Ok now.. MadKeithV.. here''s the problem with that. IT TOO CLOSELY MODELS REALITY!

Now, almost every player wishes to PICK their character''s strengths and weaknesses. That''s why we let them see their stats. If they disagree, they''ll change them! But if they can''t see, and the player had their heart set on becoming a magic user, but they''re strong and dumb.. tell me who would enjoy that?! No customization! that''s like life, you just get STUCK in a body regardless of what you want! I don''t want MY player''s stressing out over things like that. Imagine putting a lot of time and work into a character only to find out he''s maxed out at level three?! Explain yourself and why you think players would ENJOY not knowing if this character will match what they had in mind! That is the point of this.. pick a roll and PLAY it.

J

Well how about instead of an actual number for a skill we have skill trees. These skill trees would contain skills within skills.
For example, swordsmenship trees would have diffrent attacks that the player''s characters could learn.
Magic trees would have skills that would allow one to cast spells more quickly or make their spells more effecitve (attack spells do more damage, defense spells have longer duration.)

All players would have to learn the basic skills for their class
such as all warriors would have to learn the basic fighting moves and such, but then the skill tree would branch out and the player would choose which branch of the skill tree he/she would like to follow.

All branches on the skill tree would yeild diffrent skills, thus many characters of the same class would be diffrent because each idividual class would get their own tree.

Just throwing out an idea.

How about showing the player his stats, but in a different form. Maybe a bar? A bar would force you to have a min/max, but it also abstracts things a bit. Even if it is only used for HPs, it can be useful. Pokemon the GB game does that. Think about it, you don''t see that an attack does 55 points of damage, you see the enemies damage meter go down 1/3 of the way. And the same could go for your own HPs. You might notice that as you progress, the monsters that took away half your meter, take only 1/4 of it later on. The same could be done for stats.

Actually, come to think of it, a hp meter bar would not force you into a min/max, because the meter would represent the percentage of health you have left, not the actual health. And yes, players would be able to numerify it, but that isn''t a bad thing.

-Blackstream

"See you later, I'm going to go grab a few Bytes. I'm so thirsty, I could drink a whole data stream."

Tom, I was saying the numbers are natural in general, I wasn''t not talking about computers or programming at all. We put everything into numbers, it''s just the way we work. Can you think of any kind of measuerment system that doesn''t use numbers to some degree?

I love it when authors of RPG books put ratings into words. In the Vampire source book, they rate each dot in all the skill and stats with some kind of real-world comparison. That is great, and if that''s all you gave to the players, that''s fine too. But to try to take away some kind of measurement system is impossible, because people are going to do it anyway.

I think stats are good, I just think that a lot of the ways they''ve been implemented suck. Why does your strength go up for making a deal with a gangster to save the girl? Why does your intellegence go up for kicking a door down? It all doesn''t make sense. Levels, what do they represent? Why not just grow in skill and stature? It''s nice to have an overall rank, but couldn''t there be another way of doing that? Say instead of ranking the player by how much exp s/he has accumulated, how about how many quests have been completed. Just ideas.

/*initiates shouldn't have signatures*/

Okay, I think I see what you''re saying. People do think in terms of quantities, but not really in terms of numbers. When we see three apples in a row, we know it''s three apples, but we don''t have to understand the number "three" to know that it''s less than "two". Most people qualify things using ideological proportions before they quantify them using numbers.

What does this have to do with computers? Nothing.

I read the rest of the posts and got some really good ideas from it. The whole qualification system reminds me of something I was working on just recently before I tossed the idea out. It was a text-based RPG that depicted everything in terms of qualities rather than numbers. For instance, when you looked at yourself, you didn''t get stats. Instead, you got a verbose description of your appearance and estimated skills. This is apparently what you guys were talking about the entire time.

Maybe I should''ve kept working on this game.

Hey, I just thought of something.

What if, when you start the game, you give the player a choice. Either they want stats given as numbers, or the want them as descriptions. That way, you give them whatever they want.

