My Treatease on Fallout improvements

[Mangler]

So this is my Uhm... Treateasie on "some" Possible improvements to a "FO3"


The 'Special' system, to tell you the truth I'm not THAT attached to it.
It had weird flaws, bugs and other oddities. But It beat all other systems of the day hands down.

The part I really wanna see changed is the "percent" basied skill level.
It was not that logical seeing as you sed a Percent of some value to describe a skill.
Which logically meant that you could become a total MASTER at some point (100%).
Which also Can't happen, as then there would be no point of advancement.
So the way I'd do it is;

With, Skills and Sub-Skills

• -No 105% non-sense.
  -use a Level basied system.
  -they all start at level ZERO. 0
  -Generalized skills

For instance you could have Marksmanship up to level 6
and each sub-skill could have individual bonuses or simply generalization on all of them:
you put a point into the sub-skill each time you choose to 'level' a General Skill.
The Sub-skills provide a small but not worthless bonus to a SPECIFIC use of the SKILL.

Also there is Skill Experience, thus if you pick enough locks/pickpocket/shoot enough targets
you will gain a level in that SUB-skill, but not nearly as fast as putting POINTS into them.

Markmanshp Lv.6

• -Snap Shots Lv.3
  -Precision Shooting Lv.2
  -Autofire Lv.1
  -Indirect/Crossbows/Bows/Other Lv.0

Also not that just because there is no skill in the Crossbow sub-class does not mean you will suck with them, the skill will be JUST the LV.6 Marksmanship, with no bonus.


Markmanship:

• -Snap Shots (the ability to shoot QUICKLY at the Center-Mass of a target)
  -Precision Shooting(the ability to shoot at a SPECIFIC part of a target)
  -Autofire(being able to hit ANYTHING other than air on autofire)
  -Arc'ed/Crossbows/Bows/Indirect fire (not inccl. grenades, fire is effected by gravity greatly also indirect fire like Mortars, Bows, Crossbows, Rockets, Artillery)

(Also combos like a Rifle that can fire single shots, and auto using different skill subsets)
The skill does not change depending on weapon: Firing a Laser Pistol and a Conventional Pistol BOTH use the Same skill. Just not for maintenance, repair, or modification.

Mostly the way it works in Fallout;
Fast shooting CAN get a good critical but VERY RARELY, but autofire just multiplies this greatly.
Precision shooting while slow and AP intensive, will frequently get fair to good criticals.

Melee:

• -Punching/Kicking (also brass-knuckles, gloves, steel-toe boots, ect)
  -Bludgeoning wpns. (Mace, Club, sap)
  -Cutting/Slashing wpns. (Scimitar, Axe)
  -Penetrating/Piercing wpns. (Spear, Rapier)

(also different attacks per weapon, Ex: Swords can be both Cut AND Pierce)

The Damage mechanics of all these attacks work DIFFERENTLY! They also have very different possible criticals, each has its own specialitly.

-Concussion/Bludgeoning weapons do poor damage but are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to stop with armor.
Also poor critical damage, but you can stun / knockout an opponent.


-Cuttting/Slashing will do good damage but do superficial critical damage sometimes. Or lop off body parts rarely. Good armor can reduce this damage greatly.

-Piercing weapons can do fair damage, but get Nasty criticals and internal damage which can cripple an opponents ability to fight. However this type of damage can be worthless against good armor.


Medical:

• -Trauma/FirstAid (stopping bleeding/shock/setting broken bones/stop poisoning, ect)
  -Surgery/Healing (regenerating HP, and Fatigue)
  -Pharmaceuticals (using/making Chems to boost your skill/abilities)
  -Surgical Enhanchements (altering yourself or others to improve stats, also VERY risky, expensive)

Technical Skills:

• -Electronics (Repair, Modification, Maintenance of Electrical/Computerized items)
  -Mechanics (R/M/M of PURELY mechanical items, most Guns, Lockpicks, Locks, Traps(?) )
  -Construction/Fabrication (building Stuff from scratch, small items, buildings(?) )

Science Skills:

• -Chemestry (things that go BOOM, or melt stuff, or poison/burn/other bad things)
  -Biology (things that crawl, ooze, limp, or plod...but perhaps not after you are done with them)
  -Physics (things that also go BOOM but not ones you even want to be near when they do...)
  -Cybernetics/Robotics (Robots/Androids/AI/Complex Computer systems)
  
  

Also I remember some sort of 50's era 'build your own robots/things/junk' vibe from these old popular science magizenes. This would be a neat addition to the game; as a xpert Robotiscist you could find and build/modify your very own robot. (limit to one, as parts and batteries are RARE still)
Made of of various components that alter its stats:
Head = Seneors, Processor (INT, PER)
Body Core = Power, Mechanical strength (END, STR 1/2)
Manipulators = (DEX,
Motivators = Servo Strength (STR1/2
Programing = (Perks?, LUC)

Also craft/mod items, seeing as its a STANDARD gameplay staple these days.

