Or you can hunt for food? Or buy it from people that are hunters or farmers? Same with medicine, let a doctor fix you up or sell you supplies, or live off the land.

So when I did ask for taking stats out of the equation? There's lots of involvement of that in FNV, you surely cannot deny that.
Even if in real time combat, your stats are still having a big influence(yeah, not big enough for you, I know).
The thing you and others like Talonfire insist on, ist that *every* little thing should be entirely based on dice rolls, otherwise you refuse it to call RPG.
This is what I call Charsheet-Fetishism.
At heart, you both aren't RPG fans in the first place, you're Strategy Gamers.
In a good PnP RPG with a good Game Master it is *you* and your imagination what should primarily *define* your character, and not the numbers on your charsheet.
It's not about *Lets see, I have XX points in speech*, so I'll get through a decisive conversation. No, you'd engage with your Game Master in a real conversation, and if you came up with some funny and thoughtful lines, there wouldn't be any dice roll at all.
Dice are a crutch for situations you cannot replicate properly(like combat in PnP), or if you're running out of imagination, not more.
That is why it is called ROLEplay and not STATplay
Again, I'm not saying at all, there shouldn't be any dice involvement at all in a game. FNV does it just fine by my accounts.
I'd never sacrifice immersion and feeling for pure statistics.
And being able to see the game world through the eyes of the guy you're impersonating is a huge thing, for me at least.

That's simply not true. Look at the entire game's questline, the factions in it (Albeit few)

Ok, so we have 2 new Bortherhood Chapters, making that almost a dozen by now and Enclave, Eastern Division.
But that doesn't bring anything really new to the table.
Ok, If I think of it more, I'd accept Ashur and his boys. There was some creativity about the writing there. The Pitt was anyway my fav part of FO3.

Don't really care much for The Pitt, to grim for my tastes. But anyway, I think Fallout 3 would have benefited from Ron Pearlman slides in the end, I mean, we know the immediate after effects of the purifier being turned on, but we don't hear about the near future like New Vegas's endslides presented us.

That seems to be your goal given your preference for seeing through binoculars. If you want to see through the binoculars then why did you bother creating a character with abilities and stats distinct from your own? Why wouldn't a generic avatar whose abilities are entirely dependent upon the player's abilities serve your purpose just as well?

Stats can play a huge role in real time combat. I wasn't aware I was arguing solely for turn-based combat. Unfortunately in the real time combat of the newer Fallouts however the only stats that play a role are the skill associated with the weapon you're wielding and agility to determine how frequently and how long you get to use god mode. Which is idiotic. The player's skill has now become just as if not more important since you're entirely reliant on player skill to hit outside VATS and a higher player skill directly translates into a more effective character. This is like being asked to swing an axe at a guy pretending to be an orc to determine how your character performs in a P&P RPG. RPGs have never been about incorporating the player's personal abilities into a character.



Then why did I create the character if my eloquence determines whether I succeed or fail at convincing people? Anymore than my skill at swinging an axe should determine whether or not my character is good with an axe? I don't see why you consider imagination and a character sheet to be in conflict. They feed off each other.



And how am I roleplaying if Conan the moron barbarian who communicates in a monosyllabic grunts can talk his way through guards because I came up with some funny and thoughtful lines? You're seeing a character sheet as limiting when the character sheet is precisely what allows you to define and act out your character. Character stats aren't crutches they're cornerstones.

The lower your skill, the higher the sway of your weapon, too. Investing into your weapon skill decreases the amount physical talent required.
Also, VATS is not God mode anymore. Try using VATS when surrounded by a Legion Assasination Squad or 2 or 3 Deathclaws. You better make sure everything's gonna be dead within one attack phase, otherwise you'Re screwed...
You're right in the fact, that Obsidian removed the dice rolls for hit detection (That actually was implented in FO3) after many complaints from the shooter faction, and I wasn't too happy about that, too.
Otoh, I didn't take too much away for me personally, because sooner or later, with high skills the dice roll results should lead to a hit anyway.





Surely you wouldn't rely on Conans rhetoric capabilites...
That point takes nothing away from my reasoning.

Why should it require any physical talent if you are role playing someone else?
*And since the series never required it before? (and doesn't it also make it an accessibility issue as well?)

