Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

An RPG without leveling

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Jim Kata said:
"That topic is about different matter that is not connected to that. Those games are hack&slash - crpg game that is combat fest and have no other parts, so if you consider that crpg why can't you consider game that don't have other element. Ok details:"

they are RPGs. Period. If you want to make a new genre, call it something else.

Hack&slash is part of crpg genre, they don't have all elements that are critical to some crpg and are not part of other genres.

Jim Kata said:
That would make it have rpg elements, but not make it an rpg game any more than the sims is an rpg. Even selecting at the bgeinning is an rpg element as well, but if you never change after that it's not an rpg.

So you admit that your point about 19h game was stupid, ok.


Jim Kata said:
The only reward is to see guys explode and to get loot and experience - ie character development.

You are the only person who talk about removing loot in that threat, nobody propose that.


Jim Kata said:
Like I already said if you elminated that element then to make the combat worth playing you would have to add in either 1) an actiony skill element ala M&B or 2) strategic/tactical elements that make it interesting. Then, as I said, it would no longer be an RPG.

Oh so if the game have strategic consideration while fighting it is not crpg I see were you are going but that is ridiculous every combat that is not 100% automatic have some player skill involved strategic/twitchy/whatever.

As for combat being interesting I agree it would have to be.


Jim Kata said:
If this were actually implemented in games it would matter a little, but it's not implemented in games except in the most crudest of ways where it makes no difference.

It is like in sr. If you have bad relations you get help from others, also another aspect that I didn't mention is that you can't buy best equipment without social standing in Gothic because there are guilds [through it is done in all or nothing matter it could be done better (didn't' play g3)] where you got better equipment and training (mostly mage and thievery combat could be learn otherwise easy). Harder to do then fight fest no doubt.

Jim Kata said:
The combat itself is dreck. It would be 100 times worse if it were not an rpg, though. The combat has no real challenge to it, and there are no real stratetic considerations beyond character build.

Oh so character progress is basically strategic consideration it is nice that you admitted yourself you make my replay easier.

Jim Kata said:
"btw. sr2 (your example) have parts of reactive world that we were talking about and character stat are minimalistic, getting read of them would change almost nothing. Getting rid of reactive world turn that good game into unplayable pointless piece of shit"

It has STRATEGIC elements that are reactive, which is a part of pretty much all strategy games. That is not the same at all and has nothing to do with choices like are mentioned in this thread.

Those are strategic considerations, but as you admitted that doesn't mean that they aren't part of crpg, and that they can't define it. No using your way of proving things: show strategic games where sr like decision on operating in reactive world is main gameplay future.

What is the big difference between choosing stats to be a Mage and spells and going to Mage school in Gothic? In Magic school you are limited whit xp but you could also be limited by different factors connected whit school itself, Gothic have great concept but it is done in very minimalistic and straight foward manner.
 

Jim Kata

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
2,602
Location
Nonsexual dungeon
TalesfromtheCrypt said:
Jim Kata said:
Castanova said:
We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.

The court jester is usually the wisest one in the kingdom.
Then redumbfucking should suffice in your case.

Except that never happened, and deathy the tool simply illiterated me after cheating in the poll, and later it was taken back....
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4,567
Strap Yourselves In Codex+ Now Streaming!
Jim Kata said:
TalesfromtheCrypt said:
Jim Kata said:
Castanova said:
We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.

The court jester is usually the wisest one in the kingdom.
Then redumbfucking should suffice in your case.

Except that never happened, and deathy the tool simply illiterated me after cheating in the poll, and later it was taken back....

He...he...was cheating in the poll? Crybaby is going to cry all night! So why don't you use your old nick again bryce?
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!
YOU WHINY FUCKING BITCHES!

READ:
Dementia Praecox said:
OK, Bryce and TFC, take your fucking bitchfight out of this thread. There were some interesting discussion going on here, but right now you are killing all incentive for keeping it up.

