Just a proposal for which I''d like some opinions. I know there is an ungodly-huge market out there for achievers (those gamers who play to crunch levels and make the buffest character they can), and that the market for explorers and socializers (me) is ridiculously small, to the point where I don''t even play multi-player games anymore. (Just had my first experience with Ultima Online; I won''t be going back.) Achievers like to see exactly how many points they''ve earned. I like to call this attribute quantification; that is, all of your character''s attributes are measured in numeric quantities. In my experience, this removes the focus of gameplay from role-playing (in a genre that is perportedly about "playing a role") to killing things. That''s my problem with RPG''s, as some of you know. I propose a system of qualification in which attributes are measured in terms of indefinite qualities (like the levels of Dungeon Master). For example, if you are a "neophyte archer," then your skill in archery is menial. After a certain amount of practice/study, a skill reaches the next level of quality. In a way, this is still quantification, but to a much lesser degree. The idea is that you don''t know exactly how good you are in any given skill. Emphasis moves from number-crunching to whatever else the game has to offer. Naturally, this means the game needs something else to offer! That''s why I keep asking questions about autonomous NPC''s and such. I''m interested in creating an immersive world where players will be more interested in playing the game than killing monsters and throwing fireballs at a tavern wall. But that''s food for another topic. The point is this: qualification creates immersion by removing the numeric definition of RPG characters, which in my opinion is what makes them so abstract and unimmersive in the first place. If you emphasize other factors (talking to people, visiting mystical new places, discovering new things, learning more about the world instead of yourself), you can create a true role-playing game as it is meant to be. Then maybe we can thin out the market of achievers that''s plaguing the genre by converting them to explorers. They just need a reason to explore. My two cents. Any opinions on the matter?

I''m against number crunching...

If at all possible, I''d always design the stats/abilities of a game to be kept secret from the players.

One thing though, if you don''t give the players the actual numbers, you better make sure that they will be able to tell from the character''s actions if they are good at something or not.

Taking the archery example...
A starting character might start with archery skill 10. He realizes that he''s not a great archer, because when he practices on a target, he misses more than he hits.

During the game, he becomes better at his archery skill. For example, now the skill is 20.
Practicing again, the player should easily notice that his skill has improved. ''Hey, I''m way better than I was a few days ago.''



Woohoo... I''m on day 7 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%

Hiding the numbers and replacing them with words or with testing through actions is just a matter of esthetics. You still won''t get rid of the achievers, and the first thing they''ll do is learn the testing process by heart and then play to raise stats just like they did before.

The first thing I''d do before starting a new RPG is dump the large skill increases completely (with the few exceptions that make sense of course). Away with the human tanks! Instead I''d focus the character building on things like NPCs you befriend, money you have, etc.

I''m sorry, but I despise these programs that people call RPGs. It destroys the genre totally. but, hey, i''m a tabletop RPGer and an actor, so Role Playing has a much different meaning to me.

I think that RPG could still stand for computer games, but instead of Role Playing it should be Roll Playing. Ultimately, it doesn''t matter how much you change the number system, you''ll always have power gamers in pc rpgs. It is too hard to ROLE Play in a computer game because the focus is always about building your character.

So you''re a Neophyte powergamer? Simple .. go and kill shitloads of things until you''re no longer a Neophyte.

Here''s a suggestion. Design an online RPG that is overseen by a ''GM''. Like many good MUSHs have, include a nomination system for the players to use to nominate others for various achievements - Best Character Interaction, Best Thief, Best Villain, Best Samaritan etc. - and, at the end of a month the ''GM'' (who only has to be present occasionaly) will announce the winners of each ''award'' category, and then will subsequently give to those characters a certain amount of ''points'' to invest in skills (Note: Attributes should not go up. These should be determined from the start and only change when the character uses something that has a modifying effect).

Each class has certain skills that the player can then ''buy'' and each skill has a level - ''Novice, Expert, Master'' - each level''s cost increases increases dramatically, encouraging players to keep some points or try to ''best'' their fellow players during gameplay.

If the GM is particularly active, perhaps he could even set up quests and whoever finishes them will be rewarded with points to spend, pool, etc.

I think having different categories that you can gain points in would take the emphasis away from ''Kill Everything That Moves''. It would also encourage people to ROLE play and to not just build up strength, but also build a much more in-depth character.

Anyway, that''s my say. I have more ideas for it, but I''ll leave it at that. Expand if you wish.

quote: Original post by Tom
Just a proposal for which I''d like some opinions. I know there is an ungodly-huge market out there for achievers (those gamers who play to crunch levels and make the buffest character they can), and that the market for explorers and socializers (me) is ridiculously small, to the point where I don''t even play multi-player games anymore. (Just had my first experience with Ultima Online; I won''t be going back.)

Hmm, a man who is familiar with the Bartle Quotient. Nice, nice. It''s good to see that some standardised terms are becoming more popular.

Consider: perhaps the market is biased, because game players are biased? Example: socialisers are perhaps to be more likely to be out with their friends than being on a computer game.

Purely hypothetical arguments, of course: but we can''t assume the market is split equally 4 ways.

quote: Achievers like to see exactly how many points they''ve earned. I like to call this attribute quantification ; that is, all of your character''s attributes are measured in numeric quantities. In my experience, this removes the focus of gameplay from role-playing (in a genre that is perportedly about "playing a role") to killing things. That''s my problem with RPG''s, as some of you know.

Most people don''t want to ''play a role'' And everyone disagrees with what ''playing a role'' means, anyway. Some people say it means you adopt a chosen character and do the things that you would expect them to do: basically, playing a linear story where you have no control except to press the keys. Other people say a role playing game is where you pick a character of your own choosing and play it how you want to play it. Others believe role playing games are games where you accumulate stats and build up your character(s) as you see fit. All these games involve playing one or more roles - the difference is in how much of that role is chosen by the game story, the player''s choice, or the game mechanics. "Roleplaying" is a vague term.

All I''m saying, is that there are a few ''Roleplaying Purists'' who like to say "the problem with roleplaying games is that people don''t actually roleplay", when what they actually mean is "the problem with RPGs, is that people don''t roleplay the way I like to roleplay". And it sounds like you''re treading dangerously close to the "they don''t do it properly: here''s how we fix it" route. People play Diablo because they want to: not because they are deluded as to what true roleplaying is about.

quote: I propose a system of qualification in which attributes are measured in terms of indefinite qualities (like the levels of Dungeon Master). For example, if you are a "neophyte archer," then your skill in archery is menial. After a certain amount of practice/study, a skill reaches the next level of quality. In a way, this is still quantification, but to a much lesser degree. The idea is that you don''t know exactly how good you are in any given skill. Emphasis moves from number-crunching to whatever else the game has to offer.

Emphasis has moved because you have taken something away. This is a dangerous strategy. It''s like saying "my child will enjoy this wooden rocking horse more if I remove all his Pokémon". It''s true: the player will shift their emphasis, but you''ve not made the game more enjoyable. At worst, you''ve just forced them to concentrate on the less enjoyable elements in order to play. At best, you''ve removed one of the features and made the game have less depth.

quote: If you emphasize other factors (talking to people, visiting mystical new places, discovering new things, learning more about the world instead of yourself), you can create a true role-playing game as it is meant to be.

This is what I meant: you''re being prescriptive about how a game is "meant to be". This is not for you to decide. Sure, decide how you want your game to turn out, but don''t try to assume that games are ''supposed'' to be a certain way, and that games that don''t fit the criteria are somehow "wrong".

quote: Then maybe we can thin out the market of achievers that''s plaguing the genre by converting them to explorers.

They''re not plaguing the genre. It''s a bit arrogant to say that. They just happen to be more suited to the genre than you, because they are playing the genre as it is , as opposed to those who wish it to be something else. I think what you really mean, is to create a new genre that more closely fits what you consider ''roleplaying'' to be about.

NB: The original Dungeons and Dragons was described as a ''roleplaying'' game, but it was almost entirely based on statistics, not acting, not story. The ''meaning'' of the word has changed, partly based on overly-literal interpretations. (This is what linguists term the ''etymological fallacy'', where people try to argue a term means something it doesn''t, just because it would make more sense that way.)

Now... if you''re saying "is it possible to make a game that caters more to explorers and socialisers than killers and achievers", then I would say of course. And I am doing such a thing myself. But I don''t get that mixed up with issues such as "the true meaning of roleplaying" or anything like that. It is just about catering to a different market, and I don''t want to even try to get hung up on terminology.

