Hi

I think it would be great if you could implement a system where a character would improve in skills gradually during the game instead of making suddently ''jumps'' when the the player happends to distributes collected EXP points. It would be more realistic in that way I think.

Regards

nicba

Look at the system we're using still after all these years: Levels, Experience, Attributes...

It's D&D for crissake, no matter how you package it. No thank you. These systems, though they are the only thing out there, all assume one thing: Learning is quantifiable.

Traditional leveling doesn't reflect character advancement very well. It is a paltry, simple formula, designed to gratify success over learning, and makes for comepletely materialistic values in players.

Image the outcome of a skill/action-performance based system with attrition, low skill-level mastery and instant EXP award. It has everything: A "virtual" level cap provided by attrition, that still allows for powergaming, since there is no real limit. But it's still realistic, and it also allows for character customization on a WHOLE NEW LEVEL, away from the cookie-cutter character classes we've seen too much.

I'd love to see a system like this, designed from the ground up, without using a SINGLE D&D CLICHE. I challenge all game developers for the rest of history to be original when making games... are you up to it?

Edited by - landfish on May 18, 2000 10:49:47 PM

Just a thought

What about an experience system based on real world things? Yea, if I kill rats for a week, Ill know how to kill rats better, but does that automatically mean that Im better at fishing, or fighting dogs for that matter? If I learn how to fight with a broad sword, does that mean that I can fight just as well with a rapier? I doubt it. Maybe generalized skills (i.e. Fist fighting, heavy weapon handling, etc.) rather than actual specfic abilities is more feasable to perform in a game, but the other option may be possible still.

Etnu

What is a man without goals? A dead man.

Intresting discussion, of all the RPG games i''ve played I think the most intresting leveling system is a mixed skills and stats based one. Where a character is defined by both a set of skills and stats (staimina etc..). For instance Fallout had a good system, and like most RPGs leveling was achived through killing however this wasn''t the only way to gain experience, as completing quest also gained epxerience points.

I think it would be intresting to abstract the players actions and assign experience points to each successfull action. For instance picklocking is an action and each successful attempt would increase your picklock action (skill). This would rise to a maximum preset limit based upon various factors (stats + modifers). As you got closer to your maximum limit you would gain less experience for each successful picklock attempt. A game could contain hundreds of actions. Though gaining action experience points dont have to be through directly succeeding at the actions you could observe it , or even read about it. Though how much action experience points you gain from the other 2 methods could be limited by your stats + modifers. So what if you dont like your characters preset action limits? Those are what the modifers are for. Perhaps throughout the world there are spells, charms, magical herbs , cybernetic enhancements etc... which can increase your natrual limit depending on how much effort your willing to expend to get them. Also it''s possible that your limit can be lowered permantly or temporarly though an injury or external force. Action experience natrually decrease over a span of time but very slowly.

-ddn

well a while back I realized that the D&D system wasn''t that good (this is while playing D&D, I think it works fine for video games) so I just started giving out XP whenever I wanted but not until. So at the end of the session I''d just give them like 500 each and that would be that. Sometimes I''d base it on what they did but I mainly based it on how fast/slow I wanted them to level. So when I started getting bored of making adventures for their level I''d start giving them XP at a faster rate. It is a very arbitrary system but it works very well. They can''t "cheat" the system by killing a whole bunch of orcs and they can''t lose out on XP by doing "worthless" activities, either way I just give em whatever I think would be best for the game. So the players concentrate on doing whatever activities are most fun to them and they don''t need to worry about leveling. In a video game you''d just give out XP at set places in the game and nowhere else. It would seem artificial but you don''t have to let them know their XP.

Then for races I fixed those too. Each session they get to use whatever they want as their racial ability once. So if the dwarf just drank some poison he can ask to use his dwarven constitution to counter-act it. In the next session his single use ability could be something else, like the ability to see in a dark cave. Thus I don''t need to give out ability score modifiers and set racial abilities. My next plan is to get rid of ability scores. I''m going to make like eight benefits (like bonus to damage, lower AC, etc..) and just let players pick three to represent areas that they''re good in.

I''ve noticed that most systems reward success with improvement! Why is this? Shouldn''t the will to continue despite failure be rewarded with improvement, like in reality?

