Heres an interesting though. Conventionally, we consider items as just a list of stuff we have. Maybe we have a weight restriction, or a fixed list size. Now, what would happen if we applied item-specific limits? We take some curative potion abstract, start the player with 6. Charge him 10 woodyallen pieces for one if he needs to buy more. HOWEVER, we say that until he finds some specific item, he can ONLY carry six at a time. We could probably count it as how many bottles he has (in the zelda style). And for the FEATHERS OF THE PHEONIX item, we limit the player to 4, until he finds more. This idea isn''t new obviously, but the question is: what does this do to the strategy of the game? My thinking is that the player has to be very worried about how he uses these items, since he can''t fit a town in his pocket where he replenish his stock for discount prices. But, I''m throwing the idea here to see if anyone can catch a falicy that I''m not noticing.

I think you have to be careful about which restrictions you impose on the player. You may be forgetting one of the fundamental rules of game design, "Never forget the player''s point of vue." sometimes this is also written as "It''s the player''s game, not the designer''s game."

You are imposing restictions on the player. This is necessary to create agame in the first place. But you are trying to force the player to a particular style of gameplay, which is dangerous ground. Some players will reject this outright, others will be perfectly happy with it. This tends to be more acceptable if it is consistent, and if it still allows the player meaningful choices.

From your example, a player can carry 6 potions, 4 feather, 5 eggs, 8 mystic gems, two swords, and a partridge in a pear tree; the player cannot carry 7 potions. Ouch.

You either need a good reason for this, or provide several different kinds of items for each slot, so the player can still choose how to equip the character (4 different kinds of potions, 6 different kinds of feathers, etc). Or both.

A parallel: In Diablo II, a player must choose a class. Each class has unique skills that cannot be learned by someone not in that class. Why not? It was a game design decision - there''s no in-game explanation used. However, the player still gets to choose how to allocate skill points so that two heroes from the same class may still turn out very differently.

Make sense?

JSwing

Quick note of agreement. I agree with JSwing.

I''ve always been a fan of "loadout" rules. You can carry what fits on your person. You might have a backpack that you can fill with potions, scrolls, and rations, and a belt on which to hang a sword and a knife, but you can''t really carry three battleaxes easily, even if you aren''t carrying anything else. Make specialized slots for items. A holster for a pistol, a slung rifle, a shirt pocket full of ammo, a knife in the boot, and a wallet full of money and ID cards. That''s a lot to carry. Throw in a big pack and that rocket launcher you looted, and you''ll have to drop some stuff if you want to fight.

Some kind of magical sack that can hold a ton of stuff is a valid option, but don''t be too generous. Winning fights through gadgetry is unfulfilling.

Per-item limits have some purpose, but I think theirs is mostly one of game *balance*, not game *play*. They also come in three proportions.

The Final Fantasy games, for example, usually let you have 99 potions(perhaps 999 in later ones, but I''d have to check). There is no real attempt at realism in the existence of these potions in the first place; they are just reserves of HP, really. But for most purposes, people don''t even need to get 99 of them, as they can do fine with 50 or 20 or none. All the limit does is save on a few bits of memory(one of the more obvious ones in old games using powers of 2 for limits) and give the player a stopping place at which he is told, "You won''t need more to win, focus on other things now," saving him time that might be spent continuing to accumulate a greater quantity.

A second example would be a shooting-heavy game where you''re given perhaps a 1000 round ammo limit and can eventually burn through it if not careful. When done right, this sort of limit makes the player less carefree about his use of the item without actually depriving him of it if he plays carefully.

There are also lots of games that only let you have only three or four of, say, a special weapon like a bomb or missile. The effect of such a low limit is to make the player use them less and depend more on his other abilities, reserving the good stuff for an emergency. These are perhaps the most delicate limits to have, as they reduce the value of an item significantly and require it to be balanced with great effectiveness. While it might be ok to have 100 wimpy bombs that require precision aiming to hit with, it''s a joke when you have less than 10 max and low-accuracy conditions.

However, any hard numerical limit can frustrate the player, even if it''s a "limit of limits" like not being able to gain capacity for more than 255 missiles in the original Metroid even though enough of the powerups are there for more. It''s preferable not to dangle the item in their face at all rather than to show it and not let them have it.

One thing I''ve come to a decision about in the MMORPG I''ve designed is that players will be restricted to their ability to carry items only by the amount of space they have available to carry those items in. In other words, items of clothing can contain pockets, there are pouches, packs, and sacs, and then there will be a player''s trusty steed or pack mule to carry the really big stuff, but each will have their own capacity limits (like in real life) and be limited by what can be put inside (a belt is nowhere to place your 1000 gold pieces, you''d need a belt sac for those, or maybe a deep pocket or two). Of course, there will probably be an abundance of these in-game, and the ability to craft all items, yes ALL, will also be available as well (read right, thats items, not artifacts ).

