Skills/Abilities/Feats: Instant or Earned?

I was reading and thinking about this. LitRPG stories tend to go one of two ways with Skills/Feats/Crafting/what-have-you.

Style 1 - the character picks up an ability by using it on "accident". For example, a character charges at an enemy, knocking them over and then learns "Knockback Rank 1".

Style 2 - the character levels up and gets a list of abilities/feats/features and can simply choose one (or more) off the list and immediately knows them, even if they don't have any connection to anything the character has done before then. As an example, the character decides to learn the ability "Tie Knots" and suddenly knows half-a-dozen complex rope tricks, even though at no point in the book have they tied anything yet.

Now granted, those aren't the only ways LitRPGs do it, but those tend to be the most common styles that I've seen.

So here's my question... Which do you prefer? Do you like Style 1? Style 2? Something completely different? A mixture of the two? Do you feel the "instant knowledge" fits the game feel? Or do you like it more when the character has to put forth more effort to earn a skill?

 

In Incipere, I use Style 2 since it's based off of those kind of games.
Apotheosis is a mix of style 1 and style 2. Characters can learn skills, modify them through repetitive use, get them from shrines, gain them from level ups, and obtain them from an ally with skill stones.

 

I personally don't have a particular preference for one or the other as long as it goes well with the game system and isn't an instant "power trip".

I do like the idea of starting at "level/rank 1" though and having to build it up instead of just being a master archer/swordsman/blacksmith/etc. with a simple "button click".

 

Personally, I have problems with 'accidental' skill acquisitions. If you can accidentally acquire skills, why won't people be doing random things all the time just to get all these skills? And if that's the case, then why isn't 'energy-efficient walking' a skill, or 'noiseless noodle slurping'? (I mean, that's a real skill, you know)

In Style I, I feel like the system can easily feel sloppy and people only get skills that happen to be useful. which makes no sense.

However, if you have to consciously try to do something, say, three times, or until it yields results, before you get that skill, then I'm okay with it. For example, if you try gazing very hard into the darkness, straining your eyes for 5 minutes and slowly taking note of the shape of the terrain, and then you see something useful. Congratulations! You now have Night Vision Level 1! Okay, I can buy that. Or if you consciously think about bashing the enemy with your shield, and try that, then it's perfectly fine.

Also, I kinda think there should be a limit to these skills. If you can learn ten thousand Level 1 skills, it's also kinda sloppy. If that's the case then everyone in the world should have a thousand Level 1 random skills.

In Hero of Thera (I think?) -- there are limited things you can learn. Limited slots, if you will. I like that.

I don't have problems with Style II, as unrealistic it is, since it's supposed to be a game anyway, and that's kinda how skills work in games. Oh, and I'll mention Hero of Thera again: when he learns a new skill this way, his character's memories get 'updated' so he actually remembers practicing the skill for years and years. I think that's a really nice touch.

But when it comes down to it, I don't mind how it's handled as long as it's consistent, and understandable. If I don't know what the character can or cannot do, I don't find the action scenes interesting, because then it's just like standard fantasy action where there's no 'game' element.

 

However the character gets the skill, I like to see the character grow. I personally don't mind if there are limitless skills. As admitted "noiseless noodle slurping" would take great skill. I like seeing authors use skills in new ways (kinda like trying to figure out the most creative way to use "prestidigitation" in D&D lol). Regardless though of how the character gets the skill. IF they become 'skillful' then I want to see how. I don't really want to see a bunch of sudden windfalls of skillups and suddenly they are proficient. SHOW me. Plus if you're going to want a character that is skillful in 'noiseless noodle slurping' then at least show us that the character is interested in the field. Especially if the character is going to become a master. Don't just suddenly give them 50 skill points or something.

ANYWAY i realize that I was just ranting. how do I prefer my hero's to gain skills? by use. to earn more points in the skill the character should have to actually use the skill (and perhaps at some point begin to try to improve it!)

 

From my limited experience with this genre, I've seen powers/skills be treated more like MMO mechanics. You just know it at a button click, whether you used it accidentally or you get a list of powers to choose from.

I'd be more interested in a tabletop rpg approach where the GM makes you spend a whole day meditating to understand a new power or similar. That's just me, though. I like seeing magic and strength be cultivated and respected. More immersion.

