Oiling the cogs of use-based systems

[zenbitz]

Here is my system (skeleton version):

http://wiki.parpg.net/Proposals:Use-and ... d_Learning

Lastly, no matter how the detailed formula is crafted - it will probably still be exploitable by a determined player. To prevent this, we need to put a "cap" on the number of times a skill can be "used" (for the purposes of learning from it). A simple way to do this is that no skill can be "improved" (including failing a possible "improve" check!) by learn-by-doing more than once/day - or even once/week. This gives designers two ways to "control" player advancement by doing. Both are necessary, but I am not sure if they are sufficient.

1. By restricting the difficulty of tasks available to the player
2. By forcing the player to spend "time".

I do think it's possible to have the CPU distinguish between "trivial" tasks and "mission critical" ones - essentially performing the PnP role of GM as gatekeeper of abuse prevention. I don't think it's EASY... but I think it's possible.

The key to getting it to work is, (as others above have suggested) is that there MUST be a "real" game resource consumed that is limited enough to prevent the player from doing something. In my example it's TIME. You only have X amount of time (e.g. 100 day waterchip) to finish the game. If you use TIME grinding skills up for no good reason, you won't have time for other stuff (but that's OK it's your game). Also you will have to eat (and somehow get food) and sleep.

Fallout actually almost does this - there are books that cost money that increase your skills (although eventually they become infinitesimal gains), and reading them takes "game time" (but just a fade out screen for player. However, FO fails to balance this well because after a certain point, money is irrelevant and time is not really important (even in FO1 where you had 100 days... you only need like 30, it's not like it's close).

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No, that's not a solution. Then you just artificially prolong combat encounters in order to beef up your skills that don't directly damage your opponent. Plus, this is RPG Codex, so implying that all skills are combat-related in the first place amounts to egregious blasphemy.

Diplomatic skills can't be used many times on one character, and crafting, mercantile, etc, costs money so you can't keep doing them forever, etc. Same principle?

I'd also have a cut-off point where skills receive no benefit at all if the chance of failure is below some minimum.

Interestingly, this is present in the Super Mario jrpgs. Once enemies in an area become easy to beat, they start running away or you don't get xp at all. Even if they're still a challenge, they give less and less xp as time goes on. So you could still grind until it isn't worth it anymore, but you'd have to stop sometime.

 

[DraQ]

The limitations can be based on real-life limitations.

You can't tap some passerby on the shoulder and then proceed to hone your diplomatic skills on your helpless victim for several hours straight IRL, can you?

Waking up, doing push-ups, till you drop unconscious, then repeat once you come to your senses wouldn't be an effective training program, would it?

All the real life nuisances can be either automated away (character eats and deals with their other needs automatically when camping), or alleviated through magic/technology (fine, we will find someone who will regenerate your eyeballs once we reach capital, you will have to sell your legendary enchanted cuirass just to cover the cost, though - what did you expect to find by peering in this dart launcher trap, anyway?), leaving only pure awesome and crystallized verisimilitude.

 

[zenbitz]

Waking up, doing push-ups, till you drop unconscious, then repeat once you come to your senses wouldn't be an effective training program, would it?

No, you'd starve to death.
However, you could sleep 8 hours, work 8 hours (to pay for your room and board) and do pushups 8 hours (roughly) and you WOULD get quite strong.

 

[PorkaMorka]

8 hours of push ups wouldn't work because the body needs to recover and pushups don't do that much to begin with. Plus you're trying to raise a stat and that's more difficult

But grinding pretty much does work for skills in real life

If you can afford to quit your job and train MMA 4 hours a day and cardio/weights another 2 hours a day

You'll get pretty good at it

Similarly, if you can get a little instruction and then practice shooting several hours a day, you'll get good at it.

Grinding actually works too well IRL to make for good game mechanics.

Winning 5 bar fights gives a lot less EXP than just grinding at the gym sparring and practicing moves

One thing you could do however is to require training with certain improved trainers and facilities to surpass certain caps. Since even if you train at Master Chong's mall karate school for 4 hours a day, you'll be way behind someone training at Black House.

 

[DraQ]

But grinding pretty much does work for skills in real life

Still, training is no substitute for real experience.

If you can afford to quit your job and train MMA 4 hours a day and cardio/weights another 2 hours a day

One of the proposed components of my system was inability to afford that, especially given that you're training skills anyway as you're adventuring, so it wouldn't even be that desirable.

One thing you could do however is to require training with certain improved trainers and facilities to surpass certain caps. Since even if you train at Master Chong's mall karate school for 4 hours a day, you'll be way behind someone training at Black House.

Trainers are good, but they should be implemented carefully as they can break the game - see Morrowind.

Some unused skill deterioration might also be a good way to balance grind.

 

[zenbitz]

But grinding pretty much does work for skills in real life

Still, training is no substitute for real experience.

And conversely, real experience is often no substitute for training.

Some unused skill deterioration might also be a good way to balance grind.

I think this is not worth it, and only encourages grinding to "keep up" skills they think they might need someday. It might be "funny" to give a -10% (or -1 or whatever) to the first time you use a skill after a long lay off...

 

[Castanova]

RPG character systems suffer from the uncanny valley. The more you focus on "versimilitude" the more it becomes obvious that it fails. RPGs are extremely abstract and should generally stay that way. Use-based systems may have their place in certain games but employing them requires the designer to put in all kinds of wacky counterbalances just to make the game work properly.

 

[DraQ]

RPG character systems suffer from the uncanny valley. The more you focus on "versimilitude" the more it becomes obvious that it fails. RPGs are extremely abstract and should generally stay that way.

Go play Go.

Use-based systems may have their place in certain games but employing them requires the designer to put in all kinds of wacky counterbalances just to make the game work properly.

Every system does. You could just as well say that TB is teh suck, because it requires all kinds of wacky counterbalances like attacks of opportunity just to work properly.

PnP RPGs may not require much mechanics - just enough to not dump all the blame for whatever happens on GM, cRPGs however require extensive and complex mechanics, because while humans can be innovative and improvise, boxes can't and don't, so a living GM may evaluate player's unorthodox and unforeseen actions with hardly any ruleset - see the "crushed head" clause, for instance - while a computer won't do anything that isn't explicitly handled by the rules and/or script. Therefore any tools increasing computer's flexibility as a GM and allowing for non-scripted solutions and emergent behaviour, as well as allowing the computer to reward players for thinking out of the box should be welcomed with gratitude, not baaawed at for workarounds.

Especially, when said "workarounds" consist of mathematically elegant evaluation of difficulty of a task, a simple resource sink and some way to limit character's potential.

 

[Castanova]

Go play Go.

While this statement is completely ridiculous and tangential from the discussion, it's quite ironic that Go is, in fact, more fun than most RPGs that employ a use-based skill system. You seem to be interested in ideally developing a system for a simulator, not an RPG.

 

[bhlaab]

Perhaps Elder Scrolls isn't the BEST implementation of this system, but I've found that it only encourages grinding.

 

[DraQ]

Go play Go.

While this statement is completely ridiculous and tangential from the discussion, it's quite ironic that Go is, in fact, more fun than most RPGs that employ a use-based skill system.

Har. Har. The awesomeness of Go doesn't detract from it's nonRPGness.

In all seriousness though, if RPGs were ideally abstract, they would not feature bearded dwarves, for the beard of a dwarf doesn't confer any bonuses or modifiers.

You seem to be interested in ideally developing a system for a simulator, not an RPG.

Well, I consider ideal form of an RPG to be rather close to a simulator, except the machine you're piloting is the PC. In all fairness, RPGs have always been more of simulators than of abstract wargames. Yes, they branched off abstract wargames, but they did it off a branch that was already displaying deabstracting trend, and later evolved into adventure simulators. Notice the tendency to depart from party-VS-GM gameplay of earliest RPGs - how can RPGs be inherently abstract wargames if you can't even define the goals of one of the sides any more?

The abstraction in RPGs is merely a side effect, a limitation of their PnP origins. cRPGs are no longer limited in this way (they are limited in other ways), so there is no reason for them keeping their original simplicity, unless it has became a fetish on it's own - like pixelization and black squares in hentai.

It's kind of sad, really - cRPGs could develop into ultimate computer games if they weren't held back by worshippers of clear-cut grids and +3 weapons, only to be taken over by nextgentards thinking that RPGs are just last-gen FPS games and consist chiefly of running around killing things.

 

[DraQ]

Perhaps Elder Scrolls isn't the BEST implementation of this system, but I've found that it only encourages grinding.

Perhaps it also wasn't the best implementation of the idea of an NPC and the best implementation of computer programming, but I've found that the characters in TES are wooden, and the games themselves are riddled with bugs.

 

[J1M]

All of the "good" use based systems proposed here are just minor delays of acquisition of a standard XP/level/trainer based system.

Glad we have closed the door on use based systems for good.

 

[DraQ]

All of the "good" use based systems proposed here are just minor delays of acquisition of a standard XP/level/trainer based system.

Glad we have closed the door on use based systems for good.

All the people capable of reading comprehension have understood the "why?"s listed in the OP. Others need not apply.

 

[deuxhero]

XP-based + no random encounters = no grind. Case closed.

Not entirely true

 

[Castanova]

That article as a counterargument misses the point of mondblut's post and you probably know this.

 

[Castanova]

cRPGs are no longer limited in this way (they are limited in other ways), so there is no reason for them keeping their original simplicity, unless it has became a fetish on it's own - like pixelization and black squares in hentai

In that case, why doesn't someone harness the power of the PC to create a less abstract version of Chess? After all, there is no reason to keep the game in its original simplicity. You see, your entire argument is flawed because you are incorrectly equating the perfect RPG game with, basically, an extremely complex simulation of a world and then using this falsehood to then argue that anything that lends itself to realism therefore also lends itself to improving an RPG. You are wrong. Complexity does not equal depth. This is a pretty basic concept of game design. Yes, GAME design.

 

[DraQ]

cRPGs are no longer limited in this way (they are limited in other ways), so there is no reason for them keeping their original simplicity, unless it has became a fetish on it's own - like pixelization and black squares in hentai

In that case, why doesn't someone harness the power of the PC to create a less abstract version of Chess? After all, there is no reason to keep the game in its original simplicity.

I see you're either not well versed in the arcane art of paying attention or just plain suck at making strawmen. Either way, let me reiterate - slowly:

Chess have all the hallmarks of a game that is abstract by design - no fluff, clearly defined goals, minimalistic rules that encompass every possible situation and have no relation to reality.

PnP RPGs have all the hallmarks of games that are not abstract by design - a lot of fluff, no clearly defined goals, rules that only form a framework with multiple references to reality and often have to be supplemented by GM intervention based on his common sense and narrative, things like XP for fucking roleplaying, which simply doesn't have right to exist in an abstract system, etc.

Now, successful adaptation of anything to different types of media requires understanding their strengths and limitations. Computers are absolutely horrible storytellers and are absolutely incapable of improvisation, needing to be told exactly what they should do. They are completely devoid of common sense too.
They have, however, ample computing power.
Now, common sense and improvisation are powerful tools in disposal of every self-respecting GM - whether it comes to explaining the player that his boots of dodging may give hefty bonus to the AC against missile weapons, but that only works when there is enough space between individual missiles to let him squeeze through; that, no matter what the dice say and how much HP do you have, having your head crushed under a ton of rocks kills you; or coping with the fact that through clever use of 10ft pole, dead mustard jelly, horse harness and a bag of holding players have not only skipped 90% of the adventure, but have also made the village you previously only stated to exist the primary location and it's inhabitants major NPCs.

But, what exactly does GM do when coming up with ad-hoc responses to players' shenanigans?
He uses his common sense - consisting mostly of inexplicit, "gut" knowledge of how the world works and comes up with a solution consistent with this world.
Computers wouldn't recognise 'gut' knowledge (or guts, for that matter) if it hit them squarely in the CPU fan.
They have, however processing power and a lot of things can be simulated mathematically, which allows them to refer to the explicit simulation of the gameworld where human GM would refer to his gut feelings.
Of course this requires the rules to no longer be just a rough storytelling framework built with sensible user in mind, but a tight, detailed and pedantic simulation.

This unless you do want your cRPGs to remain trapped somewhere between simplistic goblin slaughter and virtual choose your adventure book, all for the sake of your beloved +3s, in which case you have no right to bitch about the extinction of true RPGs and their substitution by FPS and simplistic H&S games, that at least recognise the power of modern gaming rigs, and MMORPGS that capitalize on AOLkids' desire to have biggest e-penises of all, which is the only logical outcome - not being a learning animal has it's price.

 

[Castanova]

DraQ, you are one silly guy. Abstraction is not binary. Any game, even the fucking Holodeck, is required to have some level of abstraction. The only way to avoid having abstraction in a game is to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself and create your own universe. Yes, processing power allows you to reduce abstraction but it cannot eliminate it and, even if you could, it would be far too large a task for a group of pimply game developers. Even games that focus very heavily on realism in a 3D world fail at an epic scale. There has never been a game that is even remotely convincing as a real world beyond the player's basic suspension of disbelief. No game lets you invent clever solutions to all problems.

You might as well complain that all current forms of power plants are shit because none of them can power the entire world on one drop of water.

 

[DraQ]

<s>DraQ, you are one silly guy. Abstraction is not binary. Any game, even the fucking Holodeck, is required to have some level of abstraction. The only way to avoid having abstraction in a game is to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself and create your own universe. Yes, processing power allows you to reduce abstraction but it cannot eliminate it and, even if you could, it would be far too large a task for a group of pimply game developers. Even games that focus very heavily on realism in a 3D world fail at an epic scale. There has never been a game that is even remotely convincing as a real world beyond the player's basic suspension of disbelief. No game lets you invent clever solutions to all problems.</s>
seatbelts and airbags don't prevent 100% of deaths in traffic accidents, so they are worthless.

You might as well complain that all current forms of power plants are shit because none of them can power the entire world on one drop of water.

No, but I might complain about using a hamster running in a wheel if we have nuclear reactor at hand.

 

[mondblut]

XP-based + no random encounters = no grind. Case closed.

Not entirely true

You see, in my world Japan went to the bottom of the Pacific in 1945, and whatever abominations they invent for their "ff tactics" or whatever other faggotry simply doesn't exist. I clearly imply XP-based in the manly aryan "combined XP for all enemies killed shared between everybody alive after encounter" D&D sense.

 

[DraQ]

@mondblut:
Pro-tip:

Find yourself an entertainment that it is at least simple and concise enough for it's creators to know what the hell are they doing.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(DnD_Optimized_Character_Build)

Edit:
is being retarded and fails at understanding that parentheses are part of the url too.

 

[J1M]

All of the "good" use based systems proposed here are just minor delays of acquisition of a standard XP/level/trainer based system.

Glad we have closed the door on use based systems for good.

All the people capable of reading comprehension have understood the "why?"s listed in the OP. Others need not apply.

Yes, and that same group of people also understand the 'why' was covered prior to when I wrote that. But hey, you have fun playing with emoticons.

 

[mondblut]

Waaah, I found a broken feat in D&D!!1

Next time you'll tell us Earth rotates around the sun?