Inmate2993: I like your idea. GURPS would be a good place to get a HUGE list of advantages/disadvantages (and even quirks) from, considering that is one of the core components of the system.

Another thing to do for the ''mental attributes''(even if you use an advantage/disad only system) would be to just indicate which option is most in character. You could give each response various attributes (all the attributes of the player and more), and find then sort the options by how much they match the character. If the player constantly picks one entirely out of character, maybe find what is in common with those choices (using the attributes associated with them) and have the character gain those attributes (and lose opposing ones) as the character advances (levels up, gains character points, whatever). This way, if you select a limitation like "chivalrous"(sp?) but always pick answers that are far from it, are rude, etc then your character loses that description and eventually gains the disadvantage "rude" or somesuh (which can make things harder for the player, maybe it means all responses have their ''rudeness factor'' increased, so even the least rude choice is still taken as somewhat rude by NPCs?). It would be much more difficult to do in a multiplayer game, but not impossible. You''d just need to enumate pc<->pc actions as well, and maybe delay evaluation of them to a period of time (so you can see if player A gave player B something for nothing, or for something that player B had to go get, etc).

Inspired currently by the "role not roll" idea, I want to toss yet another point out.
What if the game kept track silently of ''conducts'' ala NetHack. So that when you finish the game, you can be told things such as "You never intimidated another character." or "Trigger-Happy Bastard! You used combat in x out of y possible choices!"

Allow a player to play however he or she chooses, but list their conducts at the end of the game, so that they might be inspired to attempt to play it through differently.

- It''s a life''s work
-
:Image Hosting @ $5/3 Months
:30Gig/month bandwidth Reseller Plan @ $40/3 Month
Generic WebHost: The Cheapest Hosting Around!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

Forgive me for being blunt...But why even bother developing such a player personnel perception system if when all is said and done, such RPG games always are going to require combat skills to succeed?

quote:

---

For whatever reason, I was recalling the olden days of my P&P RPG sessions with friends. And how horrible many of the others were at actually playing their characters by the numbers. A character with a numerically "well below average" intelligence would make intelligently tactical and strategic moves. A character with a horribly deathly ill constitution-like stat would order a bottle of Vodka from a bar.
This, it occured to me today, was horrible. Idiots don''t use tactics, and sicklings don''t do hard drinks knowingly. But players generally just use their statistics to obvious gaming advantage. That Intelligence thing doesn''t do much when I can just use my Strength to lug around a few extra assault rifles. What good is Charisma when I can go in shooting? Oh, no, my Mage doesn''t need strength, just a high Intelligence and some Wisdom.

---

Just from reading that I gather that the problem isn''t exactly the players...rather it was that possably your game DM seemed to allow such out of character actions/choices to occur and/or the emphesis was always on combat to resolve conflict rather then character interaction.


One of the best P&P RPG games I ever played was basied on the D&D rule set, and with a very good DM at the helm...The DM generated all the characters and assigned them to us...The story was basied around a village (the PC characters were guards and other low level characters) that had become exposed to the black plague...there was no magic or monsters...and the only combat we got ourselves into was against a dozen easy to defeat small rats that had gotten into the grain storeage cellars...Most of the game involved not only trying to protect food stores from the rats, but trying to keep the population from panicing (includeing a couple of NPCs who took advantage of the unfortunate plague situation to "paint" a few fellow villagers as practicers of witchcraft)...It wasn''t exactly a normal D&D hack and slash dungon quest type thing and all the more memoerable and enjoyable because of it.


But I think that is what it all boils down to...if the story/goal/purpose of the game is to run through some quests fighting monsters on the way...then the perception system being described only adds complication in acheveing such goals, and not exactly fueling the players desire to play through the character rather then playing the character as their combat pawn...I think the only way to get players to "act" through the characters (as you want them to) is to place the game emphesis and focus on such non-traditional RPG activities...no huge game worlds, no epic wars with orcs and wizards, none of the traditional cliche RPG trappings...focus the game on the seemingly smaller events and situations that you noticed your friends acting out of character in...then blow them up, make the empheseis, the risk/rewards, be basied entirely on how players "act" through their characters rather then how well they succeed in combat...and if it means modifying the D20 rule system, so be it..

Yes, sadly most rpgs these days are becoming going back to the old hack slash with story thrown into key points format.

I think the key to improving player perspective and thus rpgs as whole is two fold.
1) Humans are qualitative creatures not quantitative.
2) There is more to role-playing then combat.


1) Humans are qualitative creatures not quantitative.