Also I'm not showing ALL my ideas for the other skills, it might make the game EXTREMELY complex.
(which is good IMHO for skilled RPG players, but the mass-market drones these days would recoil in SHOCK if they ever glimpsed the 'FULL'version, and I don't want to type all day long, Also too much choice is Scientifically proven the be a BAD THINGTM)

More forthcoming.

 

[Claw]

It had weird flaws, bugs and other oddities. But It beat all other systems of the day hands down.

Except in the eyes of TES fanboys who claim Fallout was obviously inspiured by Daggerfall and SPECIAL is a dumbed-down version of Elder Scroll's skill system.

The part I really wanna see changed is the "percent" basied skill level.
It was not that logical seeing as you sed a Percent of some value to describe a skill.
Which logically meant that you could become a total MASTER at some point (100%).
Which also Can't happen, as then there would be no point of advancement.

Van Buren would have removed the "%" sign following this argument. I don't mind although I disagree somewhat.
A 100% skill would mean that a character would always succeed at a relatively simple task related to that skill, like shooting bullseyes with a rifle at a certain range.
I was told by an air rifle amateur that this is actually pretty much how contests between the top athletes look, with nearly perfect scores for the top liege.
And allowing the skill to increase beyond that simply reflects some extraordinary talent which allows seeminlgy impossible feats.

Skills and Sub-Skills

• -No 105% non-sense.
  -use a Level basied system.
  -they all start at level ZERO. 0
  -Generalized skills

Whoa, did you steal my ideas from the Elder Scrolls forums?
Well, except levels. Why levels? That doesn't make more sense than 105% skill imo.
You write zero in capital letters; skills in Fallout are only influenced by attributes through their starting value afaik so their value is a direct indicator for how good you are, so you propose completely different game mechanics where the players would have to take both skill levels and attributes into account.
I think the SPECIAL system is more practical in this regard.

I agree with different sub-skills, although I would propose Pistols, Rifles, Heavy Guns and Automatic Fire.
Pistols would include submachine guns, and Automatic Fire would work as a sort of modifier to the relevant one of the other three ranged weapon skills.

Melee:

• -Punching/Kicking (also brass-knuckles, gloves, steel-toe boots, ect)
  -Bludgeoning wpns. (Mace, Club, sap)
  -Cutting/Slashing wpns. (Scimitar, Axe)
  -Penetrating/Piercing wpns. (Spear, Rapier)

Nah. Too many subskills for my taste. I like Fallout to be somewhat simpler; lighter, you might say. Also, I don't know if I want to worry about training Piercing over Cutting.
I would instead place Melee and Throwing into a group called "Physical" or similar with Sneak and Outdoorsman.

The Damage mechanics of all these attacks work DIFFERENTLY! They also have very different possible criticals, each has its own specialitly.

That'd be fine, but you don't need skills for that. It would be enough if players got to choose in combat. Do I slash or do I stab this creature? Is a hammer or a spear more effective?

skills, skills, skills...

These skills are too diversified for my taste. I would mainly like to distribute the Fallout skills in a subskill system and increase skillpoint costs to make specialization more costly and thus more restrictive, while offering two levels of specialization.
For instance, a character might train Marskmanship to a high degree to be good with all sorts of ranged weapons. He could not only use Pistols and Rifles, but also Automatic Fire effectively.
A more "peaceful" player might however decide to train only Pistol, allowing him to reach a good skill without investing many skillpoints.
Also, I think it would be interesting to decide between the faster advancement by training a subskill or slower but more cost-effective advancement in a main skill.
The effects could be quite complex: I'd imagine most players would first focus on a few essential subskills to reach acceptable skill values quickly, then they'd start thinking about generic skills, which are more or less cost effective depending on the intended development of the character.

