Baldurs Gate 3

[Fencers]

Doesn't really matter how it was in the past, re-spec is a standard for nowadays RPG games. Not having it punishes new players and experimentation.

Is it though? By default respec is not fully possible in Pillars of Eternity, Cyberpunk 2099, Path of Exile, Pathfidner: Kingmaker, etc.

The only recent RPGs nowadays with lasize faire respec was Divinity Original Sin 2 and The Witcher 3, IIRC.

Saying it is "standard" when many current and recent RPGs do not have that option in full or part is not really correct.

[Makabreska]

Is it though? By default respec is not fully possible in Pillars of Eternity, Cyberpunk 2099, Path of Exile, Pathfidner: Kingmaker, etc.

The only recent RPGs nowadays with lasize faire respec was Divinity Original Sin 2 and The Witcher 3, IIRC.

Saying it is "standard" when many current and recent RPGs do not have that option in full or part is not really correct.

Dunno, meanwhile games like Wastelands 3 just added it in the patch. And in Deadfire you can reset character at Inns. Regardless, not adding it to any of these type of games is detrimental.

[Fencers]

Dunno, meanwhile games like Wastelands 3 just added it in the patch. And in Deadfire you can re-spec at Inns. Regardless, not adding it to any of these type of games is detrimental.

Yea, I just said by default respec is not fully possible in many games. So when a game adds respec after release, that is not the default. Meaning it is non-standard by your own admission now. And even so, new games are released that do not have respec options in full or part. As long as a few exist, it can not be a standard feature.

I don't disagree that respec options are welcomed or just a "good idea" in a general sense. What you said above about being counter to experimentation or punishing new players is a sentiment I agree with whole-heartedly.

However, games are designed as artistic work. There can be any number of reasons a developer decides not to include full respec that may be counter to their artistic intent; which audiences have no right to. There is no standard in this regard because developers are all free to make it up and they do exactly that right up to RPGs released last week.

[Kilpi]

Yea, I just said by default respec is not fully possible in many games. So when a game adds respec after release, that is not the default. Meaning it is non-standard by your own admission now. And even so, new games are released that do not have respec options in full or part. As long as a few exist, it can not be a standard feature.

I don't disagree that respec options are welcomed or just a "good idea" in a general sense. What you said above about being counter to experimentation or punishing new players is a sentiment I agree with whole-heartedly.

However, games are designed as artistic work. There can be any number of reasons a developer decides not to include full respec that may be counter to their artistic intent; which audiences have no right to. There is no standard in this regard because developers are all free to make it up and they do exactly that right up to RPGs released last week.

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't; it should be. Artistic visions can go to themselves.

[Fencers]

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't; it should be. Artistic visions can go to themselves.

There is no such thing as "should be" in design. People can make whatever they want.

[Zenfoldor]

I have no problems with no respec as long as there are no changes to balance after I spec in the first place. Otherwise, in my mind, I have wasted a lot of time by starting the game before it was complete and basing unalterable decisions upon that moving target. I do like the idea of providing one time respecs with certain patch releases, to prevent something like that.

My other problem is it can be a real morale killer for a casual gamer once they realize they have ruined their character 20 hours in. Notsomuch for me, but like, if I tried to concurrently play this with my brother, he would quit over something like that and just really turn it into a toxic experience for me. The game and developer are so good, the only thing that can hurt it really is arbitrary random little things like this.

However, now let me also say that permadeath is one of the most under-rated mechanics when it comes to immersion. You invest and are forced to min-max in games like FF: Tactics where one wrong move can lead to restarting the whole level or living with a beloved party member no longer moving forward with you. These mechanics can feel mean and punitive, but they are really there to try and give your decisions emotional weight, and the best games use such things to create unique experiences, so it isn't an outright bad...

...but looking over at user reviews, someone above mentioned Wasteland 3. I think users in user reviews would definitely doc points for things like no respec, even some pro reviewers, but I also think that they understand this argument, imo they just don't agree that the immersion and magic created by permadeath style mechanics is at all necessary. I don't think it is necessary, but I think it CAN be magic. It can also lead to more hours of research than the game lasts, before you finalize your party and move out of act 1 or whatever, so I love that gameplay style, but others do not. As mentioned, it is a developer decision, but I can live without respec, I'm just not sure some of my friends could.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Save restrictions, no respeccing, perma death, dropping inventory on death, being lootable by others, timed quests, and many more - all of those are double edged swords. They all are great mechanics if the player wants to use them and if they are optional, they are all detrimental for others.

