I think a stat-less system has many benefits - for starters it means that the designer spends more time focussing on the actual in game environment and has a larger role in that than spending time balancing out stats and testing those. It also means that the player is forced to play a role in a more involved way - ie less focus on "I have 100 strength" which TOTALLY blows chunks in MMORPGs and stats have to go if we are ever to get people actually roleplaying rather than killing whilst chatting (something like IRC with graphics really). It means they play a role by means of their actions rather than their abilities. And stat-less doesn't mean skill-less, because without this then it *would* simply degrade into a bunch of first person shooter type people with NPCs to talk to (kill) and no stats to talk about.

And skills are different from stats. Skills define what a character can ACHIEVE, not what a character IS. I think that physically defining a character is becoming a waste of time, what really makes people individual is their skills and abilities and I think that's far more important. What's more is that stats can cramp the character physically where it doesn't need to be. The potential of the character shouldn't be defined or limited by the game - and it shouldn't be limited by the player's physical ability either (which is ludicrous anyway).

Edited by - Maitrek on July 12, 2000 1:45:23 AM

Hmm, I don''t really need **help** per se, I''d just like to make a framework for all of us to tinker with to show off ideas when we get them.

I''d like to make a framework that everyone''s at least a little happy with.


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.

Well when u have a design up and running just leave it open to comments/suggestions and by god will we comment/suggest. (hehe)

Exactly, Maitrek, let''s make this Open Source to the hilt

Unfortunately, my real job just got in the way a little again ( someone woke up over at the client-end of the stick, and figured out that we were done doing the stuff they had asked, so now we have new stuff to do ).
I''ll still try to post a real document as soon as possible.



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.

Okay, first thoughts on the actual implementation:
We're going to have to keep track of some extra statistics internally ( statistics != stats in the usual interpretation of the word though ).

Starting with actions:
I think they should be divided into categories, and four that seem feasible to me is the following:
Physical - Mental - Social - Spiritual ( magic etc. )

Then, whenever a player performs any kind of action, the category of the action is determined, and his ratios are adjusted. So for a player you'd have the following four statistics:
%physical, %mental, %social, %spiritual. These would indicate the percentage-of-total-number of actions that a character has invested into each of those categories.

Using this information, the CGM ( Computer Games Master, a new term I just invented ) can bias the puzzles and interactions more towards the interests of the player.



A good point about doing it this way: this can be built onto existing systems, without worrying too much about what to do with stats yet. It does give you a skeleton to work with, and think from.

[edit: Jeezes, guys, do you realise this thread nearly died on (printed)page 30? I'm writing a compilation of the best ideas here, and I'm now on (printed) page 35 of 75. A huge thread, if ever there was one.]

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.

Edited by - MadKeithV on July 12, 2000 10:18:31 AM

quote: Original post by Maitrek

I think a stat-less system has many benefits - for starters it means that the designer spends more time focussing on the actual in game environment and has a larger role in that than spending time balancing out stats and testing those. It also means that the player is forced to play a role in a more involved way - ie less focus on "I have 100 strength" which TOTALLY blows chunks in MMORPGs and stats have to go if we are ever to get people actually roleplaying rather than killing whilst chatting (something like IRC with graphics really). It means they play a role by means of their actions rather than their abilities. And stat-less doesn''t mean skill-less, because without this then it *would* simply degrade into a bunch of first person shooter type people with NPCs to talk to (kill) and no stats to talk about.

And skills are different from stats. Skills define what a character can ACHIEVE, not what a character IS. I think that physically defining a character is becoming a waste of time, what really makes people individual is their skills and abilities and I think that''s far more important. What''s more is that stats can cramp the character physically where it doesn''t need to be. The potential of the character shouldn''t be defined or limited by the game - and it shouldn''t be limited by the player''s physical ability either (which is ludicrous anyway).