 

Immersion!!! that's the word I was missing. I want to see the protagonist immersed in the world. Sure you might learn sheild bashing because you tripped and shoved your shield at your opponent. However your not going to continue to level the skill in the same fashion. IMMERSION! I can't believe I forgot that word.

 

LOL. I'm glad I can help. I'm 110% about immersion so that world is at the top of my list at all times.
I agreed with your previous points as well. Like, what's the point of toggling God Mode in the console? Anyone can do that. It kind of takes away from the excitement of an adventure, imo. And truly learning something can help develop a character.

Anyway, yeah, mechanics beyond instant-gratification for me.

 

yeah. I've found it really cheapens the experience (Ha, punny...get it, experience...litrpg...*sigh* fine) to God Mode it. Especially if the character hasn't shown any previous interest or leanings in that direction. Not to say mega-rewards aren't awesome, it just has to be done carefully.

 

Top of my head, I cannot think of a single videogame (RPG, at least, and certainly not MMORPGs, except a single notable exception) that does Style 1 (learning a completely new skill, that you didn’t even knew existed, by doing something), mostly because that’s a bit of a chicken-egg problem: generally speaking in videogames you cannot swing a sword until you know how to swing a sword.


There are some videogames in which you “get better by doing”, rather than spending stats (as in: if you know the basics of swinging a sword, then killing rats with said sword will increase your sword-wielding skills, and related traits like Strength, Dexterity, etc), but in these cases you increase some trait/skill you already have.


The majority of RPGs, at least as far I can recall, fall into “System 2” as you describe it: you level/gear up, you get access to a list of skills to learn. There are several reasons for why RPGs do this, but one that IMHO seems crucial (more on this below): you get to plan your build (which itself is a nice reward/carrot), since you usually have some sort of clue of what options will be available to you. And deciding how to build/gear your toon, and comparing options, is a great part of what make RPGs fun.



When it comes to LitRPG though, “System 2” (the most “realistic” in the sense of “that’s how most games do it”) can have the problem of being a bit too crunchy: it’s the typical example of the book throwing a long list of skills the MC can choose from, and then the MC deciding which to pick. Can be very entertaining to read (and some readers actually seem to demand it)… or it can be a chore, since we all know that the MC will pick whatever the story needs them to pick.


“System 1”, methinks, partially solve that by skipping the List-and-Choose part and just giving the MC what they need. As a gamer+reader, I’m torn between my gamer side saying “dude, that’s not how games work!”, and my reader side saying “yeah, I’m here for how they use the skill, not why they choose it from five others, so I’m glad we skipped that part!”

 

The closest thing to "style 1" in an actual game that I can think of was the old way World of Warcraft used to do weapons. Like if your class could use the weapon, you basically could equip it and learn it by, as you said, smacking rats or turtles or whatever the heck small thing you felt like spending the next 4+ hours killing to get your levels up. I remember playing way back when and getting the desire to level up my unarmed on a Hunter. So I went out and bunched rats and other vermin in the starting zone for literally hours until I got...I think it was 400 to max at the time? It's been forever.

Now, Style 1 is something I've seen plenty in LitRPG books. I always found it kind of odd and random. I too wondered why everyone wasn't doing 'random things' trying to discover new skills!

I do agree though. Depending on how much the author puts on the list, Style 2 can be really long and feel like filler if it's overdone. I will say one book that I read recently did the skills pretty interestingly and I liked it. Dragon Seed did a "branching" system where you picked one thing and got access to others only through that, etc. So it was interesting to see them all connect and things like that. I rather liked that take on the "Skills list".

I totally get what you're saying though. Seems like Style 1 is suited to the "softer" LitRPG books that aren't too number-crunchy while the Style 2 appeals to the "hard" versions where being "very game like" with stats and charts, etc. is expected. Not to say they have to be, but I can see that they would appeal in those cases.

 

I actually like this because every time it happens I play a game with the author and try to see if I can guess what skill the author had in mind for the MC in the first place. I know the rest is just distractions, and I applaud authors who can make all the other options sound equally attractive.

And sometimes you can sorta tell which one the MC is going for just by how the author writes it... and I secretly like it when I spot these 'tells'.

 

I apologize in advance for the length I know that this post is going to be, but this is a topic I've been pouring a lot of brainpower into recently. If you’re interested in game systems, I do believe it will be worth the read. I'm not one for TLDRs, you're either interested or you aren't.


