[Character Development] Exp/skill points, yay or nay?

[TNO]

Most RPGs have some form of allocatable 'Character Improvement Credits'. You gain exp or level up and get skill points, and you can spend these on improving your character's abilities.

This is an abstraction, and arguably is 'unrealistic'. People improve their abilities in a given field by practise and hard work, not by gaining points for their successes and choosing to spend them here or there. In some settings (generally those trying to approximate real life) the idea of the hero turning from farmer's boy nobody to most powerful Jedi in the Galaxy in the space of a single campaign isn't much cop either, which levels and stuff tend to promote.

The most common alternative to getting Character Improvements Credits is training, where use of a given Character ability leads to its improvements. This has it's own problems leading to spamming abilities to improve them. It also tends to lock one onto one path of character development: if you start training up your skills with weapon A as opposed to weapon B, trying to improve weapon B (using it with your noob weapon B skills) is hard, so you'll tend to stick with what you're already doing.

So, which one is better and why? Discuss.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Arcanum system("raw" skill level + training) combined with training imo

 

[Chateaubryan]

Both systems can be enjoyable, as long as they don't put the player into a reactive stance and forces him to manage his character's developement trough rather artificial or tedious means.

Example : Vanilla Morrowind (+5 stat/+5 stat/+1Luck) , Baldur's Gate (Core Rules with reloading/rerolling HP each level), Ultima Underworld (getting to the right shrine)

I tend to prefer the good old fashioned Fallout way, wich allows the player to actively shape his character. The problem of an overpowered farmer-boy PC is more a matter of game design/balance than developement system.

 

[DraQ]

Training is technically better, but requires some effort to balance properly.

Go here:
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34792

 

[mondblut]

Hey, getting to right shrines was one of the best chardev systems as far as integration into gameworld goes. No "I suddenly became better at talking after killing 100 orcs", no retarded grinding, no "pay me a 1000 of coins and I'll train you to become better... look, I already trained you, a month had just whooshed by, don't you remember?". Just good old divine intervention merged nicely into the setting.

As for me, I prefer as many different systems as possible, mixed in all imaginable combinations. If all RPGs had a single "proper" kind of mechanics, the genre would be jawbreakingly boring. Personal favorite is probably Prelude to Darkness (skills grow by use, bonus skillpoints to spend at will for quests, stats grow with skills reaching certain amount), but I *don't* want every RPG to have same mechanics.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Upgrading skills by using them, but in a way that you don't need to spam them. Like, you can't just swing your weapon if there's no one to hit, therefore the number of uses required to level doesn't need to be insanely high because you won't be spamming them while walkiing around.

Character point system is convenient and makes playing different characters easier, since you get more motivated if you can change your playing style once you got enough points into your desired skils, but it leads to powergaming, for me at least. You're tempted to just dump points into your relevant skills so you become too good too early. Like, a diplomat would sometimes use a weapon to defend himself, so he would get better at it sometime. But you're just going to ignore the weapon skill and dump all into Speech.

 

[mondblut]

Like, you can't just swing your weapon if there's no one to hit, therefore the number of uses required to level doesn't need to be insanely high because you won't be spamming them while walkiing around.

I don't remember a single use-based game that allowed to grind weaponskills with no enemies around. Well, except Dungeon Master maybe. Enemy presence for a skillcheck is awful easy to implement. A lot of functions in any game check it anyway, like "you can't rest with enemies nearby".

Now, nor do I remember a single use-based game that didn't encourage using a worst rusty bent spoon for a weapon to ensure more strikes per encounter and thus more skill increase points or attempts.

but it leads to powergaming

You say it like it's something bad.

 

[Silellak]

Like, you can't just swing your weapon if there's no one to hit, therefore the number of uses required to level doesn't need to be insanely high because you won't be spamming them while walkiing around.

I don't remember a single use-based game that allowed to grind weaponskills with no enemies around.

Ultima 8. Though, in that case, it may've been the strength attribute rather than a weapon skill. Same idea, though.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

but it leads to powergaming

You say it like it's something bad.