Just my happenings on the subject

- Chris

I gave some thought to this in the design of my own RPG, and I came to the realization that limiting the player to that extent isn''t fun for the player.

In an FPS, limiting quantity is easy, since the player can theoretically have one of every weapon (some newer FPSs limit this, but oh well).

In an RPG, the player might need only one or two weapons, but he also has to carry the set of armor, some lewt, potions, ammunition (if necessary), miscellaneous (sp?) tools, quest items, keys, etc.

Limiting the carry capacity of the palyer forces them to make choices in what they carry, but if you make it too strict then it starts to annoy. For example, in Morrowind, my character (who wore heavy armor) could never pick up more than a few pounds of loot, as his armor and weapons would take a good 300 [units] of his 350 or so total encumberance. And the swords in there would weigh like 40 units.

That got really aggravating. Personally, I''m a fan of size slots...by this I mean slots for items that can accomodate up to a certain size of item.

For example:
Back: 1 large weapon sheath, pack that can hold larger stuff, etc., shield
Hips: 2 medium weapon sheaths, pouches for potions, gold, etc.
Boots: Small weapons, small items.
Sack: Can hold pretty much anything but the player has to drop it to fight...in my game I plan for this to largely be an aesthetic thing (the PC drops the pack automatically and it is automagically recovered, since losing all your loot because you forgot to walk up and hit pick up for the 347th time you kill a rat would be annoying)

Moo.

My thinking with this was to push the player into some strategizing. A limited resource pool causes one to carefully consider how one uses those resources.

Also, I forgot to mention that the limits weren''t static, just momentary. By this I mean that at the start, the limit is 6 or whatever, but part of the dungeon crawling would involve finding the items that expand these limits. So, in fact we''re wasting more memory to carry this idea.

Story-wise, this system stands as a combination of an item and magic system for a simple dungeon-crawl RPG. So, beyond just carrying X number of curative magic-items, you''d also have a list of offensive magic-items. Cross the dungeon finding these items, use them, replenish them back at the town.

As an alternative, rather then a 2byte list of how many items carried and how may unused, what about a list of items and some kind of innate charge for each (and then carry multiples). Its somewhat the same idea, but a bit less dependant on needing a town. We could add some form of gameplay recharging, like EXP or GOLD that you get. In either case, the idea focuses on a more group based strategy, then individual development. It probably smacks role-playing in the face with a fish, so I probably wont call it an RPG at the end. The point is, would this encourage strategy, or just fustrate unbelievebly? Thats what I''m really asking.

It''s all in the balancing.

If the player needs, on average, 4 potions to succesfully cross a dungeon, then only letting him carry 2 is bordering on annoyance. On the other hand, if he only needs 2 on average and you let him have 50, then its worthless to have a limit at all.

If done right you''ll have a decent mix of limited resources but not hair loss inducing frustration.

Let''s face it, realistic limits such as size, shape and weight are infinitely more effective strategy balancers than "you can carry 1020 rounds"

In the case of ammo, say you have X pockets each of which can hold 2 ammo boxes or 1 grenade. An ammo box holds 60 pistol slugs, 20 rifle rounds or 12 shotgun shells. You can carry half-full boses and they take up as much space, also they rattle more when you run.

Say you can sling a sword over your back, but if you don''t have a backpack in between it knocks into your legs.

You should be able to discard bags, boots etc so you can move faster and more quietly.

Of course, if you fill a bag with guns it acts as a shield. And you can swing it at people.

Does any of this force a player down one route?

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It''s Worth by Fighting Back

In the case of "You can only have 1020" whatevers, if you put it in a scifi setting, and 1020 is how many shots a single hydrogen-3 fusion cartridge can create, then its a very acceptable limit. So, I figure that my magic-items scenario would have a fine place in the setting I plan for my thing. The issue here isn''t would it be realistic or not, the issue is at what point would it cause problems with the gameplay? If its just a matter of balancing, then we don''t really have a problem in that sense (though we do have a problem in figuring out how to balance the whole thing.)

As for the rest of walkingcarcass''s ideas, all great, but a bit beyond the scope of our discussion here. I''m coming more from the chess-strategy thinking. Maybe when I get to the level where I can legitamately compete with Warren Spector, I''d try some form of complicated realism. For now, lets just stick with the minimalistic scifi/fantasy approach.