To stick with the perma death comment for a bit: While it can be incredibly immersive and exciting, it can also be massively disconnecting for others from the game, to the point where they no longer want to play. In general it's always good to offer such features as an option.

Anyway, back to optional features. I think there is also something to be said about the difference of QoL features and punishing game mechanics. QoL features can exist in a game without impacting anyone that doesn't want to use them, they are automatically optional without making them an explicit option in a menu. Things like perma death, save restrictions, etc affect everyone even those that don't want to use them. In general those should be just options. And yes, while devs can play the artsy farty card, at the end of the day they also create a product that they want to sell, so taking their customers into consideration is to be expected to a certain degree.

Btw after seeing it mentioned here a few times I've played a bit of Pathfinder:Kingmaker and while I like it for the most part, I also kinda hate it. The kingdom managment mechanics and the constant double and tripple checking of my schedule take alot of the adventure aspect out of the game and make it more like a chore management simulator. DA:I did that part alot better with the mission table imho. Some things I noticed after playing BG3 and PF:KM (and checking up some source books): Larrion already took quite a bit of creative license so far. For example a Wizard can currently learn all spells from scrolls, even ones not on their spell list. While I like that, it's actually quite a deviation from the source and probably a bit broken. They also lack all spells with material components that have explicit prices associated with them. Chromatic orb comes to mind. After seeing how these exist even in PF:KM (at least I think that is what all these diamonds and diamond dust are for), I noticed quite a few of my favorites missing. Obviously a few of the more meta spells are missing, but I doubt they would work well in a video game anyway. It's not like they could feasibly implement stuff that shapes the world or requires the DM to make sense of. Anyway, I really hope they will go for a full lvl 1-20 adventure now tbh, because I'd really like a CRPG without the chore managment mechanics.

[Tyris Flare]

Divinity's full respec from the get-go was one of the best things about it.

[Makabreska]

There is no such thing as "should be" in design. People can make whatever they want.

Sure. Blizz can for example make WoW talent respecs possible only at a class trainer in SW/Ogri again, at a fee. Doesn't mean it's convenient for players, nor smart in general.

Tabletop games don't translate 1:1 into video games. During D&D session GM can make suggestions for a build or bend the adventure a little so crappy build player wont suffer too much. There is zero good reason not to introduce re-spec in cRPG's, where building your characters plays a major role. Like you said, tt punishes experimentation and new players in general. Even if the title is more for hardcores (like Kingmaker), it unnecessarily pushes away players new to the genre that maybe want to try it. Not sure how some players are against it (but hey, same type of peeps claim that easy mode for Souls games will ruin their own hardcore experience).

[Hinastorm]

Is it though? By default respec is not fully possible in Pillars of Eternity, Cyberpunk 2099, Path of Exile, Pathfidner: Kingmaker, etc.

The only recent RPGs nowadays with lasize faire respec was Divinity Original Sin 2 and The Witcher 3, IIRC.

Saying it is "standard" when many current and recent RPGs do not have that option in full or part is not really correct.

Funny you mention PoE, a game defined by it's "builds". That requires you to go through the entire campaign every time you want to try something new. A game with so many possible builds, that newer players will inevitably have to go through the campaign over and over and over to try new things.

PoE would benefit IMMENSELY from respecs. And especially for new players, and new player retention.

- - - Updated - - -

Save restrictions, no respeccing, perma death, dropping inventory on death, being lootable by others, timed quests, and many more - all of those are double edged swords. They all are great mechanics if the player wants to use them and if they are optional, they are all detrimental for others.

I don't see the upside of no re-specs.

[Fencers]

PoE would benefit IMMENSELY from respecs. And especially for new players, and new player retention.

I agree.

There is zero good reason not to introduce re-spec in cRPG's, where building your characters plays a major role.

Totally agree.

Btw after seeing it mentioned here a few times I've played a bit of Pathfinder:Kingmaker and while I like it for the most part, I also kinda hate it. The kingdom managment mechanics and the constant double and tripple checking of my schedule take alot of the adventure aspect out of the game and make it more like a chore management simulator.

FYI, you can set this to be automatically or minimally handled in such a way as you can never fail or adversely affected by the kingdom aspect in a meaningful way. I too HATED the kingdom management aspects of PF:KM and progressively tweaked the settings to make it a very minor part of the game. Eventually, in subsequent playthroughs, I just turned it off completely.