The way it works now, Fallout 3 simply attenuates the players aim based on whatever their PC's weapon skill is ~It's basically pick your target and see if you can hit it despite the PC's lack of ability. Shooters use barrel sway to simulate averaged difficulty and the player's skill compensates and they are either good at it or not (and improve on their own); but in an RPG the character's skill with the weapon is their level of competency, and improves via PC development (leveling/skill allotment). That a good (skilled) player can compensate anyway for sway seems to undermine the mechanics of having a weapon skill; (as two players with identical PCs can have wildly different accuracy in combat ~but it's the same PC. Should it not perform the same for all players, if using identical skills and stats?).

** In the case where greater PC skill merely means greater damage dealt... That would seem to make sense due to greater accuracy at hitting the target's vitals (no?), but as it is... doesn't it deal different damage for hits to the same target (say...like a foot), depending on the PC's skill with the gun?

A shame :sadvaultboy:; and I didn't know. Is there a mod available to repair that?

** I would not want them to do that the same way in Fallout 4.

Okay it's not quite god mode anymore in New Vegas but the point remains it's still minimal character interference in what is primarily a player driven activity which is the opposite of what an RPG should be doing.

I wasn't aware that Fallout 3 used dice rolls for hit detection. If so I'm surprised and disappointed in Obsidian for removing it. In my admittedly limited personal experience (only 1 full playthrough a while ago at this point) with Fallout 3 it seemed every shot went to where I fired and I know for a fact that I had a much easier time with the real time combat than my friend because I could score a lot more headshots. I'm not dismissing the idea but I'd be surprised if it was anything more than another minor influence on something that is highly reliant on player skill.

We both know you could still miss consistently if your crosshair wasn't on the target even if your character had a 100 in small guns and should've been scoring bullseyes.



Why not? The only thing limiting his rhetorical ability is his character sheet and dice rolls that you've dismissed in favor of imagination. Maybe I'm imagining a character who generally hates conversation but can really shine when the pressure is on. Who are you to say I can't do that? I'm imagining that Conan has hidden depths.

Basically the difference is you want to eliminate any skill checks in favor of what the player himself can do. Which has nothing to do with roleplaying. What if the situation is reversed because I'm trying to roleplay an eloquent speaker and I'm doing it to the best of my ability but frankly I'm just not a very eloquent or convincing person in reality. What's the game master to do then? Penalize me because I don't have the skills as the character I'm roleplaying? Or should he just let me through because the the character I'm imaging should be able to meet the challenge? Do you only use dice when the character is good at the skills and the player is bad?

I love how you can still die in VATS mode in New Vegas. Hopefully in Fallout 4, the chances of hitting someone in VATS mode is determined by your SKILL LEVEL with the weapon you are using, the CONDITION of the weapon and the DISTANCE you are at the target. I don't want to have a 17% on a Super Mutants head and then switched to 95% when I move an inch forward or having a badly damaged weapon that blows parts up. Fallout 4 should also keep the DT element as well (+ strength requirements for weapons) and keep powerful weapons rare; New Vegas did that wonderfully (Anti-Material rifle and the Rangers Sequoia ).

I hope they bring back events like having a weapon explode in your hands if the character has low weapon skill and/or the gun has low condition. It would make things more interesting for me when playing a character with low combat skills or no access to high-quality equipment. BGS does not like to 'penalize' players though...

With the Project Nevada mod NV has dynamic crosshairs that show weapon accuracy as your SPECIAL. skill, weapon type, ammo (low spread or increased) change. A high condition sniper rifle used by a 100 skill character with trigger discipline has a much smaller hit box than a level 1 pacifist character trying to use the same weapon. The dice roll is still being performed but it is being shown in a realistic fashion. The bullet will go anywhere in that hit box so even a player with great hand-eye coordination aims straight at a target's head it may miss because the hit box is larger than the target's head. The dynamic crosshair is great for showing recoil too. It is a simple and very straight-forward method of displaying a character's chance of success.

I hope BGS changes the skill check for non-combat skills to being invisible thresholds... so a player can still choose to attempt a speech/science/lockpick/repair/etc... challenge without knowing ahead of time if they will fail. Showing the thresholds ruins the flow of the game, for me, and reduces entertainment gained from those skills. It is much easier for me to accept failing at a challenge and taking the consequences if the chance of success is not readily apparent. I know the originals showed a % chance of success, but at least they did not say that a challenge is impossible to succeed before the character attempts it.

