nah, some games use uninformed choices and the long term consequences of such to encourage repeat play throughs to do things right.

Fucking Underrail. Supported one side in Junkyard in every play through because the other side seemed like underhanded assholes but it turns out if I supported both sides I could've had a street war and killed a bunch of those assholes.

>>3925285
that's why I threw in "decently informed" in there.
unexpected consequences can be a lot of fun, but there's got to be something actually to it.
Just picking door A or door B with no context, then finding out the two characters rigged to die if the other door is opened isn't a choice. It's a coin flip.
Stealing the Water Chip from Necropolis before you talk to the ghouls sounds like a decent choice until you find out that they're all going to die out because of it. You made a decision based on what your character would have done, and finding out about the unexpected consequences is just decent storybuilding. It's also something that you should know about if you talked to everyone who doesn't attack you in the region.
Furthermore, each choice should have a reason to pick it in order to make the choice actually feel meaningful when it does have consequences. If you're given the choice to eat an Apple or Banana for breakfast one day, then three hours later your friend dies because he ate the Banana, and it turns out he was allergic, that's a bad choice that's only there to bait repeat playthroughs. (not always a bad decision, but it needs to be handled with care)

>>3925280
But elder ring isnt an rpg

>>3925280
>Final Fantasy
Huh? This is one of the franchises that popularized linear story-based gameplay where choices not only don't matter but in many games are essentially nonexistent. World of Warcraft not only has completely linear, non-branching quests as 90% of its content, it also (until recently) didn't even care if you did them at all. This definition also excludes essentially all linear story RPGs which is 90% of the JRPG segment and is also so vague that it would include strategy games like Age of Empires, Civilization, Total War, and any Paradox game, along with any "career" or "tycoon" games like Roller Coaster Tycoon, Tropico, or Football Manager.

If "experience points" are part of "the gameplay loop" then it's an "RPG"

late reply, had to go to bed

>>3925309
if not RPG, then why rpg shaped?
really though, it has you developing and advancing a character build that you choose, and that impacts every moment in combat from what attacks are punish traps to what types of damage you need to focus on. It's not something that can be easily changed. Even in the games that allow respeccing your levels, it's done with a very limited resource, sometimes after you beat a boss.

>>3925335
This is why I never specified Narrative in where your choices can be placed. JRPGs in general have a lot of player choice that makes an impact. Mostly in party composition, and gear choice. It also lets you make choices on where to spend your money on limited resources, and where to use them. It might not impact the story, but it's definitely a consequential choice for gameplay.
World of Warcraft is sort of similar in that aspect. (Also, I keep forgetting that I need to specify that I'm talking about the old game. I don't care what they're doing now) You don't change the story, but you change how your story goes by placing different talents, carrying/using different items, equipping gear with different stats, and possibly even picking different skills you want to learn because your money is limited.

>>3925461
Ah yes. My favorite RPGs, Spider-Man 2018, and modern Call of Duty games.

>>3925517
None of this argues why the entirety of the tycoon and strategy genres and even some puzzle games shouldn't be considered RPGs. Is Super Mario 64 an RPG? Not only do you get to choose which stars you collect, you also get to choose how you collect them, which influences both speed of completion and final collectibles tally.

>>3925517
>My favorite RPGs, Spider-Man 2018, and modern Call of Duty games.
You say this, but by your definition these would both be RPGs, especially CoD, where decision-making directly influences how you play through the campaign as well as multi-player match outcomes.

>>3925521
>>3925523
I chose the words in my definition very carefully.
It has to be a long term decision. So picking a weapon at the start of a match or mission doesn't matter outside of that mission. Just having an upgrade tree isn't consequential if you get more than enough levels to fill out all of it by the end without even trying. Having things to collect in order to progress isn't "primarily centered" around those choices.
It's all about developer intent, and what the game is all about.

File: 2u0eB26.jpg (244.9 KB)

244.9 KB JPG

>>3925525
Aren't you forgetting about a developers means and ends though?

>>3925280
...this sounds familiar
https://youtu.be/xqAtLuk2NqA

>>3925280
Except a genre is a collective noun, not an adjective.

>>3925525
>picking a weapon at the start of a match or mission doesn't matter outside of that mission.
Civilization games can last for days and Total War / Paradox games consist of expansive and arguably roleplayable campaigns. These don't negate your definition at all. What constitutes a "long period of time?"

