• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Automatic or manual stat distribution in RPGs?

I would say hybrid tbh. But completely manual is usually less fun for me. It always ends up as some min-maxing exercise. Even when I played old crpgs, I'm not doing so for the control I'm given over stats.
 
Only if it's meaningful like Dark Souls or Divinity:OS.

I don't need to choose where my stats are going in World of Warcraft. Same for all 50 of my guys in Fire Emblem.
 
Mandoric said:
Giving a succinct description of how multiple characters differ, or how a single character has improved? We don't need to be able to manually spec HP to know that a character with 20 is twice as durable as one with 10, and HP as a stat almost always grows automatically even in "manual" systems.
Click to expand...

But if a character's progression is automatic why have levels to begin with? Enemies will always be scaled for roughly the same progression as well, rendering the whole level mechanic extraneous.
 
I liked the way Super Mario RPGs did it until they started with this bullshit

adgmDlW.png


Don't pretend to give me control and then hand it over to the RNG anyway.
Didn't care for random stat allocations in Fire Emblem or the SaGa games, either.
 
Like another poster mentioned, depends on the game.

Players complain about the auto stat distribution in diablo 3, but why would you want to invest points in anything other than main stat and vit?
 
Automatic. If there's a skill tree with a whole bunch of equally useful (or useless) sounding stuff to choose from I never know what to pick and usually let skill points build up without choosing anything, then pick a bunch of crap at random. I don't mind upgrading specific stats like the Souls games, but I hate skill trees.

Plus gaining new skills/abilities automatically upon leveling up is way more fun, it's like getting a present! :D
 
LurkerPrime said:
But if a character's progression is automatic why have levels to begin with? Enemies will always be scaled for roughly the same progression as well, rendering the whole level mechanic extraneous.
Click to expand...

Because people hate admitting that they're scrubs and setting the difficulty slider to Easy, but love being level 99 and wrecking shit.

It also helps preserve the management sim aspect of RPGs - essentially you've got a spreadsheet of numbers, and you're expected to make an educated guess over whether you can complete the scenario with what you have. Quantifying the exact trajectories those numbers will take makes that guesswork possible.
 
BlitzerRadic said:
Like another poster mentioned, depends on the game.

Players complain about the auto stat distribution in diablo 3, but why would you want to invest points in anything other than main stat and vit?
Click to expand...

Wiz glass cannon build? 0 to all other stat, max to int? Or maybe if fast casting depends on dex, invest some on dex till it reaches the next cast threshold?

But noooo...now it's all gear dependant...thanks to the initial RMAH idea.
 
Mandoric said:
Because people hate admitting that they're scrubs and setting the difficulty slider to Easy, but love being level 99 and wrecking shit.

It also helps preserve the management sim aspect of RPGs - essentially you've got a spreadsheet of numbers, and you're expected to make an educated guess over whether you can complete the scenario with what you have. Quantifying the exact trajectories those numbers will take makes that guesswork possible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Variation in character builds are key to making a game more engaging and personal, and thus more enjoyable. Automatic is bad design because of how meaningless it is.
Boogalogist said:
Wiz glass cannon build? 0 to all other stat, max to int? Or maybe if fast casting depends on dex, invest some on dex till it reaches the next cast threshold?

But noooo...now it's all gear dependant...thanks to the initial RMAH idea.
Click to expand...

Diablo 3 in a nutshell. Such a shame.

Crakatak187 said:
It's already predetermined, so it should technically be optimum since it's the only option.
Click to expand...

Such a choice shifts "optimum" strategies even further into skill, item, and character use and relegates weaker characters/builds ever further into the sidelines.
 
I like manual distribution in systems where you also unlock skills from increasing each stat to specific thresholds. It provides good hints as to how you're supposed to be playing based on your stats spread, and also provides clear goals to work towards.
 
Crakatak187 said:
It's already predetermined, so it should technically be optimum since it's the only option.
Click to expand...

I don't see most devs ruining the balance of their own games. I imagined you were talking about broken builds.

edit: or not even going there, just something more casual like a mage that knows all the spells and is average in all of them until high levels versus a mage that is great at a few spells at early stages of the game and never learns many of the rest.
 
I prefer my RPGs to have automatic stat distribution, but with a cast of characters that all have their own strengths and weaknesses. I want my mages and healers to gain crazy MP and Magic stats, while my rogues gain evasion and speed, and my tanks defense and HP, etc etc.

Basically... I love old school JRPGs for this reason. Well, that is ONE of the reasons.
 
Manual... Always manual.

