Ok then i like this idea so lets take it into a practice example.

quote:

---

In my RPG I''m having a turn based battle system based on agility.

If for example there are four things in play on the battle field like the ones ff uses, like so:

________________________________________

.............................O
......O Monster..............O You
.............................O
________________________________________

Now "monster" has 10 agile, all three of the players characters have 20. In two rounds all three player characters would get 4 turns while the monster has 2 turns as hes twice as slow. There is no ATB so it works by just going:

Round Begin,
Input Command,
Player 1 Characters 1,
Player 1 Characters 2,
Player 1 Characters 3,
End Round

No pause or nothing just straight onto round two as soon as round 1 ends.

Round Begin,
Input Command
Player 1 Characters 1
Player 1 Characters 2
Player 1 Characters 3
Monster
End Round

---

Ok thats my battle system, your saying then you would like it if i had their health bars displayed not with the usual 1244/9475 kinda thing but if i had a say full blue bar like:
.________________
[________________]

And then when the character gets hurt they would lose hp and the bar would go down till it hit yellow {near critical} and then red {near death} and as we''ve already discussed then you would have the option for the player to turn the specific numbers on and off so the hard core gamer can have full control but players like you can have the rough estimates with none of the maths involved.

Am i close?

RPG: I''m going to rewrite this genera even if it kills me.

I think that as long as battles are comprised of simple maneuvers, it''ll always be based on crazy simple, repetitive math. Think about how a battle system works (usually). The hero and the monster square off, about three feet apart. The hero takes his sword, leans forward, and tries to stick it into the monster. The monster''s scaly hide stops some of the attack, and the rest is HP damage. Then the hero pulls out his sword, steps back and waits for the monster to bite him.

What kind of bullshit fight is that? I''ll tell you: It''s the kind of fight that three guys and fourteen dice can handle while they sit around a card table in their basement, drinking Yoo-Hoo and watching anime. It''s an antiquated system, and the only reason we don''t have anything better is because we aren''t sufficiently dissatisfied with what we''ve got. Sure, there are fancy new systems with complex status ailments and pretty spell effects and Limit Breaks, but in FFX your guys run over to the enemy, chop him in the face, and then run back. Jesus. That''s no way to run a fight.

And don''t even get me started on XP systems. Skills? Why the hell does chopping a thousand gremlins to death make you better at picking locks? How can you suck with an axe, kill a hundred things with a bow, and then get better with the axe? HP? Why can I get shot in the eye with a rifle and shrug it off? Nobody''s that tough, and you certainly don''t get that tough by shabbing Radscorpions to death.

Now, this isn''t a very helpful post. In fact, it''s a little bit whiny. There''s no way to get around the fact that everything in a video game is reducible to binary values. It''s a computer, it computes, and that''s synonymous with math. But at this technological level, where we can build a web site without ever seeing h, r, e, and f appear next to each other, there must be a way to make a game that doesn''t require electronic dice to skitter across our gameplay sceen every six seconds.

I''m done.

You need stuff like +1 sword, it is DandD after all. Look at Diablo 2 for instance, the stats are all there.

However I do hate when game like Baldur''s show you all the logic:

trying to hit: (20) +3 .. miss!

That''s kind of dumb, just show me already.

There used to be a really good article focusing on one aspect of this, namely magic.

I wish I could still find it, but I cannot remember enough keywords to even begin searching.

In short, it detailed one of the major problems with removing math from a game, and that''s the fact that all programs are essentially number-crunchers. Computers are mathematical machines, and therefore the best we can hope to do is obfuscate the math behind the game, and not remove it completely.


the other example it noted and focused on was magic and and how it seems odd that we continue to see what amounts to D&D-Style magical notation in most CRPGs. My paraphrasing of the example they used below.

You''re a farmer and while you''re gone [doing something], [evil force] slaughters everyone and burns everything. In the ashes of the house, you find a blade that is still shining and unscathed by the flames. When you set out to find vengeance, you obviously encounter lots of [enemy a]. Suddenly you are waylaid by [enemy b] and as you engage in combat, you find yourself connecting more often, the blade almost guiding the arm that wields it.

Now, in classic D&D terms, what you''ve found is a Sword +X vs. [enemy b].
In a non-mathematical way, it''s much much harder to describe those reactions and properly convey them to the player, especially in games where luck plays a large part in everything. The player, even after killing many of both [enemy a] and [enemy b] probably would only get the vaguest impressions that he seems to be doing better against [enemy b], something that just as easily could be chalked up to luck, or that [enemy b] simply has poor armor.