>Just having an upgrade tree isn't consequential if you get more than enough levels to fill out all of it by the end without even trying.
There are RPGs that let you build out nearly or the entirety of a tree though, like Skyrim.

>It's all about developer intent, and what the game is all about.
"An RPG is when the developer says it is" isn't the definition in the OP.

>>3925578
I don't know the civilization games, so I can't really make an evaluation on what they even are. What makes definitions like this so hard is that at some point or another, you need to leave it up to "know it when you see it". So how long should these decisions impact a game? I don't know. How long do the developers intend for you to play it? How many games do the Civ developers intend for one person to play in order to get a full experience? Most RPGs are designed so you can get a satisfying complete experience out of one playthrough.

Games like the Elder Scrolls or Fallout 4 do let you max out on everything if you just play for long enough, but the difference is that you'd need to grind so much, and play for so long that it's not feasible for any player to ever get even close to that through natural gameplay. in almost every modern action game I've played with skill trees, the choices were minor at best, only served to slightly augment the gameplay that doesn't change much if at all.
This is why I say that developer intent is important. What they design with the most care is what they see as most important. in some games, it's the lengthy action combos and special moves you can do. In others, it's the massive number of weapons with different stats that all affect what you're capable of. It's why the combat in most CRPGs is the way it is, while Zelda games have it the way they are.

>"An RPG is when the developer says it is" isn't the definition in the OP.
exactly. good thing that's not what I was saying.
Let me break it down for you. You can play Minecraft just fine without building or exploring past what's required. Once you beat the dragon, you log out and add it to your "completed games" list. That doesn't mean that Minecraft isn't a building game, or an exploration game. Playing Mario while trying as hard as possible to roleplay as Mario and pick the paths that he would doesn't make it any less of a platformer, and doesn't make it any more of an RPG.

>>3925781
>Most RPGs are designed so you can get a satisfying complete experience out of one playthrough.
Multiple endings is a staple of the genre. If you want to say that "just a single set of possibilities" is good enough for a satisfying complete experience then the same is true for the majority of strategy games.

>Games like the Elder Scrolls or Fallout 4 do let you max out on everything if you just play for long enough, but the difference is that you'd need to grind so much, and play for so long that it's not feasible for any player to ever get even close to that through natural gameplay.
This wasn't part of your definition. You can level up everything if you want to, not to mention that those games in and of themselves are not built in such a way that you are locked out of content for not leveling up certain skills. The rest of this paragraph makes a non-meaningful distinction between other types of games that were not part of your original definition.

>You can play Minecraft just fine without building or exploring past what's required. Once you beat the dragon, you log out and add it to your "completed games" list. That doesn't mean that Minecraft isn't a building game, or an exploration game.
The fact that you have to build and explore to even finish the game negates whatever point you're attempting to make here. I don't see how this doesn't point right back to "it's an RPG if the developers intend for it to be." Which is a definition that I don't actually have a problem with, but it isn't the one you outlined.

I maintain that the definition as stated in the OP is completely non-functional and would include action games, puzzle games, and strategy games in its definition.

>>3925857
Again, it just sounds like you're selectively missing pieces of my definition.
Mostly "developer intent for the gameplay to primarily center"

I don't know strategy games, but I do know that early tabletop RPGs were inspired by War games, which evolved into computer strategy games. There's also a lot of cross-contamination there because game developers tend to not enjoy only singular genres.

Developer intent is why Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls count, while Spider-Man or Hogwarts Legacy don't. it takes a level of grinding to equal multiple playthroughs worth of experience points. No developer intends for you to do that. You'll be finished with everything in the game long before you get even close to that level. Meanwhile, just playing those other two games to completion (including side quests) is enough to max out on everything.

You also seem to have an issue with the concept of gameplay being "primarily centered" around your choices. In a proper RPG, nearly every moment you're playing is full of aspects that are dictated by your choices. An action game with "RPG Elements" does this usually by augmenting what you can already do in a way of your choosing. a proper RPG makes this the main focus. You pick what gear you take with you, and from that, what you're better equipped to handle. You choose your party members, and choose what items they have too. The actual act of playing the game is usually secondary to building what your character can do. I think I've said this before, but that's why so many RPGs have an auto-attack feature, and take the concepts of dodging, blocking, and parrying out of the players' hands, instead giving it to randomness (that's also based on your numbers which are dependent on your choices)
I'm not saying that all of them have to have click-to-attack gameplay to be an RPG, but this is what I mean when I say the choices you make are front and center.

