quote: Original post by pacman

Though I think that not letting the player do whatever they want (that won''t wreck the story, of course) can be disapointing sometimes (Hey, why can''t I leave this town right now? This sucks!). You can always try to disuade them with consequences though...MWHAHAHA(evil laugh continues)HAHAH

That''s what I meant - not disallowing the "wrong" actions, just having consequences. ( For instance, not being able to achieve certain heroic feats because, well, you weren''t being heroic! )
Consequences are a powerful and difficult tool, and I don''t think we''ll get to using them fully within the next few years.

I think specially in Roleplaying games, we should not disallow ANYTHING, just discourage certain paths. If you want to play the game as an evil bastard, just do so, but don''t expect to get away with it



Silvermyst -
I don''t know if you picked up on it, but I liked your idea of varying weapon effectiveness for players. However, I described a way of doing it logically, instead of randomly, because I just prefer a system that seems logical at least at a casual glance.

There is already enough randomness in actually trying to hit/damage your opponent, I don''t think there''s a need to introduce even more. I guess I have these ideas because I''m a programmer, and we learn to never do the same thing twice if doing it once has the same effect...



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 the thing with weapons is that the player shouldn''t know how much damage it does to something, for example a person can be run through and still be alive, while another will be run through and die when the sword just pierces the skin. I.e. we all have different strengths and resistance to death. therefore if you would say that it does 66% damage to a goblin then that would bring in stats, and since today''s games are 3d it should really depend on where the player has hit the goblin. Like can you imagine killing a goblin by giving it a cut in the arm witha very sharp sword? I don''t think so.

So the solutuion to that would be to make it locational damage and include a rough guide for where the "sweet spot" or wher ehte vital organs are located in each monster, and how tough their natural skin is. This would add more roleplaying and specifically more styles of attacking to the players arsenal. Also it would force people to use different tactics for different creatures because no creature would be the same. And could you imagine if there were goblins with thicker skin, rougher vitals, stronger arms, faster legs? It would bring an element of welcome realism to games especially when now in games such as Diablo (1 and 2) where all the monsters are identical. This could easily be done by scaling the models in different dirctions and at different values.

Armour would also affect this because a goblin with an armoured vest would have to be taken out int a different way than the goblin with no armour. And making creatures appear to have individual traits would make the player realise and think that they are killing individual souls and beings. That would add a large amoutn of depth and role playing into a Role playing game.

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au

CyberPunk RPG
http://www.eisa.net.au/~sdgrab/index.html

Hrm - having individual hp for different monsters is an interesting idea. Balance is always a problem though. As soon as you involve a possible difference between two characters (or players) you have to find some way to make sure they stay even.

And another problem with making all these weapons have different levels of good, like "fine sword", "master crafted specualr high-lighted chrome-mapped sword" and other such things is that it's just trying to model real life. And we've all established before that real life isn't great fun, and you don't NEED an individual "fine sword" or something to play a role in a role playing game, you just need a sword so that people can see what kind of role you might be playing? I dunno...

Now - about discouraging a player from doing particular actions. I don't think anyone should be discouraged from their style of play, no matter how annoying (or evil). But there must be a balanced way of doing things. Playing as a good character will have the advantage of being more liked by people and having stronger back up, also less running from authority, but of course, you won't have as much skill at defending yourself or for instance surviving in conditions that don't suit the normal societal setting in the game. ON the other hand, an evil person will be mnore versatile in the conditions he.she may be able to survive in, and will possibly have grater skill at defending himself etc etc. But of course going into towns is hard and most likely only done at night etc.

But this is exactly what I'd like to see. I'd like to see some people play the game differently. See how long they can get away with it and other such things. Otherwise an online community or a single player game will be dull and boring and not much more that Internet Relay Chat with graphics...