I wrote a long fucking reply where the general gist were that you, Bryce, only picked up all the "idiots" and "morons" in TFCs posts, and you, TFC, only were fueling the fire. For crissakes you are both just arguing for the sake of arguing. I deleted it because it wouldn't have it's intended effect. And you (both of you) know why?
Because you are to fucking easy to bait.


Edit: Alright, the point has been made already. All for the better.
 

Jim Kata

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
2,602
Location
Nonsexual dungeon
"Hack&slash is part of crpg genre, they don't have all elements that are critical to some crpg and are not part of other genres."

Well, you are more reasonable than anyone else in this thread.

"So you admit that your point about 19h game was stupid, ok."

Where do you get that? Any game can have rpg elements, but that doesn't make deus ex an rpg, for example.

"You are the only person who talk about removing loot in that threat, nobody propose that."

I never said they were, but can be a part of character development, if you have a complex game system.

Oh so if the game have strategic consideration w"hile fighting it is not crpg I see were you are going but that is ridiculous every combat that is not 100% automatic have some player skill involved strategic/twitchy/whatever."

Again where do you get that? The key element is the progression. I prefer strategic combat over action but having action or strategy elements do not make a game not an rpg any more than having small rpg elements makes an action or strategy game an rpg.


"It is like in sr. If you have bad relations you get help from others, also another aspect that I didn't mention is that you can't buy best equipment without social standing in Gothic because there are guilds [through it is done in all or nothing matter it could be done better (didn't' play g3)] where you got better equipment and training (mostly mage and thievery combat could be learn otherwise easy). Harder to do then fight fest no doubt."

Well, I am not sure what you are getting at. I think gothic was largely poor in the sense of this kind of rpgpeople like so much. As an rpg by my definition (which does not mean it's a good game, just an rpg, and which seems to be the historic rpg definition) it is an rpg I suppose, but a very limited one. As for real choices it has very little, though the camp at least is somewhat reactive to them though I remember killing off some people and having them show up alive later. Exploration is also heavly discouranged due to the shoddy character progression system that relies heavily on armor.


"Oh so character progress is basically strategic consideration it is nice that you admitted yourself you make my replay easier. "

No, it permeates gameplay at all levels in fallout. It is the basic reward mechanism for combat and is something to occupy the player ina nd of itself. Without it the combat (and thereby the majority of the game) would have to be redone completely.


"Those are strategic considerations, but as you admitted that doesn't mean that they aren't part of crpg, and that they can't define it. No using your way of proving things: show strategic games where sr like decision on operating in reactive world is main gameplay future.

What is the big difference between choosing stats to be a Mage and spells and going to Mage school in Gothic? In Magic school you are limited whit xp but you could also be limited by different factors connected whit school itself, Gothic have great concept but it is done in very minimalistic and straight foward manner"

Not sure where you are going with this.
 

Jim Kata

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
2,602
Location
Nonsexual dungeon
Dementia Praecox said:
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!
YOU WHINY FUCKING BITCHES!

READ:
Dementia Praecox said:
OK, Bryce and TFC, take your fucking bitchfight out of this thread. There were some interesting discussion going on here, but right now you are killing all incentive for keeping it up.

I wrote a long fucking reply where the general gist were that you, Bryce, only picked up all the "idiots" and "morons" in TFCs posts, and you, TFC, only were fueling the fire. For crissakes you are both just arguing for the sake of arguing. I deleted it because it wouldn't have it's intended effect. And you (both of you) know why?
Because you are to fucking easy to bait.


Edit: Alright, the point has been made already. All for the better.

You're the only one who seems upset to me.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Jim Kata said:
Dementia Praecox said:
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!
YOU WHINY FUCKING BITCHES!

READ:
Dementia Praecox said:

You're the only one who seems upset to me.



Yes I'm fucking upset! You've destroyed a perfectly fine RPG-discussion thread. Rather far between each one, these days.

You, on the other hand, are a whiny fucking bitch!

Since there is no way of stopping this now, I might as well jump the bandwagon:

Jim Kata said:
galsiah said:
Until then, can you either say something worthwhile, or shut up.

