Sarvis
Erudite
bryce777 said:
But then everyone just rolls high strength fighters so they can do the most damage.
-
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.
What do you think makes a game a role-playing game?
- Thread starter Mulciber
- Start date
But then everyone just rolls high strength fighters so they can do the most damage.
bryce777
Erudite
Well, the old rpgs actually required thought.
I dislike immensely that now to get the happy response to conversations, you have conversation skills, for example.
At least you might have had to have some intelligence as to what would go over well before.
Stats used to matter only for fighting, but now games are only about having the right stats to win the game - no skill, strategy, or puzzlesolving required.
I dislike immensely that now to get the happy response to conversations, you have conversation skills, for example.
At least you might have had to have some intelligence as to what would go over well before.
Stats used to matter only for fighting, but now games are only about having the right stats to win the game - no skill, strategy, or puzzlesolving required.
bryce777
Erudite
Sarvis said:
Not if you have other stats that are well balanced and equally of use.
Otaku_Hanzo
Erudite
bryce777 said:
I will agree with you on that for the most part. Games like Diablo 2 and Sacred, while fun, do tend to not be challenging to the noggin' and that's definitely something I miss from the golden days. However, I got a nice little treat last night while playing Dungeon Siege 2 and came across a series of puzzles I had to figure out in order to continue further into this one particular dungeon. Granted, it wasn't super hard to figure out, but it certainly made me pause for a moment and remember days gone by. I wish more games would do that these days. It makes people actually have to stop and think rather than click a response and go on with life.
bryce777
Erudite
Otaku_Hanzo said:
You should try star rangers. A couple of the side quests have crushingly difficult puzzles.
I do really miss games like the wizardries where you could wander for hours trying to fiure out what to do, attacked every step of the way by difficult monsters with delicious experience points.
Sarvis
Erudite
Oddly enough, the console RPGs you guys avoid like the plague often present puzzles in dungeons.
Section8
Cipher
While I wouldn't want an abolishment of visible stats, since there are some games, dungeon crawlers in particular, where they do contribute greatly to the experience, I think EvoG ha some great ideas, and it is an avenue worth exploring.
Now, I think we all agree that an RPG needs some kind of visible indicator of effectiveness for the various facets of it's character system, preferably one that's mostly incontrovertible, since that serves as a barrier to the player's realisation of their character.
But, who says that has to be immediately visible to the character? Not because it's unrealistic to know about every facet of yourself, especially with regard to things you've never attempted, but because making those discoveries would be a fun addition to a RPing environment.
For the following example, I'm going to explore the idea of colour, since it's a fairly universal indicator. As you'd expect, green = good, red = bad.
Let's say character creation starts out as a questionaire, like Jagged Alliance 2, or the Elder Scrolls games if you choose to go that way. Introduce a ratio slider to represent (Direct Questions)
Cryptic Questions), so if you want the ability to define a very specific character mould, you can, and if you want a curious subconscious examination of your character's self, then you can choose that.
There are other methods you could introduce to further define a character through an invisible stat system, such as an educational background, family background, or even, defining a series of childhood/adoloscent events. I'd love to be able to play with a madlib equivalent of Arcanum's backgrounds.
Once you're actually active within the gameworld, your character sheet is mostly greyed out to indicate you don't really know that aspect of yourself. Of course, there are certain aspects that you are aware of as justified by your background. If you've been training as a swordsman, then you have a pretty solid idea of how good you are with one. Everything else, requires that you attempt things and discover yourself.
It's only fair that most of this exploration is done safely, and at the character's own behest, but there also should be an occasional blind challenge, just for the sake of surprise.
Another interesting twist, would be to introduce a dynamic of Ego vs Accurate Self Evaluation. Once again, in the interests of fairness, this should start out neutral, but depending on the way you handle yourself socially, and how you handle self awareness, the dynamic shifts.
And of course, character development is just as important as creation, so you can define progression through active use of skills, you can have the player define themselves through introversion or you can use a combination.
Now, the strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:
Reduces Roll-Play
Provides exploration elements with regard to the character and not just the game world.
Better promotes the integration of character choices and role-play choices.
Allows misconceptions to contribute to the character role.
Reduces character micromanagement.