Also craft/mod items, seeing as its a STANDARD gameplay staple these days.

Yes, that is also a feature many people were looking forward to in Van Buren.
I disagree with it being STANDARD with Capital letters. How many RPGs feature this actually?

Also I'm not showing ALL my ideas for the other skills, it might make the game EXTREMELY complex.

*cough* I shall ignore your last comment as I already said I prefer my Fallout to be somewhat light.
It's not a matter of liking or not liking complex RPGs, somehow many people seem to think whatever they like should be in every RPG. I like lots of things, and that's why I like different games.
For instance, I would totally like a First Person RPG. But that's not what I am looking for in Fallout. I also like complex micromanagement, and admittedly I did promote that for Fallout, albeit within limits.
An 'implied' maintenance based - for example - on the Repair skill would be ok for Fallout (imo) but in a very different RPG I could see a far more detailed micromanagement.

 

[Mangler]

Well I agree mostly that too much complexity may bog down the game. JA2 had a micromanagment nightmare on later levels, although in Fallout you rarely work with more than 4 NPC's at a time. So I think it _COULD_ handle abit more complexity, as long as the interface is handled well. However since FO3 is likely to be Consoleized (and unless they make Xbox mouse's/keyboards) these things may never be implimented in any CRPG.


Also Those melee skills were supposed to make melee more valuable...(I always thought it was worthless with Miniguns and Plasma-Rifles being the major damage dealers) since you had to stand toe-to-toe with a foe and beat 'em down until someone ran out of stimpacks. Perphaps I they should be recolapsed into one skill.

Also Throwing is included into the Melee skill, as a sub-skill.
I forgot to mention that.

I also forgot to mention how simpler skills will be cheaper to buy, in terms of skillpoints.

When you gain a level you would get so many points (not shure how many but it would be basied upon INT, some perks).
'buying' a level or two of melee is FAR cheaper than a level of Science or Medical. You could buy 4x as much melee than Science or Medical or other complex skills.

This system is more meant for a "Fallout-like" a class of games I hope which will become more common, like the Rogue-likes before it , cuz I put no faith into Olde Bethseda. That company has no integrity anymore.

 

[Claw]

More diversification is unfortunately a bad way to promote a skill. Basically, diversification is only justified if the usefulness of each skill is granted.

I am not in favour of eliminating throwing alltogether; I never needed a high skill for a decent throw at short range anyway. But it should really be made more useful instead of easier to access.

Of course, the way you descibed it the Melee skill would be a generic skill, with new subskills. Your system is somewhat different than my design as you partly group Fallout skills as subskills under a new generic skill and partly raise Fallout skills to generic skill rank with new subskills.
My design is rather simpler, as it would largely take existing Fallout skills and group them into "skillsets" under new generic skills.
This would basically keep the current Fallout skills and just add the option to train a while group.
The main exception from this are the ranged weapon skills which I'd change as mentioned.

 

[Mangler]

Sounds intresting, but could you post an example.
I'd like to see how you group the skills together.

Also the only way to make melee more usefull is to change the Fallout game world so that guns are less numerious or have less ammo. thus makeing Melee more usefull for combat as you now have to conserve ammo, but that opens up a whole NEW can'o'worms...

 

[Claw]

I didn't think it all through, I already proposed changes to the weapon skills and might need to change, eliminate or create skills for a complete system, but I'll just try a quick draft:

Ranged Weapons
- Pistols
- Rifles
- Heavy Weapons
- Automatic Fire

Physical Fitness
- Melee
- Throwing
- Sneak
- Outdoorsman

Dexterity
- Repair
- Traps
- Lockpick
- Steal

Education
- First Aid
- Doctor
- Science
- Speech

No gambling, barter and unarmed skill. I am a little unhappy with the last group, too. Maybe a seperate Social/Empathy group could be created with new skills to complement speech and barter, although it seems like that would be a bit much.


You are wrong on grenades. I tried them and in several occasions found them quite practical. Automatic guns are not really extremely effective against groups, grenades are, and cost less AP - if it weren't for these 4(3) AP to access the inventory.
An improved inventory would make grenades alot more useable, and higher damage or damage modifiers could make them more effective against armored enemies.
I do however approve of less ammo. Also, the game could require more non-lethal combat by design. In Junktown the guards didn't like you carrying around a gun. This should be standard. A fist fight in a bar could be ignored, while pulling a gun could have serious consequences. Killing unarmed people, even if they attacked you, should be regarded a crime. You could be asked to capture people. If you go and shoot them in the stomach, you are not doing a good job.