Go fuck yourself. The spirit of the thread is that of retardedness. I pointed out that that would not be an RPG and then hilarity ensued. Sorry, but I am not going to bow out when people start flaming me with their retardedness.

Jabbapop said:
adventure game lol
Your "point" was already made. As third post, no less. So, if the thread was so retarded you claim, why the hell did you post here in the first place? Other than fucking flame baiting, that is?
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Again where do you get that? The key element is the progression. I prefer strategic combat over action but having action or strategy elements do not make a game not an rpg any more than having small rpg elements makes an action or strategy game an rpg.

Ok then I misinterpreted : " 1) an actiony skill element ala M&B or 2) strategic/tactical elements that make it interesting. Then, as I said, it would no longer be an RPG. " I know what you mean now.

No, it permeates gameplay at all levels in fallout. It is the basic reward mechanism for combat and is something to occupy the player ina nd of itself. Without it the combat (and thereby the majority of the game) would have to be redone completely.

It would be better if you use sr as example is Fallout is far from concepts that we speaking of because they require C&C but on little different level.

Well, I am not sure what you are getting at. I think gothic was largely poor in the sense of this kind of rpgpeople like so much. As an rpg by my definition (which does not mean it's a good game, just an rpg, and which seems to be the historic rpg definition) it is an rpg I suppose, but a very limited one.

Quality of Gothic have nothing to do whit discussion through, because now it is more on level: "would that kind of game be crpg?" not "isn't it to complex to make?".

What is the big difference between choosing stats to be a Mage and spells and going to Mage school in Gothic? In Magic school you are limited whit xp but you could also be limited by different factors connected whit school itself, Gothic have great concept but it is done in very minimalistic and straight foward manner"

Not sure where you are going with this.

You choose stats to fight in combat and that make it crpg, now in my example you fight to gain social (not best word but my English is limited) standing whit guild/important group that gives you access to loot (you could loot corpse also), education (fighting styles, fighting tactics, haw to balance body haw to induce bigger dmg[...]/magic/alchemy/[...]).

You could connect both systems like Gothic did, or remove stats and it would not affect gameplay or not much.

Now why do I like that system:
1)I like reactive worlds, there should big benefits to belonging to groups, they should have different interest so you would have to make difficult decisions. The more social standings are important the more you are connected whit world.
2)When you want fps/tpp action combat stats sucks badly (except for perks/magic).
3)I don't really like speech skills (whit exception of game where there is possibility of finishing game without fighting but I rather predetermine my character then). There is no way of knowing haw much is good it is guessing whit no information, is 15/20 good enough or is 16/20 necessary, game don't inform you if your stat is good or not, was the fight necessary or my stat was not good enough? Should I make more points before talking (like decision before hard fight where you have information about opponent) whit diplomacy skill it is just random you either have good enough or not.

I got idea have perk at creation menu that make you good at diplomacy (or specific speech stats) but reduce stats that you got whit each level allot.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
The question isn't whether such a game would deserve the vaunted three letter acronym, it's whether it would be a good game. Seeing as the vast majority of games don't have character development based on foozles clicked, I'd say it could be. While foozle clicking with a small chance of reward keeps lobotomised rats and MMO players (is there even a difference?) entertained indefinitely, some people are really tired of it. In fact, for years I ignored every game with RPG printed on the box because of that mechanic. It was only when I found out about the codex favourites that I actually gave them a chance - only to discover that the codex favourites were the only ones that weren't mind numbingly boring.

Here's some possible alternatives which provide the benefits of levelling without requiring a lobotomy for enjoyment:

1) Political Power. You start the game by yourself, and rather than getting a thousand hit points, you use some of that immense treasury all RPGs give you to hire a thousand mercenaries. Then you lead them to kill head foozle. This would be far better than the same game with higher numbers popping up after each hit, as it would slowly transition from FPS/Top down action game to Tactical Shooter all the way to a full blown RTS. You would always have something new to do.

