It''s funny, but I started to have the best ideas, when I gave up completely on ever finding a good solution to the problems that design was facing...

I personally think that the "story points" will indeed be the hardest thing to do in the game, but very, VERY rewarding.

In a sense, because your advancement depends entirely on how well you are doing in the story, not on ANYTHING else. You will get "better" if you make the right decisions, the system guides you along the valid paths ( without forcing you to follow them ), and the way the story is written becomes a lot fuzzier, perhaps less linear.


Thinking of it the wrong way around - you could define a story by attaching story points to certain obstacles and their resolving...

Lots of random thoughts, I''ll let it stew for a little bit longer.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Thinking of it the wrong way around - you could define a story by attaching story points to certain obstacles and their resolving...

To me this sounds like having sub quests and rewarding them with XP for completion. Were is the difference?



I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Here is a thought. If you wanna do something different, then do something DIFFERENT. Calling the sword "bronze" or "steel" instead of 10 damage and 20 damage, it''s not different. It just makes it harder for the player to get an exact sense of the weapon s/he is using (that''s bad).

It''s like putting a bar instead of a number for those acursed hit points. IT''S NOT DIFFERENT. It may be more abstract (read: harder for player to measure (bad)), but it''s still the same. If you don''t want the player to see stats, don''t tell them ANYTHING.

Keith, I think you are on the right track. We should be rewarding the player for accomplishing something, not for killing things. You don''t suddenly become better at everything because you put the smack on 20 goblins. It should take more than that (and I''m not talking about more monsters).

I just read my post, and I sound angry. I''m not angry, I hope no one takes offense to anything I''ve said.

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

To me this sounds like having sub quests and rewarding them with XP for completion. Were is the difference?

They wouldn''t be subquests, really. In fact, I don''t think there would be a "quest" as such, at all. There''s just a general storyline, with certain objectives to achieve or not achieve, certain obstacles to overcome, not overcome. The more of the obstacles that you manage to overcome ( or handle in a positive way to the story, this might include FAILING an obstacle, if the designer thought that was better ), the easier the rest of the game becomes, and vice versa;
This is the part that you find similar to XP ( it actually is very similar to some PnP systems, such as Vampire-the Masquerade) , and I must admit, that''s something that crossed my mind as well.

Now here is what I think are the differences:
- The way story points are awarded.
They are awarded on story achievements, which can be success or failure. They are not awarded for killing hordes of random small beasties, unless that happens to be part of the story.
- They are not explicit.
The game won''t tell you "you gained 10 story points for whacking the evil goblin with the wet salmon!".
- They are not used for explicit character advancement.
Experience points are usually distributed by the player, or used to advance in level at certain points. You won''t see this happen in a story-point based system. Your character''s stats won''t chance, just the odds of success in certain places.
You could see them as "depleting modifiers".
[ much-too-quickly thougt up example ]
In the story, there''s a 50% chance of completing this action in this way towards this obstacle. However, you currently have 50 out of a maximum of 100 story points, and this amounts to a 25% positive modifier in this case. So you now have a 75% chance of completing the action. However, you attempt the action, lose a story point and fail... you could try again ( now with slightly less bonus, perhaps 12% because you are trying the action a second time, just pulling numbers out of a hat here... )
[ end example ]

I know that this example suggests a linear game ( knowing the maximum story points at that point in the game ), but it really is just an example.
I would not let the player see these numbers either, since they are not useful to him/her...



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

I think this subject is not entirely objective. The type of player that we are, will totally change the criteria we have for making a game. For instance when we say "the player won't be able to get an exact idea how strong the weapon is" means that as a player - or as we SEE players - we want to see how good a weapon is.

As a matter of fact, I'm getting pretty tired of the computer games medium being wasted as a potential strong story-telling device, because we believe we can achieve the most success, the most easily, by simply making the player focus on the character in the game. And that's a pretty narrow focus! There isn't much scope for great development. Sure if it was an adventure game or something like that where the character may go through a series of major changes in his way of life (Gabriel Knight -> considered to be great game too!) then this is applicable.

Now the problem is that adventure games aren't seen as the best medium for a story-telling. In fact, there hasn't really been any alternative since the industry basically became a first person shooter industry. Focussing on the CHARACTER in game, and how many people he/she kills (in other cases how many "evil things" he/she kills).

RPGs have always been a story-telling experience - never a shooting fest based on how well a character can kill something, and if anyone has read Warren Spector's doc on writing RPGs then listen to him!

It's time to move away from the old stats system! The idea of the stats system in the first place was so that the player could play the role of a different character. But there isn't any skill involved in that, there's IMAGINATION sure - I'll give you that, but in the computer games industry we are describing to the human mind much more vivid environments, we are showing them what they see through the eyes of the character, they hear the sounds of cars/horses go by, they hear their own footsteps, they can interact with a visible image rather than the face of a DM who plays all the NPCs in the game.

There is no longer a need for the imagination that the player has and that means we are drawing (need to draw) the entertainment from somewhere else, which we happen to draw mostly from accomplishments. Until relatively recently, we've seen the only way that we can represent accomplishments is by upping a statistic (rewarding). But this isn't any great skill from the player, more often that not it's based on the great strength the CHARACTER had in the first place. Which isn't based onthe skill of the player, more like his perserverance.

What does that mean to the player then?

Not as much as if the accomplishment was being drawn from within himself. I think we are going through a transition period. System Shock 2 was *considered* to be a great game by the players, and it had this idea of the player having the skill to accomplish something. Yet the story-line was hardly compelling so they needed something more - so they added in the statistics to give the player more reward (ie - the player "accomplishes" something).