There also mods that just speed up the whole event-date thing. Something I also hated- waiting around for X days. Me gusta.

[Myradin]

Sure. Blizz can for example make WoW talent respecs possible only at a class trainer in SW/Ogri again, at a fee. Doesn't mean it's convenient for players, nor smart in general.

Tabletop games don't translate 1:1 into video games. During D&D session GM can make suggestions for a build or bend the adventure a little so crappy build player wont suffer too much. There is zero good reason not to introduce re-spec in cRPG's, where building your characters plays a major role. Like you said, tt punishes experimentation and new players in general. Even if the title is more for hardcores (like Kingmaker), it unnecessarily pushes away players new to the genre that maybe want to try it. Not sure how some players are against it (but hey, same type of peeps claim that easy mode for Souls games will ruin their own hardcore experience).

Honestly all save for 1 DM i've ever played with have allowed respecs and even class changes provided the 'spirit of the character' was preserved. The rules of the game may not support it, but like tracking arrows in D&D, it usually falls to the wayside for the sake of the game.

[Ealyssa]

Doesn't mean it's convenient for players

By essence a video game can't by 100% convenient to the player. Or they would be no game.

Challenge is a key part of 99% of video games and friction brings challenge. The important part being the balance between the game designer vision and what player actually expect from their game.

[Makabreska]

By essence a video game can't by 100% convenient to the player. Or they would be no game.

Challenge is a key part of 99% of video games and friction brings challenge. The important part being the balance between the game designer vision and what player actually expect from their game.

There is a difference between game being challenging (which definition and feel varies greatly between players), and the game having inconvenient/annoying/limiting elements. This reminds me when WoW introduced auto turn-in quests for a few q chains in Cata, and some people immediately started saying this was dumbing down the game and made it easy.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

By essence a video game can't by 100% convenient to the player. Or they would be no game.

Challenge is a key part of 99% of video games and friction brings challenge. The important part being the balance between the game designer vision and what player actually expect from their game.

A lack of respeccing doesn't make the game more challenging. Just annoying and as someone else pointed out, kills any kind of build testing to see if they like it or not and such. Many people like you conflate frustration with actual challenge. At the end of the day these are all videogames and they should still remain fun and not something feeling "Thank god thats over" avoiding that feeling is the best. Lastly so far nobody is asking 100% convenience, respeccing is a good feature and not somehow breaking the game.

You can think that if you want but its mere delusion.

[Fencers]

A lack of respeccing doesn't make the game more challenging.

It does or can. That is the entire point of leveraging a choice that can not be undone in design.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I don't see the upside of no re-specs.

This was in response to the post above mine, which mentioned immersion. It is more immersive (for some), as it is way more logical that forgetting everything doesn't allow you to be suddenly good at something else, since you never put the effort into the new things. EXP as a mechanic does usually not imply you have magic training points that can reshape you however you want. Of course gameplay-wise respeccing is absolutely desireable and a good idea to implement right away.

[Makabreska]

This was in response to the post above mine, which mentioned immersion. It is more immersive (for some), as it is way more logical that forgetting everything doesn't allow you to be suddenly good at something else, since you never put the effort into the new things. EXP as a mechanic does usually not imply you have magic training points that can reshape you however you want. Of course gameplay-wise respeccing is absolutely desireable and a good idea to implement right away.

I mean, we better not apply logic to gameplay elements, else some weird things will start to come out. :v

[Fencers]

Gameplay is a metaphor. It is entirely possible and reasonable for a designer to create an experience progression that does not allow reversing a decision made along the path without giving care to immersion or plausibility. Both of which are not gameplay- they are irrelevant to gameplay actually.

All a designer has to do is decide X is expressed by Y and that is coherent gameplay design. There is nothing in between.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I mean, we better not apply logic to gameplay elements, else some weird things will start to come out. :v

I mean since this is about CRPGs and in this case there is also alot of discussion about the TTRPGs it is based on, I feel it is a valid point, because gameplay mechanics represent things and usually you are provided with a bit of fluff how it supposed to be taken. There is always a trade-off between immersion and tedium, otherwise we'd be playing black-pink chequered boxes. As someone said before, some amount of tedium is always part of gaming, especially RPGs. How far people want to take it is up to the individual and their tastes, for example working your way to gear in minecraft is often more satisfying than just spawning it in and rushing the last boss. You can explain that in detail with the psychology of the reward centere in our brains and all that, but it would lead too far now.