Problem with making locks random chance is then someone can just save and reload whenever it breaks, therefore effectively you can have a 100% chance to break any lock. I think the multiple mini-game system that James Mifsud mentioned would be cool. What should be done however is have no 'Skill requirement' for locks, but instead just make the minigame get harder or easier depending on the difficulty of the lock versus the skill level of the player. If you have a really low skill and are against a very hard lock than you may end up having little room for error at all, the bobbypin for example might break instantly if it's even more than a few pixels off.

That is already the case with lockpicking minigame as well as terminal hacking. You jam the lock or don't get the right passworld, just reload.

You can do the samething in Fallout and Fallout 2 as well as Tactics. Sure you might get lucky but the odds are you will be reloading over and over again for hours, if your skill is to low. So if someone wants to spend hours doing that, let them. Everytime it will be a very small change. It is not like everytime they reload it brings them one step closer. Its the same odds every time.

The mini lockpicking in Fallout 3 and New Vegas is a joke. I always end up with hundreds if not thousands of boby pins.

Its worse: You get three attempts and all you need do is step away after two if you don't get it; then repeat (indefinitely, and with only one pick).

** It is also the case that you can usually pick most locks (in RL) if you are willing to spend the time... The skill is to reliably pick them with ease. if you are exploring an abandoned shack with a safe or a locker then you could conceivably spend all day on it if you wished.

I do this all the time, it's part of the reason why the speech skill is useless in fallout 3 as I can just save before any convo and save and reload as much as I need to. Effectively the chances of success are 100% with this method, but making it actually skill-based difficulty where the lockpicking skill makes it easier can help a bit. By the way, if it's effectively 100% why bother having lock checks at all?

Because (if implemented correctly) its not always 100%. A weighted check on a difficult lock could drop the PC's chances into the negative.

** If RPG designers would only implement temp storage in RAM that was independent of a save file, the problem might be a lot less. An RPG could simply pre-generate a virtual dice result table upon running the game; (like 256 values), and kept it in RAM, incrementing to the next result any time the game needed a value, and decremented to the previous result every time the same save was reloaded without exiting the program. The cynical dev' could even hash check the table and put the result in the save game. At use of the last value, it generates a new list.

Imo fallout has already implemented a system for low weapon skill pretty well in FO3 and FO:NV. It's more plausible in the sense that you cans till use those weapons, but not having the requisite level of skill makes them pretty rubbish for you in terms of accuracy and IIRC condition deterioration. With melee weapons, it obviously wouldn't really be an issue as somebody unskilled but carrying a bat will still have a very good chance of wasting someone with no bat.

As far as lockpicking goes, I like the minigame, but it needs to be a lot harder when your skill level is too low, as in even testing the tension of the lock would break your pick instantly if its in the wrong place. I would like a compromise between Skyrim and Fallout 3/nV's system; where you can attempt locks a certain amount above your skill level, but over that limit locks become unattemptable. So in Skyrim for example you could attempt up to adept locks if your skill level was novice, but not above that, and any lock above your skill level would be disproportionately harder to open. Also, picks should be less obtainable.
However, I would also like the ability to destroy the lock with force, with a high chance of damaging the contents.

Not if the victim was skilled in HtH combat; They would take the bat from them... might even beat them a few times with it.

One can deliberately break a bobby-bin (with deliberate back & forth bending effort and intention), but I have never seen a bobby-pin just break due to simple handling and light duty usage (that includes trying to open locks with it) ~not ever; (have you?). :shrug:

If I were to redesign the lockpick minigame (myself), I would have Bobby-pins be an option in lieu of real a lockpick (and minus the silly screwdriver) ~but their use would come at a penalty (for using a makeshift tool instead of a lockpick). I would put commercial lock picks in the game (sometimes scaveng-able an old locksmith shop). Lock picks would improve the likelyhood of success, and drop the chance of a jam to nil (possible only on a critical failure). I'd add auto pick guns as well; and electronic breaking devices for electronic locks; (and add several variant styles of locks).

