1) Why do consequences determine roleplaying, So me wanting to roleplay as abraham Lincoln and kill every one in the wastes is wrong?

Please, explain, I always though and believed that playing a RPG meant customizing the actions and your characters personality instead of following the set-game-character. I was under the impression that this meant doing a role you wanted to. Consequences are fun but It's somehow fun to enjoy doing something that would would never be able to do in any other atmosphere?

2) I meant that Fallout 3 lets you expiernce the game-world more then the others, I didn't mean to imply that Fallouts were linear, only the RPGs of that generation. outside of missions, the origionals didnn't allow an large amount of game-world variation, missions were great but you couldn't just simply decide to travel the wastes for hundreds of game hours for days straight with not apparent objective, just searching every area and simply standing on a hill listening to the sound of the wind as you look out across the beautiful graphically-amazing wasteland. Outside of missions I could never bring myself to enoying the wastes when in Fallout 3 I could do it for hundreds of hours.

3) No, im not trying to imply there linear-mission wise, but there limited in gameplay when missions run out, after leveling and the non-linear, fun missions there isnt much to do in a random-generated world, I just could never enjoy playing them after those ran out.

I love them all, but im simply trying to comunicate that I don't think an overly complicated SPECIAL system would fit in a game-were your choices and actions determine your character more then stats.



I have never stated Bethesda has made a better SPECIAL system, actually I think the opposite, but I dont think special determines your character as much as your actions in Fallout 3, its not the origionals, it a different game with a different system, SPECIAL of Black Isles can't fit into a game where actions determine more then stats.

And I never meant to imply that Fallout 3 is better because it sold more, only that a turn-based game wouldn't have, it would have survived, I would have played it, but it wouldn't have sold as much, does this mean turn-based are worse, no, only the game-market doesn't want these games anymore, it was only logical that Bethesda change Fallout to something they knew how to do and it has become hugely succesful becasue of it, has it vastly outsold ther origionals, yes, is it a better game, no, are the origionals better, no, are each there own game, yes. Has Fallout 3 revitalized a dieing francish, yes, If you can truly, deep down inside, agrue that had Interplay taken Fallout to the grave with it, that Fallout would still be alive in 5 years instead of the huge amount of fans now flocking to it, I will happily declare that Fallout 3 is the worst game every, but as long asd Fallout 3 has saved one of the greatest game series of american RPGs and games in general, then it certainly fits into the Fallout series.

I think I grok what you're getting at but:

I don't see how stat-based factors can't work in FO3-type game.

Let's take the removal of STR prerequisites for weapons (needing a certain level of STR to wield the heavier weapons without incurring a penalty.) I don't see how that intrinsically adds to the roleplaying possibilities in FO3 over the older games because of that mechanic. Given, it offers the player a wider range of choices. But even with the STR penalty, you still have that full range of options, you just need to have a sufficient STR. If you're making a character that's going to be a big hulking guy wandering around unleashing Fat Man hell, then I don't think picking a high STR for that character would have been out of the question.

There's even the option of playing a weaker type of character with a low STR, but who is able to overcome those penalties by focusing more on their appropriate skills. In both cases, the STR attribute is a vital defining factor for the character. I would consider deciding on those factors to be just as important on the quality of roleplaying and "immersiveness" as the other choices you can make throughout the actual game. If I'm going to spend a degree of time and put some real thought into the type of character I'm going to roleplay, and define them by their actions - then I'm going to spend just as much time deciding what stats best fit that type of character and defining them that way.

It's just another tool. I don't see how the two are somehow diametrically opposed, is all. I don't see how stat-based character wouldn't be able to work in FO3-type game, as opposed to actually complementing the focus on defining your character by their actions (something I would actually FO3 doesn't particularly shine on either seeing as the game world proper doesn't particularly care about how you approach your objectives beyond their effect on your Karma level. But that's a discussion for another thread...)