Innovation and Variety
Weaknesses:
No ability to micromanage characters.
Misconceptions can reduce character effectiveness.
Less effective measurement means less informed decisions
Daunting to new players
Personally, I think it has a lot of potential, in fact one of my own designs revolves around an analogue character system, where stats are represented by sine waves (ie Physical Prowess consists of Strength/Amplitude and Agility/Wavelength) and interactions are not calculated by any simple number crunching, but rather by various graphical curve interactions, such as intersections, unions, etc. The idea was to take RPG pretention to all new levels.
--
I've also finally found myself a copy of Trespasser, and even though I've barely played it, the concerted efforts it takes to do away with any traditional interface are really interesting. Health is represented by a tattoo on the player character's left breast, which can of course be seen by looking downward, ammo counts are voiced, which could be annoying except the main character's voice sounds hot.* All in all it's an exceedingly original approach to a first person "shooter"
* Gah, just found out the voice is Minnie Driver, and now that voice is going to sound considerably less hot. Why did I have to check IMDB? Porqué!?!?!?!?!!?
Now, I think we all agree that an RPG needs some kind of visible indicator of effectiveness for the various facets of it's character system, preferably one that's mostly incontrovertible, since that serves as a barrier to the player's realisation of their character.
But, who says that has to be immediately visible to the character? Not because it's unrealistic to know about every facet of yourself, especially with regard to things you've never attempted, but because making those discoveries would be a fun addition to a RPing environment.
For the following example, I'm going to explore the idea of colour, since it's a fairly universal indicator. As you'd expect, green = good, red = bad.
Let's say character creation starts out as a questionaire, like Jagged Alliance 2, or the Elder Scrolls games if you choose to go that way. Introduce a ratio slider to represent (Direct Questions)
Cryptic Questions), so if you want the ability to define a very specific character mould, you can, and if you want a curious subconscious examination of your character's self, then you can choose that.There are other methods you could introduce to further define a character through an invisible stat system, such as an educational background, family background, or even, defining a series of childhood/adoloscent events. I'd love to be able to play with a madlib equivalent of Arcanum's backgrounds.
Once you're actually active within the gameworld, your character sheet is mostly greyed out to indicate you don't really know that aspect of yourself. Of course, there are certain aspects that you are aware of as justified by your background. If you've been training as a swordsman, then you have a pretty solid idea of how good you are with one. Everything else, requires that you attempt things and discover yourself.
It's only fair that most of this exploration is done safely, and at the character's own behest, but there also should be an occasional blind challenge, just for the sake of surprise.
Another interesting twist, would be to introduce a dynamic of Ego vs Accurate Self Evaluation. Once again, in the interests of fairness, this should start out neutral, but depending on the way you handle yourself socially, and how you handle self awareness, the dynamic shifts.
And of course, character development is just as important as creation, so you can define progression through active use of skills, you can have the player define themselves through introversion or you can use a combination.
Now, the strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:
Reduces Roll-Play
Provides exploration elements with regard to the character and not just the game world.
Better promotes the integration of character choices and role-play choices.
Allows misconceptions to contribute to the character role.
Reduces character micromanagement.
Innovation and Variety
Weaknesses:
No ability to micromanage characters.
Misconceptions can reduce character effectiveness.
Less effective measurement means less informed decisions
Daunting to new players
Personally, I think it has a lot of potential, in fact one of my own designs revolves around an analogue character system, where stats are represented by sine waves (ie Physical Prowess consists of Strength/Amplitude and Agility/Wavelength) and interactions are not calculated by any simple number crunching, but rather by various graphical curve interactions, such as intersections, unions, etc. The idea was to take RPG pretention to all new levels.
--
I've also finally found myself a copy of Trespasser, and even though I've barely played it, the concerted efforts it takes to do away with any traditional interface are really interesting. Health is represented by a tattoo on the player character's left breast, which can of course be seen by looking downward, ammo counts are voiced, which could be annoying except the main character's voice sounds hot.* All in all it's an exceedingly original approach to a first person "shooter"
* Gah, just found out the voice is Minnie Driver, and now that voice is going to sound considerably less hot. Why did I have to check IMDB? Porqué!?!?!?!?!!?