SPECIAL needs to have a more drastic effect on gameplay... tired of seeing people comment on how stats are not useful for the skills they govern.
Perception should effect draw distance of NPCs, if they crosshairs show the target as hostile or not, if a container is empty from a distance and stuff like that. It shoudl also effect the draw-distance of traps so that a low PER character will not notice one until triggering it.
Charisma should alter the skill thresholds for dialogue challenges... so that some challenges are impossible without a very charismatic character.
Karma should determine if a NPC will talk to the character and the degree to which they will divulge information or cooperate. A mafia kingpin should only deal with evil bastards in some matters and trust a white knight with others. Speech perks could alter this like in the original games.
Luck, gun skill, weapon condition should effect the quality of critical hits and that includes sneak attacks. An expert marksman should have a greater chance of a devastating sneak crit than a novice even if they are at point blank range. All criticals should be better than normal hits in any case.
Endurance could have a greater effect on total health pool and limb health.

I can forgive a watered down dialogue system, shallow plot, and theme park world if they take the mechanics of gameplay seriously. Fallout 3 as an utter failure in that respect and if NV is any indication they can learn to make the gameplay deeper and entertaining. This is a game after all so the gameplay should come first.

You skill would have nothing to do with your weapon blowing up in your hands. That would be because of a low Luck and low weapon condition. You are talking about critical failures, which may things such as dropping the weapon, the weapon jamming, the magazine falling out, fumble with a grenade and drop it by your feet, swinging with a melee weapon and hitting yourself or dropping it. Stuff like that, caused by a low Luck and in some cases, the weapon condition as well. This would also happen to enemies with a low Luck or if you had like the Jinxed trait which brings bad luck into combat for both your side and your opponents. Critical Failures are like the opposite of Critical Hits - there's a chance of them occuring, not too often, but there are different variables that cause the percentage to go up or down. In both these cases now is the Luck stat.


No arguments here, it's a great thing in that mod.


When I come across a skill check in a dialogue, and see that I am 5 skill points short in that skill to choose it, it's kind of annoying. Sometimes, I just exit dialogue (if I can), read a skill magazine, and then restart to do that skill check. I like that Obsidian has put a less smart line if you don't meet the requirement, but I don't think the exact requirement need to show, because you know that you should avoid picking that option if it's a certain fail. Just remove the number, and you can pick that option at own risk, maybe without knowing if your skill is high enough (it'd still say [Speech] but not [Speech 55/60]).
In the originals, I thought it was something like... a certain speech option didn't even show up if your speech didn't match the requirement. In Fallout 3 it was a precentage, if you had maybe 50% that the NPC would believe you when saying the same line. I'd like maybe some kind of mix between these, and still not showing a [Speech 50%] or a [Speech 55/60]? I don't know.

I think maybe there should be 3 (or even 4) different speech options, 1 is a bad answer when your skill is low and it'd be apparant that you'd fail the check. 2 is a pretty good answer but still not the best you could've said, there is a chance the NPC won't buy it. 3 is the best answer to the situation.

Say there's a Speech check of 60. Your skill is 30, you can only say option 1. If it's 50, you can say 2 with a chance of failure. Over 60, you can say option 3. Of course, you don't see that you need above 60, it'll be up to you to see if your answer is good enough.


No complaints. Perception need to be much better. I think you should be able to see through people's lies in conversation as well ("Why do you look so nervous? Are you sweating? Why did you look away when you said that?")


You know, I never thought of that. Like if you have a Charisma of 1, the Speech skill check might be 80, but at a Charisma of 10, that same check might be 40.


I am not so sure how people can see if you are evil or not if they don't know you. I think Reputation should affect people in this way, having a Reputation as a Bounty Hunter, a boss that needs an assassin will think you're more fit for the job than if you didn't have that Reputation (maybe depending on what jobs you've done, you might get reputation as an "Evil Bounty Hunter" or a "Good Bounty Hunter")
But I do think that Karma, if it shall stay, should play a bigger role in-game. As it is now, it's just if you RP and want the game to acknowledge that your character actually IS evil other than you saying so, and of course the endings will be altered. But I think if you've got Evil Karma and is kidnapped by a raider gang, and is now standing infront of the leader, then you could be given a dialogue option to say something badass and impress the leader. You'll get on his good side, so that it'll be easier for you to go when/if they release you. If you're a Good Karma guy, you might be in more trouble though as you'll spout something about justice and morals in their faces, unless you keep a cool face and a good Speech skill.


