Vault Dweller, when is Age of Decadence's "skill plateau moment"?

[Jaedar]

Only if you pick random skills.

Sorry I don't have a telepathic mind link to your design documents that lets me figure out which quests requires which skills. How am I supposed to know a commerciumer requires sneak (or fightan skills) to get to the second city? Maybe there were some other options here, but I certainly didn't see them, and its not like I got any time to prepare and buy a decent armor+weapon in between being told I was going to set off and setting off.

Naturally, the checks go up (why else have 1-10 scale?), but you get more points. Only a few weeks ago the overwhelming opinion was that the player get too many skill points and we had to scale it back a bit. Does it answer your question?

This to me seems like a possible case of snowballing. If you pick good skills in a good distribution you can do more quests, which gives you more skill points and more quests and so on. If you do a "poor" build, you'll have to skip more quests, getting less points and so on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry I don't have a telepathic mind link to your design documents that lets me figure out which quests requires which skills. How am I supposed to know a commerciumer requires sneak (or fightan skills) to get to the second city?

You don't need sneak or fighting skills. You get the ambush only if you strong arm Mercato into joining House Daratan, threatening him (i.e. you threaten a fighter who commands other fighters; are you really surprised he sent men after you?).

You have several options there, including convincing Antidas to wipe them all out, precisely because you failed to convince Mercato and your only option left was to threaten him. If you do run into that ambush, you can bullshit your way out (streetwise and persuasion; I assume your merchant has those skills).

Maybe there were some other options here, but I certainly didn't see them...

There are always other options.

 

[Lurker King]

It's not just a matter of difficulty, though. There's more to a game than that. It's also a matter of people feeling that their roleplaying options are constrained. So again, my question - do your options open up as you progress, or are you bound to a harsh and constant skill point treadmill even in the late game, as Jaedar believes:

Of course they feel that way. That is because they are constrained by the reality around them. If you don’t have the proper skills to do something, you fail. The problem is that in most cRPGs the game world is just an excuse to stroke the player’s ego. The SPs are just for show, a thing to expend your XP and feel good about yourself. Don’t you think that I didn’t complain about this stuff before? We were spoiled by game designers for years. Unless you can provide an argument that every cRPG should do the same, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Jaedar]

You don't need sneak or fighting skills. You get the ambush only if you strong arm Mercato into joining House Daratan, threatening him (i.e. you threaten a fighter who commands other fighters; are you really surprised he sent men after you?).

You have several options there, including convincing Antidas to wipe them all out, precisely because you failed to convince Mercato and your only option left was to threaten him. If you do run into that ambush, you can bullshit your way out (streetwise and persuasion; I assume your merchant has those skills).

Yes well, I'm pretty sure my skills were too low to properly convince Mercato, and too low to convince Antidas? Or maybe I wasn't allowed to tell him to wipe out after I already failed with Mercato. I certainly didn't see any way to bullshit the ambush (just sneak and fight (altho it might have been approach, which then opens into more options)), but maybe my skills were too low or something. I mean I did "waste" points by getting some lore so clearly I have only myself to blame.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes well, I'm pretty sure my skills were too low to properly convince Mercato, and too low to convince Antidas?

You need 14 points in Streetwise and Charisma to convince Mercato (not a problem if you have CHA 9 or 10, which is one of the main stats for the talkers) or 10 points in Streetwise and Persuasion (not a problem at all, since you can easily get two main skills to 6/5 or 5/5). You need etiquette 5 and persuasion 6 to convince Antidas. You need Streetwise 3 and Persuasion 3 to talk your way out of the ambush.