File: 1705392898832060.jpg (49.2 KB)

49.2 KB JPG

>>3925857
>>3926455
And as a final point (since I'm not going to keep responding to this thread every time I remember that I made it)
Impactful choice isn't something wholly unique to Roleplaying Games, and it doesn't make every game with an impactful choice a Roleplaying Game.
Game genres are as fickle as any other type of genre. Try going to /v/ and asking what a roguelike is for proof of that. The reason we have them is so we can share a certain set of aspects about a game in a short phrase. You don't have to say "You play as a guy who usually has a gun. The screen shows what the guy sees through his own eyes. You're meant to do a lot of shooting with the aforementioned gun, usually while adversaries attempt to shoot at you in kind." You could just say "Its an FPS." That genre is beyond easy to define since it's right there in the name. The only issues I've heard people have is if games that are not "Primarily Centered" around shooting count as an FPS. Skyrim and Minecraft being two of those.
Explain what the difference between a platformer and a Metroidvania, and you'll run into all of the same issues had in this thread.
You can't just define genres in rigid border lines without including ones that don't belong there, and excluding some that do. (Also, games can be more than one genre)

I think RPG as a genre name is fine enough. Mostly because people have at least a coherent feeling of what it means, with discussion of definitions usually about the oddballs, or about elitist purity testing (which isn't a bad thing, by the desu) The whole genre got started because some warhammer nerds got together and went "But what if it was Tolkien?"
I just want to actually agree on a sort of definition that doesn't amputate absolutely everything while still sticking to the initial purpose and appeal of defining a character by numbers, and seeing where those numbers will take you.

>>3925280
No, a role-playing game is a game with character attributes that are separate from player skill, and inventory management.

File: images(5).jpg (32 KB)

32 KB JPG

This is a bait thread where OP is trying to walk everyone to the conclusion that anime visual novels are indeed RPGs.
Eventually he will walk everyone to the conclusion that all a games are really just anime visual novels.
You should take your sick fetish to another board OP.

Why are RPG fans the only ones confused by, and compelled to argue about, what RPGs are?
This seems to be a purely modern phenomenon, I do not recall this question arising back in the 90s.

>>3926697
Are they? OP by his own admission has been forcing this discussion for years.

>>3926698
Perhaps, but think how many dozens or hundreds of times you've seen arguments on this board from different anons about "what is an RPG? is X an RPG? is Y an RPG? Z is not an RPG." and so on

>>3926701
But what if it's the same anons that don't represent RPG fans

>>3926704
I find it highly improbable that all of the autistic arguments I’ve witnessed on 4chins by RPG sperglords were false flags.

>>3926726
Must be new.

>>3926697
Wasn't there a clash between JRPGs and WRPGs at the time? (and by clash I mean western critics hating on JRPGs)

>>3927049
I dunno, in the 90s most of my friends and I played both.

>>3926697
Vidya RPGs started by programmers trying to translate tabletop RPGs into software, through various angles and focuses.

This way you get RPGs who range into anything from action games with a lot of dialogue options to games with a linear story and turn based combat.

Then you get people seeking RPGs and getting pissed half of them isn't what they want out of the genre, and filtering those games is even harder because at some point in the past people decided to use geographic locations to separate the subgenres.

>>3927077
>at some point in the past people decided to use geographic locations to separate the subgenres.
Name one single good rpg made by white people that is and feels exactly like jrpgs, before Clair Obscur Expedition 33 came into existence.

>>3927114
>Name one single good rpg made by white people that is and feels exactly like jrpgs, before Clair Obscur Expedition 33 came into existence.
Anachronox

>>3927119
I said good.

>>3927124
You probably had never heard of it before my post. Almost certainly too young to have played it.

>>3926455
>>3926466
Insane how both of these immensely long posts completely walk back OP's own definition and he doesn't even realize it.

>>3927174
It's boring, repelling, and repetitive. There's a reason why no one knows about it.

>>3927230
Could also just be that you misunderstood what I meant in the OP like the last guy, and I needed to explain a bit more.

>>3925280
it's a game, not a book
a definition based entirely on narrative structure most certainly will never work.
try again

>>3927580
If a definition requires multiple paragraphs of redefinition just to land on "it's about developer intent" then the "definition" is dogshit. Maybe you should play the other genres talked about before making this argument.