The funniest thing I see about the first system is that it doesn''t even make that much sense from a gameplay angle, but people continue to adhere to the idea simply because it is "how things are usually done." With a more-points-for-failure system, properly executed, the player actually has a drive to improve his character. When success begets more success, it isn''t about what you wish to sacrifice for improvement; it''s about how long you are willing to sit at your stupid computer just to become 300th level in Diablo.

Not to harp on you personally, I note that I play (and have made) these systems before. Just a rant...

I was curious if anyone has played a rouge-like game called UnReal World. I think it's pretty old but I just played it last night, and was pretty impressed. It uses a skill based system, and it's more realistic than most games I've played. There's very little hack-and-slash. Most of the time you're just trying to survive. You have to make sure you have food and water. And it does not seem like you have to quests all the time. It's certainly different....

UnReal Website

Edited by - Nazrix on May 22, 2000 9:53:50 PM

Landfish, that last post of yours was pretty interesting. Could you expand on the more-points-for-failure system idea? It sounds pretty interesting. I''ll bet this is unusual.....someone''s encouraging a rant

Ha! Thanks for the encouragement, but I swear the reply I wrote was too big and confusing. Since this is something I should write out anyway, I am going to bang it out tonight. If it isn''t too big, I''ll post it here.

I''m happy to see you are intrigued, doesn''t it make so much sense? I still want to here some other people''s input, though, I was wowed by a few, most notably buster and whirlwind. Everyone is pretty right, but they got some stuff I hadn''t eben thought of thinking of. Thanks! Keep em coming!

LOL Landfish.. points for failure and nothing for success? That sounds a bit whacked ;p
I agree that failure CAN increase the want to do something. But it''s the actions you take that matter, not the sheer fact that you failed. You gotta think about it like this..
When you hit said goblin or pick a lock.. you''re performing an action, which has a related skill or skills. How well you perform that action is your knowledge (skill) in it, as well as your own personal stats. These stats lay an important roll. Now, i could never play a violin very well cause i''ve got crappy nerves. It''s kinda like genetics to a degree. It''s about the same for picking a lock. That''s why people choose to make "races." they can all be seen as the different sides of humanity. If you pick a human, you''re "normal" average. If you choose an ogre, you''re a big, strong, stupid human. Elves are the gracful, elegant humans. There is no diversity in the races because how do you impliment that kind of system? You can''t make it random, cause what if someone wants to play a bard, but they''ve got the skills of a warrior! The player wouldn''t stand for it, and end up leaving the game. You end up with the problem of making reality versus making something to please the public.
It''s a big enough game design problem that GDNet has a whole section on it You''ve got to be able to understand marketting as well as the game design issues in order to make a successful game. I want to make a realistic roleplaying game, but you have to allow the player the ability to make the character what they want. It''s all about serving the customer in order to keep them That''s why in my system, the system didn''t fully make the character until they picked a guild, then it gives them random-based bonuses to the character in those skills nessicary for that guild. That way the player chooses their calling, and then the system accounts for the fact that a person drawn to that profession would exemplify those skills nessicary for that
This way, you allow for diversity among the races, although some races have bigger bonuses in certain areas, an ogre would still have more potential to kick more butt than a human simply because they''ve got much more potential for strength. They might not be able to connect as well as a human, or position the blade in the right spot to get a critical hit, but wherever they hit, they''re gonna rip off So this presents us with a multi-faceted situation. As the human standard goes.. ogres would be less precise, with more strength, while an elf would be more precise with less strength. They all might be able to kill equally with the same level of skill in their respective elements.. The ogre would simply kill with brute force, the elf with precision, and the human with a bit of both To quantify this.. the ogre might hit the head, ripping it off. The elf might hit the eye and to the brain, causing death and the human might happen to hit the temple with enough strength to still cause death This assumes all three are equal. If they''re equal, they should all be able to have the same effect. This has the random element removed, of course
Either way, it''s all a matter of looking at things, these would all be fighter classes. If they were other classes.. they wouldn''t do combat as well. But all races should be equal, but have different strengths. This puts them in a place to do well in certain fields, but they should be able to perform all other professions just as well. The problem is in finding out how to balance them all so they''re equal. And to have them use the skills that they should in order to cause the same effect. Like, do you have the computer make the elf aim for the eye automatically, since the elf has more precision? Or do you force the player to do the work of figuring out how to use their strengths and weaknesses?
That''s an interesting question for ya ta work on

J