Diogo Ribeiro
Erudite
Oh my God, reportedly I made a strong point. I can hardly believe it but I've seen weirder things.
Having been on vacation mode for the last four days I haven't managed to keep up to date with this, but I just wanted to comment on what has been said. I still maintain, for reasons already discussed, that numbers do not lead into powergaming itself. Ultimately, any system which is based on giving accurate information regarding character power to players will risk being used for powergaming. Players are responsible for how they use and abuse the system, be it qualitative, quantitative, color or particle fx-based.
As a consequence of this, I also believe that game designers (and more specifically CRPG designers) should make the interactive experience on a whole something which has a focus on roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Also, ultimately, I believe it's up for both the CRPG designer and the CRPG player to both adopt a proper roleplaying attitude towards CRPGs instead of trying to reinvent the wheel because of the actions of others. Still, I know this is too idealistic and of course, it's an opinion that neglects one other point of view - that a CRPG, like any other game, is enjoyed individually and as such does not necessarily need to be changed in order to accomodate everyone or a particular direction. However I believe that over the years, and regardless of what opinion is more prevalent, CRPGs have become less like their traditional inspiration to present more and more derivations of their humble beginnings.
The other aspect I wanted to comment has to do with the intrincancies of what it means to play or roleplay a character. Sarvis asked, "Is it somehow a bad thing if Bob picks the claymore because it looks cool, even if it does less damage than the longsword?". I don't think it's bad. However, I do think that given we - 'we' as in our decisions and actions - are what (should) ultimately decide what or who Bob is, that deciding to use something based on its appearance is just as valid as it deciding to use it based on its utility. However, it shouldn't be acceptable to consider only either of these is correct or more correct than the other. Yes, a CHARACTER may prefer to do something, but we are the character. We define it mostly, and this isn't achieved by stepping closer or further away from something like statistics. In the previous case, I think either decision can be valid under a roleplaying perspective - and again, this goes back to the belief that there should be a distinction between role and roll made by players rather than systems which want to force players to have a more limited way of perceiving their character's abilities.
As for the system and weapon values being discussed by EvoG, weapons in shooters don't need to display numerical information regarding their hit value, and enemies don't need to display numerical information about their health status. This seems to be an approximation to what he wanted to achieve in a system using less (or no) numbers. This isn't to say the same or similar systems can't work for a CRPG or variation of it (ie, System Shock 2, Deus Ex), but this lack of information risks presenting an unintuitive experience. It's exciting to not know how much more damage the boss at the end of the stage can take, but am I using an adequate weapon? Would he go down faster with the PK Bolter or the WP Blaster? I could spend 20 minutes making my character dance to the tune of wire-fu that would make the Wachowski brothers envious, and it could just be that after all the FN Breaker was the better weapon. For the last 20 minutes, I've spent all the ammo I had for the 3 weapons without realizing which one was better suited for the task. Worse than that, since the game has enemies with varying resistances and weaknesses, and I have no accurate means of discerning which weapon is the best suited one for each type of enemy, I have to waste more ammo for all the weapons I have (which can range from anything between 5 to 130) this just leads to more aggravation.
For the most part, my biggest complaint against this kind of system is, as I've said time and again, the lack of intuitive information provided to the player which in some cases can make for some frustrating experiences. You could counterargue with the example of a standard FPS which provides the experience you want, but a standard FPS usually combines some other factors to make it a more successful experience, such as a small amount of weapons to use; weapons which are based on or obviously analogous with weapons in the real world (and as such give off a good idea of their damage outputs); enemies which rarely need much brain power or firepower to be taken down; and a damage model which is much more reactive to individual weapon use than what you see in yon equally standard RPG with a large arsenal of weapons.
But hey, if you can make something which meets your vision for a numberless system, I wish you luck and would honestly like to see it.
Having been on vacation mode for the last four days I haven't managed to keep up to date with this, but I just wanted to comment on what has been said. I still maintain, for reasons already discussed, that numbers do not lead into powergaming itself. Ultimately, any system which is based on giving accurate information regarding character power to players will risk being used for powergaming. Players are responsible for how they use and abuse the system, be it qualitative, quantitative, color or particle fx-based.
