Disagree, constraints on respec are consequences for in game choices, which raise the stakes for each move and can greatly increase immersion. Like putting money down on a horse race. That doesn't mean that all RPGs should be perma-death, but that it's a complex artistic choice.
It would be nice if there were an accessibility option or slider to adjust the cost. We don't all have the stamina or range of motion to play as many hours as we'd like, or in the way that fits us best.
Understandable if indie devs cannot afford such accomodations, but for AAA it seems reasonable.
The problem with most RPGs is that you end up specializing towards a certain goal, from the get-go, but it’s entirely unclear what items you’ll actually find down the road to support it, and what consequences could potentially exist.
And of course unless the game is trivial difficulty-wise, you can always build yourself into a dead-end (though many rpgs are trivial to avoid this).
Ultimately though you usually have two classes of player — min/maxers and role players — and it’s generally pointless to argue solely towards one side or the other; they will inevitably conflict, and the game generally must find its balance between the two
This is why the only way to play RPG -- in my very very humble opinion -- is via permadeath. Each death tells you a unique story as to why you optimized your character poorly.
That only sort of makes sense if the part of the game where you can die is the main one. Who would play an RPG that is 50% walking around, talking to people and appreciating the plot with permadeath, meaning you have to redo all this every time and 90% of players will never see the ending?
Agreed — Roguelikes, and AD&D, are the one true path towards good RPGs. The obsession with grand narratives and long-running unkillable parties corrupts the genre into all sorts of poor decisions in the name of role playing. Roleplay through play is the correct system — not through decision trees
> you end up specializing towards a certain goal, from the get-go, but it’s entirely unclear what items you’ll actually find down the road to support it, and what consequences could potentially exist
Definitely doesn't increase the immersion for me. I have spend a ton of time looking into the consequences of what ever choice I'm presented with. That happens with me pausing and searching the internet
I like respecs, as do most RPG players I know. Game companies won't be getting my money if they don't provide this - I want an enjoyable experience, not a frustrating "purist" one.
I don't think I've ever taken an opportunity to respec. It just feels like it cheapens the experience. This is my character. This is me. We are more than a number of points.
If I wanted an experience where all of my features are irrelevant and it's just net worth that matters... Well I don't need RPGs for that.
It's handy if you know you'll only play one run and aren't satisfied with how your build plays.
But in that use pattern, it doesn't need to be streamlined or made too easily availble, as the article seems to be about. It's just nice to have there if you really need it in order to squeeze some more enjoyment from the game.
That's one way to look at it. Another is "I've had fun playing the way this spec allows. I wonder how respeccing in this particular manner will change things? Oh wow, this is SO much more me!"
You're playing a Sword & Board fighter type character, and Stealth isn't one of your class skills, so you temporarily respec into Thief, steal the MacGuffin, and then re-respec back into Fighter and continue on your merry way.
You're playing a Frost mage and this dungeon is full of cold-resistant enemies. So you respec to Fire mage to do this dungeon.
You're playing a low-charisma class and need to convince an NPC so you respec into Bard to pass the conversation check.
You've focused exclusively on magic, and now you find yourself in a dungeon where you can either face a huge tanky monster that you can't possibly tank, or you must sneak past him, which - no - you can't do that because you didn't have the clairvoyance to invest in some stealth skills. Now you're unable to progress in the game.
You're a frost mage, and this required dungeon is literally impossible to finish because the boss at the end is 100% frost resistant. Oops. (Actually, this kind of reminds me of the perils of speccing full frost sorceress in Diablo 2)
You're playing a low-charisma class and the only way to progress in the game is to convince an NPC to cooperate, so you spend hours and hours and hours reloading the game, hoping for a natural 100 because that's the ONLY way you'll ever get a successful roll and get past this horrible part.
Why even play at this point, when your success is based on your luck in choosing "the right" skills to complete the game? Or you could use gamefaqs, and lose all the discovery aspect of the game...
You can make arguments like this either way to support your viewpoint, but at the end of the day, different people have different ideas of a fun time. As a game company, you'd be better served to listen to a wider range of gamers.
You're describing dead ends that reflect poor game design. Builds should feel different and may demand different player skill, but they should all be passably viable.
Your hypothesized devs should absolutely focus on fixing that broken foundation before slathering plaster over it with cheap respecs.
And I'm not arguing against respecs yourself; just with these "on their head" hypotheticals, which don't actually make the point they're meant to.
Please see my response to the sister comment. My comment was deliberately cartoonish to prove a point. Both the originally posited scenarios and mine are evidence of poorly designed games, but it's not solely the fault of the respec mechanic (or lack thereof). Anyone can knock down a strawman.