 

[Aenra]

Lurker King
Ask DU for a name change, go for Prejudiced King. Your arguments (and in so characterising them i am doing you a favour as they are mostly accusations) may stand in theory. May. Not in practice;

Spoiler

Because in practice, you have the human factor. And where it's taken us, developing-wise. Or has failed to. No, no title up to this moment in time has had a deep enough AI/number of systems/scripting to not only predict each and every possible outcome/differentiation, but more so, be capable of providing a tailored solution/response for it. Tailored because in a genre all about role playing, even the strictest of archetype allows for a multitude of combinations and possibilities. This happens prior to player input. Prior because you have an ongoing thinking process preceding it, that of the actual person roleplaying their character.
We've all seen it; fake "evil" allignment/consequences, fake dilemmas, dialogue splits, outcomes, etc. Even in little things, like 'x' or 'y' item that is best(est) for one role, only usually acquired from one and one path alone. "Fake" in the sense of sensible, utterly logical concepts being totally lacking/placeholder only, even though the setting should allow for; let alone be actually viable options for the player. Understandably of course, but still just so.

Since then we do not have the title out there that can not only predict the above but as stated, actually respond to them, we get to what really happens in these games:
- The need to know in advance and/or the need to power level (because who knows if the fucktard programming this even considered 'x' or 'y' route/possibility)
- The doubt of whether this is 'optimal' and whether one will come to regret taking or eschewing it. See forced to reroll, which is very different from choosing to play again.
- The "worry" of not being able to predict just how fucking dumb the system is, in this or that specific title, and what that will entail for you the player
- The "worry" of not being able to predict whether this or that build is viable, because while logic would state it is, see monkey human factor and who knows what will be ingame
- The by now ingrained understanding that a character with zero capabilities in lockpicking, thieving, treasure finding, you name it, is very much likely to either have subpar gear, or have subpar gear and a lack of money
- The empirical understanding that the above have never been addressed by this industry, but are rather amelliorated by hand-placed triggers/items/skills so as for the flow to appear steady. Appear.
- The knowledge that the iteration required for the above hand placed "life savers" (in meta a level, no one thought of them when they should have) is one the player should not take for granted.
- The empirical understanding that the above, while easy to overcome on a game where one controls 4 and 5 PCs, are a whole beast altogether in titles with just one PC. One PC. On an RPG at least. Don't care about other genres.

Somehow none of this bothers you; it only bothers you when someone (whom you know not btw) complains about tight skill point allocation and too specific a build, with almost zero opportunity for expanding it? Man that's his preference. One he took some effort into expressing in very non 4chan resembling manner. Props to him. And it's a preference stemming from some very fucking real issues with this genre.
(unavoidable ones to some extent perhaps, just think of iteration times, sure, but issues nonetheless)

The rest of us, with you as our leader on all things incline and old school, why don't we stick to why we find this need ingrained in most players, hmm? Why it is we all both expect and fear the dumb fighter/smart peacemaker?
Wanna go further perhaps, take the Codex jewels and put them all down? See which few, if any of them, actually fare differently or better? How many manage to avoid the above and present a wholesome, organic representation of choices and consequences?
(and i don't mean the dialogue c&c, i mean ALL choices within an RPG. And ALL the consequences. In combat, game flow, factions/setting reactivity, et al.)

Come to that, who is it that told you that AoD's way is the way? Dumb useless cretin of a fighter or fuck off, play gay and useless but well-read? Do perfect or die? Someone must have told you, otherwise you sure would not be criticising peoples' views, not when you hardly even know them, right?

Say 'i like AoD because..'. And leave it at that. Or, if choosing to presume about the mind of others, do take some effort into comprehending where from their worries are based. And how you and everyone like you choses to occasionaly face them, when it suits them, and occasionally ignore them. When it suits them.

