This is applying one's own standard to all others. This is saying, "I cannot bend over backwards and rotate my hips, so clearly no one else can". Actually [hyperbole aside] it is tantamount to proclaiming, "I cannot see the subtext here, so you guys are making it up". It baffles the mind why they would spend the money on a famous name—if almost no one they planned to sell to even knows the name, or would play the series if they did? They could have made it a Deisel Punk TES set in their own 1940's... and been just as successful, and cost them no license fee; and without going out of their way to generate some deservedly earned enmity for trashing a loved series that they didn't give a damn about—except for skinning its pelt to make a new coat for their TES template. No. Fallout had a bugs. FO3 had bugs. Both games hit their mark. Fallout and FO3 were not even shooting at the same targets... There was no reason to even bother with using the Fallout name—except to exploit its earned reputation—and they offered none of what put Fallout in the top of most RPG hall of fame lists. Most of their intended market —and a number of their own developers— had never even heard of the games; let alone played them. Ask yourself if it would be acceptable for a studio [Let's say they exploited hard times at Bethesda and managed to acquire the Elderscrolls IP for their own use] to make the official TES VI as an Age of Wonder's clone? (The way they made FO3 as an Oblivion clone.) Could it be a good game? Sure; but does it offer the TES player anything they have come to expect and enjoy from the TES series? Hell no! This is why Just keeping some semblance of the setting is not at a enough. ***But we get the reverse; as though the Age of Wonders 4 turned out to be a FO4 clone. Think about that for moment.... and then realize that they even did this nonsense again to their own FO3. What does the FO3 fan [detached as they are from the true series] get out of FO4? They get a Destiny clone— with RPG-lite elements? _____________________________________ The RNG system represents an impartial probability of circumstance. The character's skill and ability development represents their measure of control over their circumstance. In practice it means that the novice fails more often that the expert, and the expert has more reliable skills—but not infallible. Even a professional locksmith can fail to open their own front door with their own keys, sometimes. Spoiler ...It's called, "Dropping your keys". The random number represents—effectively all the minutia and circumstance of the dynamic situation [hence it being different for each attempt]. The player's skill is either up to the task or it's not—and it doesn't necessarily mean that they made a mistake. They could fail because the door is swollen, or because somebody tried to pick the lock before years they did... and damaged it. The best silver tongued devil can fail to convince his mark if they have a headache and aren't really paying attention... The exact reason—and it doesn't even need to be shown— does't really matter at all. It is understood that the circumstance was simply against them that time. This also can influence whether a PC can succeed in time, when time is tight, and they have to act quickly. Here the expert has the advantage over the novice; for their experience will give them the edge regardless of bad circumstance... And that's effectively how it works in real life. There is no better system for RPG event resolution than random percentile & weighted skills. *Even if the game were to fully animate every hit & miss with a reason, ie. slipping on trash, twisting an ankle—but not breaking it, punching a wall, and not punching with the best skill with the follow-up strike... It would STILL need to be random number generation for it to be fair to the player and the game alike. Learn why if you dare. (Go ahead, and do ask, doubtless someone will explain it in detail.) There is no distinction between the two. Name the [effective ] differences between roleplaying a Wizard you create, and Gandalf, and Sauruman, and Merlin. The first difference is motivation, each of the four has a different agenda, each has different abilities, each has different ethics, and the means to their ends. Would Gandalf cast a spell to allow Gimli to impersonate Celeborn [with Galadriel] —Would Sauruman? (We know what Merlin did)—would your wizard do that? Could your wizard do it? That's part of roleplaying. It's not about wearing a costume. When you play a party based RPG, and have a lawful paladin, and a —less than lawful thief... does your paladin accompany your thief when they burgle rooms at the Inn? I only ever see it used as a discrediting escape hatch. Particularly when someone cannot think of a way to disprove it. Yes, it is... That's why I'd play. That's actually the ONLY reason I would bother playing an RPG... because things can go wrong. The character can do their best and potentially fail. This is what sucks about Bethesda's fake RPGs. You don't even get the chance to try something unless success is already assured. What little risk there is of failure, is the player's own handicapping of the PC. It seems easy, because your assumptions are more entertaining to you, than trying to understand these patient people. Not quite. In practice the RPG character should work like one of those Claw/plush toy machines one sees in arcades and supermarkets. The analogy being that each character is a unique claw with its own quirks and benefits. You indicate the target, and the claw performs its best [to retrieve the prize]. The player [in the case of RPGs] wants the plot to progress, but the PC has to pull it off. You'll notice a big difference between Fallout1&2 and FO3&4 is that in each, the player selects the target [to shoot at] but only in Fallout 1&2, is it up to the PC to aim and pull the trigger. In Fallout; as in any RPG [even aRPGs sometimes], the player cannot aid the PC in their plight. Ideally they should not even be allowed to solve a riddle—because it's not them trying to; nor are they there to whisper the answer to the PC. (But in practice, developers aren't often so strict. ) Plus... When stats are considered... the player might know the riddle, but the PC might be barely able to think—either drugged at the time, or even normally so. While the flip-side is that the stats could indicate that the PC is twice as smart as the player—who doesn't know the riddle, and as such is crippling the PC with an out of character loss of understanding. It's the same way in a fight. Did you ever play Street Fighter? (No it's not an RPG)... but players would play these life long athletes who train day in and day out to fight tournaments, and then lose because the player doesn't know any of their special moves. This is like roleplaying Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon", and him knowing nothing of how to defend himself. This is what's wrong with Witcher 2 BTW; Garalt went from being a consummate sword master to being a puppet; who can be beaten to death by village guards. In Witcher  the player was not impeding Geralt in his fights. They indicate targets, he attacked them to the best of his ability. It's the same premise used in Fallout, and Baldur's Gate, Pool of Radiance, Pillars of Eternity; and many others—It's even that way in Diablo.