2) Items. Even without ubar magik, the difference between a peasant with a pitchfork and a knight in full plate armor atop a barded warhorse is immense. It also provided constantly changing gameplay to prevent the player from getting bored.

3) Story based stat progression. Instead of getting rewards for killing generic foozles, you'd get them when you reach certain points in the story. You would learn how to repair plasma rifles as a quest reward for rescuing a mechanic from some mutants rather than arbitrarily being able to do it after stepping on 453 rats.

Any one of those systems could do what rat clicking does, and together they make a far better system.
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
The_Pope said:
The question isn't whether such a game would deserve the vaunted three letter acronym, it's whether it would be a good game.

Sure that is most important, but it doesn't mean that discussion if it is crpg or not is useless we are discussing gameplay mechanics doing that anyway.

The_Pope said:
Seeing as the vast majority of games don't have character development based on foozles clicked, I'd say it could be. While foozle clicking with a small chance of reward keeps lobotomised rats and MMO players (is there even a difference?) entertained indefinitely, some people are really tired of it.

True, through games don't require you to do that to finish them I never grind in crpg, but then we have issue where high level characters are to strong, or you have to grind if high level have challenge.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
The_Pope said:
1) Political Power. You start the game by yourself, and rather than getting a thousand hit points, you use some of that immense treasury all RPGs give you to hire a thousand mercenaries. Then you lead them to kill head foozle.
It's a thought, but I don't think this alone does enough. What you're getting from this, is a progressive change in core gameplay (if combat is core). What you're not getting is interesting choice.
Stat progression gives the player a wide range of options in how he changes the gameplay. Whatever replaces it ought to give such options - with support for widely differing styles (not merely hiring snipers vs machine gunners etc.). I think politics (in combination with other elements) can provide this, but it'd need to be a detailed system.

2) Items. Even without ubar magik, the difference between a peasant with a pitchfork and a knight in full plate armor atop a barded warhorse is immense. It also provided constantly changing gameplay to prevent the player from getting bored.
This has most of the advantages of stat progression, but also most of the disadvantages. It's more realistic/coherent, but that's about it. You're just grinding gold (all too often) rather than xp, and focusing on an uninspiring idea: ubar lewt, rather than ubar stats.

3) Story based stat progression. Instead of getting rewards for killing generic foozles, you'd get them when you reach certain points in the story.
This has the issue that the system is likely to be as rigid as the story it's based on. Unless you have a story which changes completely with each playthrough (and I'm not saying you can't), the progress a player makes is directly tied to the story direction he takes.
Awarding generic stat points for the player to asign gives story/character independence, but also seems much more artificial.


The central problem I see with character progression (of any variety), is that it's a dull idea - and one which frequently becomes a player focus. Stat sheets and perk choices etc. can be interesting, but it's an almost entirely inward process. The focus is on the PC, and on the PC vs the game mechanics - the game world itself is almost entirely irrelevant here.

This is a stupid approach IMO. There's nothing wrong with complex, interesting systems which present choice and opportunity - only why separate these from the game world? The point wouldn't be to eliminate character progression in a general sense, but rather to make it part of the game world (e.g. through political influence, military control, control of information...).
This way the player is involved (dare I say immersed? - probably not :)) in the game world as he weighs up options and pursues goals. He's not off in some abstract spreadsheet anti-LARP.

Particularly now that there is more potential (whether or not realized) to create rich, responsive game worlds, it seems a waste to divert player focus from that world. An isolated character progression system involving mechanical min-maxing does this frequently.
 

HardCode

Erudite
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,138
Jim Kata said:
HardCode said:
Nah. After about 2:00 a.m., any guy who talks to any of the drunk sluts left over are Fabio in her eyes.

Well, I did not mean in a pickup sense though I guess these days that seems to be what people do at bars, but the 2am leftovers are usually only appealing if you've been drinking for the last six hours.

A 2 at 10 is a 10 at 2 [a.m.]
 

LCJr.