As a consequence of this, I also believe that game designers (and more specifically CRPG designers) should make the interactive experience on a whole something which has a focus on roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Also, ultimately, I believe it's up for both the CRPG designer and the CRPG player to both adopt a proper roleplaying attitude towards CRPGs instead of trying to reinvent the wheel because of the actions of others. Still, I know this is too idealistic and of course, it's an opinion that neglects one other point of view - that a CRPG, like any other game, is enjoyed individually and as such does not necessarily need to be changed in order to accomodate everyone or a particular direction. However I believe that over the years, and regardless of what opinion is more prevalent, CRPGs have become less like their traditional inspiration to present more and more derivations of their humble beginnings.
The other aspect I wanted to comment has to do with the intrincancies of what it means to play or roleplay a character. Sarvis asked, "Is it somehow a bad thing if Bob picks the claymore because it looks cool, even if it does less damage than the longsword?". I don't think it's bad. However, I do think that given we - 'we' as in our decisions and actions - are what (should) ultimately decide what or who Bob is, that deciding to use something based on its appearance is just as valid as it deciding to use it based on its utility. However, it shouldn't be acceptable to consider only either of these is correct or more correct than the other. Yes, a CHARACTER may prefer to do something, but we are the character. We define it mostly, and this isn't achieved by stepping closer or further away from something like statistics. In the previous case, I think either decision can be valid under a roleplaying perspective - and again, this goes back to the belief that there should be a distinction between role and roll made by players rather than systems which want to force players to have a more limited way of perceiving their character's abilities.
As for the system and weapon values being discussed by EvoG, weapons in shooters don't need to display numerical information regarding their hit value, and enemies don't need to display numerical information about their health status. This seems to be an approximation to what he wanted to achieve in a system using less (or no) numbers. This isn't to say the same or similar systems can't work for a CRPG or variation of it (ie, System Shock 2, Deus Ex), but this lack of information risks presenting an unintuitive experience. It's exciting to not know how much more damage the boss at the end of the stage can take, but am I using an adequate weapon? Would he go down faster with the PK Bolter or the WP Blaster? I could spend 20 minutes making my character dance to the tune of wire-fu that would make the Wachowski brothers envious, and it could just be that after all the FN Breaker was the better weapon. For the last 20 minutes, I've spent all the ammo I had for the 3 weapons without realizing which one was better suited for the task. Worse than that, since the game has enemies with varying resistances and weaknesses, and I have no accurate means of discerning which weapon is the best suited one for each type of enemy, I have to waste more ammo for all the weapons I have (which can range from anything between 5 to 130) this just leads to more aggravation.
For the most part, my biggest complaint against this kind of system is, as I've said time and again, the lack of intuitive information provided to the player which in some cases can make for some frustrating experiences. You could counterargue with the example of a standard FPS which provides the experience you want, but a standard FPS usually combines some other factors to make it a more successful experience, such as a small amount of weapons to use; weapons which are based on or obviously analogous with weapons in the real world (and as such give off a good idea of their damage outputs); enemies which rarely need much brain power or firepower to be taken down; and a damage model which is much more reactive to individual weapon use than what you see in yon equally standard RPG with a large arsenal of weapons.
But hey, if you can make something which meets your vision for a numberless system, I wish you luck and would honestly like to see it.
bryce777
Erudite
I dont think reducing stats is the answer, but making the game less braindead to go through is.
What console games I have seen are awful and I just have no interest in them, and it would take a lot to change my mind.
What console games I have seen are awful and I just have no interest in them, and it would take a lot to change my mind.
Great posts, and now, where to continue!
Section8, you clearly see exactly what I see, so other than agreeing with every point, I'll simply say yes, and I'd personally be interested in any systems you've thought of. I lot of what I was considering was based on the "adventure game" mould, which is VERY character-centric since of course you're playing an established character. Remove that 'specific' character, introduce a method of creating your own of course within reason given the finite scope of organic systems like that, then, add in an extensive ability to interact with the gameworld based on choice rather than designer hand-holding and introduce an ambiguous combat system, based on danger and opportunity, not on statistics.