Yep and yep.

It doesn't. I've only ever missed in Fallout 3 because I tried to use a medium range weapon at a really long range, or because I tried to shoot someone at point blank. For some strange reason Fallout 3 doesn't let you hit people at point blank range, I've always missed when I've tried, and if you walk right up to someone and activate VATS the hit percentage is always zero.

Then why are you here?

You didn't spell Bethesda right.

Indeed since you know the people at obsidian are like the creators of the fallout series....

I want my free roam. I played TES first so maybe thats why but free roam is the best thing (IMO) in a non pen and paper RPG. Games still could be great without free roam as hundreds of games have proven its just a great addition to most games.
As for races make them balance or not but i still want to be a Ghoul just because even without racial bonuses I still would play as one
I agree stick with lore and add more, FO4 could take place at the same time as NV but not before Fallout is about looking to the future not the past

I don't get your point here. You're changing your stance at leisure. first player driven activity is bad, now it *not having* player driven activity is bad. Uhhmmmm, k.
VATS might not be as fleshed out as the old system, it doesn't allow for different AP investments, but the basics are there.
And let's not suggest combat in the first two games was a prime example of tactical depth.
Get into range, preferrably point blank, aim for the eyes, next target.
It got even simpler if you went for Fast shot to get the max out of your Turbo P94 or the Bozars and Vindicators.




It did. You could perfectly see it, when using a Sniper Rifle at lower skill levels. They used a scaling method, so once you were at 100 skill, you'd hit what you're aiming at.




If you can do this, then you're also imaginative enough to come up with some clever lines when enganging with your game master, as "Ambassador Conan"
You know you've reached the realms of Silly Talk Land, do you?



No, you are trying to lay that into my mouth. I just said, that *Roleplaying* should be a bit more than pure stat checking or dice rolling.
I wil not continue to discuss this, as you're completely refusing to understand what I'm advocating for.
You have your very narrow understanding about dice rolling games, aka RPGs by your account, my understanding of the concept of RPGs seems to be a bit....more flexible.
Let's leave it with that.

God I hope Bethesda give us an open world. FO3 and NV were good because you could essentially do whatever the hell you pleased whenever it pleased you.

EDIT: on the basis of nationality of the next title; while I agree with the line of reasoning stemming from the fact that Vault tec (upon which much of the game is based) is an american company, I can't consider this to automatically preclude the setting in other countries, at least in expansions. Plus, from what I've seen and read in games there's nothing explicitly stating that Europe for example has actually ceased to exist.

That being said, I feel that the cheesy 50's(guess) charm in New Vegas is something you could only really represent in America. In europe it wouldn't have the same feel.

It also replaced the linear targeting difficulty for base proximity chances. :sadvaultboy:

Nope... but it wasn't bad (FO:Tactics was better).

Disagree (strongly). Play like that and your NPC's die prematurely; but of course, if your PC is psychotic... that wouldn't matter. :shrug:
(And if you are not playing with NPCs... what's the point of trying to use tactics? In that case it's not needed.)

I'm with Gizmo there, your NPC friends won't last very long with those tactics. Niether would you unless you had some serious armor and got a lot of criticals. Since even with good armor one good burst and you could be torn to bits easily.

The originals fit in with that too, although the structure was different.

I personally find a sandbox open world (with a base on reality) a bit dull in practice because it (imo) limits much of what could be done with storytelling and environments as everything has to be fit in one area both logically and sizewise (and both get hurt in the process).

What do you mean? As in the story has to take part in the same large map? Or that the objectives need to be close together? Because the latter isn't really true at all.

Fallout took place across more than one State; Fallout 3 took place within 16 square miles. In FO1, travel to another settlement could take days or a week or more; (or in FO2 if you had a car, it cost money to cut the travel time down; because you had to fuel the car).

meh, it's interesting, but would depend on how it was done. Freedom is an important feature for me.