Well, it would definitely seem like a very combat-based RPG, as you said that this system wouldn''t be applied to any more abstract skills, and this is definitely would be a major feature/strong point of a game.

quote:
My idea isn''t meant to handle more abstract skills - I''m still working on that problem. It''s just for physical movements, for now.

Try to find a copy of Die by the Sword...it used a simular system to what you described.

But there are a few questions...possable problems with such a system.

1) you said that by combineing two keypresses (a "Q" with a numpad "3" for example) would allow the player to initiate the move...this would seem great...on the surface...but how is the player to remember which "group" a certain move is catagorized in? Can players place moves into thier own groupings...or would the computer do that when the move is learned? What if players want to learn a new move but all of thier "groupings" are filled...are they forced to "drop" a established move, so they have space for the new one? During combat...how will this information be presented to the player?

2) Once a action is initiated...will it carry out until completed? If I direct my character to do a roundhouse...but in the process get hit with a punch...would my character complete the roundhouse and any moves I "chained" to it? Be careful with this...if the move continues without interuption you''ll end up with situations where players can''t do anything until their character "finnishes the animation"...if the action becomes interupted..you have just created a situation where players with very quick attacks (and defense moves)are going to have a leg up over players armed with slower (but maybe more powerful) moves.

3) how are characters of different sizes able to use this system?...purhapse the player has a 5 foot tall character whom is fighting a 6 foot tall character...if the player initiates a "jab to the head" how will it be expected to connect...and what would happen if the taller character used the same move on the smaller player?...

MSW,

Never heard of Die By the Sword... what system, what year, and who made it?

1) I don''t want to be tied down to a control scheme too much just yet, but my idea was for the player to personally make 8 groupings within which he would assign one skill or skill macro to each of q, w, e, r, and (why not add stuff) L-click and R-click. Pressing 1 through 8 would pull up one of these groups, after which the player would not need to press a number again unless he wanted to switch to a different set. Players can learn as many moves as they like, but will have a maximum of 8*6=48 accessible through hotkeys, and would have to drop a skill off the hotkey list to add another to it. Since players build their own movesets, they should be able to remember what each is... to help them remember, they can name their groupings. The names and numbers can be displayed on a HUD, as can the current mapping of keys to skills. If you''ve played Diablo II, it''ll be something like how skills from your skill tree are mapped to F-keys and then to your L and R click buttons.

2) Individual moves are usually run to completion, but they should be fairly short. Multi-move macros can be cancelled, say by hitting the macro key again; the current move is finished, then the character returns to neutral stance. Getting hit in the middle of a move may cancel the move into a "blow received" animation, depending on the strength of the received hit versus your character''s endurance. Those who use slow moves should toughen themselves up so that nor hell nor high water will stop them from finishing their axe swing - light, fast fighters will be able to interrupt each other due to their focus on speed over power, but should concentrate on avoiding, rather than interrupting, heavy characers. Damage modeling should take into account the relative momentum and durability of attacking and defending character/weapon... a rapier is quick to block, but doesn''t have a chance in hell of surviving let alone stopping a two-handed sword swing; and similarly, you may be able to catch an incoming fist if you''re quick, but if that fist is coming in hard enough you won''t be able to stop it.

3) Moves should be designed to include a variable angle component, read from mouse position at runtime. Thus it would be possible to aim a punch up or down with the mouse. Since a jab originates from the shoulder, the mouse angle indicates the starting position of the shoulder in the jab. Note that this means the same jab could be a high or low punch! It could even be an option that on activating a move, the character automatically rotates and reangles so that his opponent is within the target zone.

All this discussion of theory is fine, but I haven''t heard a word yet on implementation. Does the technology exist to actually pull this kind of stuff off?

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

Die by the Sword...a 3D action/RPG PC game released in 1998 from Interplay.

It had two seperate control schemes.