Or, you could put a numerical range on descriptions, so the player has at least an idea of what they have. Just a couple of thoughts...

/*initiates shouldn't have signatures*/

Okay - for starters, I agree that a skill tree is a much more elaborate way of developing a character than giving them statistics to say how much damage they do with certain weapons -

I like that idea alot and I''ve seen it used in game before.
The problem with generating a character at the start of the game that already has some strengths and weaknesses creates a kind of flexibility problem, if the character someway through wants to change (as frequently happens in RPGs nowadays) from a very good tailor to an excellent tank-mage, having maximums from the start can be a little annoying.

People don''t really put things into numbers naturally, it''s more like a vague empathy of how big something is. If we naturally put things into numbers then we wouldn''t have to be TAUGHT numbers at schools.

Giving the player the ability to base how good the character is on it''s success is important, and I don''t think that RPGs have considered that first and foremost in their designs. Secondly, giving the player the flexibility to improve the way he/she wants to, is important and is one of many problems with a statistics based system that limits the amount a character can improve or what the character can do. And thirdly, showing the player how badly wounded he or she is can be something of a dilemma. Using stats to do this (giving the player a number) will tell the player how much the character has to go before it dies, not how badly wounded it is. Giving the palyer a bar seems like an okay idea, because it gives the player and idea how badly wounded the character is, and the only other method I can think of (as seen in some Max Payne screenshots) is to have the character limp around on screen and other such things.

quote: Original post by Niphty

Ok now.. MadKeithV.. here''s the problem with that. IT TOO CLOSELY MODELS REALITY!

Hmm, well I don''t actually consider reality to be a bad thing - but I know that I''m a pretty special kind of Role-Player. If you disagree with me on that point, it''s fine with me, but, I''d like to pick up on something you said later in your post:

quote: Original post by Niphty

Now, almost every player wishes to PICK their character''s strengths and weaknesses. That''s why we let them see their stats. If they disagree, they''ll change them! But if they can''t see, and the player had their heart set on becoming a magic user, but they''re strong and dumb.. tell me who would enjoy that?! No customization!

Where in my post did you read about no customisation? Almost ALL of the post was about a very ADVANCED system of customisation, as soon as the game has started. I never mentioned what happened at character generation time, because I haven''t thought it through fully yet. I have some very strange ideas there too, one of them being: character generation should NOT be separate from the rest of the game. How about letting your decisions during the first 30 minutes of the game determine your basic abilities? I know UltimaVI came reasonably close to this idea, but I''d like to push it further.

Also, I think limiting a character''s maximums in certain things, based on his/her ability scores, is a GOOD thing. Otherwise ( and please bear with me ), choosing ability scores at the beginning is really just a waste of time. If given enough time/experience you can grow into ANYTHING from ANYTHING, why not start completely average? Since obviously starting stats only influence you for a short period of the gae.



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 functions will be disabled from now on.

First i''ll solve a problem mentioned here then i''ll create (explain) one.

First, Niphty

quote:
Ok now.. MadKeithV.. here''s the problem with that. IT TOO CLOSELY MODELS REALITY!

Now, almost every player wishes to PICK their character''s strengths and weaknesses. That''s why we let them see their stats. If they disagree, they''ll change them! But if they can''t see, and the player had their heart set on becoming a magic user, but they''re strong and dumb.. tell me who would enjoy that?! No customization! that''s like life, you just get STUCK in a body regardless of what you want! I don''t want MY player''s stressing out over things like that. Imagine putting a lot of time and work into a character only to find out he''s maxed out at level three?! Explain yourself and why you think players would ENJOY not knowing if this character will match what they had in mind! That is the point of this.. pick a roll and PLAY it.

Ok, so what you''re saying is that if you can not see the player''s stats then you will not know what they can do and should become. right?
Why not start each player with a blank sheet. The first lot of skills that the character picks up determines the characters strengths. The computer will place the skill that your character first learns in a category the has the highest possible maxout. The last skill you learn will have the lowest maxout.