Okay, so my WIP currently has kind of a weird fusion between the two because I felt there were problems with both systems I really wasn't comfortable with. I'll first review the pros and cons of both the ways you've mentioned, and give my own spin on how the cons can be overcome.


With System 1, the problems are pretty numerous.


1) The whole idea of trying to do random shit until you hit upon the actions that the developers of the game feel warranted a "skill". If I were an actual player, I'd be doing this constantly. It's way to meta-gamey and breaks immersion.


2) While it's meant to encourage organic play and growth, it actually does the OPPOSITE because it encourages very non-organic behaviors (like point 1) and the feeling of needing to grind the skill.


3) I feel it hinders creativity, because it doesn't make sense to add skills to your system the MC WOULDN'T unlock without bumbling around like an idiot, or that don't have other tropes like GIANT QUEST MARKER POINTING TO ME or magical items or some such.


4) It cheapens the value of skills in general. If anyone can learn cooking by burning an omelet, then does having a few skill points in cooking really mean anything?


5) What's to stop a player from learning every conceivable skill? If anyone can learn anything, then nothing is special. Skills need to be limited to have any meaning, either by directly tying them to the ACTUAL progression of a character (such as level) or some other means. I couple of series I've read have tied skills to "affinities", but I don't like the idea just saying a character can NEVER learn a particular skill, just because he doesn't have the correct or a high enough "affinity". That reads as an inconsistent and arbitrary limit that would stunt player growth in some, or create Mary Sue characters. Consistency is key when creating systems that govern worlds, whether they be skills mechanics, magic, or the economic system.


The reasons authors seem to use the system, when distilled down to it's essence, seem to be:


1) It allows the MC to have a feeling of "discovery" in a new world. Part of the magic of exploring any new world is discovering new and interesting things, and discovering new skills can feed into that, and when done right, can provide a sense of wonder, excitement, and accomplishment.


2) It creates an illusion of growth, even where none really exists. Even if the MC wakes up, cooks himself a couple eggs, and then spends the rest of the day just walking around town window shopping, he could conceivably unlock new skills or advance skills, even though he has ESSENTIALLY ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. Apparently, some readers just LIVE to see incremental increases to skills that are completely meaningless to the plot and character, but hey, to each their own.


Now let’s examine system 2.


Let’s first look at the downsides.


1) As some people have already mentioned, having a giant list of skills can be overwhelming to the MC, or more importantly, the reader. It doesn't translate well to novel format, where a long list of choices can seriously break immersion. It's even worse in audiobook format. There's one section of the Chaos Seeds book 7 where the MC is trying to assign his enchanter profession points, and the narration takes ALMOST 40 MINUTES. Why anyone would want to do that to their readers/listeners is beyond me.


2) It can require that some sort of weird (and frankly, immersion breaking) mechanic of the new information pertaining to a skill be somehow downloaded into the player's brain. I've seen this done in numerous ways among many different series, and it ALWAYS has felt very weird and jarring to me. Kind of a band-aid approach because the author couldn't come up with a better way to do it. At least Travis Bagwell had the decency to examine what technology capable of doing this would MEAN for society as a whole outside the game.


3) Depending on how it's implemented, this can fell just as meta-gamey as System 1.


4) It can limit the sense of discovery, especially if in a particular world the "game" in question has been out for any length of time. I don't think players are going to forget how to use Wikis in the future. If your world is some sort of portal fantasy or a brand-new game, having every available skill in the game known tp the players (either through looking at the skill tree or through some sort of tutorial or in game help) while fun at first, can actually limit the author's ability to provide a sense of discovery and wonder as skills are discovered later on.


For upsides of the system?


1) It can provide a way to tie skills to actual progression. This is one of the largest downsides to System 1, and System 2 just doesn't suffer from it.


2) It makes skills actually mean something. If you have to spend something to gain a skill, or skill point, then suddenly, it becomes impossible for everyone to learn everything, This is a little more realistic.


3) It provides some protection from players abusing or gaming the system to create outlandish situations. 'LOL I'm a lvl 1 who has picked up level 1 in 140 different skills I'm uber leet' and other such nonsense. Skill at something should be ONE OF THE MOST PRIZED PARTS OF A CHARACTER. after all, those are what allow you to impact the world in any meaningful way.

 

So now, we've identified some legitimate problems with the way skills systems have been implemented in other stories.