To mention combat in brief, what I was formulating was the concept of expressing an idea of action, rather than mathematical one. This makes decisions more thrilling.(This is turn-based) You're in a doorway, and want to run across to another building, but the street is being covered by a raider with a rifle. Instead of expending AP in the most efficent way, I was proposing a system, again based on hidden statistics, where you choose to run to the other building. You dont track his path every step of the way, you simply click on the spot you want him to run to. It may be outside of his reach within the time he may be given to do it, so several things will happen. The computer (hidden) will determine how long it will take to make it based on how fast or slow the player wants to do it. If the player wants to run as fast as possible in a mad panic, the computer might even check to see if your character is agile or strong enough to do it. Being atheletic, and the task not terribly difficult, you're confident you can make it. The computer will then determine, not aritificially that the NPC WILL be able to attack, but first see if the NPC was prepared/paying attention. He might've been distracted or nervous. Since the amount of time it will take to run to the next building is longer than you have availble in your turn, the NPC will have an opportunity to strike, again assuming he succeeds the check to see if he was surprised or not. He may or may not be able to fire, and you being atheletic plus running as fast as you are have a very good chance of not getting pinged.
Now many might say this is too ambiguous, but then again, you wanted to take that risk. Perhaps you could've just ran to an obstacle between your building and the goal building. Perhaps you just have to find another solution to this problem, that running to the doorway, even though its ENTIRELY possible to do, just might be too risky. Giving the player a lot of opportunity to interact with their environment and NPCs(bad guys) can go a long way to eliminating the need for stats, and go a long way to encourage players to look at all their options. That excitement and unknown presents itself. You discover your characters full strengths and weaknesses based on experimentation and rationale. You knew in this case you were a strong character who was atheletic. You knew the bad guy was far enough away that he probably would miss in a snap shot situation. You felt good that teh building wasn't TOO far away. You make these decisions based emperically on the world, not on stats.
Dont take this brainstorm as THE way to do it, its just an example. A way to mix up ideas and get us thinking.
Section8, you clearly see exactly what I see, so other than agreeing with every point, I'll simply say yes, and I'd personally be interested in any systems you've thought of. I lot of what I was considering was based on the "adventure game" mould, which is VERY character-centric since of course you're playing an established character. Remove that 'specific' character, introduce a method of creating your own of course within reason given the finite scope of organic systems like that, then, add in an extensive ability to interact with the gameworld based on choice rather than designer hand-holding and introduce an ambiguous combat system, based on danger and opportunity, not on statistics.
To mention combat in brief, what I was formulating was the concept of expressing an idea of action, rather than mathematical one. This makes decisions more thrilling.(This is turn-based) You're in a doorway, and want to run across to another building, but the street is being covered by a raider with a rifle. Instead of expending AP in the most efficent way, I was proposing a system, again based on hidden statistics, where you choose to run to the other building. You dont track his path every step of the way, you simply click on the spot you want him to run to. It may be outside of his reach within the time he may be given to do it, so several things will happen. The computer (hidden) will determine how long it will take to make it based on how fast or slow the player wants to do it. If the player wants to run as fast as possible in a mad panic, the computer might even check to see if your character is agile or strong enough to do it. Being atheletic, and the task not terribly difficult, you're confident you can make it. The computer will then determine, not aritificially that the NPC WILL be able to attack, but first see if the NPC was prepared/paying attention. He might've been distracted or nervous. Since the amount of time it will take to run to the next building is longer than you have availble in your turn, the NPC will have an opportunity to strike, again assuming he succeeds the check to see if he was surprised or not. He may or may not be able to fire, and you being atheletic plus running as fast as you are have a very good chance of not getting pinged.
Now many might say this is too ambiguous, but then again, you wanted to take that risk. Perhaps you could've just ran to an obstacle between your building and the goal building. Perhaps you just have to find another solution to this problem, that running to the doorway, even though its ENTIRELY possible to do, just might be too risky. Giving the player a lot of opportunity to interact with their environment and NPCs(bad guys) can go a long way to eliminating the need for stats, and go a long way to encourage players to look at all their options. That excitement and unknown presents itself. You discover your characters full strengths and weaknesses based on experimentation and rationale. You knew in this case you were a strong character who was atheletic. You knew the bad guy was far enough away that he probably would miss in a snap shot situation. You felt good that teh building wasn't TOO far away. You make these decisions based emperically on the world, not on stats.