Niphty,I don''t think that modelling reality in RPG''s (in terms of stat calculations) is a problem. That''s why we have the stats there in the first place. What i''d like to know is if you think this "is" bad then where do you draw the line and why?

I think using the system of having a character with preset stats takes the bad element of real life and puts them into a game. This to me is the worst call ever done in rpg. It''s yuck! What we have to do is.

That''s my solution for now, anyhow.

Now the problem that i see from Blackstream

quote:
Actually, come to think of it, a hp meter bar would not force you into a min/max, because the meter would represent the percentage of health you have left, not the actual health. And yes, players would be able to numerify it, but that isn''t a bad thing.

As maitrek pointed out in a way. If you do not know exactly how much health you have left then how will you know if you can take on this pack of angry goblins. A percentage doesn''t really tell you this as well as the actual number. So you''re not really solving the problem you''re just exchanging it for a new one. Although i''ve got to admit that BGate used them well (red translucent bar over characters faces).

Personally i think stats should be kept out of the in-game gui''s. I think that they should stay in their places as being on out-of-game stat pages. Like in FPS deathmatch games and the like. They serve their purpose in these situations. If you want stats then use click on the stat pages otherwise it detracts from the atmosphere that the poor writer has tried so hard to create.

quote:
I mean, many quake and FPS players are only playing to prove themselves skilled.
They find that prooving their skill is fun (if it wasn''t the case they won''t play).
The same about RTS.

You play to be good or the best, or one of the best.

Not always the case Ingenu. Sometimes you just want to experiment with new way of doing things in games, this can be fun, a lot of fun! As in you''re example with FPS, some people simply like big better weapons i personally like weapons that allow you to explore more possibilities in the game like trip/proxy mines being attached to explosive barrels or the inside of doors.

When technology for games maxes out there will be no more quake stories. It will all come down to either story telling or original idea''s like trip mines and freeze throwers etc. And even though we may not live to see this day, this element is selling games today. If people were driven by skill improvement in games then we would all be playing simulators/fact! There''s a lot more too the fun factor than just skilling up. A lot more.

quote:
Well how about instead of an actual number for a skill we have skill trees. These skill trees would contain skills within skills.
For example, swordsmenship trees would have diffrent attacks that the player''s characters could learn.
Magic trees would have skills that would allow one to cast spells more quickly or make their spells more effecitve (attack spells do more damage, defense spells have longer duration.)

All players would have to learn the basic skills for their class
such as all warriors would have to learn the basic fighting moves and such, but then the skill tree would branch out and the player would choose which branch of the skill tree he/she would like to follow.

All branches on the skill tree would yeild diffrent skills, thus many characters of the same class would be diffrent because each idividual class would get their own tree.

That''s brilliant, absolutely brilliant! I love this creative thinking. We need more you :-)



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

Humm.. ok, first off.. I mentioned something very close to the skill tress elsewhere, but i''ll be darned if i can''t remember One of Landfish''s rant threads is where it resides. The system I TRUELY want is one with infinate skills that are all limited. In real life, you only can learn so much about one thing. No matter how hard you try, you''re limited to X typing speed on a normal keyboard. And on a devorak keyboard you might hit Y level. After that, you go no further. Physically your fingers cannot move any faster. This is a hard limit. Now, a soft limit is reached when you have to think of something new. For instance.. you have your sword, and you''re dueling. You learn that when you counter left, the opponent tries to lunge. This might catch you off guard the first time. But your mind stops and thinks "what should i have done?" this is where intelligence and wisdom come in. Using how much you know about something and how much intelligence you have, you can try to innovate. Innovation occurs when you''ve thought of something completely different than you''ve know before. We''ll call this a theory This theory has no practical applications as of yet. You fight the same guy again, and you get him to lunge, and you''ve got a theory to sidestep and counter-lunge. Well, you fail Theory goes down the hole, and you sit and think about it more. All this time you''re gaining based upon failures. You''re not actually at a limit of where you know it all, but you''re still stuck. You''re learning more and more about the skill, but you can''t get this one technique right.