>>3927652
I said Gameplay. nothing about Narrative.
>>3927663
That's still not what I said. Developers put the ability to make those sort of choices in the game (Long Term, Consequential, Decently Informed choices) with the "intent" that the gameplay primarily center around them. Whether the player completely ignores them, or makes meaningful choices despite the dev not forseeing it doesn't make a difference to whether the game is an RPG.
This is why I required multiple paragraphs. Because some people need the help.

>>3927813
>Developers put the ability to make those sort of choices in the game (Long Term, Consequential, Decently Informed choices) with the "intent" that the gameplay primarily center around them. Whether the player completely ignores them, or makes meaningful choices despite the dev not forseeing it doesn't make a difference to whether the game is an RPG.
I think the reason why you don't get that this includes a ton of other games besides RPGs is because you don't play anything else.

>>3925280
so if I host a 1-shot railroaded tabletop rpg session, it's not an rpg because there are no long term or informed choices by the player?

>>3926697
it's just the vocal autists sperging out. the 98% remainder of us easily know an rpg when we see one.

>>3927813
>I said Gameplay. nothing about Narrative.
No.
>long-term consequential decently informed choices
You were talking about narrative, you just didn't understand it

>>3926697
>back in the 90s
it was easy to put a game in a genre box back then
now every game is a mish-mash of styles and gameplay features from what used to be different genres
basically 80% of all AA and AAA non-sports vidogames today are some sort of action-adventure with RPG elements leaning into one side or the other
which makes it harder to put a game into a genre box

>>3928222
>it's just the vocal autists sperging out
No, it's just this guy. "I know one when I see one" is perfectly fine as a metric as long as everyone understands that there's going to be fuzzy areas at the edges from person to person. OP's "definition" is just ass and they really want to make it a thing for some reason.

>>3928245
True, fair point.

>>3928246
>I know one when I see one
I'm not that guy, but that's just giving up because "thinking is hard"
"I know one when you see one" proves there are some criteria that you use when "you know one", which means that those can be written down

>>3928256
It’s using inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning.

>>3928256
PS
it's just that it's not one single criterion
and it's not even a couple of criteria
it's a large list of criteria none of which is either sufficient nor necessary by itself
[well.. some are probably necessary, like some sort of character progression system]
but MOST IMPORTANTLY and what most anons trying to define RPGs tend to forget it's also what a game isn't

Basically the more a game ticks boxes on this "RPG criteria" list while ticking less boxes in other genres, the closer the game is to a pure RPG
A game can tick a lot of RPG boxes but if it ticks even more boxes in some other genre X than it's "X with RPG elements"

That's why for instance HoMM games are TBS with rpg elements despite meeting as much "is it an RPG?" criteria as some pure RPGs do

>>3928260
PPS
maybe the wording "ticks more boxes" isn't exactly what I meant to say
it's which elements are more central to the gameplay

File: MV5BZTUyYjYyMzYtZmI4YS00Zjk3LWJkOTAtMjYxMzUwNThmZTFmXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg (219.8 KB)

219.8 KB JPG

This is my favorite RPG.

>>3928256
>"I know one when you see one" proves there are some criteria that you use when "you know one", which means that those can be written down
Sure. It's nowhere to be found in the OP though.

>>3928333
>It's nowhere to be found in the OP though.
Aye, we can agree on that

>>3925280
Which final fantasy game had choices that mattered?

Role-playing video games, also known as computer role-playing games (CRPGs), comprise a broad video game genre generally defined by a detailed story and character advancement (often through increasing characters' levels or other skills). Role-playing games almost always feature combat as a defining feature and traditionally used turn-based combat; however, modern role-playing games commonly feature real-time action combat or even non-violent forms of conflict resolution (with some eschewing combat altogether). Further, many games have incorporated role-playing elements such as character advancement and quests while remaining within other genres.

>>3925280
We already have a definition. Insofar as you're trying to make everything that's ever been described as an RPG fit into that definition, you're wasting your time because everyone understands that calling Dragon Quest a JRPG doesn't mean it's the same thing as D&D.
Not sure why your generation is so atomized, it's like your intellectual life is a nuclear wasteland.

File: kot.png (119.3 KB)

119.3 KB PNG

>"a definition that works" thread
>look inside
>it doesn't

>>3928662
I haven't played most of them, but what came to mind was taking specific characters in your party, equipping them with weapons and gear that you choose, and picking which spells and items you use in a given encounter (which means you won't have that MP/Item for a later one)
It isn't much, of course, but JRPGs are usually a step or two above a VN anyway. I'm a bit curious what a turn based combat game without these things would be like, and would it even be called an RPG.