Here are my thoughts on how to combine the systems to get the best of both worlds, without any of the glaring problems as far as I can see. Remember, this is a BEHIND THE SCENES look, characters would have to discover it for themselves organically as they played the game.


In my system first off, every single skill has requirements. Every skill will be tied to a primary, and sometimes a secondary attribute (strength, intelligence, constitution, etc.), and may also have OTHER SKILLS required to be known at certain level.

Skills must be ‘discovered’. This automatically happens for the most basic of skills just from meeting the stat requirements. You MAY also discover skills, even if you don’t meet the requirements for them through being exposed to them, careful observation of someone using the skill, or someone teaching your character the basics.

Here’s the kicker. Discovering a skill does NOT grant you any levels or proficiency in it. It literally just makes you aware of it and allows you to start investing SKILL POINTS in it once you meet the requirements. You may only start LEVELING a skill once you have ‘unlocked’ it by spending a skill point in it, which can only be done if you meet the requirements.

Each of the basic skills is also essentially the start of a tree that has perks. These perks can be passive abilities, specific powers, new ways of using the skill, or specializations of the skill that lead to their own trees. Each of these also has their own requirements, usually in the form of both stat requirements and a minimum level in associated skills. What’s more, these skill trees can cross over and intermingle with each other. Let’s look at an example.

Lets say I want to have a Flame Arrow ability. An archer pulls back an arrow, lets it fly, and it ignites upon leaving the bow. The actual perk might look something like this:

Flame Arrow: Lights an arrow on fire as it leaves the bowstring, causing extra fire damage with the potential of igniting the surface it hits.

Requirements: 18 Dexterity and 15 Intelligence. Archery rank 5, Pyromancy rank 2 OR Tinkering rank 2.

In the case of the pyromancy version, the power would cost mana. In the case of the tinkered version you would essentially be using modified tinkered arrows you created yourself that were coated in pitch and had essentially a match head on the side of the arrow with the striker being set into the side of the bow grip. These would require materials to make.

To LEARN this skill, I would have had to first DISCOVER both Archery, and Pyromancy OR Tinkering, then invested a skill point into each to unlock them and then leveled them through use until they had achieved the appropriate ranks. I like rank instead of level so as not to get it confused with character levels. In my world, Pyromancy happens to be a subskill/specialization of Elementalism and requires ranks in THAT. Then I would have had to discover Flame Arrow specifically and dropped a point into it.

Now here is something of note. To DISCOVER Flame Arrow, I don’t need to meet ANY of the above requirements. I may have been shot by one at some point and thought to myself “Ow… this is really painful, but also really useful. Could I do something like that?” The chance of me learning it this way may be slim (and also based on my intelligence) and may require me to be ‘exposed’ to it a few more times for me to get the… point. Now discovering the power this way would make it show up on my skills tree, but it would be off by it’s lonesome, greyed out with no indication of what the requirements might be. However, let’s say I pick up archery. My knowledge of flame arrow might update informing me that this is a skill that requires Archery, or even Archery rank 5 as I achieve that level of mastery.

I can also DISCOVER Flame Arrow by someone demonstrating it to me, or through observation of someone casting it. The more direct instruction I have, the better my chances. I can even discover it accidentally if I happen to already be skilled enough in Archery and Pyromancy to learn it and decide while mucking about one day to see what would happen if I set my arrow on fire. The first attempt is likely to destroy my arrow outright, and possibly char broil my gauntlets (since I don’t actually have the skill yet) but is highly likely to result in discovery of the power Flame Arrow.

To put a SKILL POINT into a new base skill to unlock it’s tree and start learning it is going to require some instruction. Finding a teacher or mentor in game, or acquiring some sort of manual will be required, as well a bit of a time investment. Subsequent skill points invested into the tree to unlock passives, powers, or specializations may or may not be part of the requirements, based on the complexity or restrictedness of the perk.

At character creation, players will have a set of basic skills DISCOVERED based on their race, background, and attribute point allocation. They also will receive a dump of skill points to spend. An instanced tutorial level will allow them the opportunity to allocate their skill points as a mentor shows them the ropes.

This system eliminates a lot of the problems I have with the way others have implemented skills.

1) As skill points are a defined, finite resource you obtain while leveling up, they are VALUABLE. This makes skills and powers have meaning, and they discovery of unique skill combinations potentially very rewarding.