TLDR if you suffer from ADHD;
I personally am looking forward to AoD because i am (still) willing to work with the above limitations. And despite them. In any title and in AoD most of all because it over-fucking-does them, each and every one. However, my levels of patience are my levels. I can perfectly understand why others would not like AoD. In fact, i could perfectly understand how someone could call me a retard for having the patience to sit through all that and for what? Fucking pixels man. Get my point? Edgy morons like you don't help this industry. Just like pewpewers and their pre-orders don't. Neither category pushes for qualitative change; one simply wants more of the old, the other more of today's

Play your fucking games and skip sharing your conclusions about others. Your arguments thus far portrait you ill-equipped to discuss their origins. Let alone the fucking need to rectify said origins.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Jaedar

It sounds like you played the demo 3 years ago and didn't touch it since. I'm not upset you didn't like it as the game isn't for everyone (I knew that we took too many liberties with the design and not everyone would like that). What you like or dislike is your business.

However, if you're still curious about the game, try the updated demo on Steam (we updated it about a month ago).

 

[Agesilaus]

Of course they feel that way. That is because they are constrained by the reality around them. If you don’t have the proper skills to do something, you fail. The problem is that in most cRPGs the game world is just an excuse to stroke the player’s ego. The SPs are just for show, a thing to expend your XP and feel good about yourself. Don’t you think that I didn’t complain about this stuff before? We were spoiled by game designers for years. Unless you can provide an argument that every cRPG should do the same, there is nothing to discuss.

Look at the avatar, people. Don't believe his lies


This has been your public safety announcement for the day.

 

[Jaedar]

Jaedar

It sounds like you played the demo 3 years ago and didn't touch it since. I'm not upset you didn't like it as the game isn't for everyone (I knew that we took too many liberties with the design and not everyone would like that). What you like or dislike is your business.

However, if you're still curious about the game, try the updated demo on Steam (we updated it about a month ago).

I have played a demo a few days ago. And I can definitely tell you that I did not have enough points to get 5/5 in persuasion and streetwise. Maybe if I had powergamed more but I was playing loremaster background so I also took some lore, a little bit of trade (it keeps getting checked, and seems pretty reasonable when you are working for traders). I suppose the points for getting alchemy and crafting up a level (or two? can't remember) each were "wasted".

Perhaps this is my problem: The fact that loremaster exists as a background would seem to indicate to me that this is a valid path through the game. As a loremaster you start with alchemical ingredients + some metals (I assume this is the case regardless of starting skills? But I dunno. The Drifter doesn't even if dabbling in either crafting or alchemy) so it seemed reasonable to actually, get some use out of them. And yes, I know about going to the other houses's mine and activating it to progress (which is what I did after reloading when final commercium quest was too hard), which is fine, but you lose a lot of SP if you do this early on which makes it sort of feel like a trap. Anyway my point being that it feels like the game says this build should be ok, adding to my general feeling of "trial and error".

I'm not totally disinterested in the game, but I definitely won't be buying it for 30 euro. I might pay ~10 for it. Maybe during the christmas sale :shrug:

 

[Dyskolos]

Like I said, the non-combat path is easy (it's the game's easy mode), so the only way to run into a problem there is to try to be a hero when you're not or try things your character isn't built for (like infiltrating the compound ninja style).

I feel like it wouldn't hurt to make this point more explicit in the game's introduction/warning screen. Even though they amount to much the same thing I think there's a real difference in how a lot of people understand 'combat is the hardest way to handle quests and progress through the game' vs. 'the non-combat path is the game's easy mode'. Call it idiot proofing, but since most players are trained to take combat as the default route and since failing there is what leads to so many of the too-quick negative impressions it doesn't seem like it could hurt to give them a less nuanced shove in a different direction.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I have played a demo a few days ago. And I can definitely tell you that I did not have enough points to get 5/5 in persuasion and streetwise. Maybe if I had powergamed more but I was playing loremaster background so I also took some lore, a little bit of trade (it keeps getting checked, and seems pretty reasonable when you are working for traders). I suppose the points for getting alchemy and crafting up a level (or two? can't remember) each were "wasted".

Just started a new character. Str 4, Dex 6, Con 6, Per 7, Int 8, Cha 9. I can set Persuasion and Stretwise, two main skills for the talker, to 4/4 out of chargen and have 10 SP to spare. Getting them to 5/5 is incredibly easy, especially with the INT bonus, even if you invest in other skills.