1) a sort of Virtual mode where players pressed numpad keys inorder to swing thier sword for an attack...pressing "6","5","4" quickly made the character swing the sword from his right to left, etc..

2) a "arcade control mode" players had the ability to "pre-program" certain sword attacks by useing a special editer...then assigning these moves to specific "hot keys/ key combos" for use in game..

found this site where you can buy a copy of the game:
http://www.chipsbits.com/cgi-bin/order.cbi_home?source=84693&newpage=infopages/DIEBS.IR.html



The game used some sort of propietary physics engine that guided how the characters moved, animations, etc... and it got fairly good reviews at the time...I suggest you try it out, if for no other reason then to see how a simular system to your design has been implimated.



One problem that I can see (given your answers to my questions above) is that such a system focuses on how well the player can control your combat system...rather then focusing the players attention on combat tactics...It seems that the player will not only have to memorize where he/she placed each of thier 48 attacks...but they must also use the mouse to better effect the attacks as they are being performed....this places more emphesis on player combat skill then his/her character combat skill.

quote:
if it''s all right with you, I''d rather take the role of a rock star, painter, or b-ball player. If nothing like these options are open, it''s not an RPG; it''s a combat game by any other name.

This is just a suggestion...but maybe you should spend more design time on innovative ways to make these other roles interesting and fun to play...ways to make such roles, and the time spent on playing them, as much or more important then combat...because the way it sounds...the emphesis is all on combat, meening being a rock star or some such has very little meening...just my $.02

MSW,

Thanks for the heads-up on Die By the Sword... I''ll check it out.

As I described it initially, this system does require quite a bit from the player. There are some additional features that could be added to place the burden of combat more on the character''s skills, while allowing the player a more strategic view. One is auto-targeting: merely point the character in the general direction of his intended opponent, and select the skill to use; the character then does the grunt work of precise targeting. The degree of leeway the auto-targeter gives could depend on the character''s degree of proficiency with the skill. Thus, as the character uses the skill more the player needs not be as precise in giving directions.

Descriptive nomenclature and a HUD would help the player remember his skill mappings. Instead of having to remember that 1-Q is a fencing thrust, he looks at the HUD where he has labeled group 1 "Fencing moves". When he hits 1 the HUD shows which skills he has mapped to each button.

Besides, remembering 48 mappings isn''t as hard as it sounds. It''s the equivalent of learning the moves of 8 characters in Street Fighter II, and plenty of people have done that. Plus, most skill sets probably won''t be dedicated to combat, so wouldn''t need to be accessed on an urgent basis.

In fact, this system''s focus on combat really isn''t as great as you seem to think. Because all the examples I''ve given are combat maneuvers, and because you''ve asked me to elaborate more on combat than on any other aspect, it may seem that combat is its sole role. Therefore, I''ll show how the basketball player, rock star, and painter can also take advantage of this system.

The b-ball player is easiest. He could have two skill sets dedicated to basketball moves: one for offense( shoot, dunk, pass, catch, fake-out etc.) and one for defense( block high, block wide, steal, intercept etc.). It wouldn''t be too much more scripting for him to auto-select a skill set depending on whether he has the ball. He may dedicate more sets to things such as custom acrobatic dunks or other stunts.

The rock star''s main skill is in music, which is more in fine motor control and thus not particularly applicable to this system. However, his on-stage antics are another story. I can think of a number of moves I''d like to have on hand while jamming out: wave to the crowd; rock back and forth to the beat; dive into audience, etc etc. This would put some player participation into what might otherwise be a somewhat boring character concept (for those who can''t play their own music).

The painter is also concerned with fine motor skills, and doesn''t really have much of an audience. But what about a graffiti artist? Large movements of the hand and arm are used to create mural tags; I can imagine wanting moves for creating certain oft-used shapes. Then each individual move would be like selecting a custom brush. With enough patience you could chain several moves into a single macromove to create a full design. Imagine: one button pressed, and watch as you beautify a drab piece of architecture with your nom de plume.

