To me this is the key point. RPGs are about developing a character and what he can do and achieve is based upon the *character's skill*, *not* the player's skill. If it is up to player skill, then it is no longer a RPG but an shooter/action/adventure game.

that's what I meant, you was pointing to yourselve/your character, sorry should of typed it better.

that could be true but will see, as is with what we've seen it may point to that but we'll have to see more. I hope like you it isn't mood choices but on the other hand that's a fallout specialty it was in fallout 3 & nv the whole nice, mean & smartmouth answers.

Special Stats are having a greater impact over game play than in either F3 or FONV and are a long running wishlist item for Fallout players.

I think for the first time, we will see real differences between character with very different stats.

Be it, a strong character hitting harder in hand to hand, a smart character leveling up faster, or an agile character being better at sneaking and having more action points.

Someone mentioned being allowed to get perks that don't fit the PC reduces the roleplaying and I totally agree.

And F4 with the lower starting Special Stats of F4 and stat requirements on all the perks, prevents that.

You will have to be very perceptive to get the Sniper perk (on row nine under the Perception column of the Perk Chart.)

You have to be better than average strength to get Strong Back perk (on row six of the Strength column of the Perk Chart.)

Depending on the Special stat distribution, characters will have access to only half the perks available.

Using the Intensive Training Perk to allow you to max your starting Special Stats would requiring taking the Perk 42 times.

To max all the stats and take just the first rank of all the perks would require getting to level 112.

So I think Lone Survivor will have very different Special stat distributions and perks.

You will have to play the game through multiple times if you want to get a chance to use all the perks.

And the Perks have direct impacts to your FPS skills.

As a long term GM in a Shadowrun run campaign, I'll tell you that good game mechanics that support the genre and help make the player character different lay the foundation for good roleplaying.

So far F4 sounds like a game designed for roleplaying where each Lone Survivor feels and plays very different .

And going from the old skill system that worked great in F1 and F2, but not so much for a modern game and converting it to a perk based skill system where the perks change the game environment to where the Lone Survivor can do things better in game or do things other Lone Survivors can't STILL makes it a roleplaying game.

Fallout has always allowed certain dialog options depending if you had a stat high enough, or a skill high enough, or the right perk.

The same for certain activities like repairing an elevator, hacking a terminal, or recognizing a clue.

So what is the difference if skills get moved to perks and now it is based on just stats and perks?

If your Lone Survivor is a sniper you take a perk that gives you a higher zoom rate because a sniper can take better advantage of a scoped weapon.

If your Lone Survivor has bad eye sight you take the 4 eyes perk.

If your Lone Survivor is an automatic weapon's expert you take a perk that reduces the recoil because the Lone Survivor knows how to handle automatic weapons.

If your Lone Survivor is a demolitions expert you take perks that let him kit together bombs, do more damage with explosives, or even throw grenades further.

if your Lone Survivor is an Doctor you to take perks so he can do first aid better, recognize and treat medical problems, and perform surgeries.

If your Lone Survivor is good with electronics and wants to convert his laser pistol to a laser rifle you take the Science Perk.

If your Lone Survivor is a vet and knows how to use Power Armor then you take the Power Armor Training perk...

Oh wait that hasn't changed.

There is just not that much of a difference between skills and perks and perks work better in a modern game.

As long as you have to have certain perks to perform certain actions, then it is a roleplaying game.

Especially if you are putting stat requirements on all of the Perks.

But why exactly? I mean what specifically doesn't suit a modern game? One would think that the modern game would have the advantage to make better use of the original system, rather than discarding it for an inferior [more restrictive and limiting] one.