 

[Blackwing]

, but that opens up a whole NEW can'o'worms...

Yup, namely the problem is: while the players has to conserve ammo, the NPCs (especially opponents) do not (as they're basically doomed to die any way).

Result: Frustrated players who get shot before reaching melee distance because they are out of ammo, but their most recent opponents still have loads.

And if they then decide to give NPCs only barely enough ammo to get off a few shots then a sufficiently stealthy character can either steal their ammo or get close enough to plant a few melee blows before the NPCs even start shooting, which means that eventually that character will end up with huge stockpiles of ammo, meaning in turn that once that character reaches Fallout 3 's equivalent of the super-mutant/Enclave base (for FO and FO2 respectively) he can easily shoot his way through, while a 'combat' oriented character (who has presumably had to use his ammo to shoot at stuff earlier and who's looted less ammo because the stuff shot back) is forced to go through the boring cycle of 'spend 5 APs walking, 3 APs to attack (and then FO's AI tells the NPC to run away like a sissy and shoot if he has a gun)'.

Personally I'm a talker, so I won't really be affected (unless I'm forced to shoot/fight my way out of a bad roll on a speech check).

 

[Miles]

Whos going to regard it as a crime to attack unarmed people? Maybe in a few towns yes, but in most being as its a PA theme means that there is no law, and the towns that have a sherrif or whatever are usually no where near as powerfull as the PC. Ya some big towns should have consiquences but the rest wouldnt

 

[Claw]

Small communities certainly wouldn't embrace a stranger wandering in fromt he wasteland and shooting around.
Of course it would be a town issue, and actually it already is. I know a few places in Fallout where NPCs attack you and everyone turns hostile.
A good solution would be if you were allowed to defend yourself without weapons, (or run away for that matter) without getting attacked by everyone.

Also, like BIS planned for Van Buren, there could be more NPCs without modern weapons. I would appreciate more Molotov cocktails, spears and hammers, it would promote melee combat, limit ammo and the player could gain an advantage by using ranged weapons at the cost of valuable ammo.
This would allow a more strategical approach to combat. If you are in good shape and there aren't too many enemies you could engange in melee. If you are however dangerously outnumbered or already injured, you could shoot 'em over as alternative to running away.

Last not least additional ammo could be available at an effort. Maybe at a special 'cost' similar to the Gunrunners quest in Fallout, where you could chose between weapons for yourself or for the Blades.

What does no law mean? If you are alone with someone in the wasteland there won't be any direct consequences of course.
Also, the guards could simply be improved. That isn't rocket science.
Heck, I almost wonder if you ever played Fallout! Shady Sands, Junktown, The Hub, Adytum, The Brotherhood. All these places had guards and you were generally told to put your guns away! At least I am pretty certain in the case of Shady Sands.
The problem is there was no distinction between unarmed and armed combat, or even if you were attacker or defender in most cases. If you engaged in combat, you got into trouble with everyone.
As exception I only recall the guys in the Hub who held a member of the Brotherhood captive. I could kill them without the guards jumping at me.

 

[Miles]

Only shady sands asked you to put a gun away and then they really didnt care either way. FO2 had NCR and they would take offense.

 

[PsychoSniper]

A little tip Claw.

With the rough guards holding the captive BOS iniatite, move so the Hub police are inbetween you and them.

As soon as they hit a cop, the cops kill them for you.


Lol, once I did that, the cops killed almost EVERYONE cause some civie got hit by mistake, making th cops see civies as hopstile.

 

[Claw]

lol, that must've been entertaining. I might try that if I can actually bring myself to not play a combat-heavy allrounder which I am compelled to.

Of course I just meant to illustrate how there is a form of law everwhere, and plenty of opportunities where unarmed combat might make a difference.

Miles, you are asked to put your guns away in Junktown, as a stranger the guards attack you if you ignored them.
After you finish some quests as good guy they let it slide though.
In the BoS, there was a floating text for the guards informing you that your weapons might be considered offensive.

I am not certain about Adytum and the Hub, but I believe at least in one place if you tried talking to a guard you could get a message saying you should put your gun away, but without consequences.

Anyway, even if I took your argument for granted there is still enough room to promote melee combat.

 

[Roshambo]

You know, I'm starting to wonder about the point of the original post. Other than a bit of "improvement" to the system (coined such when it is merely nothing more than a reflavoring of skills to be more like Morrowind's system), I really don't see anything particularly relevant here, especially the flamebait. Yes, it expecially reeks of flamebait, and if not that, then a pretty fair indication that someone needs to learn how and why the system was created the way it was. I thought the includion of Morrowind combat aspects and damage resolution scheme, without any consideration to Fallout's damage resolution scheme and existing damage types, was priceless. I suppose all ranged weapons are the same damage type. GOOD JOB! I'm now waiting for some poor victim to try and argue that Morrowind's skill system is like Wasteland's, so Fallout should use that, too.

It is also funny that some people use the ah...outdated "reasoning" that if something is over 100%, then it doesn't make sense. Sorry kids, this argument has been around for almost 20 years and has been debunked for almost as long. To better help the misunderstanding, just think of 100% as normally proficient. Anything above that is exceptional skill. It's just a system of measurement, one that has been around for quite some time. I'm sorry it isn't Exactly Like Everything Else Out There, but it was used for a reason. One of the main benefits is so that it can be increased as much or as little as desired and still have an affect upon the skill.

If people can't understand that, then I can also guess why AC -1 was changed so that any idiot could understand the D&D combat system. It was something that worked, required little learning, and was pretty much a moot point if you had the information available.

Fallout is not meant to be Exactly Like Everything Else Out There. While the system could use a few changes and real improvements, there is no reason to skullfuck the system. That does include Claw's grouping and raising them together schema. In that manner, it would tend to destroy the playstyles people have come to expect from the Fallout games. Instead of being a fast-talking gunslinger with a knack for repairing machinery, it would tend to be more promoting towards classes.

It also tends to be exploitable at early levels with a cheap buying of skills around the board to raise general and specific levels a little and is exploitable or useless to implement*, unless the designer is really good on the skill point requirement calculations to include a fraction or whole portion of each and every increase of individual skills into the group increase equasion - and then it takes a departure from P&P RPG mechanics and therefore isn't desired.

* An example of this would be if you had a Sorc in Diablo II who had access to both Fire Bolt and the fire enhancing skill. There, it takes a slight departure, with the actual per-skill and group purchase rates. Even if raising an entire skill group costs more skill points on a flat scale, it would still result in an early, cheap, fill-out of skills. 50 skill points to raise a group of 5 skills, then another 10 per each skill level of individual skills. 100 points could result in:

5 skills raised by 2 = max 2 points increase in a skill (10 skill points total)
5 skills raised by 1, 1 skill raised by 5 = 6 (10)
1 skill raised by 10 = 10 (10)

This is about the only balanced way it could be done, and uh...then you might as well keep it in the original form without adding more clutter. Here's an example of how it would become imbalanced, group costing 25 points, each skill 10 points:

5 skills raised by 4 = 4 (20)
5 skills raised by 2, 1 skill raised by 5 = 7 (15)
1 skill raised by 10 = 10 (10)

There is really only one way of progression, and the cheaper the group cost is, the more shortchanged the single-skill allotment will be. Stepping it up to be closer to the per-point cost of an individual skill each time a group is raised would be a bit more balancing, but it still wouldn't be really practical to implement.

Hmm, it is an amusing progression idea with an emphasis for learning a lot about a wide range of general skills early on, and it would better work in another system. It would still be a bit more convoluted than most designers would care to work with.

Sympathetic skill bonuses, such as a slight bonus to the aiming of long-range weapons if you're good with the short-range counterparts, or vice versa, would be a much better method. It gives the appeal of raising another akin skill to get a bonus, but then there's Speech and Doctor... It tends to balance out in the end. For an example of a good use of this method, check out Gothic II. For every 10 points in the skill, the others get 1 point to 1.5 points (relatively, it wouldn't be too imbalancing in Fallout's current character system). It isn't much of a bonus, but it still can be figured out by hand and can translate well into P&P play.

 

[Briosafreak]

I didn`t saw any flamebait, relax Rosh, better have these discussions here than at the Bethesda boards, where iomagination goes to some unfortunate places.

 

[Roshambo]

I believe it was pretty much the "didn't see any need for SPECIAL" and then on that really made me shake my head. The same with the change in damage types and such to be more like Morrowind and a less-automated form of Dungeon Siege's skill system, were posted with hardly any reason for many of the changes except for personal opinion, but are supposedly an "improvement". Claiming such when it hardly has any resemblence of Fallout's system is just looking for trouble.

Then, tack on a bit of "item creation" as some validation for posting, and there it goes. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this one by now, but it's the honest truth that I was directed to this thread with those items in mind. I have to agree with their evaluation of them as well.

Then, of course, I could also ask if the design idea has any semblence to a P&P RPG. Considering that it was going to be quite complex, I would have to say that is a definite "no". So, then, why was this thread posted?

 

[Mangler]

My post was to actually bring Fallout CLOSER to its GURPs roots...

True I did not mention anything on HOW the mechanics of my system work on a low level, but basically its SPECIAL with small tweaks and the % system altered to look different. a Level is worth approx. 5% depending on skills, perks/initial ability and what skill is bought (some give more %points per Lv. than others like Melee Vs. Science)

Also I have never played Morrowind so my system was designed from different information but 'supposedly' wound up with the same result. Perhaps THEY (ha!) knew what they were doing at least when the RPG system was designed. Not shure about the rest of the game.

But since you guys are now convinced I'm really a Morrowind spy in disguise I have no chance of convincing you anything in the future.

Truly if you guys are so hostile to change then NOTHING will please you, even a FO-like game done by Troika.

You can catch more fly's with Honey than Vinegar. (esp. when the honey is poisoned)

 

[Mangler]

Also it took Thomas Alva Edison some 100 trys to invent the lightbulb, the lightbulb for chists sake! not a complex CRPG system with more detractors than supporters.

You would not complain about this IF it were implemented in a game.
even D&D I hear is on their 4th(?) version of the rules and it has issues still (perhaps even more than before due to 'SUGGESTIONS').

You can't make anything good by DESIGN BY COMMITTEE.

FO1 was designed by a few good programmers/artists/experts.

not a bunch of guys on some forum somewhere.

I'm not saying Bethseda has done right by ignoring you, they may simply want to do a good job on their own. With no ouside 'influence' to 'contaminate' the vision.

Which is their marketese for STFU! don't bother us! we DON'T CARE what you think, we are gonna do it OUR WAY!

Of course this hubris will be their downfall. How many bad games can you make in a row WITHOUT going out of buisness? 10 at least.

Perhaps you guys have had the wrong idea from the begining, perhaps this should be Troika-land forums or the Tim Cain appreciation board.

because liking Fallout soon will mean you like games that suck.
(suckfactor is when 51% of games in a series suck...thus FO will soon suck

FO1 - good
FO2- OK
FO:T - poor
FOOS - yuk
= 50% suck factor!)

DESIGN BY COMMITTEE STRIKES AGAIN!

 

[Claw]

it would tend to be more promoting towards classes.

No kidding. I must be a D&D-fanboy or something.

No really. A class system without actual classes. That's the idea. 8)

Instead of being a fast-talking gunslinger with a knack for repairing machinery, it would tend to be more promoting towards classes.

An exaggeration, I believe. It would be possible, albeit with some restrictions. You might have to give up other skills, or specialize in a single weapon rather than being an allrounder in combat.

It also tends to be exploitable at early levels with a cheap buying of skills around the board to raise general and specific levels a little

Raising generic skills has the disadvantage of being slower than focusing on individual skills however. Even though it's more "cost-effective" it would still cost more, and what is better, a single higher skill or several lower skills? Especially at early levels, I would say the first.

You do too much juggling of numbers for my taste. Halving the cost when raising a generic skill is extreme. And what more does your example prove than that you can reach a higher skill level overall by raising generic skills? That was the point after all. Higher skill through specialization. And less extreme than your example.

Sympathetic skill bonuses, (...) For an example of a good use of this method, check out Gothic II.

I just might.


Edit:

Mangler, WTF are you talking? I don't even know where to start. Your last post is incoherent and ridiculous.
And WTF does "Design by Committee" mean?

 

[Roshambo]

My post was to actually bring Fallout CLOSER to its GURPs roots...

Maybe you need to read up on why the system was made in the first place.

True I did not mention anything on HOW the mechanics of my system work on a low level, but basically its SPECIAL with small tweaks and the % system altered to look different. a Level is worth approx. 5% depending on skills, perks/initial ability and what skill is bought (some give more %points per Lv. than others like Melee Vs. Science)

I think the most amusing point is that you're changing something completely inane and cosmetic to what you can see, just because you have some itch up your ass to. The skill system could still stay the same, but the tweaks to the skill could be done under the hood to make them more balanced. There are more ways to develop than juggle a couple of numbers around on paper. While your method is superficially a "solution", it just makes the development and character process convoluted for no damn sensible reason whatsoever.

But that's why you're not getting paid for your "design work", I assume. I loathe having to explain the simplest of concepts to "browser developers". Try a compiler sometime, kid. Not NWN or the TES Construction Kit. A REAL compiler.

Also I have never played Morrowind so my system was designed from different information but 'supposedly' wound up with the same result. Perhaps THEY (ha!) knew what they were doing at least when the RPG system was designed.

That's funny, and still does nothing to explain your lack of displaying any clue as to what Fallout's character system From all indication, you have likely played Morrowind or something similar and you have no fucking clue as to how Fallout's character system works, or you want to turn it into every other game. I believe I had mentioned that before, so I can tell you're not paying attention.

But since you guys are now convinced I'm really a Morrowind spy in disguise I have no chance of convincing you anything in the future.

Hyperbole.

Truly if you guys are so hostile to change then NOTHING will please you, even a FO-like game done by Troika.

More irrelevant flamebait. It's funny that idiots like you don't understand the difference between Troika having their own PA game and Fallout being kept to what made it good and why people came to the series in the first place. But then again, it seems like the clueless newbies such as yourself have no idea as to why game series die. You only care about some digital ball tickler to amuse yourself with, you don't see it as a sort of literature.

A good CRPG is much like a good story, as I've pointed out before. That IS what makes the CRPG genre one of the best, because when a good formula is found, you can see it in the longevity of the fan following. Ultima is still going strong, as is Fallout. Lionheart, being everything trendy and also using the SPECIAL system, didn't quite fare so well. The following for Icewind Dale is hardly as particular or strong, as most of the Inbred Engine fans followed towards NWN, it seems.

I'm sorry this isn't the GameSpy forums, but most of the regulars here do prefer to have a bit more in-depth than "Hur! Hur! I kill things!"

You can catch more fly's with Honey than Vinegar. (esp. when the honey is poisoned)

I'll keep that in mind for when I want to catch flies. I also know how to attract insipid browser developers*. Open a forum titled "Fallout 3". Goodbye. Given your double-post, it's obvious you're just a troll now, kid.

*- And that includes those who post needlessly convoluted "character systems" without having put any serious thought behind how they would work, their relevance to the Fallout setting, and having some reason to, much less claim that they are "improvements". So far, about all I've seen is a list and a new way to come up with skill improvement. Not only is it counter to what made Fallout's skill system good, in that you could put a point into a skill and raise its effectiveness by a little, but there is nothing to support "improvement". If I were to say that anything mentioned in this thread (save perhaps the crafted items generic bit), was to be an improvement based upon the reasoning given forth, I would be a liar.

No kidding. I must be a D&D-fanboy or something.

No really. A class system without actual classes. That's the idea.

*blinks* Are you jumping onto the flamebait wagon as well? The point of Fallout's system was to NOT have the stereotypical classes, or anything that would have seemed to be too much as a class. That was what gave Fallout the appeal it has, having no classes.

Raising generic skills has the disadvantage of being slower than focusing on individual skills however. Even though it's more "cost-effective" it would still cost more, and what is better, a single higher skill or several lower skills? Especially at early levels, I would say the first.

You do too much juggling of numbers for my taste. Halving the cost when raising a generic skill is extreme. And what more does your example prove than that you can reach a higher skill level overall by raising generic skills? That was the point after all. Higher skill through specialization. And less extreme than your example.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself, because I've already knocked down that scheme of skill progression. Posting a bit of waffling as support of your point really doesn't help it much, especially when I have retroactively debunked such in a previous post.

If it were a character system like The Legacy where raising STR has an effect upon a group of skills and to enhance all in the group, that is one thing. To have it balanced in a scheme isolated only with skill points, it would either be irrelevant to make, would be too far from P&P RPG gameplay, would result in imbalances like I've proven, and would have little resemblence to Fallout's current character system. Toss that out or change it needlessly, most people will not be pleased at all. I could cite examples, but I really don't have to.