Do you understand now how grand a scope this system is potentially capable of? Application to skateboarder, footballer, and dancer are left as exercises for the reader.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

Okay...I''m startng to understand now...

But I think you will find yourself back at square one...In your original post you mentioned how CRPGs offer limited skill sets, as a computer isn''t capable of subtle rule bending (creative use of skills, etc..) unlike a human P&P GM...but all your example skills are just interpolated from motor skills.

What about skills that do not need physical movement? skills at solveing problems, skills that may even require intelligence that the player doesn''t have, skills of communication and "networking" with other players?

What if the player wanted thier character to be a Banker, or a Librarian, or a music/art critic?...your system doesn''t seem to provide a way to develop such characters (skill of counting money?, skill of putting books on a shielf?, skill of writeing?)...and even if it did...then how can the system define the differences between a art critic and a sports reporter?...they both require writeing, but each is in a different venue, which requires skills that do not involve physical actions.

How is the rock star to create new songs? How is the painter to paint in different artistic styles? Are the players to develop this as a set of different "skills"?

MSW,

You''re entirely right. I haven''t given a solution to the general question of skills, nor did I intend to at this stage. I want to rebuild the skill system entirely, but I''m starting with motor skills.

Skills relying on social grace or mental power are a much tougher nut to crack, by the way. It''s fairly easy to create a character which can do what the player can''t physically -indeed, that''s one of the big draws of games in general isn''t it? On the other hand, it''s quite difficult to concretely represent a character who is smarter or wittier or more patient than the player, as the computer can''t pick up the slack in any of these categories. It''s also difficult to concretely represent a character who knows how to do things the player doesn''t. Hence the abstraction of such things in P&P RPGs.

I guess one solution would be to create a character that plays to the player''s strong suits, and is weak in the same things as the player - but part of the fun of RPGs is to play someone who is good at what you''re not. Another idea would be to have the game actively cripple you in areas your character is bad at - you personally may have the gift of gab, but your character has terrible diction, so the game scrambles your text when you try to speak. Of course, if your character is "good" at something that would just mean he''s as good at it as you are, and not worse.

So, it is a tough problem. And I don''t have the solution. If you do, please do tell!

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

How would I do this?

First I would design the game world...not every little detail...but enough so that there is a clear focus on what is possable, and where the game balance lines are drawn.

I don''t buy into the idea that a game can be everything to everybody...I also don''t buy into the idea that games should be "realistic" (in real world terms)....I''m a firm believer in the KISS principal (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

If the design challange is to "design a game system that allows for more social interaction and skills in a RPG"...I would first eliminate everything that has little to do with the challange.

So no fighting...it''s dropped...end of story.

And for this design challange I chose to set the game world in some future city...where players are trying to become the next president of some big corporation...this would allow for a variety of "character classes" basied on, say, college degrees...this would allow technical, buisness, and creative types of "specialized" characters....there would be two basic stats...something like "level" represents the current standing in the company...and "renoun" represents the standing in social groups.

Actual communication between the player and NPCs (This would work as a single player game) is going to be pretty abstract...it''s not important to detail these interactions, but it should be top priority to show how the player''s choices effect the situation.

That said...there would be a simple list of "conversation actions"...complement, critisize, complain, question, etc...and each NPC could have a seperate list of attributes (such as "wife", "kids", "job", etc..)...so a basic conversation might be "complement wife"...and depending on the characters "complement" skill level...it could succeed (forming a bond with the NPC, increaseing your renoun, etc..)...it could fail (reduceing your renoun and/or complement skill level, etc..this can be read as the NPC doesn''t believe you/ thinks your sucking up to them,etc..)

Basicly every time the player uses a "conversation action"...he/she can build up the skill values in that area...but skills that havent been used in a while will be reduced....if you never complement anyone...you won''t be good at it...for example.