Erudite
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,469
Interesting topic. Seems to have brought out the old Bryce777 too.

Personally I'd be willing to try a CRPG without levels. The whole lowly peasant to demi-god in a week is just one of many CRPG cliches I'm tired of.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
galsiah said:
The central problem I see with character progression (of any variety), is that it's a dull idea - and one which frequently becomes a player focus. Stat sheets and perk choices etc. can be interesting, but it's an almost entirely inward process. The focus is on the PC, and on the PC vs the game mechanics - the game world itself is almost entirely irrelevant here.

This is a stupid approach IMO. There's nothing wrong with complex, interesting systems which present choice and opportunity - only why separate these from the game world? The point wouldn't be to eliminate character progression in a general sense, but rather to make it part of the game world (e.g. through political influence, military control, control of information...).
This way the player is involved (dare I say immersed? - probably not :)) in the game world as he weighs up options and pursues goals. He's not off in some abstract spreadsheet anti-LARP.

Particularly now that there is more potential (whether or not realized) to create rich, responsive game worlds, it seems a waste to divert player focus from that world. An isolated character progression system involving mechanical min-maxing does this frequently.

Progress Questing has a few benefits to gameplay - an ego trip for players who can't win with their ability, a way of gradually introducing new game mechanics and finally increasing replay value by putting these game mechanics on seperate mechanics. Only the first one gains any benefit from the level grind system, and in my view the last two probably suffer from it. Levels are also probably worse than LARPers in terms of giving Roleplaying a bad reputation - what could be nerdier than sitting in a circle masturbating to a spreadsheet?

It's a thought, but I don't think this alone does enough. What you're getting from this, is a progressive change in core gameplay (if combat is core). What you're not getting is interesting choice.
Stat progression gives the player a wide range of options in how he changes the gameplay. Whatever replaces it ought to give such options - with support for widely differing styles (not merely hiring snipers vs machine gunners etc.). I think politics (in combination with other elements) can provide this, but it'd need to be a detailed system.

It could provide player choice if the troops you could get was heavily dependent on your faction. Another way is by allowing players to focus on the various ways of getting power - the sword, the pen and the coin. A player who focuses on combat would eventually get an army to lead, a diplomat would be able to influence other characters by rabble rousing and lobbying while a rogue would eventually end up running a criminal empire.

As for items, the main reason for it as an option is that in most RPGs classes boil down to equipment sets. A rogue is a guy who can use a dagger, a knight is a guy who can wear armor etc. May as well cut out the spreadsheet and just use gear. It also has the added benefit of letting players out of a path they don't like much more easily. Gold grind could be prevented by tying items to the story; gothics system of giving out armor for getting to certain ranks in factions is a good example.

Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Hey, the thread is resurrected. What a pleasant surprise to wake up to. Has Bryce been banned, or what?

Krazu said:
3)I don't really like speech skills (whit exception of game where there is possibility of finishing game without fighting but I rather predetermine my character then). There is no way of knowing haw much is good it is guessing whit no information, is 15/20 good enough or is 16/20 necessary, game don't inform you if your stat is good or not, was the fight necessary or my stat was not good enough? Should I make more points before talking (like decision before hard fight where you have information about opponent) whit diplomacy skill it is just random you either have good enough or not.
Yes, this is a problem. Meta knowledge is often needed to know what's worthwhile. This results in a related problem, that I've often been annoyed. When I decide to go a diplomatic way in a game that seems to allow for this kind of game play, I max out all diplomatic stats and skills. I if I go for the fighter-way through, I set them to average. And if I decide to play an idiot brute (Arcanum is afaik the only game that allow for rewarding game play this way), I set them as low as you can go. Never "almost max", or "almost minimum", because usually there just is a linear scale of what you get as dialogue options and solutions. (When I say max here its max in the sense of "enough to get the kind of response I want", when you get a certain level of meta-knowledge. Because even if there no point in being max-max, there is always some point along the scale 1-10/1-20/1-100, where you go from gimp to genius.)