I think we can get the rewards from somewhere else now. It's time to reward the player with plot driven experiences. Let the imagination go, and bring some skill into it and let the player accomplish things that way, and be rewarded by story. Just because the player may not be ultimately skilled doesn't mean they can't play the role they want to. In a game design, make sure that if the player won't be able to tell something (ie won't have a particular skill) then get the character to emulate it.

For example, if there is a footprint on the ground that the player can see and then he wants to examine the footprint to check how long it's been there etc, most likely we can't convey this to the player, so get the character to narrate it out. If you have a skill that tries to find tracks - then you are wasting your time, we can show to the player these anyway with no problem!

We can have some stats/skills, but we are restricting play too much by it. We can cater for crap players, we provide a place for them to practise, we can make easy settings for games and other such things - but we can't cater for hopeless players. Pulling them away from the experience by getting the character to do everything for them isn't the same as them being right in the experience and putting the PLAYERS' actions and his mind into the game.

Edited by - Maitrek on July 8, 2000 5:41:48 AM

MadKeithV, so what you''re doing is bring back the DM/GM in a computerized form.

As i recall, the DM would reward players for going along with the work that he or she (the DM) had done over the weekend for the campain.

What you''re talking about is a reward system never the less, correct? But a reward system not based on player capital but story advancement.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

A reward system based on story advancement is an intersting idea. It would have it's place, but I would like to see a reward system based on the character's adherence to their role more than anything...

Like, a char w/ a thief theme would be rewarded if he behaves as a thief would..etc...

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake

Edited by - Nazrix on July 8, 2000 1:11:33 PM

Keith, I think this is the perfect way to control the game''s outcome to a single point, yet allow for multiple-ways to reach it. And the game has one single ammount of programming in it, but the player never sees that..

In case no one understood ya keith.. i do I know exactly what you mean.. but it might just be because I''ve DM''d before and i can relate to what you''ve said. If anyone is still having trouble with why you might allow certain rolls to be "overruled" as a DM then it''s because you''ve never DM''d a really diverse group. There''s usually a jerk that other players want to see die.. hehe so you kill him and have him start over or leave the campain. If someone''s acting out of character, you kill them and make them roll up another character like the one they were trying to play. Basically, you make them roleplay what they got, or you kill them till they get what they should be either way, they roleplay or die.
If the character does actions following suit of his profession or whatever, then he should be rewarded. If you''re a theif, and a good one.. people will still respect you. The neutrals will stay out of your way.. and not talk to you. They''ll sell you stuff cause they''re afraid you''ll kill them. If you''re the best, you get challenged a lot, and you''re forced to kill people you might not want to. You could have computer units quest to find you As a good guy, people respect you just like an evil guy.. cept they''re more open and friendly. It all depends on how you act around people. Politicians are evil, yet they''re accepted in society. unless someone has hard evidence of their unruliness, then they''re fine. But once they''ve been exposed, they disappear.

It''s a very interesting kinda approach to things.. I think it needs to be hammered out more.. keith, if you want to email me some about it to try to work out the reality of it, feel free or we''ll just keep discussing it here!

J

If you are going to create a game that is going to have set "I am a ''x'' class from the start to end" then you might as well not even bother trying to avoid stats because you are already trying to set in stone what the player is going to do (i.e. restrict the player into a role).

If you make a good enough game design, then the player shouldn''t be able to access enough resources to do everything possible. It should take a lot of equipment and dedication to be the one type of role that you want to play - so much that in trying to play more than one kind of role makes the game difficult and annoying if you try to "master" both to the same level as someone had mastered one.

And if this is an actual RPG game then the point of it all, and the perspective the target player (RPGer) will take, is to play a role. Which means that it''s most likely that the player will only do what the role dictates to him.

Rewarding the player on maintaining in character is a good idea. But I think that using a number or something other than this isn''t the right approach. It all goes back to the way you design the in-game dilemmas/puzzles...

You have to be concious, as an RPG designer, that you must make sure that there is an equally challenging solution to each problem for each class/type of player, and try to achieve this as best as possible! If this is the case, and the character has been focussed into playing any single role (either by the difficulty of spanning multiple roles or by using damn stats) then the reward can still be the story as he solves situations and puzzles and gets to the next part in the story.

If you are in America and are playing Deus Ex - then go talk to other players of the game and ask about how they solved other problems in the game and see how other people reacted and stuff. You''ll be surprised! This is possible even without stats -augmentations, granted, and Warren Spector might argue to his death that it''s a role playing game as you can play different roles, but still take heed!

So you''re telling me there were no classifications of people throughout all of history?
medieval Knights weren''t real?
chieftans are false?
preisdents.. CEO, CFO, CIO, they''re all fake?!?!?!?!

I think you need to take a good hard look at exactly HOW human society works.. classes! It''s always been there and WILL always be there. You naturally accel at something.. this puts you into a classification regardless of what you want to believe. So you could let people select to show and not show a classification, but it still exists. They''re infinately diverse in reality.. and we can''t model that in a game. So we give you a general "you are good at this" and then let people decide what else they want to be good in.
If you don''t allow them to choose what they want to be good in, then what kind of person are they? jacks of all trades? is EVERYONE a jack of all trades? NO! You have some artsians, some craftsmen, some who even make the cars you drive. And to make a car takes someone to own the company, someone to design the car, someone to build the machines that build the cars, someone to install those machines, someone to operate those machines, heck.. it even takes someone to sweep those floors and clean the toilets! you''re telling me all of these people are equal in the ammount that they can advance in any skill?!

J