So, you picked 6 skills: lore, trading, streetwise, persuasion, alchemy, and crafting. That's spreading your points way too thin in a game where skills play a strong role and checked often, especially since you had problems before. Wouldn't it make more sense to go with 3-4 skills instead until you're more comfortable?

 

[Drowed]

I do like AOD and I'm playing it right now, but I think I understand the central "issue" of it.

Being a "talker" is easy indeed - if you know which way to go. The central "problem" of playing AOD is the fact that you are never sure what 'kind' of solution will be possible in certain quests - at least, not until you go talk to the NPC in question or go to the quest location. Yes, there are cases that with just a minimum of common sense you can have a good idea of what you should expect (perhaps following that beggar to an alley wasn't a shining moment in your life), but many quests don't offer options that you would expect to exist there. This forces you to approach each quest/event in the game as an experiment of trial and error (albeit with some general idea of what to expect), where in your first contact with any quest you're just "testing the grounds" to find out what options are in there.

In fact, this is something which exists in *every* game with quests with multiple solutions. And that's interesting because in AOD, this feeling is absurdly more pronounced. For the majority of quests, it offers more distinct choices than most RPGs (more than Fallout, AFAIK) but you feel more trapped and restricted when you're playing. Well, why is that? I cannot say for sure, but I imagine this is due to the CYOA-style that it has. Anyone who played a CYOA went through moments where you felt constrained by its story, which didn't offer a particular option you thought valid in that context.

In "normal" RPGs, the multiple solutions to quests exists beyond the basic path of combat. In other words, solving everything by fighting is the default option that every character always has - other solutions are always "extras". That way, you don't ever feel trapped because you know that if all else fails, going out shooting in all directions is (almost always) an option. Any character is minimally able to meet most of the fighting in the game. AOD compels you to choose one of the ways: "talker" or "fighter". With a deep knowledge of the game you can, in a few situations, do a bit of both, but this is more the exception than the rule. In this game, you have to completely throw yourself in one way and devote to it.

And so when you find a quest that doesn't offer an option that you expect, you feel stuck - because you really only have the options offered by the creator of the game for that context, that will *always* be more limited than all scenarios that could exist in the real world. "Oh, you thought that the best way to fulfill that quest would be to climb the wall of the house and get on the roof, waiting for the NPC to go out to kill him with a critical-strike? Sorry, that option doesn't exist here". What, again, is a "problem" in every existing RPG and could only be resolved on a tabletop game - but in AOD the problem is aggravated by what I said earlier.

I understand that it does makes sense in the game. You're a nobody, you can't just do everything. But when you made the player choose between "talking" and "fighting", the huge existing limitations in the narrative stand out. And so, even offering more options than in other games, AOD still seems limited and restricted.

Edit that summarizes the point: it's like AOD is divided in 2 "games": a CYOA and a "tactical-combat-game", but you can only play one side of it at each playthrough - so it ends up feeling like it's half of a game instead, at times.

 

[Goral]

Sorry I don't have a telepathic mind link to your design documents that lets me figure out which quests requires which skills. How am I supposed to know a commerciumer requires sneak (or fightan skills) to get to the second city? Maybe there were some other options here, but I certainly didn't see them, and its not like I got any time to prepare and buy a decent armor+weapon in between being told I was going to set off and setting off.

You don't need telepathic mind to know which skills you should focus on. As a merchant/grifter you obviously need to be silver tongued (so persuasion+streetwise+trading+Charisma+Intelligence), the same goes for a Loremaster if you choose to join Commercium faction, as a warrior you need combat skills, etc. And since checks are quite flexible and don't require an exact number of a certain skill (i.e. having 5 Persuasion and 3 Streetwise can be as good as 5 Streetwise and 3 Persuasion, although sometimes it might be streetwise+intelligence or persuasion+trading so there might be a moment where having some skills higher is more advantageous) you have a room for error without having to reload.

