You could implment a system of derived skills. These are skills that become unlocked when two or more of a characters skills reach a certain level. For example when your firearms skill reaches expert and your mechanical skill reaches expert. Then you unlock the firearms build and repair ability.

quote: You could implment a system of derived skills. These are skills that become unlocked when two or more of a characters skills reach a certain level. For example when your firearms skill reaches expert and your mechanical skill reaches expert. Then you unlock the firearms build and repair ability.

I like the idea of opening up a derived skill, but I think putting in another skill to spend points on while your already spending points on the two skills prior to it is not good for business. Instead take the two skills and average them to get the skill at the third...

Mechanical 3 + Fire arms 5 = build/repair 4
Magic 5 + Sword 2 = MageKnight 3

that would be good I think. A system of derived skills that you spend no points on, but is reliant on 2 or more skills to build up its base.

I think the idea of "unlocking skills" - at least in my RPG - isn''t that good. I want my skill set to cover basically everything that a player may want his character to do in the game, and so adding a new skill all of a sudden in mid-game would be weird.


"... Not so much as a BONUS, but more of the way the skills work together..."

I think the bonus system is kinda dumb too, in a way, but I don''t think there''s another way to encourage this type of gaming. In other words, I don''t think it is enough of an advantage to the j-o-a-t player to get the odd extra ability whenever he gets two (or even more) skills up to a certain level...

As already stated Jack of all trades are the master ot none. And generally both players and developers seem to like the idea of specializing in order to get this really cool "I''m invincible!" skill when you''re the master of this and that skill. The problem with the game is often not the skill/training system but rather the game design as the player mentality. Let me clarify.
Games tend to prefer one way of solving problems or at least certains skills that you cannot be without. That must be solved both within the story, game design and skill system. As mentioned above most game makes a "Jack" poor at everything rather than good at everything. Those games where there are different solutions to most problems all require that the player are at least good at one specialization like warrior, mage, thief. So a design that promotes an alternative for those that can do more than one thing must be added in the story/design.
The other thing is that as a player I liee, and I think more with me, to solve all problems that are presented to me. Which leads to the design to only present me with problemes that my character are likely to solve. Or as an alternative make it clear that not all problems can be solved, no matter how good you are at fighting / magic / thievery.
To be more on the topic I suggest that you reward different characters with a customized storyline which includes all four and not three types of characters.

Hmm.

As already stated Jack of all trades are the master ot none. And generally both players and developers seem to like the idea of specializing in order to get this really cool "I''m invincible!" skill when you''re the master of this and that skill. The problem with the game is often not the skill/training system but rather the game design as the player mentality. Let me clarify.

Games tend to prefer one way of solving problems or at least certains skills that you cannot be without. That must be solved both within the story, game design and skill system. As mentioned above most game makes a "Jack" poor at everything rather than good at everything.



"Those games where there are different solutions to most problems all require that the player are at least good at one specialization like warrior, mage, thief. So a design that promotes an alternative for those that can do more than one thing must be added in the story/design."


"The other thing is that as a player I like, and I think more with me, to solve all problems that are presented to me. Which leads to the design to only present me with problemes that my character are likely to solve.

This is an idea that I am not 100% fond of. Fallout usually handled this in a good way: If there is a problem that only could be solved in by being a good fighter, someone would tell you that "I don''t think you''re quite what I''m looking for". Right now the best example I guess is where you can try to be a boxer in New Reno. If you don''t have enough Strength and Agility, I guess, the manager simply wont allow you to box against another boxer.

But I wouldn''t want the "quest" to be completely hidden from my character (of course it could happen every now and then, just not EVERY time), just because I wasn''t good enough in that certain skill, since it almost borders on classification ala D&D-RPGs. And classes in RPGs are something I really think is silly

"Or as an alternative make it clear that not all problems can be solved, no matter how good you are at fighting / magic / thievery."

This is a better solution, imo. This in facts almost needs to be done, because otherwise you need to design a world where the enemies and quests get progressively harder and harder throughout the game.


"To be more on the topic I suggest that you reward different characters with a customized storyline which includes all four and not three types of characters. "

Since I am not a fan of classes, I don''t think there is or should be "three types of characters". I wanna be able to play a gun-wielding dude who can talk his way out of anything, or, well, basically anything that the skill set and game allows.

I think the solution is to not just have one fighterway to solve it, one smartguyway and one thiefway. But, to be able to sneak into a The Evil Factory, lockpick your way into the electric station, hack into the electric system and set it so that in two minutes, when I kick the door into the Guard Room, the lamps lose the power and I can kill the guards and make it into the next room before the lights come back on and the cameras could see what happened....