The original games simulated probability in situ, and allowed for any number of extrapolated reasons for failure or success. It's a blow to the potential to have lost that in the modern games, but at least the modern games have the freedom to actually depict some of those previously only assumed reasons. The PC that failed lockpicking [in Fallout], could now be seen to have dropped or broken the pick; or the lock seen to be rusted, and stiff. The PC who missed a head shot point blank could now be seen to blow off the hat or a bit of hair from their opponent; or the headshot that did paltry damage could now be shown as the PC shooting off a sliver of ear cartilage, rather than hitting them square in the forehead, for a few points of damage. The early Fallout design didn't have the problems elected for the recent Bethesda games, where results don't always reflect what is seen on the screen; but as game engines advance, these flaws can (and should) be corrected rather than bypassed for a simpler, less accurate [threshold] system like we've seen commonly in TES & FO3.

It's saddening that they probably chose instead to go with a 1 in 5 system of thresholds, when they could now have used the original weighted probability system, and imposed situational penalties (or bonuses), for environmental effects... Like making the target harder to critically hit or the lock harder to pick, or the NPC less affable to conversation ~because everything is wet and getting rained on. Sniping could get a weighted bonus if the target is in bright Sunlight, or a penalty if in shadow. This comes into its own, only with a weighted system of chance (as done originally for the series); and is lost on a fixed system of thresholds.

Wasteland II has taken up that torch, but Fallout has advanced in to the more modern style which you have to admit does look at lot better.

Bethesda is famous for pushing the limits to improve their games so it is no surprise.

I'll still contend that skills are not being dropped so much as Special Stats and Perks are being pushed to the front.

Especially when they are using your Special Stats to limit what perks you can have.

Why have a percentage based skill system when it is rarely being used as a percentage chance to succeed?

There is no difference in playing with Lockpicking having a threshold of 25/50/75/100 and having a Lockpicking Perk with 4 ranks except it doesn't take you two level to raise the skill to the next threshold.

And unfortunately modern players will usually reload if they fail a percentage based skill test.

I'll admit to doing it myself.

So having Skill Perks that provide in game benefits and define your Lone Survivor is a cleaner way to handle it.

The main thing is that the Fallout 4 developers use the Special Stats and Perks each Lone Survivor has to provide a great roleplaying experience unique to each player.

Now I like bethsdas games but that's bogus....they have scrapped features from their games since Morrowind.

Wasteland 2 is the best Fallout game I've seen in 15 years.

I'm not sure how you mean...

This is true, but neither is preferable.

Consider that thresholds create static situations. Say the PC is miles out in the wasteland, they see a house with a locked door. They literally have the whole day to break in if they chose, and no one would stop them... but under the threshold/perk system they can never open the lock, and must seek buffs or other locks to succeed at before even being allowed to try to open the house out in the wastes. Under a weighted percentile system, if they have any chance at opening it, they eventually can. Percentile checks allow for mistakes to be made; the threshold systems cause infallable PCs that know the results of their actions before they even attempt them. there is no attempt, they are guaranteed pass or fail at the outset.


The game design shouldn't care or take steps to account for that. If someone is going to cheat, they will cheat for any reason that strikes their fancy (or ire). Assuming that behavior of all just inflicts the attempted cure on everyone.

I'd agree with that, by and large. There is a sentiment these days that any game that wasn't 3D and real-time back in the day was only because of technological or financial limitations, and not simply because it was designed as intended. There has at least been some progress in recent years of revitalizing turn-based gaming (recently I've been playing Massive Chalice, X-Com, Dead State, Banner Saga, etc.)

Given my druthers, I'd rather play a turn-based Fallout game with a focus on character skill over player skill (to my mind, that's the dividing line between an Adventure Game and an RPG - I feel like Bethesda tends to kind of straddle that line for the most part.) But I've also been waiting for a PC version of Car Wars for a few decades now - we don't always get what we want.

Given that Bethesda is going to make a real-time Fallout game this time around (to no one's surprise,) I still think that doubling-down on the Perks (which to me still feels like the only impactful mechanic in F3 and NV) could be an interesting move on their part. Yeah... I'd rather see a percentage roll than a threshold system. If for no other reason than it feels kind of inelegant to include percentage-based gameplay a la VATS, and then a whole separate mechanic for the rest of the player's skills. It never did sit well with me that I couldn't even attempt to pick a lock I was woefully underskilled for - if we're going with mini-games to stand in for the skill roll anyway, then you could just as easily make the mini-game nigh impossible if there's such a disparity between skill and difficulty levels.