Dont take this brainstorm as THE way to do it, its just an example. A way to mix up ideas and get us thinking.
I'm breaking up my last post since I inadvertently submitted it...its out there, so I dont want anything to get missed.
Roleplayer, the one thing you have to consider in an ambiguous system is the feedback the player gets from other sources. If you're using a weaker weapon on a boss creature, it should zing off and do no damage. Sparks, richocet sound...the fact that the boss creature is not recoiling. On the filp side(and I'm a HUGE proponent of this) but the NPCs should be ENTIRELY reactive to what you are doing to them successfully, even moreso than not. If you shoot him with a pea shooter and it zings off, well logic dictates you hit him harder (why use the weaker weapon in the first place!?). If you smack him with something more powerful, and he 'feels' it, by seeing flesh tear off, roar of pain and stumbling back, looking at the wound then back to you surprised, you know you hurt him. All of a sudden he's not charging you...that shit really hurt, so he reaches into his repertoire of abilities, decides to fall back, perhaps calling in some help or using a ranged weapon. If he has none, perhaps he falls back to terrain that can help conceal him from your ranged attacks. You're fighting a SMART boss, not one that simply has more health and does more damage. THIS is more exciting than the endless attrition of "you hit me I hit you".
This all boils down to designing for the system, not square-pegging the system into the round-hole design. If things change, does this make them less fun? If you have a post apoc game world, with all the bold flavor and culture and mythos of the genre, turn-based combat thats visceral and violent and a world full of high interaction density and choice, isn't that the leading edge of RPG rather than if we have stats or not? I'm in a position to experiment, on something here that probably would NEVER be given thought by a major developer simply because its not familiar. We can see right now that many people dislike it because its not familiar, and these xenophobic tendancies stifle creativity as much as we all feel mass-market game development does. Its one thing to want the old ways, and another to want more of what worked and experiment more with what may actually be very cool.
If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but shit we tried it. Then I'll go back, gut the system and toss in stats and be done with it. :D
Roleplayer, the one thing you have to consider in an ambiguous system is the feedback the player gets from other sources. If you're using a weaker weapon on a boss creature, it should zing off and do no damage. Sparks, richocet sound...the fact that the boss creature is not recoiling. On the filp side(and I'm a HUGE proponent of this) but the NPCs should be ENTIRELY reactive to what you are doing to them successfully, even moreso than not. If you shoot him with a pea shooter and it zings off, well logic dictates you hit him harder (why use the weaker weapon in the first place!?). If you smack him with something more powerful, and he 'feels' it, by seeing flesh tear off, roar of pain and stumbling back, looking at the wound then back to you surprised, you know you hurt him. All of a sudden he's not charging you...that shit really hurt, so he reaches into his repertoire of abilities, decides to fall back, perhaps calling in some help or using a ranged weapon. If he has none, perhaps he falls back to terrain that can help conceal him from your ranged attacks. You're fighting a SMART boss, not one that simply has more health and does more damage. THIS is more exciting than the endless attrition of "you hit me I hit you".
This all boils down to designing for the system, not square-pegging the system into the round-hole design. If things change, does this make them less fun? If you have a post apoc game world, with all the bold flavor and culture and mythos of the genre, turn-based combat thats visceral and violent and a world full of high interaction density and choice, isn't that the leading edge of RPG rather than if we have stats or not? I'm in a position to experiment, on something here that probably would NEVER be given thought by a major developer simply because its not familiar. We can see right now that many people dislike it because its not familiar, and these xenophobic tendancies stifle creativity as much as we all feel mass-market game development does. Its one thing to want the old ways, and another to want more of what worked and experiment more with what may actually be very cool.
If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but shit we tried it. Then I'll go back, gut the system and toss in stats and be done with it. :D
bryce777
Erudite
I don't think hiding things is the answer. The answer is to make a system which is balanced and makes sense.
If you have a system where this is the case, then whatever decisions the character makes should not be able to break the system. Such as some of the exploits with aoo and spring attack in dnd 3.5 leading to virtual invulnerability.
The claymore should make sense in certain cases, and not in others. There should ultimately be a strategy to your character build, and building a character well being called powergaming is sort of ridiculous...in a balanced system, at least.