2) Maintains the sense of discovery that is such a pivotal advantage of System 1.

3) No ‘info dump’ mechanic needed. Characters learn skills in an organic way using believable systems that maintain immersion. No need to re-write a character’s brain.

4) Character sheets only need to list acquired and (optionally) discovered skills. This can provide a level of control for the author to control the ‘crunchiness’ of the system, choosing to show as much or as little information as they choose.

5) Provides a framework to accommodate just about any power or skill in the game. The ability to create restrictions for a specialty skill based on stats, other skills; or even more high concept restrictions like membership to a guild or possession of a magic item; allows the author the freedom to design their world as they see fit and have the skill system fit into it as an integral part.

6) Also allows the author to get as creative as they want with powers and skills, and encourages the interesting and creative melding of trees for cool effects. This also allows the potential for both specialized and hybrid characters, without either one completely overpowering the other. Both are viable.

I know, I know. It’s been a long post. If you made it this far, I want to thank you. I would LOVE some open and honest critiques of the system, either in reply or by PM. Do you feel it solves the problem with ‘traditional’ skill systems? Do you think that it creates other problems? I’m currently worldbuilding for my debut novel Lorebound, so any feedback is definitely appreciated.

 

Here's a problem I generally have with System I that your 'Well-thought-out-and sensible System I' might also run into: if anything can be a skill, why this skill and not that skill? Is Throwing a skill? Is Rock-throwing a skill? Is Knife-throwing a skill? Is Needle-throwing a skill? Or... is Kicking a skill? Or Jump-kicking? Or Kneecap-kicking? Spinning Cane Kick?

I guess this comes down to whether these skills are designed by devs or created by players. You can design everything and have fixed trees (which ultimately is just a roundabout and more complex way to do System II) and players can choose to mix and match in a more realistic manner, which is perfectly fine. If skills are emergent in nature, however, then you have the exact same problems you do as System I -- because now everything feels arbitrary: why this skill and not that skill?

Then that's just the design. We now also need to talk about the presentation.

The main issue here is that if the readers don't see the 'big picture' -- the 'whole tree', everything ends up feeling like System I. This is why I don't hate info-dumps: info-dumps actually give you the big picture. You can cleverly insert bits of info here and there, but, honestly, as a reader, I'm not going to remember, and ultimately anything that doesn't give me the big picture feels exactly like System I. Actually, even when stories do System II, most of them end up feeling very much like System I, because I have no idea what else is out there.

Here's another thing: there is no way the readers will ever fully understand your system. No way.

So, with that, I'll be bold and put out this claim: the design actually doesn't matter. Regardless of System I or System II, if we're after 'game-i-ness', all that matters is craft/presentation.

Okay, before we launch into that, let me say that having a solid system is great, and it comes through in the text, and readers who see it appreciate it, and I wish more writers spend time on it. However, it's only one part, and most of the time it actually helps the writer more than the readers (who will not completely understand the system)

We must acknowledge that LitRPG is not a game. It's a narrative, and ultimately, what makes narratives work are all these narrative tricks they teach you about writing, not game mechanics. Game mechanics in LitRPG is the world-building in traditional fantasy, because the game is the world, and I think the best way to deal with game mechanics is just like how we should deal with world-building: think and think and think until you think you have it all covered and there are no major exploits and then think about what readers need to know.

Then craft comes in when you make sure the readers know the rule and remember the rule it by presenting it properly (not 'hiding it in a wall of text' -- that's just not good foreshadowing), preferably by misleading the readers into thinking that that particular expository scene is attempting to do something else rather than explain the rule.

And when you can do two rules like this at different times, and then have both rules interact in an important high-tension moment, your game-i-ness is gold.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that regardless of the design, the problem with 'skills' is that they will all feel very random and sloppy if you don't do anything interesting with them. Yes, characters can have Avalanche Rank 3, but... if you don't actually tell readers what Avalanche Rank 3 can or cannot do, it means nothing in terms of game.

I mean, the rules of engagement can be as simple as: "This mob doesn't take chill damage" or "I don't have enough mana for Avalanche Rank 3 right now" or "Avalanche Rank 3 will take out all these demons but will also take out that village" (yay, now you have a moral dilemma, which is also game-y) -- and then you get creative with how you want the encounter to play out.