This means the only difference in playing an almost maxed out diplomatic character and a maxed out one, is that you miss out on stuff related to the gaming experience you're looking for. Yes, if you take that last point from [speech stat/skill] you can put it in [generic fighting skill] and be marginally better. But you're obviously still going to be a gimp fighting-wise, so all you end up with is just gimping your diplomatic abilities as well. Now, this is cool, if you want to larp just that kind of gimp. But lets face it, that's not much of a motivation to make that gimped character. In every "character build in game x" thread on this board, there is examples of this. The suggestions always go to the extremes, one way or another. One could argue that people don't want to want to play average characters, like the themselves most probably are in real life. They want to be extreme, like Captain ShepHARD. The problem, as I see it, is that there just isn't any motivation to average out a certain skill/stat other than to balance it out with other stats. And as long these stats go along a linear scale and they don't exclude certain things along the way, making the player experience differ in other ways than you get less options. There is no "reward" for keeping any stat mediocre.

I don't have any ultimate solutions to this, but I've been thinking on a system where certain traits and the such that's only available in certain combinations of stats/skills. If your stats/skills get higher than the trait "cap", will give you the benefits of that higher stat, but you loose the benefits of that particular trait. This has of curse to be justified in relative reasonable explanations. I don't have any exact examples right now, need my morning coffee. Of course this will probably add to the problem Krazu is describing, unless there are definitive meta-explanations or descriptions ingame. Another thing could be reaction modifiers the the average dirt-farmer who will react negatively to the smart educated guy, but will identify more with the mediocre average Joe, thus be more talkative. Age of Decadence does something interesting here, by separating between different types of speech/diplomatic-related skills. Although I do suspect they still work along the lines of: higher stat=more better results/abillities.

The_Pope said:
1) Political Power. You start the game by yourself, and rather than getting a thousand hit points, you use some of that immense treasury all RPGs give you to hire a thousand mercenaries. Then you lead them to kill head foozle. This would be far better than the same game with higher numbers popping up after each hit, as it would slowly transition from FPS/Top down action game to Tactical Shooter all the way to a full blown RTS. You would always have something new to do.
Aren't you describing the concept behind Mount & Blade? It does exactly this. If you haven't tried it, you should! Interesting medival fighting sim.

The_Pope said:
Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.
At first, I got the same gist as galsiah, but the way you describe it now sound way more interesting. You're basically suggesting the "learn by doing"-skill progression from Darklands and TES in a grander scale? My biggest fear for this kind of system, is that the only way of learning [something] would be to do a particular quest in a particular way. The exception would be if there is some unique skill that obviously only one guy in the world know of, and this guy wants a particular thing done in a particular way. If the skill is [use bow in an intuitive manner], it the same wouldn't work. There ought to be several people who know that, and who'd be able and willing to teach it to you. If this type of progression is going to work, there should be several quests or questlines that lead to the same thing, but in a different way. It suddenly hits me that I'm describing Gothic 3.

Ugh, I seriously need coffee before I continue this.
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
Dementia Praecox said:
Aren't you describing the concept behind Mount & Blade? It does exactly this. If you haven't tried it, you should! Interesting medival fighting sim.

Yeah, Mount & Blade is the inspiration for the idea. However, the game only really ever gets to skirmish size fighting and has very little player control of armies. I'd like to see a game do that all the way up to 5000+ man armies.

At first, I got the same gist as galsiah, but the way you describe it now sound way more interesting. You're basically suggesting the "learn by doing"-skill progression from Darklands and TES in a grander scale? My biggest fear for this kind of system, is that the only way of learning [something] would be to do a particular quest in a particular way. The exception would be if there is some unique skill that obviously only one guy in the world know of, and this guy wants a particular thing done in a particular way. If the skill is [use bow in an intuitive manner], it the same wouldn't work. There ought to be several people who know that, and who'd be able and willing to teach it to you. If this type of progression is going to work, there should be several quests or questlines that lead to the same thing, but in a different way. It suddenly hits me that I'm describing Gothic 3.