To fix that problem, of a player being given ambiguous magical items, we can add in the Sage, an NPC who can explain to a player what any given item does. This leads right back to D&D notation being used.
Example:
By the time you reach the next major center of civilization, you feel confident there is something special about your sword. You find the local sage and ask him to appraise the blade.

At this point, the game has what I see as divergant solutions.
On one hand, we can at this point assign D&D-style nomenclature and simply remove some obfuscation flag. But since we''re looking to remove numbers, we can then instead simply use a verbal "standard, quality, good, great, superb, excellent, etc" Which is basically cutting our throats, since all that does is substitute +1 for ''quality''.

I can''t recall how the article concluded, but personally I just see removing numbers from a game a bit backwards, or at least that a solution has not been found just yet. When you deal with a system that is bound by it''s very nature to use numbers, you cannot remove the numbers from that system. Attempting to obfuscate the numbers used will only work for a short while, and in the end, players and fans will use mass trial-and-error to generate their own numbers.


- It''s a life''s work

40% Off ALL Hosting Plans THROUGH March!!!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

quote:

---

Original post by Run_The_Shadows


Now, in classic D&D terms, what you''ve found is a Sword +X vs. [enemy b].

The player, even after killing many of both [enemy a] and [enemy b] probably would only get the vaguest impressions that he seems to be doing better against [enemy b], something that just as easily could be chalked up to luck, or that [enemy b] simply has poor armor.

---

To play devil''s advocate for a moment, if the player has only a vague impression that the sword is a little better against a particular enemy, and thinks it could just as easily be down to something else, is it much of a gameplay feature? As far as he''s conerned, it''s only really better because you''ve told him it''s better.

That said, Run_The_Shadows, I do agree - if the sword is significantly proficient at killing a certain enemy, and the player doesn''t know, he will just come to the incorrect conclusion that that creature isn''t particularly tough. So he does need to be informed somehow. And also the Diablo method of using ''superior'' instead of ''+1'' isn''t a satisfactory substitute. Marks for effort Blizzard, but you aren''t fooling anyone.

So I suppose the question is, given that we need all this maths around and in some cases need to communicate it to the player, how can we do it in a way that''s consistent with the atmosphere of the game? How can this information be presented so that it continues and even furthers our suspension of disbelief, rather than threatening it? We''ve been using D&D type techniques almost exclusively for years, and maybe it''s time to move on. How can we make players reach for their wands, rather than their calculators?

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I think that as long as battles are comprised of simple maneuvers, it'll always be based on crazy simple, repetitive math. Think about how a battle system works (usually). The hero and the monster square off, about three feet apart. The hero takes his sword, leans forward, and tries to stick it into the monster. The monster's scaly hide stops some of the attack, and the rest is HP damage. Then the hero pulls out his sword, steps back and waits for the monster to bite him.

What kind of bullshit fight is that? I'll tell you: It's the kind of fight that three guys and fourteen dice can handle while they sit around a card table in their basement, drinking Yoo-Hoo and watching anime. It's an antiquated system, and the only reason we don't have anything better is because we aren't sufficiently dissatisfied with what we've got. Sure, there are fancy new systems with complex status ailments and pretty spell effects and Limit Breaks, but in FFX your guys run over to the enemy, chop him in the face, and then run back. Jesus. That's no way to run a fight.

And don't even get me started on XP systems. Skills? Why the hell does chopping a thousand gremlins to death make you better at picking locks? How can you suck with an axe, kill a hundred things with a bow, and then get better with the axe? HP? Why can I get shot in the eye with a rifle and shrug it off? Nobody's that tough, and you certainly don't get that tough by shabbing Radscorpions to death.

Now, this isn't a very helpful post. In fact, it's a little bit whiny. There's no way to get around the fact that everything in a video game is reducible to binary values. It's a computer, it computes, and that's synonymous with math. But at this technological level, where we can build a web site without ever seeing h, r, e, and f appear next to each other, there must be a way to make a game that doesn't require electronic dice to skitter across our gameplay sceen every six seconds.

I'm done.

---

You annoy me sometimes. ¬_¬

We've already covered this, the fact is that you cant have a real time, turn based, rpg battle system. The only way for the computer to process its functions is for it to run though them step by step, if its running them all at once then its real time and you cant control more than one avatar at once if its real time thus you would reduce the game to a single character usage game and turn it into an action-RPG like Zelda.

I do agree that exp systems dint often make sense, why can you slice though 100 zombies and then suddenly be better at lock picking, that doesn't make sence...in real life. This is a computer game, it cant be 100% real, as ive already said, if all computer games were 100% real then we wouldn't have any first person shooter or a number of other games including tetris btw.