This to me seems like a possible case of snowballing. If you pick good skills in a good distribution you can do more quests, which gives you more skill points and more quests and so on. If you do a "poor" build, you'll have to skip more quests, getting less points and so on.

But you'll still be able to finish the game (although the result won't be as spectacular as it could).

It seems to me that you and some other people prefer the Bethesda approach, i.e. the "you can't fail" approach and "you can do every quest in 1 playthrough" approach. In Fallout New Vegas for example no matter how badly you create your character you can't lose. There are easier difficulty modes, you can always come back to do quests you couldn't before, open safes and hack electronic locks and most of all GRIND. Can't defeat some opponent? No problem, just waste 20 hours by fighting molerats and you're done. One of the reasons both Underrail and Age of Decadence are so refreshing is that they do not allow for that (I mean, fighting rats is one thing, fighting an elite soldier is another, why would defeating 100 rats help me defeating an elite soldier by a significant amount?).
Tell me, what's the alternative to VD's approach other than the above?

 

[Infinitron]

AOD compels you to choose one of the ways: "talker" or "fighter". With a deep knowledge of the game you can, in a few situations, do a bit of both, but this is more the exception than the rule.

Is that so? Is it true for the entire game? This is another question related to the previous one, Vault Dweller. In the mid game or late game, can you become pretty good at both "talking" and fighting?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Out of the blue? No. You won't have enough points. You can plan (once you know the game and - most importantly - know how to beat fights with lower stats and skills) and build hybrids but it's not something you just decide to do in the middle of the game.

For example, here is how my last fighter playthrough went. I started with two combat skills and crafting. Added critical strike before I went to the raiders' camp. Added lore in Maadoran, etc. In other words, first survive, then slowly expand and add more skills, while watching your primary skills.

You can play a hybrid and there is a path for hybrids (speech checks in fighting quests, fighting options in talking quests, etc), but it's not for new players. There are two great videos - smart soldier and tough trader - that show exactly how it's done.

 

[Tigranes]

I have played a demo a few days ago. And I can definitely tell you that I did not have enough points to get 5/5 in persuasion and streetwise. Maybe if I had powergamed more but I was playing loremaster background so I also took some lore, a little bit of trade (it keeps getting checked, and seems pretty reasonable when you are working for traders). I suppose the points for getting alchemy and crafting up a level (or two? can't remember) each were "wasted".

Perhaps this is my problem: The fact that loremaster exists as a background would seem to indicate to me that this is a valid path through the game. As a loremaster you start with alchemical ingredients + some metals (I assume this is the case regardless of starting skills? But I dunno. The Drifter doesn't even if dabbling in either crafting or alchemy) so it seemed reasonable to actually, get some use out of them. And yes, I know about going to the other houses's mine and activating it to progress (which is what I did after reloading when final commercium quest was too hard), which is fine, but you lose a lot of SP if you do this early on which makes it sort of feel like a trap. Anyway my point being that it feels like the game says this build should be ok, adding to my general feeling of "trial and error".

I'm not totally disinterested in the game, but I definitely won't be buying it for 30 euro. I might pay ~10 for it. Maybe during the christmas sale :shrug:

Yeah, no. I just played a talker merchant, and just before finishign Teron I had 3 Dagger, 4 Lockpick, 4 Sneak, 3 Steal, 3/4 Impersonate, 4 Persuasion, 4 Streetwise, 3 Etiquette, 2 Alchemy, 4 Crafting, 4 Lore and 3 Trading. A loremaster can do pretty much everything my merchant did, which is talk his way through almost every scenario in Teron.

And then I knocked up Per & Stw to 5 to do Mercato, but I didn't have to, I could have talked to Antidas.