Edited by - Maitrek on July 12, 2000 1:45:23 AM

Not true. statless means there''s no stats for the character, the player is the character. since we have no way of measuring a player''s strength and whatnot, we have to use a stat.. regardless. perhaps stats unshown are the answer you mean. stats are still just as important as ever. keith has chosen to make them the most general possible.. which i believe is good for an open project like this.
Skills use stats. if you tried to widen the port on the head of your car, i bet you''d not be steady enough to make it perfect and port-match the intake perfectly to it. Why? i bet you don''t have sufficent stats for your nerves to be that perfect with them. That''s why man is turning precision activities over to a computer, which is dead precise. We know we don''t have the capability to expand our STAT beyond a certain level. Some people are artists cause they can draw a straight line. Others aren''t because they can''t. I''d love to be able to draw a straight line. and it''s not like i haven''t worked on it.. i just can''t, my nerves suck too much ;p and i can''t improve my nerves, can i? physical limits DO exist.. look around. You will find that everyone has some physical limit in everything they do. regardless of skill.. stats hold you back. That''s how i am at drawing. I draw some awesome looking cars, i just have to make a series of fast-drawn slightly-curved lines to simulate one long single line.. cause i simply can''t draw it

keith, good luck reading it all if you do want help, lemme know.. i''m unemployed.. hehe! As far as using the stats to base things off of, i think that''s fair and appropriate. That way the computer knows what the player is interested in, and responds in kind. If you simply kill things, it gives you more to kill. if you avoid things, it provides you more opportunities to evade Tought to program, fun to design!

J

Ugh - it always comes down to this. At least it''s still on topic after 150 replies. (quite an achievement)

quote:
Niphty:

Not true. statless means there''s no stats for the character, the player is the character. since we have no way of measuring a player''s strength and whatnot, we have to use a stat.. regardless...stats are still just as important as ever.

Hope that damn quote works - regardless. Having no physical statistics for the character is a good thing, and we can''t limit the character to the physical ability of the player, so I''m more or less saying - the physical ability and size of the character is unimportant. As I previously stated in a post

quote:
Me:

I think that the focus of what a player can and cannot do should be in the skills that the player has, and the skills that the character pads out for the player.

This is because we aren''t trying to replicate a physical world, there''s no brunt or brawn (of course, this may not be true in a medieval RPG and I''d be inclined to have hidden stats there).

In terms of role playing, nothing is more important than the ROLE that the player - well - plays. The person that the character plays, at least physically, has little to do with the role he/she may play in a game. As I said, this is becomes less relevant the further you go back in history where physical sides of things were more important, but the further we go ahead the less physical grandeur is going to get you anywhere. I would most likely use invisible stats in a medieval based RPG - but in a future based rpg I wouldn''t pay attention to the character physical ability much at all. The D&D system was designed for medieval RPGs but even then it ain''t perfect so a little modification of that is good.

quote:
Niphty :

Skills use stats. if you tried to widen the port on the head of your car, i bet you''d not be steady enough to make it perfect and port-match the intake perfectly to it. Why? i bet you don''t have sufficent stats for your nerves to be that perfect with them. That''s why man is turning precision activities over to a computer, which is dead precise. We know we don''t have the capability to expand our STAT beyond a certain level.

Not wanting to bash the example, because it is valid - but the world which we simulate is barely capable of such detailed actions. We really have basic actions in these worlds which could be broken down using stats - like pushing things and stuff or flicking a switch, but really it''s becoming something of a tedious affair. Why should a player focus on whether they have enough physical ability to push something or some other such activity when there really should be more interesting things for the player to focus on. By making the player focus on the character''s physical ability more than they would focus on their own physical ability in real life, we take away some of the possible involvement the player can feel and we fail to achieve what we are trying to do with these role playing games.

quote:
Niphty:

physical limits DO exist.. look around. You will find that everyone has some physical limit in everything they do. regardless of skill.. stats hold you back.

Some people would argue that Through lots of practise and determination anyone can achieve anything. Yeah it''s that kinda crap that u hear the media telling u all the time to inspire u - but games are more like the world as the media portrays it than as it actually is. In the media the world is this amazingly diverse place where things are happening all the time and good is conquering evil and blah blah blah. But in real life it''s just all a load of bollocks. And we don''t want bollocks, we want fanciful journeys and players (sitting) stuck to their chairs from hours of playing with sweat patches and BO from lack of sleep/showering, dammit!

You''ve got one problem.. how many people in reality actually go out and DO anything?
If you spent day in and day out working on strength, you''d have a LOT of it.. but nothing else to show.

The problem is that people don''t get tired of advancing a fake stat.. but they do a real one! So what you do is make it so they pass out or they actually begin to LOSE that stat for overworking it. if you strength train too hard, you can actually HURT the muscle.. irreversible damage even.

so why don''t games have this?

J

Well without stats that''s no longer a problem anyway.