Sorry. I know this is not the original question.

So... to conclude again:
Game mechanics/systems do two things:
1) World-building: the more solid, the more believable your world is as a world (not just a playground for the Chosen One who breaks every rule)
2) Give you game-y moments

2) is difficult and actually optional. But if you only do 1), in a way it's just 'video game fantasy' -- nothing wrong with that, though. Many readers are just in it for the 'game feel', which is why not a lot of people are overly bothered by unbalanced systems.

[Let me clarify again: I think the things you feel are 'wrong' with a lot of these LitRPGs is actually sloppy writing, which I will say is a real problem. The reader's journey is an engineered experience, just like games (like what Extra Credit likes to say), so regardless of what systems you have to work with, as long as you craft those moments you will be able to have readers feel what you want them to feel. I'm sure The Way of the Shaman will actually fall apart under even a little bit of scrutiny, but the game system 'feels' very solid to me, because the author does all the 'rule-presentation, rule-demonstration and then rule in real action when it matters!' and it feels great to read]

Sorry again for the endless tangent.

 

Because in real games (as they exist right now) it would be the worst design ever! =)

First , wikis and walkthroughs would kill the "random" part really quick: the collective would learn, by trial and error, what action causes what, write it down, and then everybody would know.

But, most importantly: such a "trial and error" process is pretty much the textbook definition of "grind": having to do something you don't like (like testing a lot of random stuff) in order to gain the reward you do want (some useful skill in this case).

One of the cornerstones of good game design is that games must have a degree of predictability (even if randomness is included), to allow for strategic thinking ("I want A, therefore from choices B, C and D, I'll take D since it's the one most likely to produce A").

Games that (as seen often in LitRPG) remove that sort of strategic thinking would be, in my opinion, poorly designed if they were real games; but I guess the trope works in writing since it makes the narration more fluid and, perhaps (as discussed in other thread), because sometimes in fiction the not-real works better than the real (just like Hollywood Lawyers do things real lawyers would never do, and Hollywood Surgeons treat wounds in a way that makes real surgeons die from facepalming, but since most of us are not lawyers nor surgeons, we just cannot tell the difference; same thing with Game Design, with mechanics players think would rock: in a real game they would actually suck, but in LitRPG they can work very well...

... and, perhaps, that's part of the lure of the genre to begin with: games with all those cool mechanics no real Dev would actually implement! =)

But doesn't that contradict a bit your Confession#1? =)

On the other hand: yep, personally I think it can work wonders (of course if done right). It mirrors the sensation of discovery we get in games when stumbling across new skills (looking through a list of cool stuf, basically!), and it is indeed a point of choice (both in games and LitRPG). In a way, spending your stat points is the definition of "turning point" (a decision you cannot take back), and the MC's train of though can indeed shed a lot of light about their personality (not just what they choose, but why they choose that).

 

Not trying to snipe-target your points here, but (while I fully and wholly agree on the rest of your points of why System #1 would be bad game design), the limit of any "fluid" system in which you can learn everything (regardless of the specific mechanic of how you learn it) would be the exact same as in real life: Time.

What Stat points do in a game is to skip time, basically: instead of going to the gym for months, we drop some points on Strength; instead of studying for years with a grumpy Wizard, we buy the Fireball Scroll and just learn it. In that way, we allocate Stat points in roughly the same way we allocate whatever time we have to learn whatever it is we want to learn, and that would be the limitation of a Point-less (no pun intended) system.


Specifically on your system:

2) seems to be something every writer goes for (and, as we all seem to agree in this thread, is one of the things going for System 1), but, both as gamer and game designer, I cannot help feeling it's unrealistic.

First and foremost: wikis and walkthroughs. They are the bane of game designers when discovery and suspense are concerned, but that's the world we live in, and will be so for the foreseeable future. From what I've read, authors try a lot of ways to explain why their MC doesn't have access to those wikis (game is brand new, for example), but time and again I feel they just wave over the subject (and, to be honest, most readers may be cool with that!). But, since you asked for holes to be poked in your idea, there you go: wikis and walkthroughs have already killed discovery for games nowadays, except of course for players that prefer not to read them (I'd be one of those), but in any VRMMO with high stakes, everybody would read EVERYTHING there is to know about it, in my opinion.