Something like a character who is very good at melee against large number of enemies, or very good as an opportunistic fighter should be thing that make sense - for instance in betrayal at krondor, giving james he fastmoving character use the low damage but always hit rapier, poisoning it, and having him poison a new enemy each round in order to diminish their ability to fight is a character strategy that is brutally effective and makes sense, and should be rewarded. Having everyone just whack away with their swords is a bad strategy and should fail....
Maybe a claymore is THE weapon for a barbarian due to some special feat you can get at the 9th level, and until then it is only average, but for a thieflike character the claymore may make no sense at all. As for choosing it because it looks cool, sure a thief or magic user could do so, but they would not have the proper abilities to use it as effectively as some other weapons they might use.
If you have a system where this is the case, then whatever decisions the character makes should not be able to break the system. Such as some of the exploits with aoo and spring attack in dnd 3.5 leading to virtual invulnerability.
The claymore should make sense in certain cases, and not in others. There should ultimately be a strategy to your character build, and building a character well being called powergaming is sort of ridiculous...in a balanced system, at least.
Something like a character who is very good at melee against large number of enemies, or very good as an opportunistic fighter should be thing that make sense - for instance in betrayal at krondor, giving james he fastmoving character use the low damage but always hit rapier, poisoning it, and having him poison a new enemy each round in order to diminish their ability to fight is a character strategy that is brutally effective and makes sense, and should be rewarded. Having everyone just whack away with their swords is a bad strategy and should fail....
Maybe a claymore is THE weapon for a barbarian due to some special feat you can get at the 9th level, and until then it is only average, but for a thieflike character the claymore may make no sense at all. As for choosing it because it looks cool, sure a thief or magic user could do so, but they would not have the proper abilities to use it as effectively as some other weapons they might use.
Well first off, we're not simply proposing 'hiding' stats, but changing the system where stats are not the focus, and this DOES require a balanced system, sure, like any game. The goal is ambiguous character with non-ambiguous gameplay. Non-ambiguous gameplay means the world reacting to your actions are black and white. You must never make a players ACTIONS ambiguous. Black and White suffered from this. The recently released sequel fixed this by making the thoughts of your creature visible, so WHAT you were punishing for or rewarding for is NOT ambiguous.
As for weapons, you are absolutely right. Let me ask you, have you every hefted a real sword, or even any blunt object, and preferred one to the other? Now did you have a friend who said he preferred the one you DIDN'T chose? Do you think you're more effective holding and swinging the object you chose because it 'felt' better, more secure in your hands? Your friend perhaps felt the other object felt more secure in HIS hands?
Does one knife really injure or kill someone MORE than another? Injure sure, but kill? No. And why does the one knife injure more than another? Because it has 12 - 18 damage vs. 4 - 8 damage? Or is it because the one knife is longer, so it cuts deeper, or has a serrated edge to tear at the meaty flesh? Or as you said, because it is lined with poison. Those are more meaningful than "2 more points of damage".
We want to deemphasize combat by the numbers, and more by the characters skill and strategy or tactics used. All weapons hurt, and some work better in some situations and with certain people. All weapons kill so I think combat should feel dangerous and exciting, and not about massive HP and equally massive damage, and more about skill beating out skill.
As for weapons, you are absolutely right. Let me ask you, have you every hefted a real sword, or even any blunt object, and preferred one to the other? Now did you have a friend who said he preferred the one you DIDN'T chose? Do you think you're more effective holding and swinging the object you chose because it 'felt' better, more secure in your hands? Your friend perhaps felt the other object felt more secure in HIS hands?
Does one knife really injure or kill someone MORE than another? Injure sure, but kill? No. And why does the one knife injure more than another? Because it has 12 - 18 damage vs. 4 - 8 damage? Or is it because the one knife is longer, so it cuts deeper, or has a serrated edge to tear at the meaty flesh? Or as you said, because it is lined with poison. Those are more meaningful than "2 more points of damage".
We want to deemphasize combat by the numbers, and more by the characters skill and strategy or tactics used. All weapons hurt, and some work better in some situations and with certain people. All weapons kill so I think combat should feel dangerous and exciting, and not about massive HP and equally massive damage, and more about skill beating out skill.