The traits and character description instead of stats I think is a good wait to bring this about. By having the players construct their character by choosing traits, characteristics and flaws. The player will more readily associate themselves with that character since it will feel more like a really person instead of a collection of numbers. Those Traits would then impact the game and choices the player makes as well as acting as limitations to keep the player in character by having antiTraits these being the inverse of traits. The character acquires them by repeated and major actions that oppose that trait.

For instance if the player choose the trait "Chivalrous". This might make them treated warmly and welcomed by most people as well as allowing them to enter the homes of the nobles. The antiTrait of that might be "Fallen Hero" which would replace "Chivalrous" if the character repeatedly did unchivalrous actions like killing unarmed people, stealing and hurting bunnies. The antiTrait would result in them being disliked by most people they meet and barred access to some establishments.

Like wise allow the player to overcome flaws by sufficient amount of successful actions within the confines of that flaw.
Such as if the character has the flaw "Tactless" which cause a negative reaction during conversations. If the player is able to successfully obtain their goals through conversation enough times then the flaw is removed.

2) There is more to role-playing then combat.

The one of the main difference between Pen and paper and computer rpgs is the fact the most pen and paper rpgs reward karama/experince/etc for role playing and not combat. That is because they are more about the experience then combat. So why is it that CRPGs are all about combat? What if there was no or little exp gained from combat? What other means could designers employ to award experience and encourage role playing? There could be exp reward for remaining in character. Why not allow the character to improve through actions, solving puzzles and overcoming obstacles.

There most be a million and one ways to include character development without resorting to combat. Also why most combat always end in death? It would defiantly add more to games if there where other ways to resolve combat. For instance one game I player called "persona 2" allowed you to converse with most enemies and convince them to help you instead of killing them.



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

I think the biggest obstacle to moving CRPGs away from combat is simply technical. A human DM is infinitely more able to come up with complex, engaging, interesting, and believable situations. With a combat focused system, the computer has something concrete to work with. As TechnoGoth mentioned, humans are more qualitative than quantitative. Computers, however, are the opposite. They are far better number cruchers than artists and writers. I think the key is not to reduce the combat in some way, but to improve the other role playing abilities.

I admit, I haven''t played a lot of pen and paper RPGs, but I have played a few. A computer DM can only respond to a certain set of player actions and can only invent a certain set of situational responses to those actions. However, a human DM can come up with a logic response to strange and unexpected player behavior. For example, if you wanted to see what was in a dark cave without entering, a logical thing to do might be to toss in your torch to light it up. The only action a typical CRPG would probably support is to drop the torch. It''s not so much the inability to represent a character in a qualitative way as it is the ability to respond reasonably to such a character. Consider the spectrum of responses you''d get if you walk down the street and asked people where the bus station was. Probably you''d get a couple people that would ignore you, perhaps somebody who gets angry that you''re bothering them, and mostly people would just point you in the right direction and continue on their way. That''s the scope of a typical CRPG. However, those catagories are so broad. The way they talk when they point it out, their body language, their first impressions of you, etc. The problem with qualitative stats is that they''re still stats. It''s still a mapping of a fixed set of predefined attributes onto a fixed set of responses. This is just the stuff that''s popped into my mind while reading the thread, I''ll have to give it a lot more thought to see where it leads to and what kind of solutions I see and such.

Now, about role playing. When I play an RPG, my goal is usually one of a small set. To win, where I reach the end, defeat the final boss, find the lost treasure, etc. To explore/grow, where I find new areas, learn new abilities, discover hidden secrets, etc. To achieve, where I reach some self-defined arbitrary goal, such as reaching a certain level, winning without using a certain weapon, finishing in under a certain time, etc. I can also think of one more goal, which I don''t think about much while I''m playing: interaction, to talk to people, make relationships, learn stories, etc. Those aren''t definitive catagories, or probably the only catagories, but I think they illustrate at some ideas. Firstly, the computer is bad at interacting. If I want to interact with people, I have friends. Perhaps this is more of a goal with MMOGs, but I''ve only play a little of those so I can''t comment. At any rate, interation in a MMOG is the same as in real life, you''re getting to know people and talking to them. NPCs just can''t do that well enough yet. Secondly, the remaining three catagories are inherently about stats. They''re about finding the best combonation of moves and weapons, figuring out which stats to upgrade, know where to find the best stuff. Since the only feedback I have is statistical, that''s what I have to use to evaluate my succes in those three areas.