Secondly, as noted in a previous threads, "discovery" can have a way to ruin "strategy". Most games nowadays actually lay down the skill tree for you (think Path of Exile, for example), not just because Devs have thrown the towel on discovery due to wikis, but because it's just plain good game design: it allows players to make informed decisions from the get go.

Another thing I keep finding jarring in every LitRPG I've read thus far is players not wishing to spend their Points since they don't know what skill they may find later. MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE IN A SCENARIO IN WHICH YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT HOW THE SKILL TREES WORK; my criticism is that such scenario is unrealistic, since game devs have learned that gamers just hate to be put in that specific position.

In short: "discovery", methinks, is a bit overvaluated in LitRPG. We love to discover new things, that's undeniable; but when it comes to skills and stats, the trend nowadays is to give players the whole thing, not just because they will have access to it anyway (wikis), but because it's good game design by letting players have interesting choices that they can plan ahead for.

About 3), I didn't quite get how you avoid the infodump?

System #1 removes the need for infodumps since it also removes choice, as far as I can tell (MC just gets skill A, usually when doing something related to skill A, so there's no need to also explains skills B, C and D that they could choose instead, which is what System #2 does). That is to say: if at any point in your Skill system there's choice from several skills, you'll have to describe them all for readers to understand what's the choice there, so... dunno, seems you'll have to dump that info somehow?

Last but not least: please take all of the above with several grains of salt, and I may have very well understood your post completely wrong. I tend to do that quite a bit!! =)

 

Some very valid points! I hadn’t considered about how if too much is hidden, it might end up feeling a lot like System 1 anyway. I guess the trick here is to in some way both EXPLAIN to the reader (and player character) how the skill trees work on a basic level and let them know (in general terms) what they can reasonably expect that skill system to be able to do. To keep it from feeling arbitrary, I feel like as long as every skill point spent feels like it gives ROUGHLY the same amount of character growth, then it helps keep the system from feeling that way.

When it comes to making sure to present this properly, I’m in total agreement with you and is something I definitely need to keep in mind.

When it comes to the joy of planning builds, this system can still do that. It all depends on the number of discovered skills/perks versus the number of learned ones. The greater the differential, the more ‘planning ahead’ a character can do. It also allows for the occasional “You learned what? Hey, show me how to do that!” as players trade discoveries in game.

As for wikis, I’m writing around this by my game being a hardcore game that can only support a specific number of players, and players are contracted to stay ‘in game’ for a year or until they die in game, with very little access to the outside world. The company running the game has teams of AI and developer Directors whose sole function is to create drama and entertainment for a viewing audience, ala The Hunger Games. The entertainment streams are how the company monetizes the game itself and absorbs the insane expense of the pods, player upkeep, dev team, entertainment production, and hardware. In this environment, players also might be reluctant to share cool skills and abilities they may have discovered, as it does provide them a tangible edge over the competition.

Also, on a side note of how the system avoids info dumps, I was actually referring to the process of the game forcibly downloading information into the players’ brain when you spend skill points, not referring to the process of dumping a crud ton of exposition on a READER in a giant wall of text.

 

Ah! Gotcha; I missed that completely. If "brain dumping" is your worry, then I'd say don't worry too much: personal opinion here of course (as everything else I've ever said! =), but seems to be a detail that not many readers will worry about themselves.

I'd say that's a very good explanation, mate. Only counter-nitpicks I could offer are:

a) games need to be tested (and competitive games triply so), so any "Game As Tournament" scenario will bring a lot in incentives for "inside trading" (some Dev and/or Tester feeding the player with some info, to give them an edge), but that can be part of the plot, and

b) seems like such a game could only be run as tournament once (since the viewership would then know all the tricks)

Other than that, sounds solid IMHO! =)

 

I actually really like this system. I've seen a very few somewhat similar ones. It's honestly one of the kind of systems I enjoy the most.

It's very similar to the way that several MMOs work that I used (or still) play so it brings a nice level of nostalgia as well as not being too overwhelming or dull in terms of charts and lists. I like the idea of skills being linked to "trees" basically that you can slowly spread your points (or choices or whatever the game uses) so you have limited choices with each "level up", but still plenty of room for customizing so it doesn't feel too rigid or boring.

So in short, I actually really like the system and you brought up some very good points! A lot of things I was thinking but didn't really know how to put into words actually. So I very much enjoyed your posts and I really like your idea of the "1/2 blend".