A rare occurence seeing as even the military in many countries now are taught a watered-down version of MMA, and anyone claiming to train weapon disarms is unable to do so under full contact situations for obvious reasons. Taking a bat from someone is more to do with confidence than h2h skill, and if the guy wielding the bat has bad intent and the room to swing it you're looking for a hiding.


I wasn't going for realism with the bobby pin breaking, I was unaware that was supposed to be the basis of the idea; my premise was simply that it should be disproportionately difficult if you try to unlock something above your skill level, while still allowing you to try.

If by 'better' you mean 'boring time-eater' I agree.

Lol and the minigames you have in FO3 and NV isn't? XD

They're not hugely exciting, but they also eat little time. You've got too much time on your hands if you look forward to games that make you try locks 20 straight times.

First: Lockpoicking in the Orginals isn't a minigame

Second: No one is making you try 20 times in a row or more. There is no "must unlock this to finish the level area."

Third: It makes it so lockpicking is a real skill. Not just something that lets you play a minigame that doesn't require any skill at all.

Fourth: The Originals had lockpicking kits and devices.

Its not about that.. Its about whether or not the PC is capable of it (ever). If it takes 20 attempts and they actually succeed, then it took them awhile due to lack of skill
(or they had a lucky or unlucky fluke ~which can happen in RL too :chaos:); any less skill and they should never have succeeded at all. :shrug:

It (the 20 times thing) probably reflects what really happens. If you're crap at fixing locks unless you seriously screw it up you can keep trying to line up those tumblers as long as you like.

If it's a negative percentage than why not just make a requirement that you need X level of lock picking skill to open? The problem with your guy's idea is that with a % it either acts as a 100% with save scumming, or a 'you require X lock picking skill' which makes the percentage redundant anyway.

If the lock has a base difficulty penalty (subtracted from the PC's Lock picking ability), it could make their (lets say 50/50) chance a lot less, but their luck stat could make it more (or even less!) than expected depending on what it was. The (current) problem with minimum ranks is that the PC cannot attempt to open the lock if they wish to unless their rank is sufficient; that's counter to reality as anyone can attempt to pick a lock regardless of skill ~and might even open it (though doubtless a novice could do that twice on command).

** Also if the player wants the PC to try it until they get it open ~They cannot even attempt it once under the minimum rank system. As for save scumming... IMO "so what?", folks will save scum if they wish to for whatever reason they choose (or none at all). The percentage system enables realistic simulation, and at the same time encourages those who just cannot accept a failure... to reload. :shrug:

The alternative is (currently) a system that ensures zero chance at failure ~intended to discourage save-scumming. Players are told in advance that they cannot open the lock no matter what (its as bad as finding crates labeled 'Empty'). When the game does let you attempt to pick locks, all that is required is one pick and the patience to only make two attempts before exiting the minigame and attempting it again. (How is that different than save-scumming ~IMO its worse, you do not even have to reload).

If we have minimum requirements why bother with a random chance mechanic?

If we have quick save and quick load why bother with a random chance mechanic?


A percentage system doesn't simulate realism at all, all it does is make it luck-based rather than skill based. I don't even put any points into speech usually because I can simply save and reload as much as I need to get past any speech checks in fallout 3. Whilst in Fallout: NV there was a requirement for it that you can't 'cheat' via the save system.



What I want is a lock picking system with no minimum requirements, but difficulty scaling up depending on the lock's difficulty, and scaling down the higher the user's skill is. No luck mechanics, no arbitrary limitations.

That's exactly what you have in Skyrim and Oblivion. What need is there for a separate skill anymore in that system when you can master it with 1 in the skill - and regardless of the skill, the difficulty goes up per higher level lock (as you say you want it)?

Isn't that what happens when you have high skill in the originals? you have high skill easy locks are easy and so forth?

Because you could make the game difficult enough that without a decent lockpick skill or an enormous amount of perseverance that you cannot get past most locks. Eg using the fallout 3 lock-pick minigame it could require pixel perfect alignment on the hardest lock with a very low skill or it would break instantly.