This is a fairly 'powergamed' character insofar as I remember a lot of Teron from playing 2 years ago, but the short of it is:

-> In Teron, many checks are doable with 3; some checks are doable with 4; the hardest ones take 5.
-> A dedicated talker can easily hit 3/4 in five or more of the skills, and hit 5 on a couple at the end.

I see no reason why that is particularly problematic.

The real thing people variously have a problem is is that you do need to conserve your skiill points, and sometimes do trial/error to discover what the city expects of you and what are your immediate challenges. And that does mean saying "OK I am skilled in X Y Z, let's go in and see if I can survive", and then exploring the 3-4 different combinations of options usually available to you (including run away, sometimes), and then reloading or returning - or even passing on some quests. (E.g. my merchant talker had no way of doing anything about the thug group behind the tavern, so it never went there.)

Mathematically, it is indisputable that you have enough SP to get shit done in Teron as pure talker or fighter - and even more SP afterwards. This isn't opinion, it's fact, proven by the numbers and by the many people who have done fine with many characters.

The real problem some people have is that they don't like how they have to reload and trial/error to figure out what they need.

I don't think it's an unreasonable problem, of course. But it's inevitable in a game where both combat and talking are meant to be deadly. Usually talking becomes an 'easy way out' for hard combat, or combat becomes an 'easy way out' for hard talking. When you make both hard, then the only 'way out' is to reload and try again.

So like it or not, that is AOD. You can't just build your character the way you want and go through every challenge. Either you pass on some challenges, or you find yourself taking on some skills and making investments that you didn't plan, just to survive this harsh world.

You don't play the hero you envisioned in AOD. You play a guy you envisioned who, in the hard knocks of life, ends up becoming something different than he might have planned, taking choices - moral, strategic - that he may not have anticipated.

 

[Infinitron]

Out of the blue? No. You won't have enough points. You can plan (once you know the game and - most importantly - know how to beat fights with lower stats and skills) and build hybrids but it's not something you just decide to do in the middle of the game.

That's an odd thing to say, because you'd think the middle of the game is PRECISELY when you should decide to do it - after you've attained an acceptable level of competency in one path, you begin to put points into the other.

If the separation between fighter and talker is really that dichotomous, perhaps the classes/origins should be marked as such. I suppose you could say that fighter and talker are the game's real classes.

 

[Goral]

Is that so? Is it true for the entire game? This is another question related to the previous one, Vault Dweller. In the mid game or late game, can you become pretty good at both "talking" and fighting?

As a (somewhat) hybrid build I've defeated every opponent (besides a nobleman with two bodyguards in Teron and the strongest opponent in AoD that is in the final location and is uberstrong) and these were my stats before the fight with final boss (which is optional and which with my build is almost impossible to win):

Subtract 3 points from dexterity since I'm using certain item that boosts this skill. I could have invested in something other than crafting (which wasn't that useful for my build really) and I could have very high talking skills. And there are better builds than mine.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's an odd thing to say, because you'd think the middle of the game is PRECISELY where you should decide to do it - after you've attained an acceptable level of competency in one path, you begin to put points into the other.

Think of DnD's dual-classing. Is it an easy thing to do? Does it require careful planning and good knowledge of the game? Can it be done simply because you're bored and want to try something else or do you need to plan it in chargen?

 

[Infinitron]

Think of DnD's dual-classing. Is it an easy thing to do? Does it require careful planning and good knowledge of the game? Can it be done simply because you're bored and want to try something else or do you need to plan it in chargen?

It requires knowledge of what the "acceptable level of competency" is, so that you don't make the leap while your original specialization is still too weak to see you through. Doesn't seem insurmountable though, and certainly less risky than the equivalent of D&D's multi-classing - putting points into both specializations at the same time, spreading yourself thin during the game's difficult beginning.

 

[Tigranes]

Going hybrid after reaching Maadoran is not impossible, either. It depends on how hybrid you go - but a character like Goral's above (which I'd say is 70% combat) can easily be pure combat at start then transition to hybrid midway. Especially because the 'civil attributes' (Per, Int) are often useful for combat characters.