(But still allow the player to kill the guard infront of the gate, shoot the gate open, shoot the electric station and kill the lights, switch on to nightvision and take out the guards and the camera....)

"Kaka e gott" - Me

Oh god....


umm.. First of all, I know this isn''t exactly what you''re trying to do, but trying to FORCE creativity in a game NEVER WORKS. The best way to get REAL creativity in a game is to give people as many opportunities to do anything they want, and do NOT try to give bonuses for that-- the reason is if you do, twink players are going to take advantage of that system, and do the minimum requirement required to get the bonus.



However, what you''re talking about is giving people advantages for being multifacetted. I''d contend that you should instead give people advantages for being less than everything! Take a look at ANY game that doesn''t have class restrictions. At the upper levels you have hundreds of characters that can do anything, have all stats/skills maxed out, and there''s basically no difference between any avatar.

It''s a problem with having upward-limits for stats/skills. Once someone maxes out one, they no longer apply XP to that skill, and they soon will have another skill maxed out, then another, and another, etc. A system should REALLy have some kind of exponential difficulty in increasing a stat-- and make it really worth it for osmeone to do so. For example, say you earn 40 TP... If you applied it to only Combat, you''d have 20 levels in that skill (''cause later levels cost more than earlier levels) However if you apply them equally to Combat and Magic, you''d have 13-15 levels in each. What you must ensure, however, is that those extra TPs spent towards really beefing up Combat are just as useful as having applied them to magic. No one should ever consider using TPs as "wasting" them.

In this way, I think you should be encouraging diversity . (And not in the way the University of Michigan does!) If each high level character still has a specialization and is VERY good at that skill, but not really THAT good at anything else, they still have to rely on other characters that have the skill they need to get something done-- rather than a buncha godly characters that can do everything equally well.



But I have one more point to make about your idea.... Ranks, TP, XP, Feats, Perks, levels, specializations, abilities... creativity levels.... Do you want people to play a role-playing game, or do you just want poeple to twink out and fiddle with the numbers?

-Desco-

quote: Original post by Srekel
The idea was that someone that was really good at skill A and really bad in skill B, would be not so Creative, while someone that was good at both A and B would be more Creative, and would be rewarded in some way.

You are missing the point though... The bonus of being good with both A and B skills is that the character is good at both A AND B skills, as opposed to being a master at just one.

Think of it this way:
Lets take a look at some characters. Say an ultra hardcore fighter guy who has the ability to crush people in one hit with his Mighty Hammer; And Jack, who has the ability to crush a quater of a person with one hit with his Hammer, but also has the ability to steal something from people.

Who has the advantage here?
Jack could simply snatch the ultra hardcore fighter guy's Mighty Hammer away and the fighter would be lost, and Jack would have a new Mighty Hammer to pumple the fighter with.

It's all balanced.

[edited by - Rob Loach on July 16, 2003 4:22:02 PM]

First of all, you seem to think I''m designing an MMORPG. It''s just a RPG, in the style of Fallout, Arcanum, Baldur''s Gate, Avernum/Exile, Neverwinter Nights. With that said, lemme reply.



"umm.. First of all, I know this isn''t exactly what you''re trying to do, but trying to FORCE creativity in a game NEVER WORKS. The best way to get REAL creativity in a game is to give people as many opportunities to do anything they want, and do NOT try to give bonuses for that-- the reason is if you do, twink players are going to take advantage of that system, and do the minimum requirement required to get the bonus."

I won''t try to force anything. That''s actually the idea with the whole Creativity concept: Make life easier for those who DON''T wish to max out the "best" skills, which is something you almost have to do (in the beforementioned games) to survive in a game. No matter what the system, there''s always someone that''s gonna take advantage of it weaknesses. I''m trying to remove one of those weaknesses by making JoaT-characters easier to play.

Also note that I''m that the Creativity idea is not about making the player play more creative. It''s about saying that "your character is creative", in order to make up for the "bad" choice of creating a multi-skilled guy.



"However, what you''re talking about is giving people advantages for being multifacetted. I''d contend that you should instead give people advantages for being less than everything! Take a look at ANY game that doesn''t have class restrictions. At the upper levels you have hundreds of characters that can do anything, have all stats/skills maxed out, and there''s basically no difference between any avatar."

Well, considering I''m talking about an RPG and not an MMORPG, I''ll take Fallout (which is the game whose system and world I know the best) for an example. At the higher levels, when you''re about to finish the game, you''ll be "maxed out", in maybe three out of 20 skills. 10 of the skills you''ve never put a skill point into. So no, there aren''t hundreds of characters, and no, you won''t have all your skills maxed out.