I say I have to agree with Kylotan on all points he mentioned. This is just my opinion though so dont jump on me for it. I''m assuming, Sarazen, that by tabletop you mean games like D&D. As far as I understand it this deals heavily with numbers. I never played it mind you so I may be wrong but I have been buying Dungeon, and Dragon magazines(mostly Dragon) and it looks to me like theres a lot of number crunching. The main advantage in playing pen-n-paper RPGs for explorers/socializers is that the human DM can interact with the players better then a PC. If PCs could be truly interactive and adaptive then they would be. So basicly I think the problem is that the tech just isnt capable of bringing you what you want. Not a fault of anybodies just the facts of the matter. As far as forcing the gamers out there to play in conformity with your vision probably wont work. As Tom proved himself, if a gamer doesn''t like the game he wont play it. So great ideas and stories will end up having less effect if the game backfires due to game mechanics. This is what will end up happening with many games that don''t have mass market appeal. I say this because if gamers cant get what they want from your game, they know theres probably dozens out there that will cater to their wants. In fact, I imagine there are many professional game designers(probably included among these are ones from UO, Everquest, etc) who have the same feelings you guys have, but because that isnt as likely to sell they cant implement that.

Assumptions lead to incorrectness ... I despise D&D ... it was a pioneer, but it''s outdated. No, I play only in RPGs that have a strong emphasis on character interaction, character design, colorful worlds, etc. I''m currently involved in writing one, too, to try and bring the whole ROLE playing (Not roll, role) aspect into popularity. D&D is not the only RPG out there, thank the powers that be!

As for an online version of what I am talking about, I have yet to hear why my idea wouldn''t work ...

My friends and I use to play an RPG that was completely bare of quantitative attributes. It was not based on any written game and was something that we made up entirely on our own. There were no attributes, no hps, no levels. Every battle was either an epic battle or a complete wipeout. The closest example I can give you is perhaps a mix of Ninja Scroll and Dragonball Z. Instead of gaining new "levels", we would instead learn new techniques that would increase our fighting abilities by giving us a wider array of choices in battles. Combat was very fun as it entailed a lot of strategy. You had to use the right techniques to win against different characters who would counter with their own styles. The role playing aspect was incredibly increased from such games as D&D. To tell you the truth, I have examined the two and I have come up with the reasons behind the difference. I do not wish to post all of them for I am saving them for a future game (if I ever can get into the industry). The lack of quantitative stats was not the only aspect that set it apart and increased roleplaying.

On a side note, although this game was very entertaining, it was severely lacking as well. What it was lacking was the element of chance. Since no dice were rolled, the outcomes were completely based upon the GM. The GM would tend to keep you alive in difficult circumstances. I eventually re-added quantitative figures with some adjustments and the game became tremendously more enjoyable. I have the basics of it still stored in my comp somewhere but I once thought about writing a guide and selling it.


In the case of PC or console games. The drawback of chance is eliminated as much of what is going on is based on the computer''s calculations. Yet the factors that advance the roleplaying aspects are yet to be completely discovered and implemented. Sure, taking away quantitative attributes will help a bit, but it will never, alone, create a great roleplayer''s(at least the type of role player you speak of" RPG. I have my theories and ideas and hopefully in a few years you will see it come out. Well, after a few others of my game ideas hehe =).

To kylotan: All what you say is very true, but consider this:

A "role player" is gamer who acts according to the role that he has assigned his character. That player''s "vision" of his character is essentially the role that he desires to play. I can not speak for all but I can tell you that when I first began playing RPGs, I had a vision of my own. I wouldnt be surprised that most who first begin also have that vision. I started with desktop RPGs where I had the chance (thanks to my aforementioned game) to play that role that I had envisioned myself in. I have read many forums and I can tell you that I have noticed that a lot of people who cry out for RP minded games come from desktop games. Most likely ones such as Sarazen described or similar to my own creation. Now what this meant is that we were able to act our visions in an environment that nourished it and allowed it to succeed. What later occured was the all too common and deplorable break up of the RPG desktop group. It then leads to the transision into computer and console gaming. PC and console gaming pretty much disqualifies all roles or visions but the one of the regular joe who acts much as himself. Gamers such as I, slowly forget or give up on our vision. Others, complain and continue to argue for different games. Those who begin with computer or console games have their visions destroyed by the environment before it even has a chance to manifest itself. I am not saying that these are universal laws, This is what I have noticed in myself and my friends. Perhaps everyone who first reads about a fantastic world imagines a certain character. The problem is that the vision of that character is often demolished by the current computer and console games. The games are still very enjoyable, and for many their visions are not missed.

Basicly, what I am trying to say is that although the term "role player" may mean something different to many. I believe that past experiences and the current state of console and Pc gaming have a lot to do with the lack of the type of role players that Sarazen and Silvermyst speak of. It isnt as much as that there are fewer of these, it is that most gamers are quickly converted to another type of role or are not aware that the possibility is there. I would go as far as to hypothesize that a large portion of the rpg gaming community have had that vision of their character at one time, only to quickly give up on it in favor of a different role. Ok I admit that the above is all speculation biased by my own experiences and opinions but if it is true, Sarazen and Silvermyst''s roleplayer''s market may be much larger then it currently seems.