I still don't buy that. That's basically how Bioware started out, and they're doing fine. Neverwinter Nights was heavy with the rules, and it worked, and sold well enough. Dragon Age sounds like it will be similar, complex enough that they're going to be selling a pen and paper version of Dragon Age. In terms of rules complexity, I still point to WoW as an example of something that requires a lot of knowledge of how the game works, yet sells incredibly well. Considering the different ways one can spread their talent points out, there are a lot of combinations. Personally, I don't care for those, but I still say it has a lot of merit for this discussion. And that's not even bringing the vast list of items the game has. So complexity doesn't chase customers off.



The car anology supports the case of niche markets being viable more then it supports that niche markets are not. Noone needs a Ferrari. It's cheaper to get a Focus. So why would anyone want to buy a Ferrari? Reasons aside, there's enough who DO buy them to support their market. Just change the Focus into mainsteam gaming, and the Ferrari to Roleplaying games, and it makes sense, save that RPGs don't need to cost huge amounts of money like said Ferrari

So, basically, I'm saying there's no reason why the RPG niche cannot be filled, just that there's few willing to do it.



And if I want to play a new Fallout story? I really don't have any options for that, now do I? Just Fallout 3. Which I'm very disappointed with.



Consquences are very important to roleplaying. It gives your chocies weight.

Choosing to be "Abraham Lincoln" is weightless. That choice has no meaning in game, and why would it? Every character in Fallout 3 is a member of Vault 101, not a long dead president. Sure, you could model your actions based on him, but your character would never BE him. But even then, Bethesda has a very limited scope on what actions you can take that will have weight.

This is something that JRPG developers have not figured out. If you seek to make a great roleplaying game, your choices MUST have weight. They MUST have consquences. Otherwise, what is the point?

I agree with you, and you speak many good points, and I wish that many of the old aspects of the origionals were implemented, but I was never arguing that certain specifics of the old SPECIAL can't be used in Fallout 3, I actually truly wished that Sta and SPECIAL limitaions determined what weapons you could utilize. I was only trying to convye that I felt that SPECIAL shouldn't be the overall, most imporatnat aspect of the game as they were in Fallout 1 and 2, where changing strength from 5 to 7 completely changed your approach to the game.

Only that the game itself determines how you play and not stats, I'm not sure if I could explain this in a better way, but I feel SPECIAL should take a backseat to the actual worldspace, I fully believe that 7 shouldn't have been the limit to unique interactions in Fallout 3 and I wish that if you had a 10 in lets say Intelligence you get special dialouge and tuly worthwhile asects of the game such as special missions or aspects of missions, but I also think that it shouldn't completely determine how your player is adept at the game, only providing incentive for a character to roleplay as that, such as a intelligent person who can complete a mission uniquely instead of simply having a speech check, special perk, or stat check that gives an identical outcome.

But I stand by my point that I feel how you play should determine more then your stats, but I want SPECIAL to be improved to a point where there are truly unique aspects to special and not only a jack-of all-trades.

But I have never been disappointed by the new SPECIAL system as it fits the system of how Fallout 3 is played.

On a side note I would have to say you are a very intellictual indivdual and interesting person to hold a respectable debate with. This has been one of the more enjoyable debates I have had with a fellow player in a while (As typically most refuse to concede a point or use intelligent points to argue there intrests). Goodnight.

I think that points to a major divide in what people look for in a roleplaying game. Some people like to have the ability to imagine their characters as whatever they want without any sort of restrictions put on that range of what's available to them. That's what they call "immersion."

Others appear to be more focused on the ways in which the game world responds to what choices you have made as that character. The level to which the game responds to what limited choices you have at your disposal is what they consider "immersiveness."