This just came to me as I was writing the end of the last paragraph. How else can I define those catagories? Can they be expressed in ways that aren''t definite, even as qualitative stats? How can I win without achieving some definite goal? Obviously, even in real life, "winning" is some goal we''re trying to achive (unless you''re never satisfied), a definite point of success, say becomming a CEO, or getting a 85% average, etc. When I''m looking to achieve, it''s a similar situation. I want to set the new high score, see how long I can go without sleep, finish my homework in under an hour, etc. They''re all finite goals with some "statistical" measure of success. Exploration and interaction are different though. There is no "winning" to exploration, only to find something new and different. And there are no bounds in interaction. Perhaps we need to not look for a way to eliminate stats, since as I see it, they''re a necessary part of gameplay. Instead, we maybe need to try and use them to influence the character into areas that are less finite, where there is no "statistical goal."

Hopefully at least some of that makes sense. It seems kind of incoherent at times to me, but oh well.

tj963

We talk as if these games are written and created by machines!
And I admit, your arguments are valid in the theory that machines are at their current point in evolution, not creative enough per se to write games. But it fails in the fact that the machines do /not/ write the games. Every choice decision, every storyline twist, it is all done by human hands and ingenuity.
Pick up Deus Ex, and kill as few people as possible. Then replay it and slaughter everyone. Both ways are possible.
Start Morrowind. Try all the different styles of play.
Those examples are not just random occurences, they were designed and implemented by our comrades in the industry.

We are designers, my friends, and instead of looking at a problem such as this and simply saying "not possible. useless. why bother?" we should take in the steps of those that are getting paid to do design work, and FIND a way to implement this sort of thing. I cannot believe that those designers we want to become simply sit in an office and say "Oh, we''re making a shooter? Well, we need a pistol, shotgun, and rocket launcher. On the double." Instead of taking a problem or idea such as I have proposed and giving up because we''d rather spend creative-time re-writing a Final Fantasy/Quake/Starcraft game, we should use it to actually CREATE and DESIGN something.

- It''s a life''s work
-
:Image Hosting @ $5/3 Months
:30Gig/month bandwidth Reseller Plan @ $40/3 Month
Generic WebHost: The Cheapest Hosting Around!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

I think the biggest problem with non-combat parts in crpg''s is that the game writers can in no way take into account all the possible things the player might want to do. This is (currently) a point where pen and paper RPG''s are much more enjoyable than computer RPG''s - you have far less constraints.

I do believe however, that improved physics models, and clever techniques for handling social interaction can and will increase the amount of ''freedom'' that players in CRPG''s have.

About the original topic of this thread: I think that in *single* player games, it is completely up to the player whether they want to roleplay or not. You should definitely do everything you can to make the game immersive, but if a player wants to power-play, that''s his/her choice and i see no reason to impose penalties or whatever on that. The best option (in my opinion) is adding lots of limitations and possibilities that are based on the player''s character, to serve as reminders of the layout of this character. Different dialog choices for different chars are the classic example. Just make sure there are no stats that are completely irrelevant to characters - in a lot of D&D-inspired CRPG''s wisdom and intelligence are of no conequence for fighter characters, and thus players would be *very* tempted to just ditch those in favor of more useful stats.

I totally agree with you that as designers we need to focuse on creative multiple game play possibilities and allow for the player to act in a variety of ways. My intention was not to dismiss the creative aspect of the game, but merely to point out that those creative aspects are created by a developer BEFORE the game is released and the paths that are created are independent of player actions.

You mention Deus Ex (I love that game) which is a perfect example. The ability of the player to play the game in a very stealthy manner or to go on a killing spree are both options that were designed and programmed beforehand. For example, what if the player wants to not complete a certain mission? Deus Ex cannot handle that. What if the player wants to land the helicopter in a different place? This is what I mean when I say that the computer cannot compose the story in the same way as a human. The only way around this problem is create a world so large, with enough options that unless the player is being completely ridiculous, it can handle it. As much as we can reduce these limitations the better.

I think Deus Ex is also a prime example of stat fiddling also. If you want to play as a very stealth character, you improve that stats and collect the augs that improve that. A similar situation takes place if the player wants to play as a fighter. In a way, the stat fiddling IS the role playing. In order to take on the character type the player wants, they fiddle with the stats to make that character. In a combat based RPG, the player DOES role play when they stat fiddle, because if a character is merely a fighting machine, then the way they fight and the stats they emphasize is the logical way to shape a character. How else can the player shape their character other than the stats, especially when non-combat decisions have little effect on the story? On a related point, in a more social RPG, a player would just just spend time fiddling with social stats, because that is the main method they have of shaping their character. To use something from Run_The_Shadows original post and sum up this point, players make extensions themselves, and determine who they are by the stats.

