Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

There is any downside to a "perk system"?

Duckard

Augur
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
354
I'll echo what others have said regarding perks which provide bonuses that reflect skills/attributes: these things should be tied to those skills/attributes instead of being tied to a perk. Making it more complicated seems needless to me.

That said, I think perks have a lot of potential in the area of characterization and flavour, which is something you don't get with just stats. For example, the Zealous trait in CKII has more effects than just statistical modifiers. You character actually acts like a Zealot to some extent. The collection of traits almost turns into backstory of the character which reflects their behaviours and beliefs. It's a good way to give the characters more of a personality without having to prescribe it.
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
I don't see how Perks are a system, it's a bunch of slapped-on abilities you take on a level-up. What is there to discuss? Either they are useful/fun or useless/boring.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
It goes well beyond useful/fun. Say you have a choice between ogre-slayer and orc-slayer. Both are boring, but if the enemies in the game are primarily ogres and orcs, they are also both useful.

On the other hand, there's going to be more of one of those monsters in the game, probably orcs, so is it better to take orc-slayer? Many would say yes, but others would say that ogres are the harder monster, so it's better to take ogre-slayer.

But go beyond that. Whichever one you choose, you just made those fights that include that monster all on Easy mode, while the one you didn't choose, those stay on Normal difficulty. So, do you want the trashy orc mobs to be even trashier, or do you want to weaken the underboss ogre fights and make those underboss fights just a little bit duller? These are the questions of the modern game. What part do you want to suck the challenge out of first?
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
It goes well beyond useful/fun. Say you have a choice between ogre-slayer and orc-slayer. Both are boring, but if the enemies in the game are primarily ogres and orcs, they are also both useful.

On the other hand, there's going to be more of one of those monsters in the game, probably orcs, so is it better to take orc-slayer? Many would say yes, but others would say that ogres are the harder monster, so it's better to take ogre-slayer.

But go beyond that. Whichever one you choose, you just made those fights that include that monster all on Easy mode, while the one you didn't choose, those stay on Normal difficulty. So, do you want the trashy orc mobs to be even trashier, or do you want to weaken the underboss ogre fights and make those underboss fights just a little bit duller? These are the questions of the modern game. What part do you want to suck the challenge out of first?
I still have trouble distinguishing perks from regular skills but I suppose you've explained it somewhere in detail. This discussion seems to me to be some kind of pseudo-analytical circlejerk.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,955
Location
Russia
I am enamoured with perks. They're like these little gifts in colorful packages with ribbons you get to further develop your character and maybe even his personality. In New Vegas I was absolutely obsessed with getting every dialogue-relevant perk possible. They're great easter eggs too.
In terms of balance however, they're not done as well as advantages and disadvantages, because they often don't have their place in a point-cost system of the game. On one side lies Fallout that has many perks that are trash, and then there's PoE on other side where only getting whole lot of them matters for the character development in a long run.
 

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
When I think about perks, I think about Underrail's feats (and D&D do have feats, that in my view, mechanically, are the same thing):

Tab3_feats.png


I do think that perks should be based on the attributes and/or skills, but I don't believe that leaving them as a "side-effect" of an attribute is the best way to do it. The progression of a skills in any field of life certainly isn't linear. Take any two individuals who have passed in a test with the same grade. From a certain point of view, we can say that both have the same "skill level", but certainly, the knowledge of the two is quite different. The same thing can be said about two athletes who do a very similar time in a marathon - their physical constitution should look similar, but it is different. (One might have more resistance and run in a specific speed all the race, the other used all his energy in the final kilometers, etc.)

We could say that they're both on the same level, but have different perks.

I do agree that "perks" can go to the "power fantasy" route, or be unbalanced. But isn't that true for everything else? Skills and attributes can do the same, even if not so intensely. As for the issue of "one-trick-pony characters", it already tends to happen anyway. In Divinity, who didn't have a PC specialized in healing? And a warrior with high HP? And wizard with a maximum of two distinct schools of elements? And it's not the same logic in POE, too? Perhaps "one trick" is an exaggeration, but I think in most games with a party we have the tendency to specialize our characters in some role. This problem, possibly, should appear in games with a single character.

But the advantage to decide how to specialize your character seems like a big plus to me. Telengard cited the case of the ogre and orc, and it's a good example. But it could also talk about a character who specializes in critical damage, and other in "base" damage. If the game is balanced, the power level of both may be similar, but the style of play may end up being quite different. Hell, Underrail is a great example of how perks extends the build of a character, offers different ways to play and a sense of progress and greater control of your evolution. Not that I believe that other games could easily reach the same level of Styg. But it's not an excuse to not try.

I just can't think of a game that would be better without its perks, even when they are unbalanced (like Divinity OS).
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,824
Actually i think the single best implementation of feats/perks comes in 5th edition DnD.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
They often fall into one of two categories:
1. Containing the key abilities for a given playstyle, such that stealth/heavy-combat/reliance-on-magic-for-fights isn't really possible, or is greatly hampered, without it. In which case they should be part of the base skills; or
2. A balance nightmare, where the perk isn't 'basic' to the playstyle but confers such an advantage that choosing that style + that perk trivialises the game.

Perks work best when they permit sub-classes (instead of giving a thief a stealth-kill option, which should be basic, give him/her a poison option that makes frontal combat a little more viable while remaining different to straight combat play...not an easy task, mind you) or general non-class-specific abilities.

Generally they're a great idea, but because they're - theoretically - optional, developers often don't pay as much attention to their downsides.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Fallout 2 has some sort of perk like that.
The gecko skinning perk.
We get that perk at Klamath for free. Usually at that time I run back toward Arroyo to clear of the waterfall area, and do the klamath's booze till quest for max pelts. It is an early boon that provide some money to help shopping in Klamath and Den.
Mysterious Stranger is supposedly abuseable to get powerful guns at middle game, but I havent done it yet. Also, it's costly, a definite perk for some weapon~
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
If you mean by "balanced" a system in which every perk are equally useful, than that is impossible to achieve, unless you make everything the same, but if you mean by "balanced" a system that is challenging, then balance is a good thing and achievable.

Perks are not the same than a typical skill that is locked from the player without certain levels, since we can develop common skills by investing in them with experience points. Perks are hidden skills that are stable in certain sense, unless they are prerequisite to other perks. Now, considering the question whether perks are balanced, I think they should be balanced to maintain the game challengeable enough. A good combat perk should provide the player with a different type of option that is not game breaking. “Hit and Run” in Underrail is the perfect example of how to do a proper combat perk.

The irony is that meaningful-not-game-breaking combat perks amounts to nothing more than improvement and specialization of the usual skills. Which means that combat perks tend to induce players to specialized builds that avoid experimentation. If you choose “Aimed Shot”, now you want the “Snipe” perk, and after that you will want the “Sharpshooter” perk. Of course, that super-specialization can be countered by useful non-combat perks, that are also hidden skills, bur are different types of skills. In the end, they add so much flavor because at the same time they are different ways to progress, they reveal new features of the game as you level up. Perks rocks!
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
They often fall into one of two categories:
1. Containing the key abilities for a given playstyle, such that stealth/heavy-combat/reliance-on-magic-for-fights isn't really possible, or is greatly hampered, without it. In which case they should be part of the base skills; or
2. A balance nightmare, where the perk isn't 'basic' to the playstyle but confers such an advantage that choosing that style + that perk trivialises the game.

Not really. You are ignoring perks that offer a new perspective of things for role-playing purposes. For instance, "Empathy" in Fallout 2. To notice how NPCs react to what you say is super cool.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Underrail is a great example of how perks extends the build of a character, offers different ways to play and a sense of progress and greater control of your evolution.

Underrail just improves Fallout formula, making it less unbalanced.
 

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,559
I like the idea of perks as advantage/disadvantage trade offs that you choose at chargen, but otherwise they seem superfluous if you have a thorough attributes, skills, and abilities system.

Although, it might be interesting to see what a system based solely around perks would look like. Actually that sounds like streamlined garbage.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
SĂŁo Paulo - Brasil
Perks, or something similar, are usually nice in that they add another dimension to the characters. However, there are two very common "mistakes" I've seem when people try to implement them. I use quotes because I suppose some people are bound to not see them as a problem at all, but they usually get on my nerves all the same:

First, frequently you will get perks, or advantages, or whatever, that shouldn't be an advantage at all, but rather a use of skill or raw abilities. Like Lhynn and Excidium mentioned. Another example of this would be something like "snappy dresser" giving you a bonus to npc reaction when you have skills that are able to reflect that already.

The second issue that gets on my nerves is that perks frequently are written from a very limited perspective. Look at Excidium's example:
Like this for instance:

4JSG3rPMl.JPG


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.

This "perk" isn't about bulging biceps. It is about not needing bracing. Frequently, game designers think of a cool game effect first, and tackle some explanation to it only as a secondary aspect of the trait. I prefer the opposite approach a whole lot more. The most important thing about a trait, advantage, perk or whatever should be what it is in itself. After that, you should build what mechanical differences it gives the PC around it. For instance, say you want a perk to represent a PC that has four arms. What is the effect of such a perk? Can the PC climb better thanks to it? Maybe he can attack more often in combat? Maybe he can use of more strength if he uses more arms to push something or leverage an attack? Maybe he can strangle balance obsessed game designers better? There is a whole lot of situations where this can come up, but if you are lazy you may say the PC gets an extra attack and be done with that. In fact, in some of the games where people design this stuff "rules first", trying to bring up that your perk is somehow useful in the situation might give you a lousy "advantage", regardless of what the perk or the situation is.

I don't see how Perks are a system, it's a bunch of slapped-on abilities you take on a level-up. What is there to discuss? Either they are useful/fun or useless/boring.

Frequently, game stats will be divided in raw "abilities", representing some capacities your PC has which might be "trainable", but usually aren't "learnable" (in other words, these are a kind of "raw" capacity) and skills, which usually represent a field of ability that are learned and improvable upon. Perks then represent something that doesn't fit in either of these. These can be physical (you are missing one hand, you have horns, you have wings, you don't have a physical body, etc), mental (you are a pyromaniac, you have autism, you have autism but the kind that makes you really good with numbers, your mind is a computer program that must always obey and pursue certain laws, etc) social or whatever.
 

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
I thought I read that NEO Scavenger has a really good Adv./Disadv. system or something of the sort.
 

Xathrodox86

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
760
Location
Nuln's labyrinth
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.

WFRP had "traits" system. They've worked in similar ways as perks. Dark Heresy and 40K RPG's have these too.
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
The biggest problem with perk system imho is often that developers forget to give a suitable amount of them to the enemies. They are often without perks while the main character is geared in the best gear, maxed out stats and maxed out perks.
Underrail is pretty good when it comes to perks imho and enemies have oftens several rather powerful ones which also synergize even in group or even solo.

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.

The overspecialization comes often even without the character system or is inbuild into the character system through classes. Most systems with perk systems are classless while many system with classes have, or rather had, no perks albeit with the rise of D&D 3rd Ed. it has become more popular in that area as well.
Perks or no perks is not the problem, the problem is if the enemy is created to pose a believable and fun challenge. Perks make this harder but not impossible.
Overspecialization would also not be a problem if it were not so binary and players not so obsessed with power gaming. The problem is that in many cases developers hand out too many multiplicators which makes it easy to break the game.
 

DavidBVal

4 Dimension Games
Patron
Developer
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
2,994
Location
Madrid
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Pathfinder: Wrath
Perks/feats themselves don't mean bad design and servicing the power fantasy, although too often they do.

I think originally feats were introduced in D&D so fighter and other melee progression didn't feel "boring" compared to spellcaster progression. "Hey look, I can now be invisible and fly" says the wizard. "Weee, I have a +5 where I had a +4" replies the fighter. While we could easily argue that the player that has chosen the fighter has no right to complain over his own choice, or that giving him all kind of fancy powers would render all classes equal, the truth is something had to be done about it, because yes, it was terribly boring to develop a melee character, they basically were all the same after the first level choices.

I think 3rd edition overdid it, 4th edition made it retarded, and finally 5th edition might be on the right track about it.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
Whether or not a perk system is a good thing generally boils down to the same thing as any other game mechanic; does it allow meaningful choices? Having a melee character that plays by charging to close distance quickly vs one that moves slowly but methodically and is more resilient is a meaningful choice. On the other hand, the choice of whether to increase my attack speed, damage, or accuracy by 10% is not, because all of those do the same fucking thing, and at that point you're just throwing in a bit of math as a metagame for which choice is the best, because one of them clearly is. This might not be the case if those things /do/ matter (like if you have extra effects that occur during attacks independent of accuracy or damage, or if there are enemies with heavy armour where extra damage adds more than extra accuracy) but it's very easy for a game to end up poorly balanced in this regard, and make it so your perk choices don't really matter, or they did matter but there was only one right way to do things.

As far as simulationist larping is concerned, perks are a great addition to things like skills or attributes to account for the nuances of a character. While two characters might have the same level of general stamina and fitness, one might be better at running while carrying a heavy load while another is better while unencumbered. Unless you're going to include an asinine number of sub-skills to account for all these things, a myriad of subtle perks can be a good way of fleshing that stuff out. But that shit is better left to PnP games- there's not enough budget to go around for details like that in a decent video game.

If there is a general 'drawback' to a perk system, it's that, like any sufficiently complex system, it rewards specific combinations far more than others. So if you want a roleplay heavy system, it's probably best not to use one that encourages all the fighters to be dual wielding acrobats because they're blatantly superior to other styles due to the synergies between perks. This is partly a balance issue, but it's also something that is specifically brought about by complexity. It's one thing to have a choice between a fighter that fights 15% better or has 25% better running speed. It's quite another when you have a dozen such perks and the choice is then between a fighter that fights 600% better or one that has a bunch of random bonuses to things like running speed. That is where the system breaks down. 3rd edition DnD tried to fix this with combat feats, but they fucked it up because those weren't a limitation but a bonus- you still had to choose between stacking an ever increasing number of synergizing combat feats or some non-combat shit for your 'normal' feats. Would have gotten much more variation if you were limited to say 1 combat feat every 4 levels or something. But even then, you're going to want to pile on all the synergizing ones, because a fighter that can both dual wield AND wield a giant hammer is inferior to one specialized in one or the other.

I like the system DoomRL used; you got a bunch of perks to choose from, but because some were prerequisites and others were mutually exclusive, you ended up with some decent build variety. Dual wielding AND rocking a minigun was never an option to begin with, so it feels like it has less dead options.
 

Alfons

Prophet
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
1,031
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.
You mean like fallout 4.
 

Alfons

Prophet
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
1,031
What do you mean when you say one trick pony? How much of a specialist does a character has to be for him to count as a one trick pony in your book?
 

Roid King

Educated
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
52
I am enamoured with perks. They're like these little gifts in colorful packages with ribbons you get to further develop your character and maybe even his personality. In New Vegas I was absolutely obsessed with getting every dialogue-relevant perk possible. They're great easter eggs too.
In terms of balance however, they're not done as well as advantages and disadvantages, because they often don't have their place in a point-cost system of the game. On one side lies Fallout that has many perks that are trash, and then there's PoE on other side where only getting whole lot of them matters for the character development in a long run.

I'm thinking that perks in many games could be something you train, i.e. actually pay in-game money for, rather than get for free on leveling up. Of course they would still be subsets of the skills, but it would an extra layer of balancing, especially since many games have a problem with giving you enough things to actually do with money. You'd also have to actually find NPCs who train the perks in question, AND not make enemies of them.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
Pay money for perks? Joined: Today.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom