the 20th time. At this point I'd rather be allowed to choose a starting kit from a debug menu unlocked after killing the final boss. Even for pvp I don't care you can just trade items if u really want them. It's just a matter of time and ER makes me waste it.
>>3691088This. It depends on the vision.Like if I'm John Adventure, fantasy action hero I should be able to open everything. But if I am role-playing the world should reflect who I made. If I made a sneaky bustard I should open locks but the righteous knight I made should not.
>>3691081i think restrictions can serve a role-playing purpose because as a player you will grab every item that seems important if you are able to, even if it doesn't make sense for your character to do it. even if you are roleplaying a certain way the temptation to just pick up random shit is always there, at least for me
>>3691081without a DM restricting the player based on stats will always feel like shit
>>3691110This
>>3691226>the world should reflect who I madethis is very important, i don't like games where you can do everything in one playthrough. be evil and good at the same time etc. that just creates dissonance
>>3691119>>3691120The inventor is God :)
>>3691730>games where you can do everything in one playthrough>be evil and good at the same time etc. that just creates dissonanceIt's interesting that people.. almost realize that it leads to a lesser experience, but they still do it.
>>3691749you mean being able to do everything in one go leads to a lesser experience or the other way around?
>>3691749>lesserdifferent
>>3691117>>3691092>>3691176That robot comment could have been interchanged for simpleton/npc/autist(negative way). He was just implying you lacked sophistication. But he didn't have to be a dick about it and by now he is just trolling so ignore him.In spite of that, his original point was actually really on point i would like to touch upon. It touches on a very infuriating problem especially for anyone familar with actually making games. Anon clearly stated that its not about the mechanic, but about how the mechanic flows together. The mix of ingredients. Its about what you want to achieve for what vision. And how it goes together. If you ask "so what mechanic should we add instead." Unless you say what kind of game you are trying to make and give me design goals, that question means nothing. I absolutely dont mean it in a bad way, but it seems to me like thats probably a kind of neurodivergence that makes you better at looking at independent objects, but unable to look as objects within contexts. (as opposed to the other neurodivergents that are reversed).If you would allow me a metaphor : envision a cook that argues you should always add noodles because he some really good ramen and pasta. Even if you are making sushi. Its obiviously a completely unsophisticated and an absurd way to go about things. Yet i see this all the times in regards to game mechanics. And goodluck having to work with pepole like this on any sort of creative or entertainment work. Those pepole are usually great with implementations no disrespect. But if you listen to their takes about game mechanics the game is fucking dead.I apologise for being abrasive but this topic is driving me nuts because of passion and in hindsight its so damn obivious.
>>3691758>But he didn't have to be a dick about it and by now he is just trolling so ignore him.Anon, he was trolling me. I responded in kind.I will admit I've no patience to coddle people who won't view reality holistically, but I don't really think they view it mechanically either, they just want a set of rules to organize themselves around and engage with others because chaos scares them. I feel like it's a problem of people drowning in the sea of opinion and options that mass communication gives us, they just want something to grab onto.
>>3691758So you got stuck in the obvious "it depends" state.
>>3691081The only valid answer is one where player expression it not challenged, but encouraged and rewarded. You should be able to fight enemies who are otherwise natural barriers to other areas, kill them, and progress as you please. You should be able to equip whatever gear you acquire as-is and use it going forward. However there is also a great deal of fun to be had in subsequent playthroughs when there's the knowledge that you'll get a certain weapon or skill or tool at a certain point and you can form a character's skill/stat spread to maximally utilize it, instead of just lazily having more numbers added to your pool. Many JRPGs I've played that have character customization have been an experience of learning that I pumped all of my points into the correct stats for standard play, and then finding out some absolutely cracked bullshit skill/gear synergy at the 60% mark that makes me want to replay the entire game again just to appropriately stat myself to use it, as well as the pathway of progression that'll make the early game more tolerable to get there. That being said, many of these examples of prior knowledge being a pathway to an easier game tend to only exist in some of the shittiest ways possible. It's one thing to know that selling an extremely valuable early game potion for a HUGE financial boost and then going to another town to buy a pet that will solo an entire high-level dungeon and turning around to use your ridiculous yields from the dungeon to buy way more than that potion could ever help you with, it's another for you to just program in a treasure chest location that a player can stumble into and get free loot just because they knew it was there. The former is player expression, the latter is just rewarding you for looking up guides like a faggot.
>this thread againAlso your Witcher examples are both about character skill.
>>3691776Not him, but I think it's more that it depends on the specific game. Making general statements about design "shoulds" divorced of context is nonsense fart huffing.
>>3691877You can reply with the boring "it depends" and end discussion there, because OP didn't give some very specific conditions where you can no longer say "it depends"Or, you can be a good sport and give an opinion related to the subject. Maybe even specify the context for your opinion? Carry on the conversation, instead of being a twat.Just don't think you're a smart one for realizing that "it depends". Things often do.
>>3691880I gave my input on why exactly it depends and a conversation could be started about why people don't look at video games holistically, especially when talking about RPGs, and instead try to define "shoulds" which would only lead to mind numbing standardization. If this bothers you, feel free to not reply.
>>3691925>define "shoulds" which would only lead to mind numbing standardizationIt depends. People can simply assume these "shoulds" don't apply to literally everything.
>>3691934>You should wax a dog's nipple on the 13th of May at midnight with a bottle of Scotch in one hand.Great conversation. Why not talk about actual games and not dream games following your narrow tastes? I hope no one who makes games ever listens to any of this nonsense.
>>3691082Knowledge is one of the most important parts of being good at video games, even in action games. It absolutely should be considered part of the player's skill in a given game
>>3691939>Why not talk about actual gamesGo ahead, please
>>3691081It's a question of immersion vs gameinessYour character should only be able to find hidden things with sufficient perception but it's both more convenient and satisfying if finding it is a test of player's perception instead. Level locking helps with balancing a game but unless there are lore reasons or physical obstructions your character should be able to wear anything. It wouldn't make sense to have your character slaughter monsters that have killed hundreds of people before without breaking a sweat, but your character literally is special because you're the one controlling it.
>>3691954I am, in other threads. I'd rather make a point here to get people to think about how they look at games.
>>3691776Sometimes "it depends" is the best answer
>>3691081Games will start you as a middle aged man that has never discovered how to cook, what is edible, what flora and fauna are, no skills, and pretend grinding those stats is gameplay, but it's just a reduction of gameplay. Things locked behind a single skill point you can't earn. It's created by the types of people that follow all rules. Love me rules. Deep down it has become programming. RPG's now teach you to obey and repeat. They used to not teach you shit, they just existed and you got it or you didn't. Now it's just "protect society from the people that for no reason besides being evil want to destroy it". At least KOTOR and New Vegas existed.
Character skill + tactics. So your character's capabilities should be dictated by its character sheet, but gameplay can be enhanced by good tactics.
>>3692005>protect society from the people that for no reason besides being evil want to destroy itThis, but unironically.