And Infinitron I'd say multi-classing while playing solo can be quite punishing, and anyway the difficulty there is quite qualitatively different from the difficulty of playing a hybrid character from the start (which definitely requires quite a bit of trial and error, but after that becomes awesome to play).

 

[Pope Amole II]

everything my specific character archetype that I've chosen to roleplay

There's no roleplay in AoD, dude. It's by no means a role-playing game - whomever you want to be, it always forces you into a "desperate scumbag who'll do anything to survive" archetype. In the end, some extra skillpoints are always more important than some NPC's life and wellbeing. Talking about Miltiades situation, for example - by helping him, you cause a lot of harm to the world so best option is to kill him ASAP; but why would you do that? You miss out on xps and there's no reward for killing him. And, since game difficulty is constantly annoying (it's not really hard per se, it's just that doing anything difficult combat-wise takes X reloads and that's annoying - you want to cut that time down), you definitely don't want to miss on skill points.

But I digress. To answer your global question - you see, you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Instead of asking whether or not the hybrids are possible, ask whether or not they are needed. Yeah, sure, theoretically, doing both talky and fighty tasks gives you lots of SPs. But then, to do them both you need to invest those skills in talking and fighting. And is it a net positive? I'm not exactly sure on this one, especially since they've cut down a lot of the quest rewards. But not a lot of sense to invest 100 sp into talking skills if the overall reward for them is 80 sp, right?

Another thing is that the "uncharacteristic" solution is often softly punished by the game. Say, IG storyline, you can go as a pure, kill 'em all fighter, or you can do it as a diplomat. And, well, the diplomatic rewards absolutely can't compare with the fighter ones. You get worse training, worse attitude and worst treatment from other NPCs. Same is, for example the bandit camp & aurellian outpost - solving them peacefully is not as profitable as killing them and it also causes a serious issue later on.

And, well, if fighting always leads to better rewards, why do you need a fighter who can talk? The only exception here is the crafting+lore loremaster combo - that can work decently for a hybrid. But that's because crafting is a combat-oriented skill first and foremost and lore can also give you some combat-helping rewards. Anything else just dilutes your build into complete shittyness. Especially charisma - charisma is a total crap stat for non-pure speakers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There's no roleplay in AoD, dude. It's by no means a role-playing game - whomever you want to be, it always forces you into a "desperate scumbag who'll do anything to survive" archetype. In the end, some extra skillpoints are always more important than some NPC's life and wellbeing.

If the goal is to squeeze every available skill point, yes, but *that* is not role-playing.

Say, IG storyline, you can go as a pure, kill 'em all fighter, or you can do it as a diplomat. And, well, the diplomatic rewards absolutely can't compare with the fighter ones. You get worse training, worse attitude and worst treatment from other NPCs. Same is, for example the bandit camp & aurellian outpost - solving them peacefully is not as profitable as killing them and it also causes a serious issue later on.

So it's role-playing only if you get the same reward but if you do what you think is right but get less it's not?

 

[Infinitron]

There's no roleplay in AoD, dude. It's by no means a role-playing game - whomever you want to be, it always forces you into a "desperate scumbag who'll do anything to survive" archetype.

I think I can deal with that, but even desperate scumbags might have different end visions for the world ("I want this town to survive and this faction to take over.").

 

[Goral]

There's no roleplay in AoD, dude. It's by no means a role-playing game - whomever you want to be, it always forces you into a "desperate scumbag who'll do anything to survive" archetype. (...)

It doesn't force you to do that, you're just not rewarded as much for being kind and altruistic as you are for being pragmatic and smart, like in real life. There is a saying in Polish "Jak chcesz mieć miękkie serce to musisz mieć twardą dupę ", which roughly means "if you want to have a soft heart you need a hard rear", i.e. you need to be prepared for a hard landing. And it should be especially true in a post-apocalyptic world.