Gothic 3 still uses generic skill points as the currency for those trainers. I was thinking of skills being direct quest rewards. Of course, this presents the problem of players getting every skill maxed (and thus killing the replay value benefit) out by doing all the side quests, so it would only really work if there were storyline or faction restrictions. You would be able to join either the city guard or the criminal cartel, and each would teach you a particular set of skills. Within each factions quest tree would be particular ways of doing each quest which gives variations on the usual rewards. Also, a lot of skills would be attainable from multiple places and possibly could gain multiple levels if gained several times.
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
The_Pope said:
Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.

Haw is that different from grind?

I don't have any ultimate solutions to this, but I've been thinking on a system where certain traits and the such that's only available in certain combinations of stats/skills. If your stats/skills get higher than the trait "cap", will give you the benefits of that higher stat, but you loose the benefits of that particular trait. This has of curse to be justified in relative reasonable explanations. I don't have any exact examples right now, need my morning coffee. Of course this will probably add to the problem Krazu is describing, unless there are definitive meta-explanations or descriptions ingame. Another thing could be reaction modifiers the the average dirt-farmer who will react negatively to the smart educated guy, but will identify more with the mediocre average Joe, thus be more talkative. Age of Decadence does something interesting here, by separating between different types of speech/diplomatic-related skills. Although I do suspect they still work along the lines of: higher stat=more better results/abillities.

Also there is no point in having speech skill 1-20 if 15, 16 and 17 exactly the same [...], so make it 3-4 levels but each level cost more then one point to make it same costy but to give player more information.

Ok so little SUMMARY of haw it could look like, one of example:

Character creation: Limited one, you can choose trites like diplomacy (you could split it in different speech skill).
You choose diplomacy > your fighting stats are lowered by ~40% (stats like str are set in stone and can't be change in game or in limited way like +1 for doing something really important and it would be gained by magic reasons then).

Why only speech skill? To push most of your decision while playing game not before, because speech skills are useful no matter what patch you will go.

xp, mostly gained by quest (big rewards coopered to killing monsters), you should have enough to improve most important skills other while help doesn't change enough to make game from hard to ridiculous easy. Some example special moves in figh/combos/alchemy/depend on settings.

Reactive world based on guilds/other important group, reputation different for each group (something like AoD). Guilds/other important group are critical to you because most skills/perks can be learned only by them, they keep they secrets and are not willing to give them to you if you bring them 5 apples, or you work for them at day and after that you work for different group. (that would lead to interesting world and decisions, lets say that there would be diplomatic possibility to make two groups in pact, if you succeed you could benefit from knowledge of both)

Armies and other stuff, sure mostly whit diplomatic character when you be important figure you would got assigned guards by guild. You could always hire henchman and when important enough maybe even decide on what your guild members should do (you take to many whit you or select to important places other then your guild > your guild will be likely attacked and taken over by opposite group. They will take over your secrets then).When you got so high you would have those strategic options (also you could decide to attack other guild). You could of course not decide to be guild leader and instead be very important figure, best fighter, somebody without guild would not be able to go further because nobody else is able to do the task (extreme). Or just be the voice of reason and find a way to solve many problems whit diplomacy or make them smaller getting reputation and respect that way (being important and getting power to speak in the name of your guild).[/quote]
 

The_Pope

Scholar
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
844
Kraszu said:
The_Pope said:
Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.

Haw is that different from grind?

You get the same level of reward for the diplomatic option, and the points are awarded for accomplishing the objective (destroy the hive in this case) rather than having to hunt down every single bug, wait for them to respawn and hunt them down again ad infinitum.
 

LCJr.

Erudite
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,469
The_Pope said:
As for items, the main reason for it as an option is that in most RPGs classes boil down to equipment sets. A rogue is a guy who can use a dagger, a knight is a guy who can wear armor etc. May as well cut out the spreadsheet and just use gear. It also has the added benefit of letting players out of a path they don't like much more easily. Gold grind could be prevented by tying items to the story; gothics system of giving out armor for getting to certain ranks in factions is a good example.

But then don't you run the risk of replacing the level grind with "equipment grind"? It wouldn't matter if you had a character with mostly fixed stats and skills when equipment can take them from peasant to demigod.

I watched one of the best Hammer films last night,Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter . I think this lovely little piece of cinema gives an idea what Lumpy is talking about.

The heroes are Captain Kronos master swordsman and his hunchback assistant Prof. Grost. Kronos is already extremely skilled with a blade and Grost is highly intelligent and resourceful so the characters don't "level up". In this film they change the vampire mythos so there is a wide variety of the bloodsuckers.
Hieronymous Grost: You see, doctor, there are as many species of vampire as there are beasts of prey. Their methods and their motive for attack can vary in a hundred different ways.
Captain Kronos: As are the methods of their destruction!
So the characters objectives aren't level grinding and getting phat lewt but in determining who/where is the vampire and how to destroy it.

I'm not saying make a vampire hunting CRPG without levels but the most basic idea could work. You could have a CRPG with an already skilled character in situation were there skills won't do them any good if they blindly rush in. In the case of the movie Kronos' swordfighting skills do him no good without knowing who the vampire is or how to destroy it. A game like this could also shift the emphasis off massive amounts of combat to say gathering knowledge and gaining allies.
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
LCJr. said:
But then don't you run the risk of replacing the level grind with "equipment grind"? It wouldn't matter if you had a character with mostly fixed stats and skills when equipment can take them from peasant to demigod.

That is easy since getting loot is connected to guild (like in gothic) then there is no grind in that, to get best gear you have to advance high enough not kill 131294312 goblins. I also think more about progression from peasant to veteran knight.
 

RGE

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
773
Location
Karlstad, Sweden
LCJr. said:
You could have a CRPG with an already skilled character in situation were there skills won't do them any good if they blindly rush in. In the case of the movie Kronos' swordfighting skills do him no good without knowing who the vampire is or how to destroy it. A game like this could also shift the emphasis off massive amounts of combat to say gathering knowledge and gaining allies.
Oh no, that would just make it a "gather knowledge and allies" grind. :lol:

My beef with levelling is that it messes with my minmaxing. I want to be done with all my minmaxing once I leave the character creation screen, not have to make important "what do I want my character to be able to do"-decisions in the middle of the actual game. I have enough decisions to make anyway, assuming that I'm not playing some kind of old-school RPG where the only thing I need to know is where they are. (Ok, I'd also want to know which damage type hurts them the most.)

Kraszu said:
3)I don't really like speech skills (whit exception of game where there is possibility of finishing game without fighting but I rather predetermine my character then). There is no way of knowing haw much is good it is guessing whit no information, is 15/20 good enough or is 16/20 necessary, game don't inform you if your stat is good or not, was the fight necessary or my stat was not good enough? Should I make more points before talking (like decision before hard fight where you have information about opponent) whit diplomacy skill it is just random you either have good enough or not.
Good point, and I think that shows that even our 'social' RPGs are mostly combat games with some non-combat skills attached to them. Like AD&D, a 'real PnP RPG', used to call the skills "non-combat proficiencies". Pretty much every PnP RPG I've seen seems to either rely heavily upon the player's ability to talk, or exchange that ability for a single roll of a die (or add them together). Meanwhile combat has very detailed rules, even though a diplomacy check might have even greater consequences.

Vampire: the Masquerade PnP RPG had a pretty good way of showing what a set amount of dots in a skill gave your character, but then again, they only had five dots per skill, and those guidelines broke down every time a character had to roll for anything. Luckily I think that there was a rule that said that you didn't have to roll if you were just doing something that the guidelines said you could do with your skill. Not sure if that applied to everything though, and that didn't account for attributies, which may or may not have had similar guidelines.

EDIT:
Dementia Praecox said:
They want to be extreme, like Captain ShepHARD.
That's COMMANDER Shephard! :x
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom