There is any downside to a "perk system"?

[Drowed]

I'm not talking about Fallout 4.

So, I was analyzing the latest games released, Wasteland 2 DC, Divinity EE... (And also Underrail, even if it's still on EA.) After thinking a bit, I could only come to one conclusion: all RPGs should have a perk system (or something similar). At this point, it should already be a pattern of the genre, like the attribute system is. I mean, a bad implementation can certainly ruin it and turn it into something useless, but the same goes for any other system.

It offers greater depth in character development, and greater customization too. Also, it's a system that should works in any RPG style: turn-based, real time, RTWP, whatever you want. There are examples of systems that are more suitable for certain types of game, like random drops or random map generation. You cannot go adding any system in any game and expect it to work or mix well, but perks? I think it would work on basically any game, and they would be better (if sufficiently well implemented).

So, there is any downside to a "perk system" in a game?

 

[Infinitron]

Telengard can tell you what the downside is.

Spoiler

Or in case he doesn't want to respond: Perks generally means adding all sorts of cool abilities to the game, otherwise they're bound to be pretty boring perks. Which can lead to POWER FANTASY.

 

[Neanderthal]

I suppose a smart player can game system a bit too much wi perks, thought Alpha Protocol did fairly well wi its system of constant reinforcement of your playstyle, but by end I was almost unstoppable and I didn't even really powergame. When I restarted on Vet after that Recruit playthrough, well I cheesed big time, though it kinda suited narrative.

 

[Shin]

Are there any p&p rpg's that utilize a perk system? I guess if D&D used it back in the days, it would already be a 'pattern' of the genre.

 

[pippin]

I've never felt perks as something really gamechanging, just some bonuses here and there. Stats and skills are the only truly necessary elements, in my opinion.

 

[V_K]

I think the problem with perks is the same as with skill trees or active abilities: there must be a metric ton of them to give the illusion of meaningful choice, and it almost always leads to most of them being boring as hell and just unnecessarily cluttering the character systems. IMO perks are best when they are either limited to character generation, or tied to skills development.
Also, having more choices doesn't always make for deeper system. DOS for one could really benefit from some streamlining in that department, especially since the difference in character levels seems to be the only thing that really matters anyway.

 

[deuxhero]

Are there any p&p rpg's that utilize a perk system? I guess if D&D used it back in the days, it would already be a 'pattern' of the genre.

There's 3E's many MANY derivatives naturally. To my memory World of Darkness ("merits") and GURPS have long/always had them in some form

 

[mondblut]

"Perks" come in 2 forms: 1) silly shit that bends and breaks the rules for lulz, 2) normal bonuses that could be just as well integrated into the proper skill system.

Me, I don't need some retarded "mysterious strangers" popping up in combat helping me at random, and I'd rather get "every hit is critical" upon maxing out my sniping skill, not upon picking some cheat bonus out of the blue.

In other words, fuck "perks".

 

[Excidium II]

Are there any p&p rpg's that utilize a perk system? I guess if D&D used it back in the days, it would already be a 'pattern' of the genre.

What? Every other one. Perks, traits,feats, talents, same shit different name.

 

[Excidium II]

"Perks" come in 2 forms: 1) silly shit that bends and breaks the rules for lulz, 2) normal bonuses that could be just as well integrated into the proper skill system.

Me, I don't need some retarded "mysterious strangers" popping up in combat helping me at random, and I'd rather get "every hit is critical" upon maxing out my sniping skill, not upon picking some cheat bonus out of the blue.

In other words, fuck "perks".

Sounds p. banal. There are things that can logically just as well be skill specializations but there's stuff that is better represented with perks like ambidextry or a favored enemy.

Speaking of banality I really dislike systems where you gain perks or whatever else every X levels. I think in a good system it should be a character development choice whether to get an attribute increase, skill, perk, new spell or whatever else the game has when you get an opportunity to develop your dudes.

 

[mondblut]

Sounds p. banal. There are things that can logically just as well be skill specializations but there's stuff that is better represented with perks like ambidextry or a favored enemy.

Speaking of banality I really dislike systems where you gain perks or whatever else every X levels. I think in a good system it should be a character development choice whether to get an attribute increase, skill, perk, new spell or whatever else the game has when you get an opportunity to develop your dudes.

Ambidexterity and favored enemy are hardly "perks" as we got to know them. There is nothing wrong with advantages and disadvantages you get from the start by spending from the same pool of points you would otherwise spend on stats and skills. "Perks" are what you describe after, non-integrated gimmickry slapped on top of the system for the purpose of gaining "cool" and typically unsensical abilities in the course of the game. In a sense, they are unremovable replacements for magic artifacts - a "vorpal sword" perk, a "genie's lamp" perk, a "bag of holding" perk, pretty obvious really. But somehow Fallout groupies want to spread this copout for a low-fiction setting to where these purposes are already perfectly served by the original vorpal swords and hyperdimensional bags.

 

[Telengard]

First up, coming from a design theory perspective, there is a division between Perks and Advantages/Disadvantages systems. With Advantages/Disadvantages, every bonus taken must be counterbalanced by an equal negative. Which is a system that can still be min/maxed, but it is far more painful to do so, and it will often lead to making difficult choices. Or choices with consequences, in the parlance of the Codex. Perks, on the other hand, are straight up power tweaks to the character. The only consequence to the character is if you choose a lesser power tweak than a greater, thus making your character marginally less min/maxed.

But the key thing is not that these separate ideas coexist, but how implementing one or the other influences the nature of the game. Perks are part and parcel of the endless line of power-ups that is modern gaming design. The only negatives that remain anywhere in the character sheet are in dump stats, plus you're not allowed to dump very deep, and your dump stats don't really penalize you anyway, because they're 'dumps'. Everything upwards, all the way, no difficult character choices, next stop Demi-godhood.

From a modern player perspective, though, the only negative to Perks lies in the late game. Now, a Perks system that only altered non-gameplay situations would change nothing, would be quite fitting in story-based games. (Character background perks, for instance.) But that's not what people want - they want perks that directly tweak their character stats, so that they can further min/max. Which becomes a problem in the middle and end game as people who are good at games min/max their way beyond the power curve of the game, leading to a boring, overpowered slog at the end. At least, it's boring for those who actually want to be challenged in combat. Since most people don't want challenging combat, this aspect of Perks makes little difference to most players.

From an encounter design perspective, it often leads to one-trick-ponyism. Or characters who are are uber-maxed to do one thing. The encounter designer might have been trying to make players utilize a broad range of skills, but the one-trick-ponies will only ever do their one-trick. And they will be happy when it works, and very angry when it doesn't. Or the Drizzt-syndrome - always gotta use the mega-critted-out-specialized scimitars, never any other weapon. Thus, while Perks adds variety to the character sheet, it often narrows people's gameplay choices.

And finally, there is the issue of density. Adding Perks adds a whole slew of additional information that must be learned by players in order to successfully play the game, but does so for only incremental changes to the character sheet. So, if there's a 100 Perks, one must read and understand all 100, connect the synergies with other aspects of the character sheet, and then you get to choose only a single one, in order to get a +1 to some stat. That's a huge time investment for such an incremental and shallow change. Dense implementation is normally reserved for deep material, like spells, where the investment is equal to the payoff.

 

[Excidium II]

So shit systems are shit.

 

[Lhynn]

Ambidexterity and favored enemy are hardly "perks" as we got to know them. There is nothing wrong with advantages and disadvantages you get from the start by spending from the same pool of points you would otherwise spend on stats and skills. "Perks" are what you describe after, non-integrated gimmickry slapped on top of the system for the purpose of gaining "cool" and typically unsensical abilities in the course of the game. In a sense, they are unremovable replacements for magic artifacts - a "vorpal sword" perk, a "genie's lamp" perk, a "bag of holding" perk, pretty obvious really. But somehow Fallout groupies want to spread this copout for a low-fiction setting to where these purposes are already perfectly served by the original vorpal swords and hyperdimensional bags.

Yeah but items can be lost, misplaced and arent percieved as truly part of your character. Perks on the other hand have none of these quirks, so they are at least worth discussing.
But tbh the only perks i like are the ones that unlock new viable options in and out of combat, specialization perks of any kind in general are crap, because instead of adding options they reduce them.

 

[Excidium II]

Yeah but items can be lost, misplaced and arent percieved as truly part of your character. Perks on the other hand have none of these quirks, so they are at least worth discussing.
But tbh the only perks i like are the ones that unlock new viable options in and out of combat, specialization perks of any kind in general are crap, because instead of adding options they reduce them.

I don't think specializations are bad, they can be p. flavorful/taktikool. it's only really a problem when you have a bunch of stuff that synergizes too well together.

 

[Lhynn]

I don't think specializations are bad, they can be p. flavorful/taktikool. it's only really a problem when you have a bunch of stuff that synergizes too well together.

If you find yourself picking the same option every round because thats what you know is best, then its shit.

 

[Neanderthal]

Who were it said specialisation is for insects and animals?

I is a filthy animal then all too often.

 

[Excidium II]

If you find yourself picking the same option every round because thats what you know is best, then its shit.

Of course, but that's a trap to fall into regardless of specializations.

One type of perk/talent/whatever I really dislike is stuff that requires having X on some stat and basically just "unlocks" something that logically you should already be capable at that stat level.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

One type of perk/talent/whatever I really dislike is stuff that requires having X on some stat and basically just "unlocks" something that logically you should already be capable at that stat level.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you give us a specific example of it?

 

[Lhynn]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you give us a specific example of it?

Power attack, expertise, cleave, knockdown. All from nwn.

Its complete shit, stats unlocking those options would be nice tho.

 

[Excidium II]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you give us a specific example of it?

Like this for instance:

EDIT: Also what lhynn said, man I hate those that give "combat maneuveurs" like disarm or knockdown with passion. Just give me a TN and mods faggots.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

That makes sense.

How would you feel if combat maneuvers had serious drawbacks to use, e.g. power attack that leaves a character vulnerable to extra damage?

 

[Excidium II]

That makes sense.

How would you feel if combat maneuvers has serious drawbacks to use, e.g. power attack that leaves a character vulnerable to extra damage?

Depends on how it's implemented I guess. I just think it should be a natural choice in combat not an unlockable ability.

 

[Lhynn]

Depends on how it's implemented I guess. I just think it should be a natural choice in combat not an unlockable ability.

Aye, this would make increasing stats with drugs or magic much more interesting.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Depends on how it's implemented I guess. I just think it should be a natural choice in combat not an unlockable ability.

That would front-load a player with complexity in the early game. It would certainly be seen as a problem by those developers trying to be :incloosive: