It seems like you´re heading in the direction of the constantly-worn armor, as most RPGs present it. With what I understand of your game so far, I wouldn´t go there. The same applies to tacked-on caps like fatiuge (if it´s powered armor, it pretty much walks by itself, no? and what would soldiers on the battlefield do? take rest breaks every two hours?)

Make armor situational. Make it clear that the (incredibly cool) tank suit with built-in weaponry is appropriate only for assaulting fortified enemy positions, blowing up armored vehicles or laying waste to entire city blocks at a time.

Exploring an uncharted planet? Take the armored scout suit with the extra sensors and manipulator controls. No need to bring the tactical nukes.

Going into town to meet up with some shady characters? Take the bodysuit without the visible armor plating.

Going to the spa? Well guess, leave the suit at home.


(I´m not sure whether the player has his own ship as a mobile "base camp", but having a suit rack would be a very cool feature)

Quote:

Original post by Hase It seems like you´re heading in the direction of the constantly-worn armor, as most RPGs present it. With what I understand of your game so far, I wouldn´t go there. The same applies to tacked-on caps like fatiuge (if it´s powered armor, it pretty much walks by itself, no? and what would soldiers on the battlefield do? take rest breaks every two hours?) Make armor situational.

This is good advice but hard to implement in practice. The funny thing about the constantly worn armor phenomenon is that that's the default behavior. Absent some gameplay constraint you're going to be paranoid.

Imagine, for example, you have the option to wear a light scout suit or a suit of power armor and you're exploring a new environment or planet. Most people will take the PA suit, even if it's smarter to use the scout suit because you'd be stealthier.

Even if the proper strategy was to scout first, then tromp around in the PA suit, look at the gameplay sequence: You scout and look at a bunch of threats but can't do anything about them because you don't have the firepower. You have to go back to your ship, suit up in the PA suit, then come back. That's backtracking, which is often a no-no, right?

Mechanisms like teleporting or armor that can be configured could help here, but it's a bit of a connundrum.

As for walking about your ship in your flight suit when you get back, I don't see that happening unless the suit somehow interfaces with the ship. If so, then you're looking at another change of clothing.

I guess what I don't understand is WHEN it is okay to make you change wardrobe (i.e., when a player would accept it).

Quote:

(I´m not sure whether the player has his own ship as a mobile "base camp", but having a suit rack would be a very cool feature)

Suit rack definitely with an armory upgrade. [smile]

If you want armor as a mechanism to diversify gameplay then your mission / quest situations (assuming that there is such a thing as missions) have to support it.
I agree that backtracking is almost always a bad thing, but remember that it´s only backtracking if no change in the mission layout occurs. If the initial goal is to gather information / take scanner readings / whatnot and return with them to the ships main computer for analysis then it´s another cup of tea entirely. Because then you can change the mission layout (or create it in such a way in the first place) that the goals required for the scouting part are unreachable with the fighting suit and vice versa.
In some instances I think it´s even acceptable to make the change automatic. If the player is back at home base / his ship then I wouldn´t consider it annoying if he got out of his armor automatically. The same might go for urban environments where there are natural armor inhibitations. Or maybe simply the accepted fact that powered armor in crowded environments is a big no-no for the simple fact that you might accidentally crush someone.
So if the player enters the airlock to the mall / city hub his armor is automatically checked at the door if it exceeds a certain level. That way the player will have the choice of taking the less conspicuous suit, which will grant him additional benefits when indoors, or the tank suit which will be a big bonus when outside but leaves him rather vulnerable inside.
Unless he decides to ignore everyone and go in guns blazing.

To sum up: it´s okay to make the player change wardrobe occasionally, if the forced change fits with the game world. "formal dress required" or "no combat armor beyond this point" are simple enough constraints that will not seem out of place if they´re in tune with the game world.
For free missions, it will have to depend largely on player choice. Not all goals must be reachable with all armor, but most should be achievable at a greater effort. For example, the scout suit will allow you to climb a ladder and squeeze through an air vent, whereas the tank suit will require you to go around and blast a hole through the (heavily guarded) front door.

Quote:

Original post by Hase If you want armor as a mechanism to diversify gameplay then your mission / quest situations (assuming that there is such a thing as missions) have to support it.

Yes, I plan a mix of missions and self-contained freeform gameplay, so this is an excellent reminder. It will actually be easier in missions to do than freeform, which will present its own challenge, since a mission can be more easily structured to challenge you in a specific way.

Quote:

I agree that backtracking is almost always a bad thing, but remember that it´s only backtracking if no change in the mission layout occurs.

I didn't even think of this, but you're right. If it is broken into two missions backtracking gets transformed into returning home for a mission complete reward, which is psychologically satisfying if nothing else.

Quote:

In some instances I think it´s even acceptable to make the change automatic.

Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe certain areas, like the airlock of your ship, are context sensitive: You step into them an a paper doll pops up highlighting things like illegal or socially sanctioned possessions or recommended gear (if on a mission or in a hostile environment). This might alleviate some of the procedural equip/unequip tedium while still allowing you to make choices.

Quote:

To sum up: it´s okay to make the player change wardrobe occasionally, if the forced change fits with the game world. "formal dress required" or "no combat armor beyond this point" are simple enough constraints that will not seem out of place if they´re in tune with the game world.

It's odd. I never quite know WHERE to draw the line on some of this stuff. Take sleeping or having supplies in a hostile environment. In one context it is annoying, in another it enhances gameplay, even if it fits with the game world. I guess the key difference is that it's okay to make a player make a strategic choice as long as that choice fits in with what they think is acceptable and expected in the game world-- provided they already ACCEPT the game world itself first.

Quote:

For free missions, it will have to depend largely on player choice. Not all goals must be reachable with all armor, but most should be achievable at a greater effort. For example, the scout suit will allow you to climb a ladder and squeeze through an air vent, whereas the tank suit will require you to go around and blast a hole through the (heavily guarded) front door.

This is going to be one of the most challenging areas of content creation. It's one thing to scale challenges along a single axis of gameplay, which in most games is typically combat (although stealth is becoming more popular). But the more axis you propose, the more likely you're simply going to have some areas where a certain character type is going to have trouble playing. The classic example is the trader / pacifist in a warzone. This person either ends up fighting or stealthing unless you build in something like bribery and safe passage (which I have, btw).

Forgive me if this has been sugested before, but my time online is short today, and I just skimmed the other replies.

If you can wear powered armor everywhere you go, and there's no real social, economic or personal considerations to prevent it, wouldn't powered armor be the standard attire of people in the spacefaring profession? If it's status quo, and all your would-be assailants are similarly beefed up, then the tactical advantages would be moot.

My only comment is that carrying an M60 downtown isn't illegal, except for cities that have specifically banned the possession of class 3 automatic (NFA) weapons. And even then, if you possessed your NFA M60 (highly unlikely, but technically possible) before the ban went into effect, you could.

Don't bog your players down with too many rules. If you think of a story situation where your players need to be out of their armor, and you REALLY like the situation, then think up an accompanying circumstance to get them OUT of their armor, and forget about it thereafter. Don't make the players worry too much about their equipment, or involve too much realism - it'll bog the game down and drag the players along for the ride.

I mean, if you REALLY want to expose your players' vulnerability and get tedious about it, make them stop somewhere, take off their armor, and take a nice big steaming dump every 4 or 5 game hours.

"A woman is secure because she has a man; But when a man goes to the toilet, he takes his pistol." --Masaaki Hatsumi

This sounds a _lot_ like Rifts. In Rifts, there was the same problem - tons of equipment focussed on personal combat once the super-powerful-armour was off, that was useless with the armor on. GMs would try and work in ways to have non-armoured encounters just so they could feel that said equipment was useful.

In the final analysis it was just stupid. Playes would do anything they could to avoid ditching armour, and fighting without armour always felt completely contrived.

My suggestion: forget the hyperpowerful body armour. Its either just regular plates that take some of the edge off of combat, or a full cumbersome robotic space suit that doesn't really fit through doorways very well, and is really more of a vehicle than armour anyways.

Quote:

Maybe certain areas, like the airlock of your ship, are context sensitive: You step into them an a paper doll pops up highlighting things like illegal or socially sanctioned possessions or recommended gear (if on a mission or in a hostile environment). This might alleviate some of the procedural equip/unequip tedium while still allowing you to make choices.

Sounds a bit complicated still... I´d rather automatise as much as possible. Such as when entering a city area through an airlock there´s simply a voice informing you to check all heavy gear and weapons at the door, which you can either accept or go back out (from where you can do really stupid things like shoot the door). If you accept, all forbidden equipment is automatically removed and stored at the entrance locker until you exit the facility. At that point the gear is automatially re-equipped. No trouble for the player at all, and you have enforced the "no armor" rule in residential zones.

Quote:

It's odd. I never quite know WHERE to draw the line on some of this stuff. Take sleeping or having supplies in a hostile environment. In one context it is annoying, in another it enhances gameplay, even if it fits with the game world.

I´m not really sure if sleeping is that much fun in the first place, and if it´s a hostile environment it´s probably going to be more of an annoyance to force the player out of his armor - after all there´s very little to gain from it from a gameplay perspective (since being out of the armor doesn´t give the player any understandable benefits).
Let the ultra-cool combat suit have an Enviro-Mat(tm) system that lets the wearer live, eat and sleep inside the suit for up to 72 hours without ever having to resupply.

Enforced equipment / armor changes should only occur where the situation is understandable from context (m60/downtown, excluding of course those in the few areas of civilisation where authorities have for some reason *not* outlawed such foolishness).

Quote:

I guess the key difference is that it's okay to make a player make a strategic choice as long as that choice fits in with what they think is acceptable and expected in the game world-- provided they already ACCEPT the game world itself first.

I wouldn´t worry about having the player accept the gameworld. First, that´s part of a game and second, if the presentation is well-rounded the issue won´t even come up.

I do realise that content creation for a system which features variable solutions is much more effort than simple kill-type pseudo-rpg systems, but it´s your choice.
I would try and put together a list of possible (and manageable) game situation types in order to find out what sorts of restrictions gameplay can manage or needs.

Something like putting together the key features /areas of your RPG and finding a common axis along which the player can scale his efforts (i.e. goals and complications are diametrically opposed - the better you deal with one, the more difficult/time consuming the other will be)

e.g.

Exploration (on foot):

goals: exploring landscape and interiors, finding artifacts and resources.

complications: combat against random / predefined opposition, environmental hazards.


goals can be achieved faster by: player speed, player visual/sensor radius

complications can be mastered by: player armor, player weapons. (if you want branching, add "stealth" here).


so, on the two opposed poles you have (regarding armor):

Scout Suit: weak armor, no built-in weapons, light environmental protection, good speed, excellent sensors and prospecting equipment.

Combat Suit: heavy armor, weapons, environmentally sealed, slow, low sensor range.