Jagged Alliance 2 had some interesting declining stats, including motivation.

You controlled a squad of Mercenaries, and if you let the reality of war set in (e.g. friends dying, constant pain/wounds, not enough sleep, etc) they would end up being depressed and useless in a battle. (Who want to rely on a suicidal team-mate to cover your back?). Or if you marched them too hard, they might end up passing out from exhaustion in a ditch somewhere.

You could manage these problems with short-term/high-risk options like alcohol and hookers, or put in the hard yards to try and look after them and shelter them from bad experiences.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq This reminds me of part of the discussion on the death event in games and its punishment to poor players, etc. If you died, and we need a penalty for your death, should it be something that is going to hamper the fight at hand? After all, you had enough trouble first time, the flip side presenting itself here is obviously, if you did well enough to get this bonus, do you need a bonus to make it easier? Probably not, even if you just managed it, you are still doing well. So what might be appropriate?

Like I mentioned in that thread, I don't see it that way. I see players who do better as players who try harder, and players who do worse as players who aren't exploring enough options or planning enough strategy. If your game doesn't allow victory through cleverness and planning, even with a busted leg or hindered motivation, then it needs to be adjusted.

Giving a player who plans carefully a bigger weapon simply allows that player to do even more with their careful planning.

Quote:

Original post by Hodgman Jagged Alliance 2 had some interesting declining stats, including motivation. You controlled a squad of Mercenaries, and if you let the reality of war set in (e.g. friends dying, constant pain/wounds, not enough sleep, etc) they would end up being depressed and useless in a battle. (Who want to rely on a suicidal team-mate to cover your back?). Or if you marched them too hard, they might end up passing out from exhaustion in a ditch somewhere. You could manage these problems with short-term/high-risk options like alcohol and hookers, or put in the hard yards to try and look after them and shelter them from bad experiences.

That's pretty neat, but it sounds as though it was leaning in another direction. It sounds a bit like fuel for a vehicle. Your goal is just to use up as little as possible so you don't need to pit. It would be different if you could refill it through action (rather than a resource) on the battlefield. Motivating action is the purpose of the states.

@Mathmo :
I think that's a pretty good idea. Big story in the background, with many aspects the player couldn't possibly control them all. That's all good, since the player actually don't need to be able to control every important things in the world, just things that are relevant to the role he/she's playing. All other things can be controlled by other game objects (NPCs, creatures, etc). Logically, this won't annoy the player. As long as the player can still have control over things related to his/her role ("commanding army" for knight, "saving the princess from the evil dragon" for hero, etc), he/she can let others control other big things. Of course any dedicated player will want to try to control other things outside the scope of his/her role, but he/she won't normally be really demanding about it.

I think I would have greater fun if Dagoth Ur (the big boss of TES3 Morrowind) was able to build some mysterious evil thing while I was so busy finishing small quests, and then surprised me with it when I finally came to confront him. It (the evil thing made while I was abandoning the main quest and spending so many time with small ones) could even make him so much more powerful, assuring the death of my character if I fought him frontally. But that'd be okay, that'd be just cool. As long as I could still fulfil my role (as the hero of the world who would eventually kill the big badguy), any such changes in the "background" I couldn't control shouldn't be a bad thing.

Quote:

adding - I haven't played fable, but i want to at somee point. I was hoping for even more than just a good and evil - mybe each guild could have its own ways to solve the problem, maybe even more depending on which guildmasters you talk to. I mean, a game in which you discuss these things, and have to come up with a real plan yourself.

And that's pretty cool too. That sounds like an ideal RPG. A game where the world is truly composed of roles which work together as a unity (like in your example, people discussing things together), yet the key role is still in the hands of the player.


About RPG skills being continously declining states. No, I think that's a good idea. Even if it's the skills themselves which would be declining (and not just mere "motivation" or such), that won't cause any problem. Well, as long as it won't make the player's efforts in building the skills go COMPLETELY wasted, ever. So the point here is to make the player's progress PERMANENT, while at the same time allowing for a kind of declination which doesn't interfere with that permanent progress. Well, this kind of thing has already been implemented for so long, we already have declining yet permanent attributes (HP, MP, and such) in RPGs. The HP could be reduced, but the maximum HP (which get increased by the player's progress) couldn't since it's permanent. We can implement it in skills. To make it fun, of course we should give the player not-too-hard ways to regain the lost skill points. For example, "marksman skill". In reality, this skill really declines over time, but there're not-too-hard ways to regain it, like by doing light shooting training. Or we can even provide potion-like items, like what we do with ones which recover HP or MP or such. Well, we just have to make it somewhat logical. For "marksman skill", maybe we can provide the player with "books of marksman lesson" or such. So, all in all, I think declining skill points in RPG isn't a bad idea, as long as it's well designed.

Quote:

Original post by Kest I don't want to convert RPG skills into continuously declining states, but I'm considering how much of an impact a few other types of declining character states could make.

I can definitely imagine a few of these.

Morale is an obvious one: you may be on some sort of long term quest which disheartens you as time goes on, making you question whether it's all worthwhile, which in gameplay terms can reduce your effectiveness. Engaging in entertainment or different activities might help to raise this.

Another, perhaps for different games is reputation. While you may see yourself as an adventurer, the world's regular inhabitants might see you as just a bounty-hunter, a mercenary, perhaps even a trouble-causer or vagrant. You may have to work to show them that you're not just a wastrel looking to make easy money with your sword, but someone who is willing to do good for the communities you pass through.

Closely related is fame. Not necessarily strictly positive in the way that reputation is, but it's certainly an attribute that can decay if not maintained. Certain missions may never be offered to those who are not famous enough.

I like the way Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and GTA4 handle these kinds of things...

You don't have to keep up with the things, but they're fun and entertaining to do. In SA, you had the girlfriends, the body morphing, the stamina and other stats... In 4, you've got the relationships with all of your contacts and girlfriends. They work great because they're optional, but fun.