How restrictive do you like RPGs?
 

As I've mentioned a couple times already, I'm developing an RPG system. There are many skills, and one of the dilemmas I've been facing during playtesting is deciding on how restrictive the system should be in giving player's points.

My current set-up forces players to specialize in several skills, and there's no room to respecialize mid-game. Jack-of-all-trade builds are impossible. I can't make up my mind whether I like this approach, or if I should give players more freedom.

How restrictive do you guys think an RPG system should be?

I'm open to everything.
What I do hate is when a game has jack of all trades who's master of everything (Skyrim). If there is jack of all trades, well, disallow top skills for that one!

Unless ofc you're making Xena the game. She has many skills. :)

No respec can certainly work but that means the player can't make up for your mistakes. If you make a swimming skill then don't get around to making any good places to use it (yes, I'm looking at you Two Worlds), the players are going to waste points on it and be stuck playing a game that's harder than it should be. You'll either need to make it very clear exactly how it all works or you'll have to make sure every skill combination works well in the game if you've got no respec.

Agreeing with joxer here. The worst is when you're a master of everything, and it's also bad when you're a mishmash of too many skills and abilities at once. That lessens your character's "personality". Jack of all trades can be good but it should still maintain character/class identity.

If jack-of-all-trades can't finish the game, then perhaps you should use classes. Let player choose different specializations within the class but at least you can be sure that all of them are viable. Either that or do allow respecialization in one way or another.

I like restrictive as long as it isn't rail roaded. The only thing worse than a master of everything like Skyrim is strictly linear progression.

All skills are viable. There's just so many that spreading them out too much makes all of them useless. A class system would be even more restrictive, so I wont consider it.

As long as how many points to invest in a skill to be reasonably competent is made clear in the game I'm fine with this. For instance if my party enters a new area and finds a safe with a difficulty 3 lock, I know I have to invest at least 4 points in lockpicking for my rogue if I want the goodies.

I like percentile-based skill systems for this, it's very intuitive if done right (as in, not like Fallout 1/2, where reaching 100% in a ranged weapon skill is just the beginning of the fun but it's not very well communicated to the player).

The problem with pure RNG based systems is that it doesn't make sense if someone with level 1 safecracking can break into a bank vault.

My system combines difficulty levels with RNG. You wont be able to pass certain skill checks until you have a high enough skill level, but every subsequent level increases your chances until you have a 100% success rate.

This is so very true. People make mistakes (which includes both gamers and devs), so some form of respec should always be there. Make it expensive if you want to avoid that this is exploited (e.g., to avoid that people skill into lockpicking before cracking the lock, then respec).

I personally believe having some limited respects available to the players is a good thing. It should certainly have a cost attached, as well as a limited amount of uses. It can help correct early mistakes, and permit folks to try out different builds along the way without crushing the games' overall integrity.

In German language, there's a term for … distributing skill points not right, it is called the "Verskillen", a possible English translation could be perhaps the "Wrongskilling".
I think this term became popular with Blizzard's Action-RPGs.

What I hate, purely personally, is just that : Not knowing at the beginning of the game which skil points I MUST put into THESE slots so that I will be able to beat the end bosses.

What I mean is this : Playing through the game, and - of course, because I just can't look into the future - NOT be able to know what skill points I must put where … And because of that, during play, I'm happily distributing my skill points where I think it will make sense …

One thing I often find is that I want to play indeed a "jack of all trades", and still be able to beat the last bosses or so. But that's just my personal play style. I just want to be able to do everything, or, at least, of everything a litle bit.
I just hate to be forced to specialize in / on something, but if the game allows me no choice, I will do so - as long as the game gives me hints what to use if I want to be able to beat the last bosses.

But what I really don't want is to distribute my skill points into fields which I think might be useful (or multi-classing), which in the end will make me not able to beat the last bosses.
Like "ooops, I need to go back to that savegame I created 10 days ago because i must distribute my skill points anew / differently".

Is there a word in German to describe how you guys have a word for everything? :p

When I said respecialize, I meant that you couldn't change the direction of your skills mid-game. Not respec in a videogame sense.

I don't believe in respecs in the videogame sense because it undermines the characters identity. RPGs to me are about roleplaying, and if you can completely rewrite your character mid-game it defeats the purpose.

Then you'll need to go the other route and make it hard to mess up. That can certainly be done, too.
Linguisticlycompleten ;)

:lol:

We just invent word as we need them - I'm sure *any* language does that !

What I'm a bit jealous about is the ability of the English language to make a name out of everything … My very first example of that was "Snowy" The Snowman - at school, I was an early teenager. ;)
I invented that name at school, learning English, then. ;)