I don't think either viewpoint is inherently right or wrong. But what you do see with FO3 is that it's drawn together both "types" of roleplayers; and they rarely seem to see eye to eye.

yes that it something I understand, but what if in one of my 3 dozen playthroughs of Fallout 1, 2, and 3 I just wanted to do something that had nothing to do with advancing the main-story. If I want to be a junkie, psycho, pyro, etc, I can do that in all the games and they each had consequences to the advancement of the game, but what if I just wanted to create a character that had absouletely nothing to do with missions, NPCs or anything else and just wanted to live in some hovel in the wastes being whatever I wanted, Fallout 1 an 2 never gave me the oppurtunity, while in Fallout 3 I can believe my player has lost his mind reading histroy books in the Vault, and found Lincolns outfit in the Museum of Histroy, I take over the Lincoln Memorial and roam the wastes as a psychopath, I simply can't do that kind of Roleplaying in the origionals, thats what I meant, you simply just cant pick up the controller and do jack [censored] for 100 hours doimg the most random, unimportant, crazy-fun stuff in the old ones.

Are they worse for it, no, but its something I could spend hundreds of hours exploring every are of the games in hundreds of ways, saving, or slaving, raiding, or helping, in any way I want with no consequence to the MQ. Thats what Bethesda games are about, its more about what you wnat to do in the game-world then would is expected of you to do, Fallout 1 and 2 lacked the ability to enjoy just random nothingness because they were so fully based around their missions, I loved them back then but the oppurtunity to do whatever I want is just to much to overlook.

Ah, back to the clash with the virtual LARPers.

There's alot to sift through >_< People really need to start summarising

This has to be the hundredth time this topic has come up anyone who thinks this special is worse either never played the originals or is
Practicing mental gymnastics

Ah, but this is where your understanding has failed. I said choices must have consquences for a roleplaying game to be great.

Never once did I mention the main story. Something like what I speak of requires very talented writers, who can think outside of the box. Which is to give every choice weight through consquences.

An example of this would be Bring Down the Sky, Mass Effects download content. They give you a no win situation. You have to decide if the mission is worth of the cost or not. I'm hoping that Mass Effect 2 will expand on that sidestory. Lets imagine what Fallout 3 COULD have done.

Let's take Megaton. Everyone knows you are given the choice to blow it up. But what if Burke had something that you needed, that would have made the effort of finding your father extremely easy. He could have said "I know exactly where he is, and you'll never find him unless you help me." He would be lying, as you can, with more work and difficulty, follow dad's footsteps. But now, you have a choice of 1) an extremely easy route, but with a massive cost, or 2) a harder route, but one that doesn't force you to murder an entire town in a blink of an eye.

That doesn't require a lot of rewriting, and very little adding to the game, but it gives your choice to destroy Megaton much more weight, because you're no longer doing it just for money, you're doing it because you're seeking your father. The impact is greater. If people want nothing to do with the main story, then it could be something else that aids the player greatly, to the point that they have to decide if mass murder is worth it. A gain that is unique, and would be lost forever if they do not take that opportunity. The goal is to make you choose an easy, but evil path, versus a harder, but compassionate path.

There are not enough consquences in Fallout 3, to make people seriously think about their actions.



Why would you want to do that? Living in a hovel? There's no benefit in doing that. The point of playing the game is to be part of the gameworld, not to play Sims in a broken down house while ignoring the world. The only use that such a hovel would have is to store excess loot, and in Fallout 1/2, you just put items in the container and walked away. That's exactly what I used the homes for in Fallout 3. Safe storage, although I don't think many containers in Fallout 3 actually respawn, so even that function of the home is lost.

Gameplay wise, there is no benefit to pretend your characters 'lost their mind'. The game never acknowledges it. It's never reflected in the dialogue. You say Fallout 3 lets you do this, but it really doesn't. You're only pretending that it does, while that pretending has no effect on the game. All of the things you could be in the other Fallouts mattered, because they had an impact on the game. Could they have been expanded? Easily. The karmaic perks were perfect for that, especially in Fallout 2. Slaver? People reacted to it. Child killer? People racted to it. Grave Digger? You get the picture. Fallout 3 has...none of that. Big steps backwards there.