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
EvoG said:
This is one of the most important things in any game. I want to be in control, not just mashing buttons to see what they do.
kingcomrade said:
Can't agree more. Seriously. Every player action MUST have clear and definable reaction from the game and/or gameworld so the player can formulate strategies based on hard set and consistent rules.
Do you realise I spent the whole day on this thread and not doing any work King? WTF?! :D :shock:
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
It's okay, I had classes yesterday but I stayed home browsing this forum and reading Anvil by Nicolas Van Pallandt instead.
Of course, to pass these classes all I have to do is not choke on my own drool. Political Science? No, it's "amrica has a government lol it has 3 branches" then someone goes, "WAIT WAIT, can you repeat that?! How many?!"
Of course, to pass these classes all I have to do is not choke on my own drool. Political Science? No, it's "amrica has a government lol it has 3 branches" then someone goes, "WAIT WAIT, can you repeat that?! How many?!"
Thats awful. I hate stupid people more than you can imagine, then though to be forced to sit through it...I feel for you...main reason why I skipped college...well that and I got into the games industry early. 
What do you think of all we've talked about?(aside from your last comment)
What do you think of all we've talked about?(aside from your last comment)
TheGreatGodPan
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,762
For a good example of an adventure game with a gun see Pleurghburg: Dark Ages, which is both great and free.
Your getting rid of stats idea sounds a lot like a Drama system.
Your getting rid of stats idea sounds a lot like a Drama system.
MINIGUNWIELDER
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 604
play grandia there are some dungeons that are one big puzzleSarvis said:
MINIGUNWIELDER
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 604
the teachers have to wait for the stupid people to switch classes... then the conditioning begins :twisted: then after theyve brainwashed the teachers tell the students how to lie to a lie detector test without being exposed....kingcomrade said:
or dubya and daddy have destroyed education
either way your screwed because you didnt go to princeton or peddy(high school)
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
Yeah my political science teacher comes in and give a brief 10 minute lecture on why Republicans are Hitler and Bush is a Nazi, every class. It's actually a bit more interesting, as this is Texas, so a few students like to argue with him.
About the topic. I actually prefer having all of the numbers at hand. I like knowing exactly what my character is capable of.
About the topic. I actually prefer having all of the numbers at hand. I like knowing exactly what my character is capable of.
MINIGUNWIELDER
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 604
more like general lee(removed 20000 black voters from the polls)kingcomrade said:
I'd hate to scare away people due to this little friendly OT, so I'll ask, King, do prefer numbers "just cuz" or do you have more of a reason, perhaps why what we're suggesting wouldn't be for you?
How would you know you wouldn't like something fresh, more, even if just for a change of pace?
What I'm interested in is less a poll of yes or no, but rather insight as to why something like this could or could not work. Less about simple opinion and more about the tangibles of your opinion.
All in all, the numbers are arbitary. Why is it important to know down to the numerical value that you're X good? Why isn't enough to know you're capable with a gun or an excellent marksman? Once we separate ourselves from these numbers, the more we can start looking more at the context of a situation and the gameworld. Perhaps with the ambiguity of your ability, you may spend more time assessing a combat situation because there's always that element of real danger, rather than just diving right into a battle headlong because "statistically you have a high probability of survival, hence, lots of Xp and loot". If the game world can give you more information and more interaction, why not use that in creative ways, allowing then for the player to be creative in his approaches to even combat outside of just "you shoot, I shoot"?
How would you know you wouldn't like something fresh, more, even if just for a change of pace?
What I'm interested in is less a poll of yes or no, but rather insight as to why something like this could or could not work. Less about simple opinion and more about the tangibles of your opinion.
All in all, the numbers are arbitary. Why is it important to know down to the numerical value that you're X good? Why isn't enough to know you're capable with a gun or an excellent marksman? Once we separate ourselves from these numbers, the more we can start looking more at the context of a situation and the gameworld. Perhaps with the ambiguity of your ability, you may spend more time assessing a combat situation because there's always that element of real danger, rather than just diving right into a battle headlong because "statistically you have a high probability of survival, hence, lots of Xp and loot". If the game world can give you more information and more interaction, why not use that in creative ways, allowing then for the player to be creative in his approaches to even combat outside of just "you shoot, I shoot"?
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.