Even with some of the most overwhelming games, you eventually get an idea of what suits your style of play.
 
Automatic. Give decisions like classes instead. 90% of the time searching for optimal stat builds is the best option in manual games, so why not just let the player directly choose the build they want without having to calculate or search things.

And if you do go automatic, keep randomization to a minimum and if you're manual then give an option to respec. For the love of God please let players respec.
 
Manual. Games that have automatic, especially action RPGs,make me feel like nothings changed. Think: Dragon's Dogma.
 
With automatic, it's easier to create a particular "experience". The developer will know, roughly, that X character will be capable of Y at Z point in the game, and balance encounters accordingly. In that sense, I think automatic should be the default choice, and that designers should only put in manual stat distribution if they are willing to go the extra mile to make their game is robust enough to support a large number of viable stat configurations.

If your "manual" stat allocation system is quickly optimized, then you messed up somewhere in the design process and wound up with a redundant game system.
 
Haly said:
With automatic, it's easier to create a particular "experience". The developer will know, roughly, that X character will be capable of Y at Z point in the game, and balance encounters accordingly. In that sense, I think automatic should be the default choice, and that designers should only put in manual stat distribution if they are willing to go the extra mile to make their game is robust enough to support a large number of viable stat configurations.

If your "manual" stat allocation system is quickly optimized, then you messed up somewhere in the design process and wound up with a redundant game system.
Click to expand...

This is mostly a problem with JRPGs, which pretty much only use stats for combat.
 
HK-47 said:
This is mostly a problem with JRPGs, which pretty much only use stats for combat.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Tying skills/abilities/equipment to stats is one easy way to make stat allocation meaningful, but a lot of JRPGs don't really do this. WRPGs are far better in this regard thanks to their continuous D&D tradition.
 
Automatic. Figuring out stats is not my idea of a fun time. That just gets in a way in what I'm playing the game for. Any game that makes you spend a large amount of time in stats is just tedious as hell.

ugh_the_boot said:
Lol Automatic? What is the point of that? Might as well just have a blurb that comes up "You character is now stronger", if you don't have any control over what is strengthened no point in knowing any of the stats.
Click to expand...

There isn't any. Who cares about stats? I wish games did just say your character was stronger.
 
I prefer Automatic, especially for RPGs with a party of more than one characters.

I guess Manual with Respec would be fine for RPGs with one customized Hero (Dark Souls, Skyrim, Vampire the Masquerade and such). The complete lack of Respec in some games is a huge potential for disaster. I've been lucky so far, but someday I will dick myself bad and I will hate it.
 
Almost always manual, let me min-max and have the strength of superman but the defense of a tissue. If a game is using automatic for the love of God don't be random, if I am not getting a choice at least make it so the characters are viable in whatever their role is.
 
Automatic = I'm automatically throwing the game into the trash!

unless they make up for it with crazy gear customization like Dragons Dogma, but even there it would have been a lot better if I could manually distribute rather than jumping through hoops, looking up when to switching vocations and what not just to get the optimal stats
 
I prefer automatic only because if its manual every stat is just going to str.


I'm bad at stat distribution ;___;

Why is my gandalf so swoll?
 
Why not both? Like if you want your MC to have a defense or offensive build.

But preferably, automatic.
 
HK-47 said:
Most WRPGs?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical. If you are going to say that games get it right, I would like to hear examples. Dragon Age: Origins has manual stat allocation, and it is just one part of how that game is a complete mechanical disaster full of bad design choices.

A lot of Western RPGs are heavily influenced by tabletop RPGs, most notably Dungeons & Dragons. It is Dungeons & Dragons that invented and popularized the idea of stats and the importance of stat allocation. However, D&D's basic mechanical framework is built on very a very shaky foundation that people have been increasingly criticizing over recent years. It's use of stats as the foundation of character abilities are fundamentally at odds with its class/level system.

Here are common pitfalls that stat-based games have fallen into, based on the mold of D&D:
1) Unequal value of stats.
If one stat is more powerful than another, then having the player be able to put a point in either one for the same cost won't work. However, it isn't easy to have a system where every stat has equal value. Furthermore, there are a lot of game systems that barely even try (the difference in value between Dexterity and Constitution in many editions of D&D, for example). Final Fantasy 6 has something resembling manual stat allocation via its Magicite level bonuses. The problem is that it isn't at all obvious which stats do what. For example, Vigor mostly effects how much hp damage/healing poison and regen effects do. Magic Power boosts everything from the obvious (Magic spells) to the nonsensical (Sabin's Blitz attacks). The game presents these as equal options, but one is vastly better than the other, almost to the point where building up Vigor at all is a complete waste.