My god Ive written quite a bit, I hate it when I get carried away lol. The worst is when you write this much and no one reads it hehe.

laters all.

I a in o way anywhere near an expert on the subject but here goes:

A lot of people don like MUDs and i agree with some of the reasons, i played *A LOT* of MUDs abouttwo years ago and most of them were crap and lacked athmosphere but one of them (incidentally the first one i ever played) was exceptionatly good.
In fact, i found it so good i still occasionally play it. Not much anymore though...

It is totally anti-hack ''n'' slash and role playing is a REQUIREMENT.
It has combat in it and combat IS the key to gaining levels and getting stronger and going pin ranks but it doest feel that way.
You can see your stats,all the numbers ar there but it doesnt kill any of the enjoyment, the game is about socializing with other players, doing quests, playing games, participating in vents and generally having fun.
Itis qute difficult to gain levels (it takes a lot of experience) but it doesnt matter, at the beginning you are required to battle and gain levels then you must join a guild (when i say must and required, i mean that you should do it, you have to to get anywhere.).

BHER A decen choice of guilds to join, abilitis and sikills to learn and theres a lot to do.
You can go fishig, you can fiht other characters in an area, the tavern is very popular, the puzzels and quests are excelentand theres over 20 quests. Thes games you an play in the avern, theresTHOUANDS of locations losoplaetg alt ohnst
he aerag aout f players at ay gven mei 100 - 120. lot f new things were added since istared playig (when starte playin the avera players was 80) y must apy fr achac, yo used to be able tp just log inand create a caracer and lay but the owner is rying to filer ut the people whry anddisrupt tame.
Yo must over 18 to play, ater you reacpaerlevel 5 yumus egistr (miimum fee US $50, but the more youpa the more extrasuff gets unlocked)
Ys, theres more than one tye of levels, theres player levels, guild levels, skil levels etc but dont etthat put you off, the enviroment is nice, the atmosphere is just right.
You may not like it but you should try it non-theless.

Check out the web site: www.theshlold.com

PS: to prove that the players dont care about sta too much: my character existed in the game for about 3 yeas and hes only player level 3!! (But then, if i registered my levels''d go up a little...)

Well,he creater,Mike, desevesa paton the bac fotr his game, itis good.

Fo se of you who tried it an didnt likeit: im sorry for wasting your time.

I a in o way anywhere near an expert on the subject but here goes:

A lot of people don like MUDs and i agree with some of the reasons, i played *A LOT* of MUDs abouttwo years ago and most of them were crap and lacked athmosphere but one of them (incidentally the first one i ever played) was exceptionatly good.
In fact, i found it so good i still occasionally play it. Not much anymore though...

It is totally anti-hack ''n'' slash and role playing is a REQUIREMENT.
It has combat in it and combat IS the key to gaining levels and getting stronger and going pin ranks but it doest feel that way.
You can see your stats,all the numbers ar there but it doesnt kill any of the enjoyment, the game is about socializing with other players, doing quests, playing games, participating in vents and generally having fun.
Itis qute difficult to gain levels (it takes a lot of experience) but it doesnt matter, at the beginning you are required to battle and gain levels then you must join a guild (when i say must and required, i mean that you should do it, you have to to get anywhere.).

BHER A decen choice of guilds to join, abilitis and sikills to learn and theres a lot to do.
You can go fishig, you can fiht other characters in an area, the tavern is very popular, the puzzels and quests are excelentand theres over 20 quests. Thes games you an play in the avern, theresTHOUANDS of locations losoplaetg alt ohnst
he aerag aout f players at ay gven mei 100 - 120. lot f new things were added since istared playig (when starte playin the avera players was 80) y must apy fr achac, yo used to be able tp just log inand create a caracer and lay but the owner is rying to filer ut the people whry anddisrupt tame.
Yo must over 18 to play, ater you reacpaerlevel 5 yumus egistr (miimum fee US $50, but the more youpa the more extrasuff gets unlocked)
Ys, theres more than one tye of levels, theres player levels, guild levels, skil levels etc but dont etthat put you off, the enviroment is nice, the atmosphere is just right.
You may not like it but you should try it non-theless.

Check out the web site: www.theshlold.com

PS: to prove that the players dont care about sta too much: my character existed in the game for about 3 yeas and hes only player level 3!! (But then, if i registered my levels''d go up a little...)

Well,he creater,Mike, desevesa paton the bac fotr his game, itis good.

Fo se of you who tried it an didnt likeit: im sorry for wasting your time.