Now, under the "fencing" stat there are infinate numbers of substats All of those have limits that''re fairly low. Once you''ve mastered a lunge, you''ve mastered a lunge. Lunge might be broken down into lunging at small, medium, and large things even. And those broken down into bipedal, quadripedal, etc.. This allows skills to technically advance forever.. yet, they can''t actually Why not? because we''ll never hit the bottom of the tree. So it actually has a soft limit, that which we can learn in a lifetime. Something that''s pure learning based, no physical restraints, is only hindered by your mind

But! we can''t accurately model the human mind. I mean, if we made a game with infinate skills.. well, who would think them up? Certainly i can''t! lol If we ever got a computer which could put two things together to make a third thing.. it could run forever and still not know everything. It works like this: the AI would take two items, say steel and a human, and figure out all possiblities of what the two can do together. A human can make weapons. now, combine human with the weapons and you get all sorts of other things. Each one of those has infinate possibilities given infinate time and resources Now, combine two smaller things. Say fork and knife.. one holds, the other cuts. well, now you have the concept of "hold and cut" lol concepts are the things we can''t get an AI to understand. If it did, then we''d have intelligent AI. However, combining all things could result in some cool stuff. Space flight, lasers, computers It''s just that it''s taken how many total humans how many total years to reach the point we''re at now? I mean, seriously.. think about that. If a computer could sit and crunch possibilities all day, it''d be like cracking a code. One number in 500 billion might be a good idea! but the computer can''t sort through all that. Some of this falls over into the Incredible AI posting where we were discussing how people automatically know certain routes aren''t worth it because of past experience, whereas the computer cannot draw upon experience like we can

Ok, now that i''ve babbled on about that.. hehe. time to get down to serious business
MadKeithV, i musta misunderstood ya.. i didn''t know the person''s actions within the first bit of time would determine strengths and weaknesses. But to pick at that system, once people know about it.. they''ll do things that other people have proven to allow them to make super characters. If your system boosts up the skills and stats they use within 30 minutes, then they could feasibly work them all. What say you to this? please explain further, it seems to have holes for powermaxing a character TOTALLY, meaning all stats would rock
And I wasn''t dissin reality, i just think it''s safe to assume people come here to ESCAPE reality, not to get another dose of it. If you disagree, i''d like to know why you think people would want to play reality when it''s already here.

Paul, close. What i''m saying is that people want to see stats so they can shape the character to become what they want them to become If a player was given set stats and told "go forth" then they''d have to pick a guild best suited to those stats. If they did not, then they''d be beating their head against a wall in a few levels cause they can''t gain experience or skills fast enough to level within a normal time frame. In my game, my girl and i have set times that it should take for people to reach a level if they worked as hard as they could, and if they worked like normal.. and they''re not much off That way powermaxing characters don''t get way ahead, and it doesn''t pay any to actually try to powermax.. you just loose out on the roleplay aspect of going out and socializing
Very interesting system about whatever skills you learn first, you get most of. I''d say it could work, but it''s not for me If you let players go to a guild and join there to become say.. a warrior, and have the warrior chief or whoever give the player some starting skills. These would be the warrior main skills and thus would need the maximum maxout But from there, the player learns skills in their own order. I could see it working. It seems risky to me, players are inherantly stupid Well.. strike that.. clueless They might accidently do something just to play with the working of your system. "attack rat" and then poof, their attack skill is the number one skill. Well, accidents and such will happen.. how do you plan around that? In my system, by letting them pick a guild.. they pick which stats are going to have the highest maxout, as you say. And those stats will also move up faster. It''s all about expecting the player''s moves and trying to counter them so they do what you want and that way you don''t listen to them complain a few days later about why their character can learn attack so well and nothing else! "duh, read the manual?" but you can''t just tell people that.. So think about it from a customer satisfaction and a customer service point of view. your game has to be idiot proof

Well.. i shall not comment on more at this time. my fingers are starting to agree with my stomache.. time to eat

J