You can think of this as if it''s a battle engine in a typical RPG...the character''s "attributes" would be like "equiped items"...while "conversation actions" are like different types of attacks/defenses.

Players can also recieve "special items" that may allow them to "network with others better"...these items can take on different forms...purhapse the player recieves "employee of the month" or some such...or they trade thier "girlfriend" for a "trophy wife"...some items will help...others may hurt.

Hows that for a start?...pretty basic, and needs work...but I only spent 10 minutes thinking it up

MSW,

The KISS approach is a smart and successful one. In fact, it's currently the prevalent philosophy in game design. It's also the philosophy behind P&P systems. And it is therefore the philosophy I am swimming upstream against.

My philosophy is something like:
small set of mechanics
+ large degree of freedom
+ fudge factor
= ability to simulate almost arbitrary phenomena
+ fun gameplay

Keep in mind that the world itself can be viewed as a very small set of rules constantly acting on a very, very large data set. I wouldn't dare to suggest that the average PC can run the algorithm [laws of physics] on the data set [entire universe]... but why not see how close you can get?

My hope is to create a game where the player becomes less focused on the fact that he is playing a game, with a mathematical deterministic system of rules he must manipulate to win, and more on the idea that he is putting himself into a whole other person's shoes. P&P captures this "immersion factor" using a KISS ruleset by tapping into the player's imagination. But by laying it all out for the player CRPGs become paradoxically less immersive as the player comes to see himself more as a manipulator than an actor.

Through creating a system that works more and more like the real world I am trying to give the player back the perception that the character he is playing as is some aspect of himself, and that through this avatar he is experiencing another world as real as his own. Every time something that "ought to work" actually DOES, the player's suspension of disbelief is increased that much.

To counterbalance the fact that a perfect simulator of reality would be as boring as real life, I introduce the "fudge factor": lenience in the rules designed to let the player get away with things that are unrealistic but also fun. So not only can the player do everything that "ought to work" but he can also do many things that really just DON'T.

In order to accomplish the above I really do need a Jack-of-all-trades system, one grounded in the way things really work (because everything that should work in the real world does work in the real world, duh), but also including some slack in the system which makes things easier than in real life. The move-based gross motor skills system was just one example of the kind of thinking I'm doing with this paradigm as my guide. I'm currently hard at work cogitating on the next step, which would be handling knowledge skills, crafts, and subtle manipulations.

Now I'm not knocking your ideas MSW. They look to be the core to a perfectly good game. Hell, I'd play it - it's a lot more clever than a lot of what's out there. Certainly it's a lot more makeable than my far flung ideas. But I'm sort of chasing a star at the moment - you can come with if you like, and see where it takes us, or you can wait patiently for me to fall to earth.

God, I hate how much I use the word "paradigm" these days.

[edit:] Looking back at your idea, I was shocked to see how much it resembled another game genre you may not be aware of. Ever heard of the "dating sim" genre? It's almost unheard of here in the US but very popular in Japan. The core concept is that through conversation and decision trees the player attempts to win the affections of one of a number of potential girlfriends. It sounds pretty odd to me, but you can't argue with success... and I think you can see some of the parallels to your idea.

So if you can make the first "business sim", it may be enough of a change in the genre for Americans to accept it.

Just a random thought.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can't have "civilization" without "civil".

[edited by - SpittingTrashcan on October 3, 2002 2:06:27 AM]

Unless you can create an accurate simulation of reality as it actually is (human beings usually have an intuitive understanding of the real world), the player should be capable of understanding the systems in your game. Otherwise, they will grow dissatisfied with the lack of strategic comprehensibility inherent in your core design and will not desire to play the game.

If there's no hope of my mastering, as a player, the techniques of gaming possible in a game, I generally get bored with the game, as it tends to look rather random and unbalanced to me from a player's perspective.

All I'm trying to say is that if you CAN do this, you have to do it perfectly. No room for mistakes on this one!

[edited by - DuranStrife on October 3, 2002 11:38:30 AM]