What I do hope is that character skill will still find a role to play in the game, moreso than previous entries. I still think there's plenty of room to include that focus, it just remains to be seen where they're going with all of this. Previously, Skills pretty much trumped everything else in the game - a 100 in Small Guns made you a master regardless of your Attributes, and a high relevant Attribute gave you virtually no impactful benefit. If Skills are out of the way, then conceivably that allows Attributes room to grow with the new gameplay. And if now we're picking a Perk when we level up, it'll make that choice that much harder (and encourage individuality and specialization) if you only get one.

It's a bit ironic that VATS replaced the critical hit threshold system in Fallout, with a proximity based percentile system.

The original game had a linear [segmented] progression of difficulty for hitting the targets, and for scoring criticals afterward; while FO3's VATS merely assigned a higher percentile to whatever target was closest; (meaning the head could be easier to hit than the leg).

If they use a system that does not force you to take a perk every time you level, I fail to see why we have yet another thread debating this AGAIN. It is a single player game and my game is played how I want, and yours the way you want. If you feel like your PC should be handicapped into a low skill for something and not be good at it, fine, don't invest in the perk.

I have said this in many a thread about skills and here it is again; The Skyrim system feels natural to me. I only improve the skills I use, and I do not have to invest a point anywhere unless I want to and better yet, I can't invest it in a skill tree I have not used. The whole "but it makes me grind" whine is also bs. The only way anyone who is extremely good at what they do gets that way, is to grind that skill daily through hours and hours of practice.

I enjoy coming to this forum and seeing people get excited about a game that we all have longed for, but the constant naysaying of people who have not even seen a fraction of what this game holds is getting old. The game will never return to a GURPS based system. You pleas for this to happen are drowned out by the fans of what BGS has done with THEIR intellectual property. Perhaps you would be better served by going to Interplay's forum site and complaining to them about selling out your dreams. Here's the link to their site: http://www.interplay.com/forums/index.phpwhile you're there, ask them to bring back Rock n Roll Racing.

Knowing Bethesda's tendency to "over reward" the player and generally keep their stats as loose and easily ignored buffs more than anything else, what are the odds for that happening? I bet for none.

My speculation (from past experience) is that the lone wanderer 2 might feel like a unique snowflake for the first 5 or so levels, but things'll open pretty fast after that. They can't help themselves to allow for this "everything man" powerfantasy character; and even if you don't get every perk or every rank there is or every SPECIAL up to ten, you can rest assured you get all that matter (ie. the more important gatekeeper perks) and you won't miss the ones you miss as they make no real difference to your characer.

There are ways that this sort of system might work for an action game like this, and even bring in some much needed RPG flare, but.... Seeing is beliving. And in any case, it's still sore lose of a full layer of character customization that the series used to have. "Don't fix it, replace it" mentality at its best - again.

You are right, the player character will probably be able to do everything that a single character needs to be able to do in a single character game. Sure, they COULD limit how much the player character can learn and add a much more sophisticated follower system so that the player has access to other characters that have the talent needed to do what his character can't do himself, but I'm not sure that would actually make the game better.

If a story is going to be about a single character, then that single character has to have access to the tools he needs to succeed. Character diversity is for party based games where characters with one skillset can tap the talents of other characters who can do other things.

The 'power fantasy character' is the natural result of a single player, single character game. The PLAYER should have access to it all, regardless of whether any given character does. The more you limit individual characters, the more characters you need to cover all the bases.

Absolutely not.

The whole point is for the game unfold differently for different characters; requiring separate play-thoughs. It should be full of options, and only dole out those accessible to the current character.

*The point of the character is to filter the options. No one should be able to access it all with just one PC.