Fallout was never about doing random, unimportant, crazy 'fun' stuff in the wasteland. It was about having your actions matter. Fallout 3 lessened this greatly, no matter how much you pretend that you're Abraham Lincoln.

(Just quoting you to reflect my response, not necessarily responding to you, here.)

I can understand people having fun with the "free-form" sort of roleplay. It's kind of an alien concept to me (I go the other way and define my character by how the game responds to me, sort of building my character's background as the game progresses and allows me to fill in details - sort of the way a movie reveals a character gradually through their reactions to events.) But if you're having fun playing the game, I can't say as how you're doing it "wrong." I don't really understand trying to pretend you're an Enclave soldier in a game that tells you at the very beginning that you're an exiled Vault Dweller in search of his/her father - but it seems to be quite popular to do so and more power to you if that's what you're into. Some people juggle geese, after all.

I can also see how FO3 expands on that sort of playstyle over Fallout 1 and 2. I would imagine it's still quite possible to do so in the original games, but required more imagination on the part of the player, by virtue of it's interface and how the game was presented. I'd assume it's not as easy to do this free-form stuff with an isometric tile-based game. So while I can see the "improvements" in FO3 in this aspect (and even with my own playstyle preferences I enjoy the... well, "immersiveness" of FO3's wasteland and presentation style,) I don't see how the SPECIAL system in this incarnation is particularly well served by all of this.

I mean, that's what we're talking about in this thread. If the idea is to define your character by their actions and not their stats - then even then I don't see how the system does the game justice in this game. If that's what the aim is - to provide the player a full range of options at every turn - then we'd do just as well without Attributes at all. Just rely on skills to define your character's level of improvement. Or simplify things further and just have player levels and possibly some Perks to select from, with successive levels providing bonuses to all types of combat equally, and things like speech checks, lockpicks, and terminals requiring minimum character levels. It's not like there haven't been quality RPGs that work like that. I wouldn't even say it'd inherently be a bad thing.

The system should fit the game, I think. That's kind of what stats in an RPG do - they tell you what your character can and can't do. If the idea is to allow your character to do everything, then I don't see as how you really need them.

People should just accept that they have different takes on what constitutes an RPG and move on.

I don't see how this is held back in the originals. You could ignore you quest all you want. You will fail the quests but thats the conceqences you face for abandoning your vault/village.

Never thought of Fallout 3 as an RPG, its Action Adventure plain and simple.
Thus the action comes first, then the adventure. S.P.E.C.I.A.L. is just detail in this game.

The most frustrating aspect of this argument for me is that EVERYONE want character actions to impact the world. It's a given, and it's not a matter of contention.

But what some folks don't understand is that there can be more to a game than that. Blowing up Megaton drastically changes the game, not only because of how the game branches, but because when I do blow up Megaton, it changes the way I feel about my character, and changes gameplay that way.

I did a run through roleplaying as a scavenger, using wastelander clothing and raider armor. Never touched the main quest. Just tried to make it out there with only common weapons and qquipment...pistols, hunting rifles, assault rifles. Not only was it more challenging tactically...I was forced to avoid the larger combats...but it was substantially more immersive. Talk about choices and consequences: Those raider have the hunting rifles I need to fix mine...lots of ammo too, but thee are at least 5 of them, and I only have 3 stimpacks, 30 rounds of assorted ammo, and mostly broken weapons. is it worth the risk?

Roleplay NOT ONLY requires choices and consequences, it also requires imagination, something sorely lacking in the world these days. maybe mine was the last generation that didn't grow up parked in front of a tv or console getting spoonfed media, with imagination not required.

It is, which is quite unfortunate.