File: hq720.jpg (52.5 KB)

52.5 KB JPG

>>3928834
>what came to mind was taking specific characters in your party, equipping them with weapons and gear that you choose, and picking which spells and items you use in a given encounter
My favorite RPG moment is the long-term consequence of choosing the right gun for a Quake Live duel engagement, that and also which upgrade I go for first when playing a Zerg vs Toss duel is Starcraft.
DAMN! I love Quake and Starcraft well known and prominent RPG titles !

>>3928838
>long-term consequence of choosing the right gun
Oh that's cute. Try having a baby in the Sims.

>>3928834
>uses FF as an example of "choice"
>>>>>>>>>"I haven't played most of them"
OP...

>>3925280
Very simple.
Role-Playing Game is a modification of a tabletop wargame, that changes focus from controlling an army toward controlling a single main unit (with optional support units) by each player, whereas the narrative of the game is changed from justification of currently played battle to the description of adventure of aforementioned main units (player characters). Optional gameplay changes regarding order and synchronization of units' actions can be introduced. Everything else is inherited from tabletop wargame definition.

>>3929321
Bait surely.
You just Intuit this gay fag shit without doing any research into tabletop wargames or RPGs.

>>3928962
by any metric I've seen, Sims is an RPG.
Not only that, but it's a Real-Time with Pause CRPG.

>>3925280
number. go. up.

my case is rested.

'sup boyos. OP here.
I'm surprised to see this thread still up, but I've got a bit more about the topic to talk about.

I'll admit, the biggest issue with my definition of RPG is that it's too subjective, and if you have any looser of a definition of what gameplay being primarily centered around a concept means, it falls apart. I think that's where the major conceit in the thread lies.

The biggest thing I wanted to do was draw a bridge between Western RPGs and Eastern RPGs. I was searching for as many different interpretations of what an RPG is at it's core, and found an old Extra Credits video from back when they were good, (it's 13 years old) it still got a lot of stuff wrong though.

He illustrated what I tried to say pretty well until the end, where he said the main appeal of all types of RPGs is Abnegation. or "turning your brain off" which is such a 2012 thing to say, and I'm glad that we've moved past that.
Anyway, the part I agree with is when he talks about the Aesthetics of Play, or the main appeal of whatever game we're playing. In some ways, it doesn't really make sense to categorize game genres in terms of surface level mechanics like "first person shooter" because you won't be playing games like Fallout New Vegas, Minecraft, and Counter Strike for the same reasons.

That's the aspect I meant to highlight in my definition. an RPG is a game where your main goal is to make your choices as you see fit, and feel the impact of them as you play. You play the game and pick the Warrior class so you can feel the consequences of not being able to use magic, and the benefits of using heavy armor. That choice has weight because it can't easily be undone. You're stuck with your choice and have to figure out how to live with it.
You play a JRPG because you want to see the story. That's why the gameplay usually doesn't go past matching colors and rationing healing items. That's why they don't usually let you create your own character, at most picking the gender.

>>3932751
Furthermore, this is how I think it ties in to the name of the game. a Role-Playing Game. It's not just about giving you the opportunities to pretend that you're your well defined character, it's about making you stick to them.
It's the reason Wizards can't use armor and Thieves can't use warhammers. Not because anyone playing those classes would want to, but because it's the game's intent to force you to play that role. When you're met with a difficult encounter, All you want is to find a way past. You're not going to care about your character's internal motivations to use a necromancy spell. you're going to use it because it'll help you win. Or you won't because you can't use Necromancy as a Ranger.

Your character is more defined by what they can't do rather than what they can.

So I'd say that JRPGs and other types of RPGs shouldn't really be considered the same genre that we play for the same reasons.
I'll admit, I don't really have a lot of JRPG experience. The only ones I've played are from before the year 2008, so maybe all this is wrong and I'm dumb and need to play more different genres.
Look, the only other coherent definition I've seen in this thread is one that says that character power is quantifiable and disconnected from player skill. Once you start factoring in strategy, resource management, and even reaction time (all skills that you can develop a sense for) it gets murky, but I'll admit it's not a bad definition.

>>3932754
>Your character is more defined by what they can't do rather than what they can.
Definition of roleplaying by a guy who doesn't roleplay.