And Daemin brings up an excellent point, as we have more and more player control over the character we are beginning to lose this skill based system - which means we are degrading things towards more or less a complicated 3D shooter. Now, I think that locational damage is a good thing, testing the skill of the player is good however some player may be unco, and this limits their ability to "role play" and "be something they aren't" (although I still think that specific actions don't define a person's role as much as their consequences). This does indeed screw things up for me. On one hand, it'll work and help reduce stats and allow the player to really BE the character (rather than just point the character in the right direction like giving orders a dumb sheepdog) and it's really up to the gamers as to how they respond.

Hardcore RPGers will get frustrated by the fact they have to develop skills at something a little more real than their imagination, which totally rips that potential market apart. Oops. On the other hand - it will have more "mass" appeal to those that enjoy an RPG as much as they enjoy a 3D FPS shooter. It's a question of who you want to aim for.

However this could also have some serious benefits for hardcore RPGers that really want to get into the mind of their character. You could go ahead and actually have books in game that you can read where you can gain knowledge about how to kill specific monsters, and thus actually get hands on into the characters actual ability. Of course, some hardcore RPGers are lazy and just want a stat that says they can kill monster X efficiently.

Damn damn damn. There is at least 4 different types of RPGers I swear.
1) Those who love their stats and skills and power-playing (evil ppl)
2) Those who like to get into a role but are too lazy to actually know the role and would rather imagine it (why don't they go play the board game)
3) Those who have skill at 3D shooters and want something more involving than the average Half-life so they turn to what they think an "rpg" is (I'm probably more like this on to be brutal to myself)
4) Those who love to play a role and are totally obsessed with every detail about the RPG in it's current state (wierd nerdy type ppl)

You just can't please everyone.

Edited by - Maitrek on June 30, 2000 7:59:10 AM

We''re getting somewhere here
( I''m really enjoying this thread, has anyone noticed? )



I think that perhaps I had drifted a bit too close to recreating realism again, without talking about why. I like realism, I think it makes it easier to play your role - because your character''s abilities are more accurately modeled, and it
will lead you to "believe" the world more. However, for a lot of roleplaying games having such a level of realism is probably overkill, most people would do fine with just having "swords" and "axes".

quote:
But this is exactly what I''d like to see. I''d like to see some people play the game differently. See how long they can get away with it and other such things.

That''s why I think the system needs to support it. The people in that town NEED to react adversely to you if you have the reputation for being a ruthless butcher of innocents. You don''t need to balance this at all, because the player has already decided ( through his/her style of play ) that morality is not an obstacle, and so he/she will be able to cope with situations much more easily, with less thought.
The "good" player would not be able to just kill the local banker if he needed money - that weighs against the benefit of having friendly reactions from everyone that''s heard about him. The system does not need to support this however, because it is intrinsic in the player''s style.
So, in my opinion, discouraging ( through mechanics ) certain style of play ( for instance by influencing NPC reactions to you ) will already be balanced by the benefits that that particular style of play gives you - without the need for additional mechanics on the other side.

quote:
2) Those who like to get into a role but are too lazy to actually know the role and would rather imagine it (why don''t they go play the board game)

I do not understand this one, can you explain it more? I understand the tradeoffs that the other three categories imply.




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.

With this level of realism thing, I think that''s what this message has kinda been related to. Believing and getting into the role by not adding some kind of layer of what I might call "crap" over the top of it, and just presenting the player with a compelling world in which he/she has the option to work in the way he/she wants to - ie, play a "role". The stats have always been a limitation the same way a players ksill could be a limitation if stats get watered down.

Hrm - I think I was trying to say (however utterly failed) with number 2 that there are those people that want to role play, but need everything outlined for them because they can''t be bothered visualising everything. The same way some players NEED a really good GM (Games Master for al those out there) because they don''t make do with what they''re given. SOme people need stats, some people want stats, some people like stats and some people like personal skills.
The good thing about MMORPGs (and also the bad thing) is that if you give a community a lot of freedom, then eventually some people will sit down together and organise town watches and things like that, the problem with early MMORPGs is that they tried to hanbdle everything for the players, like outlaws, injustice, dishonour (all these honour systems) rather than letting "nature" take it''s course of action. By the very nature of people''s actions they get consequences from it. This is kinda what I like about not trying to discourage players from certain ways of playing (at least in MMORPGs - single player RPGs can have similar things done but with (clever?) NPCs instead).