Make respecs costly or inconveniently placed. The goal is usually not to allow arbitrarily resets at any point in the game, but to allow you to optimize for what the game actually is in practice. It’s not at all rare to spec as a fire mage, and it turns out the game barely features ice monsters anywhere. Or you avoid playing a monk because they have too many drawbacks, but the game eventually throws equipment at you that eliminate most of those drawbacks.
But you usually have to make the specialization choice up front.
If it's costly it's similarly pointless. What if you respec but then all the game gives is ice monsters? Either way you gotta know the entire game to minmax. The point of playing as fire mage is to like being a fire mage even when there are no ice monsters.
Perhaps this is the actual lesson? Instead of artificial opportunity cost in the form of exclusive choices, why not provide opportunity cost in the form of time/money/etc investment?
You're a Sword & Board fighter in need of stealing the MacGuffin. Instead of magically undoing the choices that got you here, you go out and practice Stealth until you're able to heist the famed MacGuffin.
Admittedly, this system does actually provide less immersion, meaningful choices, etc., but IMO this can be mitigated almost completely by making skilling up much harder. If you still want to promote class/archetype-based characters, then just make your character's class reduce the amount of XP needed to level up certain skills. While you're at it, make having high skills also reduce the XP cost of similar skills. Someone who's really good with two-handed weapons will probably pick up one-handed weapons much quicker than someone who's never even touched a weapon.
And if this isn't enough opportunity cost for truly meaningful choices, then limiting the availability of XP (in certain sections of the game?) is also an option.
I think that the real takeaway is that creating a game that uses these systems is very hard to create. In other words it is "trivial" because anything complex would be hard to program and make consistent and most importantly fun.
Maybe you could make it a part of the difficulty setting. I mean, sometimes you just want to roll over everything in your path and feel badass for a bit, and sometimes you want an actual challenge.
Maybe there's an indie game idea here. You play as a shape shifter type character, and the core game mechanic is morphing between tank/heal/DPS type roles to adapt to the challenge at hand.
It's been a very long time since I've played this, but it's one of the few games I actually played to completion. It featured this mechanic late in the game, where you could choose to become one of three "aspects" of your PC in order to overcome certain challenges. It was pretty basic, but it was a nice touch and made a lot of sense in-sotry.
If you're playing single-player, then why have any restrictions like this? Some players will enjoy the game more if they can avoid them, and others enjoy the game more with them. If the restrictions can optionally and easily be bypassed, then the game will be fun for both kinds of players.
I think the difficulty of respeccing should be the inverse of the length of the game.
If you're playing a quick roguelike where it's all over in a couple hours at most: no need for respeccing, the class constraints add replayability.
If you're play a 80+ hour epic: respeccing should be easy. Making players stick with a class choice they made at minute 0 when they literally knew nothing about how the game actually plays just seems silly. Especially since most people won't actually replay the game and experience the other classes.
I mean A) it’s not that simple and B) if you would, presented with a button to press to win, press it, then that’s your problem. There are those of us who would say “no thank you,” push the button aside, and continue playing ‘normally.’
Like that’s not an argument against the supposed win button being implemented, that’s an admission of your own lack of self control, you know? It’s nice to have options, with the proviso that you feel capable of making good decisions for yourself.
It's one reason I play JRPGs as you get to enjoy a few characters.
As a sometimes DM I hate the "character development" of D&D (players who just can't stand that things don't go that way) and that's why I like to run games like Toon which are light hearted or games that are brutal like Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia.
Ultimately, what kinds of incentives does having no respecs leads to?
I don't think I've ever really cared about immersion. I like experimenting with stuff. In a long game, having no option to undo whatever I cook up means I'd either a) have to suffer for the rest of the playthrough, b) avoid the janky stuff, or c) end up looking for build spoilers. None of which are particularly fun. Bonus points if the game doesn't really have a lot of replay value in the first place.
(That being said, the only games that I played and truly felt miserable in this regard were MMOs.)
If the game wants to be punishing, give it hard bosses that force me to learn how to play better regardless of my build.
(Though, as mentioned downthread, if it's a short game, no problems. The game is probably designed to be played multiple times anyway.)
Divinity: Original Sins 2 had a magic mirror, that let you respec almost everything about your character or your companions. It didn't stop the game from being enjoyable to me.
Here's the fun thing though - you can do that whether the respec mechanics exist or not. But people who don't share your preferences will only benefit from one of those paths.
Well for starters, with MMOs you are your character and you're paying to play. Every single month for fifteen years. They are part of the Great Enshittification where we own nothing and just pay rents for all eternity.
Single player games generally have a start and an end. You respec on your next replay.