The way exp systems can be done logically however is to make it as its been suggested, the more times you use said skill the better you become EG you equip a steal Crystal and the more times you use it the better you become at it.

Turned based battle systems in multiple avatar RPG's will be next to impossible to replace becuase they is no other way to sim one avatar attacking another except for that avatar to take the hit and then deal one itself.

Something else to think about too, chess has existed for thousands of years and far predates computer games which have been around for about approx 20 odd years i believe. How dose that work, you take a round and do you attack, you opponent takes his round and dose his attack and so on, in the end one person dies becuase they have run out of pieces to play or something along the same lines, sound familiar? {btw i dont play chess so I'm using best guess but i can name another 20 odd old games which do the same so dont bother correcting me if I'm wrong}


RPG: I'm going to rewrite this genera even if it kills me.

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis
Am i close?

---

BiggerStaff - Not rhetorical, i really am interested in what you would consider a good system.


[edited by - Siolis on March 15, 2004 2:28:36 PM]

quote:

---

But since we''re looking to remove numbers, we can then instead simply use a verbal "standard, quality, good, great, superb, excellent, etc" Which is basically cutting our throats, since all that does is substitute +1 for ''quality''.

---

If you are getting something appraised, you can still have difference of opinions between appraisers on the same item. i.e. "this is a superb sword because of the balanced and the hilt is excellent for punching" vs. "This sword is very well balanced but the cutting edge dulls very easily making it good overall", could be said about the same +2 sword.

Programmatically you could have overlapping ranges for each quality,
i.e. +1 could be quality or good, +2 could be good or great, etc and just have an appraiser randomly pick one of the two.

I think the real trouble comes when you show the player too much of "what''s behind the veil". You need to hide things from the player, while giving them some things.

Like for me, I like to know numerical stats for my player. I like to know that he has, say, 90 Strength on a scale of 100. I do **NOT**, however, want to know that the computer rolled a D20 and compared it to my Strength versus the opponent''s defense, came out with 9.427, and therefore I succeeded in my attack.

What we need is a process that describes what stats should exist and what stats shouldn''t exist. In my opinion, Stats and numbers should be shown when they are a measure of a character''s raw ability. The calculations done when USING one of those stats should NOT be shown. That only serves to detract from the game, and turns it into a numbers game for the player.

The calculations should (of course) be done, and the scale for stats like Hitpoints and stuff should of course be numerical within the program. But do players need to see it as it''s being computed? Of course not. Get rid of it... or if someone really wants to know, make it optional.

I totally agree with whoever it was that said that NWN was ruined by the constant explanation of the calculations involved. Even in a D&D game, a good Dungeon Master would not sit there and explain the details of every calculation being made. It slows down the action, and reduces it to nothing more than numbers (even though it *IS* only numbers, the key is to provide an illusion for the player that it''s more than that).

So in short, my rule of thumb is: give stats when people need base skills to compare. Leave out numbers and calculations when they are using those base stats.

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

We''ve already covered this, the fact is that you cant have a real time, turn based, rpg battle system.

---

I''d argue that Baldur''s Gate is pretty close - it''s in realtime, but there are turns, and if you''ve got a ''quicker'' weapon you can attack more often than with a ''slow'' weapon. For a turn-based battle system, fights feel pretty realistic.

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

I do agree that exp systems dint often make sense, why can you slice though 100 zombies and then suddenly be better at lock picking, that doesn''t make sence...in real life. This is a computer game, it cant be 100% real, as ive already said, if all computer games were 100% real then we wouldn''t have any first person shooter or a number of other games including tetris btw.

---

Well there''s a key difference there, and that is the lack of logic. No, Tetris isn''t realistic in the sense that it doesn''t represent the real world, but it is entirely consistent within its own logic. However, a system where killing zombies makes you better at picking locks is irritating because it doesn''t fit with its own logic. Or anyone''s, for that matter

The problem is the games that you''re complaining about have a certain heritage, and many people like that heritage. Whether they like them because they are good games or because of nostalgia is another debate, but I know if someone labeled a called a game "Dungeons and Dragons 3E" compatible and you didn''t show the players their stats, the fact that their sword is a "longsword +1", etc. a lot of people would complain. Some people like math heavy games and using abstract concepts like numbers or energy bars is a good way to present information to the player.

Looks like all of that has been said already. I do agree that CRPGs could throw out a lot of the math presented to the player and at the same time have much more complex stuff going on behind the scenes, because a lot of that stuff is just leftovers from Pen and Paper games. The thing is, would a game like that necessarily be more fun?