I think I should state that I''m never talking about MMORPGs, because they are an entirely different ballgame.

I prefer to stick to the single player/ small group kinds of RPGs, because they are more story-based.

Also, a lot of my views are coloured by the way that I do my "real" ( live/tabletop ) roleplaying. I don''t need stats, I can make it all up myself. However, if you DO need a system, I want it to be as simple as possible if I need to do the calculations myself ( pen and paper ), or as REALISTIC as possible if I don''t ( computer ).
The PC gives us the opportunity to make a very complex, interesting rule system to play within, without it actually getting in the way of the role playing, if done RIGHT.


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

The PC gives us the opportunity to make a very complex, interesting rule system to play within, without it actually getting in the way of the role playing, if done RIGHT.

yes yes yes!

Ok, first off.. Silvermyst.. how do you get this random table of things? you create a character and you suddenly get assigned random values for how much "health" a goblin has to you and how much "strength" a sword has to you? Do you realize how many different random numbers that would be depending on the size of your monster and item databases?!
Secondly, that''s like giving a player a random set of stats and saying "here, go play!" there''s NO customization and NO fun for the player. Someone get lucky and rolls a good character. How long do you think people will spend rerolling a character and going to hit a goblin? Once they get a good goblin score and they go elsewhere.. they might reroll again cause they suck at the next opponent. You''re leaving too much to chance in that case and it''s really going to hinder the player''s ability to play a role that they choose. You''re forcing them to play a RANDOM roll and they don''t even know WHAT role it is. You also haven''t specified how you plan on catering to people who DON''T want to fight. Stats to more than just fighting. How about a healer? what do they go a certain % ability to heal someone? "sorry man, i can''t heal above 20%" tell me how ridiculous THAT would be! your system falls appart in other areas, and quickly. I was hoping we were all in agreement that we wanted to move away from murder-based exp in some sense.

Keith.. I think news needs to travel about a player, and even WANTED posters This adds a depth of realism. However, just after you kill someone, the NPC''s should KNOW.. yet Too many games impliment this REALLY badly. How in the hell does a town 90000039843239210 miles away know that i''ve just killed a man elsewhere? Think like outlaws of the west. People were a bit rude to strangers cause you never knew who was good and who was bad. So you start at a negative some places.. and a positive other places. It''s kinda like walking into NY as a stranger from outta town They automatically act rude to you.. not because of you, but because they don''t want to be bothered (no disrespect, i''ve been there and love it.. and understand why they do it with so many people there..). Come to the south and usually you''ll be treated like people''s best friends. It''s just the way we''ve been raised, to a degree. In a town where strangers are always causing problems, people will be weary. This is an important thing to look over. And having merchants carry this info along to other towns is important. "yeah, if you see a guy about yea big holding a jade-hilted scimitar, run and get the militia!" Merchants watched out for eachother and if you rob one guy, he''ll spread the news
THAT is a dynamic world as *I* see it It''s feasible.. just a LOT of work. Perhaps while the player sleeps the game could calculate the movements of merchant caravans and such.. hehe that way the game doesn''t lose time or run slow elsewhere. And the closer a player is to something, the more often it updates.. that way if the player runs into a caravan mid-move, it''s still moving. That is the only way I have found to make things like that work correctly without chugging down resources. Things far away don''t matter so much, so they don''t need a high-priority level. With different levels come different update times. Perhaps as you get closer to a caravan, it will update depending on distance.. and when you move to a new level for the caravan to update, it will.. that way it updates appropriately as you get closer Interesting but fun!

J

I agree with MadKeith: this thread is definitely interesting.

I don''t know if somebody mentioned this yet (I''ve read most of the posts and scanned over the boring ones, but I may have missed something). This isn''t my original idea, but some of you might not have heard it before, and you might think it''s really cool, like I do.

MechCommander is not a role-playing game, but it did have one thing pertinent to this thread: status of your ''mechs was NEVER given as a precise number. It was given in the form of a status bar or color scale. Example: green was healthy, red was bad, and gray was destroyed. This applied to both armor and internal systems.