I understand your point and respect it, but Fallout was never meant to be that type of game. Even when I play TES games I don't play them like that, not because I don't have imagination, but because role playing something like a wandering lunatic and talking to myself doesn't interest me. When I play an RPG I prefer to experience the story and side quests, what separates Bethesda's games from everyone else's for me is the ability to explore a detailed game world - not role playing a a ranger wandering the wilds and living off of gathered fruits and vegetables. I like to explore, so that's what draws me to The Elder Scrolls. I am aware that the ability to role play anything you want is a staple in TES and I respect that and people who choose to do so, but this brings me to my next point.

Trying to turn an installment of the MAIN Fallout series into something it's not was a big mistake on Bethesda's part I feel, they should have saved what became Fallout 3 for a spin off and let someone who knows what the hell they're doing (like Obsidian) develop Fallout 3. I would have played Fallout 3 and would have had far less complaints if it were Fallout: D.C, but in a mainstream Fallout game I expect stats that matter and at least some relevance to the first two games. Van Buren was going to be related to the first two games even though your character wasn't at all related to the Vault Dweller from the original Fallout like the Chosen One from Fallout 2 was. The events in Van Buren were tied to the events in the first two installments. Choices & consequences is nice too of course, but I didn't find them to be as present in the first two games as a lot people here seem to be implying.

That is kind of at the heart of it, isn't it?

There's all these fans that have been hoping for a well, "faithful" (for lack of a better word) continuation of the Fallout series, with all the things we enjoyed about those games. The things is, we're still hoping for that hypothetical game. That Bethesda decided to title this game Fallout 3 instead of billing it as a spin-off or spiritual successor, lessens the chances that we're ever going to see something like what we'd been envisioning as the next Fallout sequel for over a decade now. Ironically now, our best hope for what we're actually looking for is for some other company (or possibly Bethesda, but that doesn't seem likely) to make a spin-off of the main series that actually retains alot of what made us fall in love with the game.

It's not that Fallout 3 is a bad game, or that many of us can't enjoy it for what it is and take it on it's own merits. It's more of what that game represents for our chances of finally getting the game we've really been wanting all along. If this game were a spin-off, I'd be able to say "hey, it's not quite my cup of tea, but it's still a fun little game for what it's trying to do." Since it apparently is the direction the series will be going from now on (and even the spin-offs look like they're going to be the same game, just in a different place)- the best some of us can do is hope that the next game tries to incorporate some of the more important features of the old games.

In other words, there's a big Fallout-shaped hole in my heart, and as fun as Fallout 3 is - it really doesn't seem to fill it. (And yes - of course no game at this point probably could have, but it also could have fit a bit better, too.)

Even with all that said, I don't really think the ruleset in Fallout 3 quite does it justice. They basically have made a completely different system and named it SPECIAL. Since this is their first time out with this new system (SPECIAL B, let's say,) it's sort of like playing the first edition of an indie tabletop roleplaying game. It just isn't as refined as it's going to get later on, at best. I don't think what they have going is fundamentally flawed, but there are some obvious clues that it's in need of serious improvement (the level cap complaints, for one - how easy it is to inadvertently max out so many skills without trying, etc.)

Some of the names of the stats just don't seem (to me) to fit what they do in-game anymore, either. Agility, for example - in FO3 it your character's ability to focus and make successive aimed shots, and how often you can do so. "Agility" in the normal definition of the word, doesn't seem to really apply. Just because I can do cartwheels and walk a tightrope has little to do with my ability to aim a weapon at some guy's head. Maybe a better name would be Focus, or Reflexes or something (small point, but come on - the name of the Attribute is supposed to imply what effect that has in the game.)

Strength is now predominantly for determining your carry weight (and seems to have a minor impact on your close range damage - though I might be wrong, haven't played a melee character yet.) You could probably do as well to combine Strength and Endurance and just call it Physique or Toughness or something. Or even Endurance or Stamina (since carry weight sort of implies that you can carry that weight indefinately - in many systems it's actually your Endurance or equivalent that determines that anyway.) I mean, Bethesda did that with alot of the older skills (and I actually like what they did there for the most part.) I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing for the Attributes (unless it's somehow so terribly important to keep the SPECIAL name...)