2) Multiple Ability Dependancy (MAD)
This is something that comes up in class design, where different classes require more stats to be high than other classes. For example, in Dragon Age Origins, a sword and shield using Warrior need Strength and Dexterity to unlock their talents, Constitution to actually survive hits, and Willpower to afford actually using their skills. Meanwhile, a Mage can get by via mostly just pumping Intelligence and Willpower. Both characters get the same number of ability points from a level, but one has to spread them out among twice the number of stats.

3) Making players choose between being good in combat and being able to do non-combat stuff
You thankfully see this less often than other problems, but it still happens a fair bit in WRPGs. This is where a game makes the player choose between putting their stats in their combat skills, or putting them into stuff like being better at conversation options or opening treasure chests. However, no matter which way you look at it, being better at conversation options is never equivalent to being better at combat. They are so fundamentally different that you can't balance the two.

4) Buying stats you can't use.
In a game with a class system, why would a Fighter put points into Intelligence, if Intelligence is only used to determine magic power? It would give zero benefit. The problem is that a lot of systems don't prevent this from happening. In some cases like the example I gave, it might be obvious. In other cases, it is less so.

These kinds of problems are big enough that even some D&D fans I have seen want to get rid of stats from the game. A lot of modern tabletop RPGs have replaced stats as a whole with alternative systems for describing characters. So I am not convinced that manual stat allocation works very well. It has a lot of problems built into it. There are games that do it well by balancing stats very carefully and making stat allocation into the basis of the whole game, such as Demon's Souls. But that takes a very delicate touch, and doesn't work if you try to tie stats in to non-combat options like a lot of D&D-inspired WRPGs.

EDIT: It is worth pointing out that automatic stat allocation is not the same thing as having no builds or character customization. I just means that the emphasis is on systems such as classes, ability choices, equipment choices, and so forth. I would say that those things are not only more intuitive to work with, but have a greater ability to allow for a variety of character builds than pure stat allocation systems.
 
Manual, no respec option.

Screwed up your character? Reroll, git gud, etc.

In all seriousness though, automatic as an option is a nice way to go about it in a friendlier way for people who don't want to deal with leveling up stuff.
 
Classless and manual like Fallout's is easily the best

SkyOdin said:
I'm skeptical. If you are going to say that games get it right, I would like to hear examples. Dragon Age: Origins has manual stat allocation, and it is just one part of how that game is a complete mechanical disaster full of bad design choices.

A lot of Western RPGs are heavily influenced by tabletop RPGs, most notably Dungeons & Dragons. It is Dungeons & Dragons that invented and popularized the idea of stats and the importance of stat allocation. However, D&D's basic mechanical framework is built on very a very shaky foundation that people have been increasingly criticizing over recent years. It's use of stats as the foundation of character abilities are fundamentally at odds with its class/level system.

Here are common pitfalls that stat-based games have fallen into, based on the mold of D&D:
1) Unequal value of stats.
If one stat is more powerful than another, then having the player be able to put a point in either one for the same cost won't work. However, it isn't easy to have a system where every stat has equal value. Furthermore, there are a lot of game systems that barely even try (the difference in value between Dexterity and Constitution in many editions of D&D, for example). Final Fantasy 6 has something resembling manual stat allocation via its Magicite level bonuses. The problem is that it isn't at all obvious which stats do what. For example, Vigor mostly effects how much hp damage/healing poison and regen effects do. Magic Power boosts everything from the obvious (Magic spells) to the nonsensical (Sabin's Blitz attacks). The game presents these as equal options, but one is vastly better than the other, almost to the point where building up Vigor at all is a complete waste.

2) Multiple Ability Dependancy (MAD)
This is something that comes up in class design, where different classes require more stats to be high than other classes. For example, in Dragon Age Origins, a sword and shield using Warrior need Strength and Dexterity to unlock their talents, Constitution to actually survive hits, and Willpower to afford actually using their skills. Meanwhile, a Mage can get by via mostly just pumping Intelligence and Willpower. Both characters get the same number of ability points from a level, but one has to spread them out among twice the number of stats.

3) Making players choose between being good in combat and being able to do non-combat stuff
You thankfully see this less often than other problems, but it still happens a fair bit in WRPGs. This is where a game makes the player choose between putting their stats in their combat skills, or putting them into stuff like being better at conversation options or opening treasure chests. However, no matter which way you look at it, being better at conversation options is never equivalent to being better at combat. They are so fundamentally different that you can't balance the two.