Since there was no way to tell exactly how much armor or durability your ''mech had left, the game invoked a lot of tension. There was also the odd chance (but all too common for my taste) that a critical hit would tear your ''mech (or the enemy''s) apart very quickly. This added a TON of flavor to the game, in the form of chance.

But actually, that''s not what I wanted to mention.

Next to each ''mech in the ''Mech Hangar was a vertical bar that depicted a particular ''mech''s "estimated effectiveness." Basically, it was a graphical interpretation of the ''mech''s weapons and armor, coupled with the pilot''s skill (yes, pilots had their own skill ratings, also in the form of bars). The higher the effectiveness bar, the better you could EXPECT the ''mech to perform. But again, this was just an estimate.

Here''s how the system could be applied to an RPG:

By default, a character''s effectiveness in different fields (combat, stealth, magic, whatever else you need) can be rated by a bar. You need to determine beforehand what the highest possible effectiveness rating will be, because this bar is going to be a percentage of that. Then, when the character equips things are improves in skill, the bar will go up.

This gives a good way to measure weapon strength based on the character''s ability to use it. For example, a broadsword would be useless in MY hands, so my EFF bar would be way low. In the hands of a master swordsman, the EFF bar would go way up.

If this system were used, I''d suggest having effectiveness be calculated when an obstacle is faced. (Obstacle includes anything that acts as an antagonist to the character''s skills: monster, trap, locked door, etc.) Basically, the player can test different combinations of equipment against different opponents, eventually finding what works. Skills can be roughly measured by facing an obstacle that tests the skill in question (i.e., thief tries to pick lock, his EFF bar goes 1/4th up).

This combines several things that people have already mentioned: hiding skills, appraising items and skills, and measuring ability without numbers.

SHAMELESS PLUG:
By the way, if any of you RTS fans HAVEN''T played MechCommander, you are a heretic. MechCommander is hands-down the purest RTS I''ve ever played (better than Starcraft, IMHO). The missions are hard as hell about halfway through the game, but it''s the only RTS I''ve played where planning means more than power. (Starcraft: I have more units, I win.) Anyone designing an RPG or RTS would do well to borrow it from your friend.

Oh, BTW, I just realized earlier that MadKeith''s sig quote is from "A Perfect Circle" by Mers de Noms. Great album, great song.

No, this has no relevance to our discussion.

Okay, quickly rehashing what I think are the conclusions so far:

• Some people like stats, and some people don''t, but generally, if you wish to promote role-playing, it''s best not to make the stats too explicit in the game. They can still be used internally, but communicating them to the player should be approximate and intruiging.
  
• We''d like to leverage the computing power of the PC to create a lively, interesting, perhaps realistic environment for our players to be in. Unlike with MMORPGs, we don''t want to leave it up to the players entirely. The world in itself should be interesting enough.
  
• In order to "role" play, the computer has to support your role. Real "role playing" is impossible on your PC for now, because it cannot make intelligent decisions on where the story should lead or what the outcomes of battles should be, depending on how well you roleplayed. Therefore, the next best thing ( and this is MY opinion, so feel free to refute ) is to make the world as detailed as is useful, so that the player feels that his or her actions matter, that they have consequences on both herself and the world around her.
  
• The previous point leads to consequences. What you do changes things in the world. In order for this to work, information needs to travel around. This can''t be too arbitrary, or players will pick up on the inconsistencies. ( people knowing who you are in a place you''ve never been, etc. )
  Therefore, we need some sort of semi-believable ( damn, that''s the word I''ve been looking for FOREVER, believable! ) information movement.
  

I think I just might have stumbled on the word that best describes how I want my roleplaying games....
believable
That''s not necessarily realistic ( heck, I think Tolkien''s world was believable ), and not necessarily detailed. It depends on the experience you want to offer your audience.
That''s why it''s so hard to figure out "what''s best". It all depends on what you want to offer, and what you intend your audience to be.


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.