I haven''t really come that far in my design, but a guess is that you may become Master in maybe 1 or 2 skills, maybe 1 or 2 expert, and the rest down at Novice or Apprentice, OR you may have 1 or 2 Expert and 1 or 2 Novice and the rest as Practitioner. Something like that, please don''t quote me or reply to it


"It''s a problem with having upward-limits for stats/skills. Once someone maxes out one, they no longer apply XP to that skill, and they soon will have another skill maxed out, then another, and another, etc. "

Yes, maxing skills is in a way problematic, but when it comes to skills such as Communicate, there''s no point in allowing more XP put towards it when you already CAN say every comment in the game and convince everyone the game allows you to convince.
I haven''t decided about this yet, but I might allow SOME skills to get better "in eternity". Probably not though, I guess. Not only do I think it''s basically pointless, it''s also not very realistic.



"A system should REALLy have some kind of exponential difficulty in increasing a stat-- and make it really worth it for osmeone to do so. For example, say you earn 40 TP... If you applied it to only Combat, you''d have 20 levels in that skill (''cause later levels cost more than earlier levels) However if you apply them equally to Combat and Magic, you''d have 13-15 levels in each."

This is also something I haven''t decided yet. It does make sense, and it''s something I''ll spend time considering, so I can''t really reply anything to it right now.


"What you must ensure, however, is that those extra TPs spent towards really beefing up Combat are just as useful as having applied them to magic. No one should ever consider using TPs as "wasting" them."

Of course. Someone who put more points into, say Pistols, will always be better at pistols than someone who goes for the Creativity bonus. He just won''t be able to solve problems/quests the same way.


"In this way, I think you should be encouraging diversity . If each high level character still has a specialization and is VERY good at that skill, but not really THAT good at anything else, they still have to rely on other characters that have the skill they need to get something done-- rather than a buncha godly characters that can do everything equally well."

I will aim for to have my game "beatable" by any character (that has at least a tad bit sense behind him ). So, he shoudln''t have to RELY on anyone (NPCs, in this case) to complete the game. BUT, for certain quests then yeah, of course the Smart Guy may need to hire a gun, or Rambo 2000 may need his thief friend in order to successfully carry out the mission.

Or, the JoaT-guy may actually be able to complete most quests without any help!


"But I have one more point to make about your idea.... Ranks, TP, XP, Feats, Perks, levels, specializations, abilities... creativity levels.... Do you want people to play a role-playing game, or do you just want poeple to twink out and fiddle with the numbers?"


Lol
I don''t think it will be that much more difficult to play than say Fallout or NWN.
Ranks are there to 1) make it easier to see how good you are at a certain skill and 2) you may gain certain extra abilities (such as going from "Sometimes forget safety" to "Never forget safety" on guns, or getting a new hand-to-hand attack, or giving you an extra action point)
TP is, simply put, XP applied to a skill.
Feats and Perks are just different words for the same thing.
There are no levels in my game.
Specializations? I don''t quite understand what you mean.
When I speak of abilities, I don''t mean that as an Game Concept, it''s just something like picking locks, diving and shooting, talking, whatever.

"You are missing the point though... The bonus of being good with both A and B skills is that the character is good at both A AND B skills, as opposed to being a master at just one.

Think of it this way:
Lets take a look at some characters. Say an ultra hardcore fighter guy who has the ability to crush people in one hit with his Mighty Hammer; And Jack, who has the ability to crush a quater of a person with one hit with his Hammer, but also has the ability to steal something from people.

Who has the advantage here?
Jack could simply snatch the ultra hardcore fighter guy''s Mighty Hammer away and the fighter would be lost, and Jack would have a new Mighty Hammer to pumple the fighter with.

It''s all balanced."


To steal an example from another thread: In Fallout 1 (HERE COMES A SPOILER), you could win the game by either killing the end boss, you could hack into a computer and activate some kind of bomb, or you could actually convince him that his Master Plan just plain sucked.

For either of these plans to work, you needed to either be a full-fledged fighter, or a hacker, or a conversationist. If you had just been a little of each, then you could have never "won" the game.

A lot of quests in (good) RPGs are like this: sure, there are many ways to solve a problem or complete a quest, but unless you are VERY good at at least one of The Important Skills, you''re... f''ed.



To use my example used a couple of posts before: you can''t sneak past one of the guards, but have the other one see you, and you can''t just hack a little bit into the electric system, and you most certainly can''t be below average in your gun using if you''re about to kick a guard room door open and kill 3 guards.

Well, at least it would be VERY hard. That''s why I want to add Creativity.

One comment, and then I''ll shut up.

If you make your game beatable with any combination/level of skills, where''s the challenge?