talking about stat checks in rpgs

Bit cheating replying to a bunch of thoughts in a cohesive reply, especially after the fact, but hey. The dice rolled a 20 so here we are. That and I really like dice games and rpgs, and don't get to talk about them a lot, so i just started typing haha. All in good humor ofc.

> i don’t get what’s supposed to be interesting about either leaving outcomes & the content you’ll see up to chance, or having those outcomes barely matter in the first place cuz the game obviously CAN’T change that drastically with every choice

The point, which you I assume know, is that Baldurs Gate and most other CRPGs with such mechanics, try to emulate the tabletop experience without you having to go out and socialize (ew). In those games the dice-roll is there to add a bit of randomization and unique storytelling, as both the player and storyteller have to 'think on their feet' should something go different than expected. I have a ton of cool examples of this in my years of playing these games, but I'll keep it to my favourite one:

We played RogueTrader (an offshoot of DnD). A party member hated my character, so in game he hired an assassin to kill me. By stats, the assassin was a lowly level scum, as the dungeon-master didn't want to kill off a character but still found then narrative engaging (he rolled with it). The assasssin made it's move, I shrugged her off, and then the fight began. And she rolled 9 20s in a row, killing me. The entire room was quiet. Everyone was in shock as we'd just lost a party member, one I had been playing for 2 years at that point. Again, extremely memorable. We still refer to it to today, and the entire story had to shift. A new character had to be introduced, the setting changed, entire sessions were dedicated to hunting down the assassin and eventually the other player character that hired her was put to death, which in itself spiraled the story even further.

> reloading
These games try to emulate this feeling of an unique experience by doing something similar. A video game is way less flexible than a board game with a thinking brain behind the story's threads. So they do it with content. Content-X is locked behind that skill check, and that one other check might allow you some added dialogue or a hidden away chest. If we take my 'assassin' for example,  in a videogame that quest might only happen if you get -10 relationship with another character, leading to a unique quest where that party member leaves the group and turns against you.

The problem I see mostly in this, is that these games are way more fun to play organically, and then replay with a different class for a unique experience once again. Diablo 1 tried this as well by having quests be randomized per playthrough, giving it some semblence of uniqueness each run.

Now players, obviously, are the best at ruining this experience for them. Diablo has the 'all quests' hack that has been around since launch. When a character dies in Fire Emblem, they restart the chapter, and when they lose someone in Xcom on Ironman, they copypaste in their old backed-up save. Subsequently, I know a lot of friends (all of them haha) that constantly save/reload when something goes 'wrong' in BG3. Players simply don't want consequences for their actions. Personally I'd just say "then why not play Final Fantasy instead", but hey. Deaf ears.

This is compounded by their originators, once again. Many pen&paper systems introduced "hero points" (or an equivalent thereof) to their systems in the last 10 odd years. You get one point per session, and you can use them to turn one dice roll into a 20 or 'rewrite an event'. In my case of the assasinated character, I could've just changed the outcome. Ruining the experience imo. But again, reloading cannot be stopped and this is true with everything.

This isn't unique to that genre either: Bayonetta has one of the hardest, most impossible ranking systems on the planet. Getting entire chapters done without taking damage while also scoring well and being fast+efficient. Yet, you, myself, and many others, have done some (or even, all) chapters. With the butterfly, and a good dosis of "awh fuck, I messed up [start > restart fight]". When Bayonetta 2 fixed this, players restarted the game. In Vanquish, there's a shitload of 0 death runs, yet nobody's actually done one - everyone uses "return to title screen" to void their deathcounter. Splinter Cell, alarm goes off? Welp, load the save.

You can put as many roadblocks and RNG in the player's way, they will cheese it. Hell, even the famous game One Chance, which was wholly designed to be a game you could only play once in your life to see an outcome unique for you, had players routing out all the options and using edits to be able to replay the game or change their choices to "see all the endings". The artistic merit being lost on them wholesale.

As a result I don't feel you can hold this against the designers or even the game, it's solely an issue with the player that developers have simply accepted at this point I feel.

> why stats
Why not both? There are games that do a more stat focused design for content selection (BG), those that are more black and white with simple choices (Mass Effect) and those that combine it (Alpha Protocol). ME is mostly X leads to Y and A to B and B+Y together leads to Z. As a result it is easier to 'control' who your allies are and who you're gonna fuck and what planet you'll save. But it's also more 'plannable', less organic. And generally the results are less grand.

> why gate content
As noted, since there's not a giant brain behind each experience tailoring it, they can only really do three things:
1. have your choices slightly change situations (i.e. in Alpha Protocol you still have the same combat stage, but the enemies are of a different faction)
2. impact dialogue events (i.e. mass effect characters say something else, or Tales)
3. gate content behind specific builds/stats/choices (i.e. bg)

The second one is the most common, but also by far the least impactful. The third is less common, but imagine talking to friends about fighting this giant dragon in his nest while your friend had a unique adventure stealing the king's crown or w/e. Suddenly you're both engaged, both have unique tales and also a thirst to replay to see their story.

Picturing it less as 'gating content behind a failed dice roll' and more as 'gaining access to bonus content due to a succesful dice roll' also changes the design exponentially I feel (as that's how it works in their original outings in the pen and paper field).

> illusion
I think the main problem these games have is that most simply try to offer the illusion of choice, that you feel like everything you did matters in the larger whole, but once you replay it the foundation crumbles and it is revealed that the game is mostly the same every time through. You see this a lot in games like Heavy Rain as well, where your choices are nearly all fake and many characters enjoy an insane amount of plot-armor.

Others try to actually do it, but are lambasted for 'gating content' or being 'unclear what route leads to what'. Players don't organically have their character fall in love with an NPC, they see Morrigan and google "how to romance Morrigan" if you get me and "I just said this to Morrigan, should I reload or can I still fuck her"?

Which is a shame, since after ditching the reload button a few years ago, I've found a lot of renewed love for basically every game I play. NG:B is way more tense if you only save at the end of the chapter. Splinter Cell is NAILBITING despite me having 100%'d the game many times over. And Dragon Age was insanely memorable when I just rolled with my choices. Reloads and saves are more a quality of life, but I do feel players abuse them to ruin the experience for themselves.

> why not show it
You've never played with a meta-gamer in DnD and it shows, and I'm super happy for you haha since that's an aweful experience. In DnD, the game is clear as day. Despite the randomness, you know what dices will need to be rolled, what stats are important and how to manipulate situations to get specific rolls. Meta-gamers are the worst possible players to have, as they play the system, making it more 'videogamey'. By hiding the dice or other things in the background, you feel less like something you can influence/change, and more like it's really a unique adventure.

> i will be cooking the greatest “stat checks and dice rolls are sorta trash” take
Maybe this is a joke but I do feel we need less "this thing you enjoy is actually bad, here's why" content, and more "this game is good, please get it in your life" content. I think you're a great guy and I know you love Sifu, and adore Bayonetta and treasure Alien Soldier. Taking one look at your channel however and it's mostly an annoucenement that you'll talk in depth on why Bayonetta2 is ass, why you dislike SMT3, how SMTV was a let down, your distaste for Dynasty Warriors etc. The only recent positive feeling video is the (great) Sifu video, which is a shame imo. I debated putting this paragraph in, because it's the only thing that might be a considered a 'personal assault' or w/e and you should just create what you want obviously. But it's perfectly fine to play a thing, go "yeah this type of game definitely isn't for me" and stop playing that genre wholesale.

> playing a game designed by a communist that did capitalist things
The irony hahahaha