Role-Playing Game Perks and Benefits

[tonberrian]

Do you prefer a system that allows a single character to acquire all the various different benefits, given enough time and/or experience, or instead a system that doesn't and forces you to make choices about which perks to acquire? Or would you rather have something in between? Why?

[Calemyr]

Do you prefer a system that allows a single character to acquire all the various different benefits, given enough time and/or experience, or instead a system that doesn't and forces you to make choices about which perks to acquire? Or would you rather have something in between? Why?

My wishy-washy answer is that it depends: Being an omni-character works in some cases, like the Dohahkiin from Skyrim, where an obsession with mastery is all but built into the character. I prefer systems that let you build distinct characters, forcing you to make choices, but I get really annoyed when the choices are watered down and/or meaningless. I need 5 perks to reach the one that allows me to do something cool, and only get 11 perks total? I get a boatload of perks, but 95% of them are minor bonuses to very specific circumstances?

In my opinion, perks are like weapons: they should be few in quantity, but distinct in nature. Each combination should result in a different gameplay style. Give me a tidal wave of gray knockoffs with only marginal differences, and I'd rather not mess with it at all.

[AdmiralCheez]

I need 5 perks to reach the one that allows me to do something cool, and only get 11 perks total? I get a boatload of perks, but 95% of them are minor bonuses to very specific circumstances?

Oh, I hate it when games do that. If you're going to put perks and such in, at least have them feel like they're making a difference. Like, have a perk increase arrow damage by at least 50%. It's not very imaginative, but you can usually tell it's doing something. Not these perks that say it increases arrow damage by 3% per rank while wearing light armor. That's just stupid. I don't feel like I'm getting anything for investing these perk points, which defeats the point of having them in the first place.

[TaRix]

If it's a single-character game, I'd like to be able to do everything. Eventually. I tried that with games like Dungeon Siege, NetHack, Oblivion, and to unfortunate effect in some other roguelikes.

If I have to control more than one, then I specialize them, or they all just look the same with different skins, and I've wasted a lot of time making identical munchkin clones (See Final Fantasy Tactics, FF7, FF8, FF6, and probably FF10.)

[Winthur]

A perk is meant to be a slight adjustment which gives flavor to your character. As such, the latter system. Encourages multiple playthroughs and "what-ifs". Makes you think.

[Vitruviansquid]

It doesn't matter to me. When I play RPG's, I'm only trying to beat the challenges, so even if a system has a theoretical ability to max out all stats and all perks, I still try to get by with only a limited set.

[factotum]

Are we talking CRPGs or pen and paper? In the latter case, the game is meant to be played co-operatively with other party members, so it would imbalance it massively if one player was able to do everything. In CRPGs, I would rather control a single character and have to pick and choose what I'm able to do--e.g. the Fallout system, where you can't possibly concentrate on everything. I see no need and have no desire to see every single thing in the game, and if I'm forced to miss a section because I can't get through the door leading to it, so be it.

[Corlindale]

I mostly prefer the latter, because it A) makes the individual character more interesting, and B) adds replayability.

One of my main problems with Final Fantasy XII was that all of your characters quickly started to become good at everything. Early game you might have some interesting specializations (she's my tank, he's my white mage, etc...), but as the game went on all your characters started to become Blandy McBlandson, good at everything with no particular specializations. Even the overdrive mechanic - something often used to diversify otherwise similar characters in previous FF games - was completely bland, with only visual difference between the characters.

It's such a big problem that some people started to self-impose "classes" onto their characters (http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/459841-final-fantasy-xii/faqs/45802), just to restore some semblance of specialization to them.

[TheEmerged]

I'm definitely going to be category #2 here.

I have an old design rule myself: in a good system, there needs to be as much of a reason NOT to <insert here> as there is to <insert here>.

Take the craft skills in World of Warcraft for example (disclaimer, I haven't played since late Cataclysm). You were limited to two - but the only reason not to pursue them was opportunity costs, so virtually *everybody* ended up with two. That destroyed the market for the production skills, in turn over-valuing the gathering skills.

As for Skyrim... there were good and bad aspects of it. I liked some of the perk trees but in almost every case I hated the "bottom" talent (generally, "put up to 5 points here for a 20% bonus per points, with a minimum of 0/20/40/60/80 required for those points). At least they generally let you advance past it for only one point. There were also trees that seem to have been built on false information about how the mechanics actually worked \ were not changed to reflect changes in those mechanics (critical damage being the biggest offender). I also run into problems with "hard trees" when there is a talent I feel is counter productive that has a talent I want above it (the Archery tree has an example of this).

I think Fallout 1 & 2 were closer to what I want - encouraging me to advance by capping them by level without having to take perks I may not want first. On the other hand, Fallout 1 & 2's perks were nowhere NEAR being cross-balanced; some are waaaaaaay more useful than others of the same level. I think it could have been interesting if more of the perks had to be earned in-game, but if you do that TOO much you start running into the "every character is the same because everyone earns all the perks" problem.

D&D 3.0's psionic system had two other bad examples. The first was the chain that led to a very useful perk to potentially use a power without paying its cost - but to get it you had to take a talent that was moderately useful early but very weak after 3rd or 4th level, and then take an absurdedly weak talent no one in their right mind (pun intended) would take if it weren't for the final step on the chain. They frankly should have just made the top of the chain have a minimum level. The other bad example had to do with how broken the original psychic combat rules were; they released a feat that essentially allowed you to say you got feats instead of combat forms. The result was a feat comparable to the one to allow druids to cast while in wildshape - a feat you essentially had to take, today known as a feat tax, for which the people on the official D&D boards coined the term "Feats Should Be Nice, Not Required".

Which brings us back to Skyrim. There are a couple of points where you have to choose between certain benefits - like the one late in the theives guild chain, or toward the end of the main quest. However, I'm of mixed minds about whether or not you should be able to change them \ how easy they are to change. For the dragon shouts one, for example, there's a clear and obvious frontrunner in my opinion that makes it a non-decision. They need to better balanced than that.