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Well, yeah, but when said imagination outstrips, and goes wildly far beyond the scope of the game, the game has little to do with it, and the point is lost. I can pretend that my character is crazy and thinks he's an alien, but the game doesn't stimulate that imagination in any shape or form, and has no impact on the game itself. So why do that? I play a game to experience it's reality, not to pretend there is stuff there that is not. It's about the context the game supplies you with.

If I pretend my character is mad that the Masters army had killed my dog, and set out to utterly crush him, by destroying his dreams, rather then destroying him, that fits the context of the game. It doesn't really fit the dialogue, true, but setting wise, it works.

But pretending that your character is crazy and thinks he's an alien, that doesn't fit the context the game gives you, and is not supported by the game itself.

Basically, I roleplay my characters inner monologue, and pick the dialogue options that best fit that monologue. Avenging my dog fits. Thinking I'm crazy does not.



I would say it is. I mean, if you combined two of those stats, you're down to 6 stats, and can't spell SPECIAL anymore . I still think there was little they needed to do with the core mechanics, that they could have been incorporated into Bethesda's FPSRPG style with ease.

I just finished a playthrough of Fallout 1 last night. If there's something I would change with it, it would be to expand the Speach skill. We have 6 different skills for combat, but only 1 for dialogue. Why not have it split into Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, much like D&D 3rd Edition did?

I'm with you. But I also think that if Bethesda doesn't want to stick with the original formula (or at least improve on it, since it's not like SPECIAL had no room for improvement in the first place, of course) then the lesser of two evils, in my mind, would have been to come up with something that adequately supports the playstyle they were going for. Rather than trying to get a square peg into a round hole. I mean, the Elder Scrolls system works just fine for what it's trying to do. It might not work as well in a Fallout 1-type playstyle, but it does a very good job for the sort of playstyle you find in Elder Scrolls. FO3's system I don't think fits the role of either type of game as well as it could.

If you're not going to stick with the original formula as a base for the system, then you'd really be better off just coming up with something entirely different. Figure out how you want to differentiate the character's stats, and then pick Attributes that apply to that. Rather than start with the Attributes and then try to cram them into definitions that no longer fit as well. Becuase the "SPECIAL" system in FO3 really isn't the same system you had in the older games. (Barring any value judgements - it's just true. It's not the same system, regardless of what you decide to call it. A ruleset is about more than just picking attributes that cleverly manage to spell a name, after all. )

I've often thought that what Fallout needed was some sort of cascade skill system. Like having Small Guns and Big Guns, etc grouped into one Primary skill, with the ability to select a specialty within that cascade. Because realistically someone who's a master with a rifle is going to at least know which end of a pistol to point at his target. You could do the same for the Speech skill. Cascading it down to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate with the option to either expand all 3 at an equal rate or pick a specialty within that list.

Erm...the endings you received were directly related to what you did during the game (usually on a town by town basis)...and there were definite consequences for in game decisions, such as: sending the water merchants to Vault 13 in order to extend your time limit. I think what obscured some of these decisions was that they weren't necessarily tied to quests, such as:

I don't consider a few ending slides real c&c, only what happens in game. There's very little consequences to your actions during the actual gameplay.

Fair enough...how about becoming a slaver? Would you include choices made at character creation? I'll agree that nearly all the c&c was compartmentalized on a town by town basis...but your status within each town could change greatly depending on what you did while you were there. FO 2 even had a status menu for keeping track of your reputation for each town you visted

That was fine for the quest hub towns. We don't really have quest hubs in FO3...it's more of a freeform game.

I didn't say that the games had no c&c, but I think people claim they have more than they really did. They have more than Fallout 3 certainly, as the only real choice & consequence in Fallout 3 is whether you blow up Megaton or not and who comes after you for your decision.