In terms of more concrete implementations, I thought that wasn''t the point of this thread. From you''re posts though, it seems you are actually somewhat interested in it though. If you''re not, feel free to edit this out. Anyways, I think the only way to make player''s characters more of an extension of themselves without stat fiddling is to remove them. Even social statistics will be fiddled with. In real life, how does one find out their abilities, social, phsical and (maybe not this one in real life) magical? They use them. For example, a swordsman knows he is good with a sword because he can defeat others. The best archer in a small village may be the worst in a country. Thus a player''s perceptions of their character must be based on the results and opinions of others in the game. If they see that they can kill mice with their magic arrow and that it takes 3 to kill a goblin, then they can start to measure their ability. Instead of comparing levels and stats with their friends, they''d say things like: "I brought down a massive troll with only 2 arrows!" "I hacked the mainframe in 7 and a half seconds!" A similar notion applys to social situations. If a character repeatedly tries to talk to npcs and finds them unhelpful, he can conclude that he''s got some kind of social issue. Maybe he''s wearing the wrong clothes. Maybe he''s got a different accent. Maybe he''s asking rude questions. By giving th play this kind of non-numerical feedback, the player has to think of his character in real life terms, not abstract numbers. In addition, this also yields a form of character personalities. Hopefully this is moving towards what you''re looking for.

tj963

quote:

---

Original post by tj963
In terms of more concrete implementations, I thought that wasn''t the point of this thread. From you''re posts though, it seems you are actually somewhat interested in it though. If you''re not, feel free to edit this out. Anyways, I think the only way to make player''s characters more of an extension of themselves without stat fiddling is to remove them. Even social statistics will be fiddled with. In real life, how does one find out their abilities, social, phsical and (maybe not this one in real life) magical? They use them. For example, a swordsman knows he is good with a sword because he can defeat others. The best archer in a small village may be the worst in a country. Thus a player''s perceptions of their character must be based on the results and opinions of others in the game. If they see that they can kill mice with their magic arrow and that it takes 3 to kill a goblin, then they can start to measure their ability. Instead of comparing levels and stats with their friends, they''d say things like: "I brought down a massive troll with only 2 arrows!" "I hacked the mainframe in 7 and a half seconds!" A similar notion applys to social situations. If a character repeatedly tries to talk to npcs and finds them unhelpful, he can conclude that he''s got some kind of social issue. Maybe he''s wearing the wrong clothes. Maybe he''s got a different accent. Maybe he''s asking rude questions. By giving th play this kind of non-numerical feedback, the player has to think of his character in real life terms, not abstract numbers. In addition, this also yields a form of character personalities. Hopefully this is moving towards what you''re looking for.

---

If there was a way to give forum members major kudos, this would have just earned you some.


- It''s a life''s work
-
:Image Hosting @ $5/3 Months
:30Gig/month bandwidth Reseller Plan @ $40/3 Month
Generic WebHost: The Cheapest Hosting Around!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

Just a few thoughts, I am not quite sure where this is going to go:
Why not seperate combat statistics and social statistics?
Combat statistics can be easily represented as numbers why social statistics are best represented as an attribute e.g. ''cared of spiders'' or ''will not hit a woman''

Some kind of stat fiddling should be allowed for the combat stats (this includes mage stats like wisdom), as in real life a warrior can choose to work on his strength, or his speed etc,
however this will be affected by your social stats (e.g. if you are ''highly motivated'' you will gain stats faster than someone who is ''lazy'', if you are ''overconfident'' you will think you are better than you actually are). Remember that even if you are good at magic, you still might put you foot in your mouth every time when it comes to conversation (combat intelegence v''s social intelegance).

Social stats however would be determined as the game goes on. The player would start with a few randomly generated ones but would not know what they were, but they would show up as the character learns more about themself (for instance if you curl up in a ball crying for mummy the first time you see a spider it is fairly obvious that you are scared of spiders so that attribut will show up on your stat sheet. A fear of spiders could be aquired if you have a bad experiance with spiders (e.g. strung up in a tree to be tomorrows meal) and could be overcome or lessened by facing your fear.

This allows for all kinds of interesting options, for example if the player is ''Overconfident'' then the stats that show up on his combat stat page would be higher than they actually are.

Once a player knows that they have a problem then they can attempt to change things, however if they are not aware that they have a speech defect they will not be able to fix it. For example a player with a fear of spiders could deliberatly seek out spiders and face his fear, but if the spiders get the better of him then his fear could get worse.

In short what I am trying to say under all that rambling is why not make the stats page display what the PC thinks his stats are rather than what they actually are.


Stuart