An RPG can be seen as like http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/RPG.gif, and the PC like one person with a couple hours to spend there. They don't have enough time to see it all; and they may not be old enough for some of the exhibits, nor tall enough for some of the rides. The experience the player gets, should be only what the PC can offer them; and no single PC should know all of it.

The thing is, the more the PC is limited, the more precious every choice of investment is, the more weight it carries; and going down that line, the more precious every companion that might substitute the missing to certain length would be (as opposed to being just pack mules and slight combat help). If you can get it all, nothing really matters - just postpone what you can't initially do - and there's little reason to even have a progressive system for the character - it could be more efficiently handled through simple items (better guns are better, better healing items are better, better bakcpacks for more carry capacity, minigames with set difficulties, job specific apparell (ie. dark clothing with "no-sound" shoes for sneaking) simple item collection for crafting, et cetera). If the character system lacks weight and real meaning like that, it is only an extra baggage to a large extent.

I have to disagree, yes grinding can be fun but skyrim's wasn't to me. after a while it felt more like a chore then anything else, grinding for the sake of. the biggest flaw in said system was that missions ( side missions mostly ) felt pointless, Yeah, yeah you get a trophy or whatever & maybe a cool weapon or armor but you never got exp for any of it, never leveled for any of it. the grinding felt like the focus & the side missions & exploring was there so you can go grind that would be fun if you like that style, i personally don't, i think grinding shouldn't be the focus for leveling exploring & missions should be because that feels more realistic, learning from the things you do & the people you meet.

This should be handled with story variations, not arbitrary skill limitations. Replay value should come in the form of 'Next time I'll side with the NCR instead of House' rather than 'I guess I'll see what's behind that door next play-through'.

Perhaps I should have said tries to push the limits.

They had to pull back a lot in certain areas like the Radiant AI in Oblivion and the civil war in Skyrim.

At least on the hardware front, I used Bethesda games to determine my PC upgrade schedule.

If my PC could keep a good frame rate on the latest Elder Scrolls, then I was good for a couple of year with minor upgrades.

Not that I mind that Bethesda said they turned down the graphic on Fallout 4 so they could do more in other places.

There are so many more options now.

Hopefully some of that goes to the NPC AI.

They are not arbitrary, the player chooses what their PC is competent in, and gives up what they will know nothing about. It means that a PC that trains for stealth instead of brawn, will not have the proper past to enable them to succeed by the path of brute force. This means they don't get [success by] the path of brute force. This is what's wrong with Oblivion. The PC can focus on spell craft, and still attain the top post in the Fighter's Guild. They should be barred from the fighter's guild if they are top brass in the mage's guild.

Both play a part.

If I'm playing a stealthy hunter with good survival skills, I want different game play than when I'm playing a smart geek who wears glasses and loves to take things apart and put them back together better and trips over his own shoelaces.

Roleplaying involves taking on roles that have different abilities and motivations.

This leads to needing different ways to solve problems.

Or having to take different companions because your Lone Survivor needs his companion to have different skills sets.

The two PCs above can have very different stories even before you add in picking different sides.

Good role playing improves the replay value.

Why exactly?

If you can do the jobs assigned...... why would they care? Especially when both guilds are largely allied with each other.

And that is what i love about New Vegas.

I guess playing AD&D in high school was me not playing an RPG because Gizmo has decreed it so because it lacked skills.

Yeah... you think far too much of your own opinion.

Except that that is arbitrary. Real world special forces most definitely use both stealth and force regularly. In the real world there are thousands of different talents, skills and pursuits and nobody could come close to even becoming familiar with most of them, much less master them. But the activities of characters in adventure stories cover a much narrower range of talents that are in no way exclusionary. Fighting, breaking into secure areas and sneaking about are par for the course for the tomb raider, spy or ruin delver.

Saying you are 22 years old but have already exhausted all your learning potential gaining the ability to hack computers and shoot a gun so your brain is full and now you can never learn to pick a lock simply doesn't make sense.