Okay, I''ve re-read ALL of the thread, and made notes of stuff that caught my eye again ( or for the first time in some cases ). By tonight, the thread compilation should be finished, which will be short and kinda funny, but I hope useful none the less.

However, there are also a whole bunch of new thoughts that I''ve been toying with ever since re-reading, and finally understanding some of the directions you people were trying to take.


[takes scribbled piece of A4 paper out of bag]
I wrote this at midnight again, so if it''s a bit wobbly please forgive me . Keep in mind, most of this stuff is really just an amalgamation of ideas earlier in the thread, so you might recognise it.

Character Creation
If there''s any kind of character creation, to put yourself in a role before any kind of play takes place, here''s what I would do:
predefine some strengths and weaknesses, in a fuzzy, qualitative way. These strengths and weaknesses would by no means be exhaustive, and for different characters they''d be entirely different. Not like stats, where everyone has a strength score, but more like professions or skills.
My idea of the implementation: a "Character Resume" where you can fill in the blanks. Well, not really free-form filling in, but more of a select-something-from-a-listbox kindof thing. Select your role please!
If I have time, I''ll do an example HTML form page, to make it clearer.

( Note: I might not have character creation at ALL, but if I do, it''s probably going to be like this. )


Obstacles and their resolution
1. Margins of success.
Thinking about margins of success, I could only find four significant ones:

• Complete failure ( "Botch, oops, did I do that?" )
  
• Near miss ( "Damn, I ALMOST caught that thief" )
  
• Near success ( "Phew, I made that jump by the skin of my teeth!" )
  
• Complete success ( "Hah, I''ve done this a million times before" )
  

So to have "gradations of success" these are the only four I think we''ll ever need.

2. Total Story Points vs. Linear Gaming Sucks
When I mentioned the idea of "Total Story Points", I said it automatically implied a linear game. It doesn''t, and here''s how you can abuse it in a non-linear game:
Instead of having a "Maximum Story Points for the current story location", you could add up the maximum amount of Story Points gained for all the obstacles that you''ve met in the game so far. That way, you can go back to an obstacle, and attempt it again, and still get story points for it, thereby allowing you to follow a much less linear path.

3. What to do with obstacles
Something that occurred to me: There are two things you can do with an obstacle: attempt it, or pass on it! These are both valid options, and should both be considered in the game engine.

4. Less abstract skills, more player skills
This is similar to Maitrek''s last few posts, and I think I finally understand what he''s trying to say, and I agree with him.

We''ve reached an amount of computing power where we no longer need to say "dammit, we''d like the character to be able to track animals, but we don''t have a way to show it in game, so we need to give him an automatic skill."
Follow the adventure-game route. If there are tracks to follow, SHOW tracks to follow. Be these footsteps in the mud, broken twigs, a light in the distance... This is a MUCH more immersive way of doing things. You don''t have to make it difficult, the fun of just doing it is probably enough. The players will start to pay a whole lot more attention to their surroundings instead of the ubiquitous "lets try my treasure-finding skill in this room."
Players are intelligent enough to try these things for themselves. Allow the player character to attempt ANY action that the player wants to try, but let the players'' skill count in the determination of success. Make it count a LOT.

5. How about the slogan: "Roleplay or die!"?

6. If you do have predefined classes/roles, make them SIGNIFICANT in the game.
This has been said before, but I just had a bunch of new ideas, ones that I think might only work in single player.
Change the game flow and interface according to the class of the player.
A thief? You''ve got your lockpicking set, and a special interface for opening doors.
You get into combat? The fighter has real-time combat, lots of moves, lots of weapons, and can take a serious beating. If you''re a thief, if you get whacked, you''re probably dead. However, fight-time is slower, and you can sneak through shadows, backstab, stuff like that. These options are not available to a fighter character.
This makes choosing a class much more significant. If you chose to be a fighter, don''t go around picking locks. You don''t even get the option.

[note: I don''t really want to have this in my game for now, I want to try to stay away from classes and predefined roles a little]



And one final note:
I think I''ve just found a way to pull it all off. It''s all about pattern matching, and finding the right patterns to match. I was thinking of the language "ProLog" last night, and how it would be great in randomly determining storylines. Make the selection criteria a bit smarter, and hey presto, an adaptive storyline.
I think I can program this, a little text-adventure example anyway, in a reasonable amount of time. I''ll have to look it up a bit more, but I have this creeping, weird feeling that this might just actually WORK! .


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.