4) Buying stats you can't use.
In a game with a class system, why would a Fighter put points into Intelligence, if Intelligence is only used to determine magic power? It would give zero benefit. The problem is that a lot of systems don't prevent this from happening. In some cases like the example I gave, it might be obvious. In other cases, it is less so.

These kinds of problems are big enough that even some D&D fans I have seen want to get rid of stats from the game. A lot of modern tabletop RPGs have replaced stats as a whole with alternative systems for describing characters. So I am not convinced that manual stat allocation works very well. It has a lot of problems built into it. There are games that do it well by balancing stats very carefully and making stat allocation into the basis of the whole game, such as Demon's Souls. But that takes a very delicate touch, and doesn't work if you try to tie stats in to non-combat options like a lot of D&D-inspired WRPGs.

EDIT: It is worth pointing out that automatic stat allocation is not the same thing as having no builds or character customization. I just means that the emphasis is on systems such as classes, ability choices, equipment choices, and so forth. I would say that those things are not only more intuitive to work with, but have a greater ability to allow for a variety of character builds than pure stat allocation systems.
Click to expand...

Dragon Age: Origins was kind of a bad example to use here since they made a half hearted attempt to make the attributes give some sort of resistance. Sword and board warriors didn't really need to put anything into constitution as it doesn't matter what your HP is if nothing can hit you with your armor and dexterity. Willpower didn't matter either since the only active ability you really needed was taunt. There also is no intelligence attribute but I'm assuming your talking about magic.

You didn't really describe how 3 is a problem.

I also disagree with your edit after the first sentence. Class based systems inherently limit character customization than something like Fallout or Arcanum.
 
Manual, always.

I couldn't disagree more with SkyOdin's entire post by the way, just because something is challenging to implement correctly you shouldn't get rid of it. That kind of thinking results in the prototypical AAA cinematic experience. There are plenty of games which have complex manual stat distribution which works well and is balanced.

Also, class-less systems are superior and making playyers choose between being good at combat or something else is not a problem, it's a feature.
 
Manual but make every stat CLEAR and limit how many there are.
Also make levelling up significant.

Having 5 to 10 stats, and getting a good boost when you level up is nice
Having 25 stats and every time you level up you can get a "+1" in some obscure stats, that's shitty
 
Used to only go manual for the longest time due to thinking it was crucial since I could really specify what I wanted as well as others saying it's really the way to go. I just got ME3 recently on Wii U and decided to just go full auto with it. Even in that game, the differences can be pretty severe with how the computer picks the abilities yet I still enjoy it.

The less thinking and managing I have to do these days the better.
 
Most recently on DAI I went manual on my character and Auto on everyone else. Think I did this in ME 2+3 too but it has been a while. Other RPGs I have played recently haven't had the option of manual stat distro.

Generally if I feel they are going to make decent changes in gameplay I will go manual, otherwise I don't care.

I know it isn't an RPG but I really prefer games like Infamous: Second Son that allow you to max out everything (except the opposite morality powers in the case of I:SS) in a single play through.
 
Diablo 1 style:
Manual with fixed stat caps, which you can max out.

Can't screw up, devs can balance the end game, but the way might be harder / easier depending on your choices. <- in my opinion they should even backport this system to Diablo 3.

If that's not an option:
Manual with Respec.
 
manual, automatic doesn't feel very "rpg" to me, might as well play an action/adventure game if everything is automated.
 
I'm slowly shifting away from my old style of wanting to max out and do everything in a game, but I'm someone who purposely made a perfect stats character in Fallout 3 twice. I used to 100% games, but not so much anymore. So I'm manual, but I'm starting to care less. It still annoys me to find out about wasted stats (Resistance in Dark Souls), and in some games there's a clearly superior upgrade path to follow.

I've only played one game that even offers automatic, and that's Kotor.
 
I'm shocked at all the responses preferring automatic.

Automatic defeats the purpose of a role playing game cause you can't choose how you want to develop the character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The year of no RPGs...
2
53
881
Northeastmonk replied
Why are developers so lazy with dungeon design in RPGs these days?
Opinion  2
56
641
Hudo replied
Best RPGs for main quest / side quests?
2
81
1K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Weekend GAF: First RPGs You've Ever Played...and Enjoyed
2 3
132
1K
Paasei replied
A former GameStop exec thought building its Steam competitor would be his 'forever job,' but GameStop thought digital distribution was a passing phase
News 
4
116
Unknown? replied
Top Bottom