I understand some people like it (for the feeling of accomplishment) , just like there are people that like characters proficient with extremely specific skills, and people that like <s>larping</s> roleplaying, etc. I don't like it because for me a game should become harder as you progress, not get easier (when you start the game, you're weak and have no idea what to do....once you're strong, the game usually don't keeps up with your power AND your metagaming knowledge, and becomes a cakewalk, which is why I sometimes lose interest in ). I hate one-hitting enemies, feels like I'm the fucking chosen one.

I don't remember a single use-based game that allowed to grind weaponskills with no enemies around.

Dunno about the names, but I do remember playing games like this. Might not have been rpgs, though. And I suppose it's not about enemy presence checks being hard to implement, just design choice.

 

[zenbitz]

Now, nor do I remember a single use-based game that didn't encourage using a worst rusty bent spoon for a weapon to ensure more strikes per encounter and thus more skill increase points or attempts.

Since the (programatical/game mechanics) solutions to these "problems" of use-based skill systems are trivially avoidable, one can ONLY conclude that game developers don't care.

My friend who worked at Maxis and has 15 years in the industry says that "they want us to take out Grinding, but when we do, they say there's nothing to do".

 

[Claw]

Now, nor do I remember a single use-based game that didn't encourage using a worst rusty bent spoon for a weapon to ensure more strikes per encounter and thus more skill increase points or attempts.

Anecdotal evidence? Lame.

The question isn't if a game did it well, but if a game could do it well.
Let's take your example; i.e. using a weak weapon to prolong combat as a way to maximize experience gain. Any idea how to limit this problem? Preferably a simple method?

 

[DraQ]

Now, nor do I remember a single use-based game that didn't encourage using a worst rusty bent spoon for a weapon to ensure more strikes per encounter and thus more skill increase points or attempts.

Since the (programatical/game mechanics) solutions to these "problems" of use-based skill systems are trivially avoidable, one can ONLY conclude that game developers don't care.

My friend who worked at Maxis and has 15 years in the industry says that "they want us to take out Grinding, but when we do, they say there's nothing to do".

Smart individual would take hint and make the game less boring.

 

[DraQ]

Now, nor do I remember a single use-based game that didn't encourage using a worst rusty bent spoon for a weapon to ensure more strikes per encounter and thus more skill increase points or attempts.

Anecdotal evidence? Lame.

The question isn't if a game did it well, but if a game could do it well.
Let's take your example; i.e. using a weak weapon to prolong combat as a way to maximize experience gain. Any idea how to limit this problem? Preferably a simple method?

If you are so good that you can allow yourself to use nerf weapon in mortal combat, you won't get any measurable experience even if you fight long enough for your character to drop unconscious from the lack of sleep alone, not to mention combat fatigue.

If you aren't that good, you get raped by better equipped opponent.

If it isn't mortal combat you take part in, then both parties are expected to use nerf weapons to avoid accidental injury or death, don't they?

 

[mondblut]

Anecdotal evidence? Lame.

A common stratagem since as early as Daggerfall, and up until now.

The question isn't if a game did it well, but if a game could do it well.

*Any* game can do absolutely *anything* well, given time. The question is how many manhours (=budget) will it consume, and whether said budget will get at least even at the end. The ideal RPG isn't being made not because designers and programmers are stupid and unprofessional, but because it is economically inefficient. I.e. its budget would far surpass the most optimistic sales. Blame the consumer

Let's take your example; i.e. using a weak weapon to prolong combat as a way to maximize experience gain. Any idea how to limit this problem? Preferably a simple method?

Simplest method is to cap increase points/attempts per every hostile encountered, tying it to its level/hd/cr/whatever is used as a relative measure of its power. So a 1HD goblin will "give", say, a maximum of 2 attempts no matter whether you beheaded him in one stroke of a vorpal sword, or scarred him with a rusty fork into fatal bloodloss. Unless the cap is really low, weakest weapons will still have a bit of an advantage over strongest ones in terms of total xp gain, but not nearly enough to justify nerfing oneself throughout the game.