Quote:

Original post by evolutional I like the idea. I can see it only working where the 'team spirit' is fairly high. Some people may get annoyed in having to stop because someone's taken a shot and plough on regardless.

You're right. As I said before, I only play with friends, so this is completely alien to me. The only time I've ever participated in such a scenario was team deathmatch situations, where I'm really only out for the goals of the team and could give a care about individuals.

Quote:

It could potentially slow down action sequences, having to stop what you're doing to help someone heal - but if it's realism you're looking for, it could really add some strong teamplay 'emotion' and decisions.

I'm having serious second thoughts about allowing this sort of thing to happen to players at all. There is a reputation / loyalty / morale system in place to handle abandoning NPCs. Depending on their popularity and the makeup of your crew, responses range from being happy to mutiny. A bunch of pirates and mercs wouldn't care, but a soft-hearted group of exploring scientists or closely knit clan would. It all depends on the ship you've built.


Since the game is open-ended, I can't guarantee that the situation will be carefully tailored so that every PC is vital in multi. For groups of naturally selfish strangers, this is a problem.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Tube Anytime you focus on making your game more realistic, you take time away that you could be using to make your game more fun. I think your response is reflexive and not considering my intent, so I strongly disagree with it, but I would like to gain more insight into your perspective. Here's how I see it: RPGs give you a bunch of stats like hit points, strength, dexterity, etc. These stats are strategies and the strategies create choices, which is the only real reason to play. Now if I introduce, like in tons of RPGs, a status effect called Poisoning, which some monsters can do, I have added an element of reality. I also introduce Antidote, which adds even more realism. Antidote, being an inventory item, creates an tradeoff in what you carry and makes you think about what problems you're going to be facing, which is also more realism. If I want this poison status effect to have more detail, I can introduce varieties of poisoning. I can also offer varieties of remedies. At some point, though, I have to limit this not because of realism but because you won't know what to bring and there'll be more strategies than you can defend against. I get the impression that your response was a negative reaction to a realistic concept that you may not have intuitive knowledge about, and that is a deeper concern. If your character has a bleeding status, intuitively everybody knows exactly what to do. But only if you're first aid trained might you know what to do if someone has internal injuries, even if the interface tells you what will happen. So consider this: What if I introduce a completely science fantasy status, like "Phased" which now means an NPC can't pickup any inventory? I'm certainly not adding realism. Is this okay?

I'll back up what I said, since I didn't provide anything in the way of reasoning behind it. I wasn't being reactionary, just pressed for time.

Realism is crap. People don't play games for realism. Otherwise, you have stupid situations in RPGs where your character has to eat and drink. And therefore has to go to the bathroom a couple of hours later. And then when the player fails to do that, they go accidentally, and their armor rusts up, and they're unhappy. Nobody wants to go through a lot of extra steps for maintenance situations. Realistic physics is pretty crappy too, for completely different reasons (which I shan't detail here). What it comes down to is that people want to play games to escape, or at least do things they can't do in real life.

Complexity, however, is nice, as long as it produces interesting in-game results. The poison-antidote situation you described is not even a little bit realistic (even if terribly common in games and fiction), but it adds some strategy to gameplay.

Are you advocating complexity? Because it's hard to naysay much about that.

Quote:

Original post by SoulSpectre Back in my younger days my friends and I designed a pen and paper RPG, based on modern conflict, using realistic damage models and realistic attack styles. The pen and paper version was obviously slow to use because of the effect calculations, but my friends loved it. There was nothing like coming up against some street urchin, getting stabbed in the head with a knife, the blow landing squarely in the eye, and dying from the wound.

Yes, such a game would discourage the Rambo approach to all problems, which I'm pretty sick of seeing in games these days. (I don't mind heroism, but I'd like more games that require me to think).

Quote:

To counter this potential of having a character killed by a fluke event characters were issued luck points that they received when they got a best roll for actions, they then used these to reduce or improve actions done by themselves or done by others that effected the player.

I have a friend who has a very similar tabletop system (in fact, I'm stealing his wound levels system).

What you remind me, though, is that there needs to be a balancing mechanism. I'd prefer for combat such a system be simply armor and NPCs that are not always out for instakill. So if you're caught flatfooted without your armor versus someone with a plasma flamethrower, you surrender or you make a greasy stain on the ground.

I like the idea of luck points. In Freedom Force you actually get this sort of thing, so I've seen it done successfully. It is a very nice "get out of jail free card" that may be more vital the more drastic the consequences are to your system. If you use the old linear HP scheme, you just have players rely on constant healing. But if even godly characters can die with a sniper shot through the eye socket, they'll need some way to still remain heroic.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster I agree that this is a great idea. Like i stated in my post about flexibility simple going for the hp makes a game boring.

Yes, the fewer the stats, the smaller the strategies, in general.

Quote:

You can have additional bars like suffocation or hungriness and if someone losed to many points in those he could lose consciousness and dye.

I actually do have in mind needs stats like the sims but appropriate to science fiction, but they only kick in on a priority system when things go wrong. Just like in most FPS games, you don't care about your breath meter until you're in the water, they are all situation specific.

Quote:

There also can be mental effects like fear,panic ,angriness adjusting the succesive chance of actions your variety of ations and their strength.

Right, and if you have NPCs with a decent amount of detail to their personalities, these effects could be risks you take in putting a certain guy in a certain place. So you got a cheap rate on that engineer who was cowardly? Did you really expect that he wouldn't panic when you sent him into that living pool of alien slime???? :)

Quote:

And of course like you said injuries can have different conditions of treatment and sideeffects. Maybe each injury also produces pain and if pain exceed a certain value you lose consciousness?

I'm being very careful with this one, but there is a Will stat, which gives Sanity points. I added this because some monsters are so horrific they drain Sanity, and Psionics and tech items can affect it as well. So maybe Morale and Will sets a natural pain threshold for NPCs, which would deepen the strategic choice of choosing crew if you expect danger or combat.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster GO play Severance: Blade of Darkness by Codemasters. Thist adventure/rpg allready has dmg based on weapon type on both the mobs and the hero you play.

Did you agree or disagree with it? Did it enhance or bog the game down?

Whether this feature improves the game or not will depend on personal preference more than anything else.

Personally, I prefer CRPGs to be realistic and challenging, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Another aspect that complicates matters is that many games are categorised as (C)RPGs when they are really some sort of hybrid such as an action RPG. Many newer players haven't actually played a "pure" or "hardcore" RPG, and believe that an RPG is just an FPS with stats.

The idea of calculating hits and damage of individual body parts has been tried in traditional (pencil and paper) RPGs, but as mentioned earlier, it was a lot of extra effort for the DM and players.

However, computers are excellent number crunchers, and IMO it would be a waste not to take advantage of that strength. Unfortunately, most games designers tend to focus most of their efforts on the graphical side.

If you do decide to go ahead with this idea, I hope that it will also apply to enemies. I'd love to have the opportunity to shoot or hit an enemy in the legs, then interrogate them, or maybe kill them slowly (if the game caters for evil alignments).

Firing darts containing a local anaesthetic at an enemy's legs would also be a way of capturing them alive (or amusing yourself by watching them try to walk afterwards).

Quote:

Original post by Pxtl Debilitating damage is a positive feedback loop.

The weaker you get the harder the game gets, right. While this applies to enemies, most would not find it fun to be on the receiving end.

Quote:

Whereas its more fun if a fight is close, or intense, it is less fun when the first couple of hits are all that matters and the rest of the fight is simply wiping out the wounded enemies. Fights should get more intense as time continues, not less. Instead of trading blows to the death, you get a guy making a good first blow, leaving his opponent to make weaker and weaker blows until he can't fight back at all. The gap between the weak and the strong widens.

Excellent warning, thank you! I hadn't even thought about this, but you are very right.

What if, like in Dynasty Warriors, the closer you were to death the stronger you got? Off the top of my head, since its a team situation, let's say that when an ally nearby is close to death you and NPCs get an adrenaline rush. Their skills go up, their accuracy goes up, and they maybe move slightly faster.

It lasts only for a certain amount of time, longer the more closely bonded the crew is. The level of bonus depends on the total amount of injury distributed amongst all crew.

If the player were directly debilitated, they would get this bonus as well, but again it would only last a certain amount of time.

I'm thinking such a scheme would cause you to fight harder while your temporary powerup lasted. If it gave you enough of a bounce it could aid in either defeating the enemies or escaping.

Quote:

However, rescuing friends would be cool, provided that, if backstabbing is possible, there exists a way to create game-binding contracts between players - something MMOs have needed for a long time. That way, a groupmate can say "if I die, you boys all take my body back to base or die yourselves, or else I get a chunk of your loot", enforced by the game itself.

Okay, sort of a will system. I'll have to think about this.

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry Whether this feature improves the game or not will depend on personal preference more than anything else. Personally, I prefer CRPGs to be realistic and challenging, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

True, unfortunately. This falls partially under the adage of not being able to please everybody. However, I still want to insist that I'm looking at status effects, not looking at realism. What I don't know is whether or not people are balking at the idea of realism or the idea of a detailed status effect system.

Quote:

Another aspect that complicates matters is that many games are categorised as (C)RPGs when they are really some sort of hybrid such as an action RPG. Many newer players haven't actually played a "pure" or "hardcore" RPG, and believe that an RPG is just an FPS with stats.

I do know that the return of RPGs in the last few years was heralded by action RPGs, so you may be right. I wonder how people would take to X-Com if it came out right now.

Quote:

The idea of calculating hits and damage of individual body parts has been tried in traditional (pencil and paper) RPGs, but as mentioned earlier, it was a lot of extra effort for the DM and players. However, computers are excellent number crunchers, and IMO it would be a waste not to take advantage of that strength. Unfortunately, most games designers tend to focus most of their efforts on the graphical side.

Yes, you're right, it's a snap for cRPGs. The core question is whether or not the situations you get into are themselves interesting as a result of a complex damage model. If getting a broken arm simply means that you're weaker and hosed through a significant portion of the game, then that sucks.

If getting a broken arm means that you have to sneak into an enemy town, bribe the local doctor, who just happens to have a son who has vital information for you that...

Effects should lead to interesting situations and scenarios.

Quote:

If you do decide to go ahead with this idea, I hope that it will also apply to enemies. I'd love to have the opportunity to shoot or hit an enemy in the legs, then interrogate them, or maybe kill them slowly (if the game caters for evil alignments).

Yes, yes, yes and yes. You might appreciate that I'm planning for AI that doesn't just always go for the throat and fight until you're dead. NPCs should be sources for enemy positions, lists of strategic moves and even bargaining chips.

And there are definitely items and actions that cater to the "evil" alignments, allowing you to be everything from an evil corporate exploitationist, a Captain Bluebeard, and a Captain Bligh. :>

Quote:

Firing darts containing a local anaesthetic at an enemy's legs would also be a way of capturing them alive

Yes, things like EMP, psionics and nanoviruses are just for this.

Quote:

(or amusing yourself by watching them try to walk afterwards).

Haha, I can see that if you play a crew of shady pirates is just the thing for you! :D

Quote:

Original post by Tube I'll back up what I said, since I didn't provide anything in the way of reasoning behind it. I wasn't being reactionary, just pressed for time.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

Realism is crap. People don't play games for realism. Otherwise, you have stupid situations in RPGs where your character has to eat and drink. And therefore has to go to the bathroom a couple of hours later. And then when the player fails to do that, they go accidentally, and their armor rusts up, and they're unhappy. Nobody wants to go through a lot of extra steps for maintenance situations.

While I think that situations with an unheroic context are to be avoided like the plague, I'm not so sure that everybody despises realism. I've seen hardcore RPG gamers warm up to The Sims when they realized that the status bars were about goals and leveling, and that the maintence served long range goals and had a bit of strategy to it.

Consider this: You've got a science fiction RPG where you're deep inside an oxygen-less base. Is it acceptable for the player to have an oxygen meter, and to die when they run out of oxygen?

If you say no, then consider the case of games which give you a breath meter when you go underwater. That you have these realistic factors doesn't detract from the game (in fact, can make it more intense). The core question should be can you manage the factors with the interface, do you find the factors compelling to manage, and is it easy and convenient enough to manage the factors such that it doesn't take your focus completely away from the main gameplay.

Quote:

Complexity, however, is nice, as long as it produces interesting in-game results. The poison-antidote situation you described is not even a little bit realistic (even if terribly common in games and fiction), but it adds some strategy to gameplay. Are you advocating complexity? Because it's hard to naysay much about that.

I think we're pretty much in agreement about the meta, and maybe we disagree on a few of the details. I'm surprised at the number of times survival needs in an RPG have been advocated here and elsewhere (AD&D's Darksun, at the descretion of the DM, actually makes finding water critical to gameplay).

Realism in my book takes a backseat to whether or not something is fun (see my space combat thread a couple of weeks to see what I mean). My goal is to come up with a wealth of covert interrelationships between the player and the challenges in the game so that solving problems doesn't become a matter of click-shoot-click-shoot etc...

Quote:

Original post by DrewCaliburClark What I was thinking of, when I ask what options are available: here are some examples. Take poisoning, and you don't have an item on hand to deal with it. First, are there items readily available for dealing with it in the area in which you are likely to get poisoned? Is the only option at this point having to return to your ship and grow a remedy? Can the player trade in some type of skill points or technique points to attempt a "cut an X and suck it out" type of operation to slow the poison? Can the effects of the poison be counteracted by using other means of healing to keep oneself alive until a remedy is found/manufactured? This is what I mean by flexibility. If there is only one way to deal with the situation, and you don't have it, you're screwed, and that's no fun. The other options create great tension, while not screwing the player completely.

I see what you're saying, such debilitating effects if you don't, for whatever reason, have a remedy are like getting stuck.

This would mean, though, that as your number of possible situations widens, the number of alternate remedies must expand geometrically. Unless you stop the complexity by saying that the player always has some default action which acts as a get out of jail free card. While the onus is on the player to plan, I have to admit that being in the situation of not having a vital resource is just not all that interesting.

You know, what if there was an ever ready solution that you always had but that was expensive? I'm thinking of nanotech that can always be formed into a rememdy for status effects, but at great cost. So you have a tradeoff of paying some costly price or preplanning and bringing the right recovery item along.

Quote:

Multiplayer and group loyalty is a whole other can o' worms. Pxtl's idea for binding contracts is interesting, and could lead to all sorts of situations, where the player is forced to care about a man down like a real soldier would. But, that would take a very careful hand to implement in a way that wouldn't cause hard feelings amoungst players who weren't as good as others. That, or some other way to force dependency on each other could really help or hurt a game, depending on how it is structured.

I can also see a powermaxing potential here, where a person gets into an arrangement with a group SPECIFICALLY TO FAIL so that they can take the reward without any risk to themselves. It's a devil of a problem to balance.