Here's my personal definition:
"If the skills of the playable character are more important towards accomplishing a goal than the skills of the player, it is an RPG."
Granted, this definition turns some simulation games like The Sims into RPGs but I feel that is a sufficiently acceptable sacrifice in exchange for a short and simple definition.

>>3932784
I'm not saying that's the definition of roleplaying. it's just a good way to explain why roleplaying games are set up the way they are.
If you let the player do anything, and just say "alright, now don't use what your character wouldn't use. I'm trusting you to roleplay here" then of course the players won't actually do that.
The game enforces the mechanical roleplay by giving you options based on your role, while restricting ones against it.
Telling your own character's story and following his personality isn't quite so easy to game-ify. D&D has definitely tried though with features like Background, and Alignment.
But yeah, I get it. Having freedom to roleplay a character how you see fit is a lot of fun, and pretty common in a tabletop setting, but it comes back to the old issue with computer RPGs in general. When you take away the human element, you lose a whole dimension of adaptability and granularity. The game can't give you the infinite possible responses to every dialogue choice, and can't account for every potential motivation for every one of those dialogue choices. That's why most games try to leave the dialogue system open while systemic mechanics are locked tight.

>>3932977
>Granted, this definition turns some simulation games like The Sims into RPGs but I feel that is a sufficiently acceptable sacrifice in exchange for a short and simple definition.
Average /vrpg/ poster

I miss when it was as simple as some niggas in a row

>>3933066
>"I'm trusting you to roleplay here" then of course the players won't actually do that.
/vrpg/ is hilarious

"I refuse to roleplay unless forced to"

"But please force me, I want to roleplay"

"..Just, you know, not voluntarily"

>>3933261
When the game gets tough, that's when players are most likely to break from their established self-imposed rules. That's exactly when the role needs to be enforced the most.
If the only thing stopping me from putting on a full suit of plate armor on my wizard is just my own character's image, then of course any player wouldn't stick with that.

I guess I would have phrased it differently now after thinking about this a bit more. Players need to make their significant choices through low energy situations to then stick with those consequences through high energy situations.
Calm moments of gameplay are when you're in town deciding which pieces of gear you don't need, or would rather hang on to. They're where you choose what points to put where in a level up, or even what party members to take.
Low energy situations are also where dialogue choices are most common. How many times do you choose an option that sounds right for your character, only to reload and pick something different because the one you chose got you into a tough combat encounter? Playing through the early Fallout games, this happens a lot.
The combat from that dialogue is the high energy situation. It's when your goal goes from "how best to fulfill the fantasy of being my character within the story" and it becomes "how best to kill this fucking dragon, oh my god! He just one-shot the cleric again, and I'm not dragging all his gear back to the church"

For normal people who don't play RPGs because they're RPGs, they don't understand what the true meaning of roleplaying really is. They'll just play the game with the intent of getting to the end. They're the types to ask online about "the best build" before even getting past character creation. and unfortunately, this is why games like Skyrim toned down the start of the game to merely a single choice of your race. The benefits of which are minimal compared to the previous games. (I still love Skyrim though, but I'll admit it's a bit shallow)

>>3933278
What RPG was so difficult it made you stop RPing?

>>3933282
How about you finish reading my post first.

I'm still enjoying writing in this thread, but it's a bit offputting when I try to put in these detailed, well thought out arguments only for someone to just skim through the first half and try their best attempt at a twitter gotcha.

Anyway, to give a different example, my first Morrowind character was meant to be purely magic using. Then I ran out of Magicka, and didn't have the weapon skill to use a spear. so I tried grinding out some levels on a mudcrab. Pretty quickly found out why that didn't work, then restarted the character with this new knowledge in mind.
This happened kind of a lot when I was first getting in to Morrowind. I'd restart characters a lot so I could get new skills I realized would be useful only after a while of gameplay, and the idea of regularly using skills that weren't my major ones just felt like I was being inefficient. (and I didn't want to spend gold to train because I wanted to save it for important items that pretty much never came)

>>3933284
>enjoying writing in this thread
>these detailed, well thought out arguments
"Anyways, listen to my morrowind mudcrab story"

It was nice talking to you grandpa, but I really have to go now.

>>3933298
>ask question
>get answer
>complain
Hurry back, sonny. I'll have more of those strawberry hard candies with the jelly inside when you visit next.

>>3928711
/thread