What do you think makes a game a role-playing game?

[EvoG]

Also, just so there's even less confusion, we're not proposing that you are NOT a hero, or heroic. This has nothing to do with making the game more difficult either, but rather driving the focus away from stats and more towards playing the role your character and reacting to the world and events in a more organic, thoughtful way. Statistics reduce all those elements to math, and if the math says you can do it, you can. This is why character sheets become the focus, and not the adventuring.

Its funny, someone 30 years ago decided that THIS is how we will play tabletop fantasy wargames, adapted it to a narrative driven gameplay(RPG's) and apparently mandated that THIS is how these kinds of games will be played forever on out.

If a system can be invented by someone soley, why the aversion to something different? Why is this 'something' new so impossible to fathom?

 

[Dhruin]

I can agree with the some of the points you are making but I find it difficult to see an enjoyable computer game as a result. It seems to me the level of feedback from various in-game sources needs to be extraordinary for this to work and I'm not convinced it's simpler or better than simply presenting the underlying numbers. It's an interesting thought experiment but is it a good game?

As a side point, the reality (whether "we" like it or not) is that many players buy RPGs to powergame, so excluding this as a form of play altogether, as opposed to minimising the relevance through design, might ultimately hurt prospective sales.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? If I pick up a katana in real life, or a claymore in real life I don't really know which one works better. In fact it's a common subject of debate as to how effective a katana really is! The fact is that in real life many quantities are unknown to us, so hiding those numbers in a game may provide more realism along with moving players away from numerical gaming. Is it somehow a bad thing if Bob picks the claymore because it looks cool, even if it does less damage than the longsword?

In real life, they both work equally as well. You get a decent hit from a katana or a claymore, you die.

If you want a numbers based system closer to reality, have strength represented by the number of pounds a character can bench press. Have his intelligence represented by his IQ or SAT score. Have his stamina measured by his time to finish a marathon. Have his dexterity measured by his reaction time in a quarter mile race.

Nearly all aspects of a CRPG's attribute system can be measured in real life. We know how tall we are. We know how much we weigh. We know how old we are. If we get a physical, we have lots of numbers telling us how healthy this or that is. There's a reason all these things, in real life, are measured by numbers. It's because numbers are something everyone can relate to in every country and in every culture. There's no such thing as a person who is capable of playing a CRPG that doesn't know what numbers are.

 

[EvoG]

I can agree with the some of the points you are making but I find it difficult to see an enjoyable computer game as a result.

Why? I'm not removing anything from the genre, and I'm not simplifying it. I'm not reducing the importance of combat at all and I'm not reducing the number of skills. As you said below, I'd hate to think that all this time, the ONLY thing people were actually interested in was their character stats.

It seems to me the level of feedback from various in-game sources needs to be extraordinary for this to work and I'm not convinced it's simpler or better than simply presenting the underlying numbers. It's an interesting thought experiment but is it a good game?

It was expressed elsewhere, I believe by Ismaul and of course myself briefly, that you could use animation and other visual elements in place of simply numeric display. This IS a lot more work, but only a tiny part of what I'm proposing. Mainly because you WILL have a character sheet to know what your characters abilities are, so an extradordinary amount of animations is not necessary.

As a side point, the reality (whether "we" like it or not) is that many players buy RPGs to powergame, so excluding this as a form of play altogether, as opposed to minimising the relevance through design, might ultimately hurt prospective sales.

Well here is how I'm looking at it, and perhaps I'm giving too much credit to the fanbase. The goal would be to take Fallout, remove the numbers with an ambiguous character system, and increase the amount of interactions and the density of interactions per element. Choice would not only be important simply for the nature of choice, but MAKING those choices will be based on context rather than mathematics. As I said above in my combat examples, perhaps you'll think twice before jumping into every fight because you are dealing with several unknowns. Go ahead and fight all you want, that doesnt' mean you're going to immediately die, it just means the results are more subtle. The danger more palpable. The combat is no less visceral or violent. Tons of animation for combat and daeth and dismemberment. I certainly think this can be satisfying withtout numbers floating around.

Tossing combat aside for a moment, where else do you REALLY need numbers? Do you need to know how good you are at picking locks down to the digit? You either can pick the door or not. Thats it. So what if you knew you were 'Reasonably Skilled' or 42%? At least reasonably skilled implies that you're good but can improve, where the 42% implies that perhaps you simply need 45% to pick the lock. Would those 3 points really be that significant? Thats where obsessing over stats begins.

Its about changing the way the player perceives the game and ideally has him become more intimate with the aspects of playing his character rather than reducing the character to a series of soulless numbers. Again, not changing anything fun and functional about choices you can make in the game or the amount of combat you may or may not engage in, just the way information is presented, and hopefully, encouraging some compelling roleplaying, focusing on character story along side game story.

As of yet, I haven't received one solid reason why there MUST be numbers other than "just because", or "thats how its done" or "you're retarded Steve" or "because otherwise the game would suck". These aren't informative. WHY do you need numbers? Every game OTHER than RPG's do without, and all I've been hearing from people over the years is how roleplaying is about character and about story and about choice. I keep hearing how there should be options to avoid combat altogether, yet combat is FOCAL in every discussion about RPG's. Combat DEFINES the RPG entirely. Sure one or two of you can step up and say it doesn't, but generally yes it does.

Mind you I'm not defending this 'concept' as much as I'm arguing for some lateral thinking. Take what we have and try some new stuff. Why would anyone calling themselves a gamer be so against this? What if its the coolest fucking thing you ever experienced because it had high production value and interesting presentation? Sure this all remains to be seen, but I just want people to stop and think, "perhaps it may not suck" before dismissing it completely, "just cuz".


Cheers

 

[Sarvis]

In real life, they both work equally as well. You get a decent hit from a katana or a claymore, you die.

I suspect that's a vast oversimplification. In fact, if you're fighting an opponent in platemail the katana would actually be nearly useless!

If you want a numbers based system closer to reality, have strength represented by the number of pounds a character can bench press. Have his intelligence represented by his IQ or SAT score. Have his stamina measured by his time to finish a marathon. Have his dexterity measured by his reaction time in a quarter mile race.

Nearly all aspects of a CRPG's attribute system can be measured in real life. We know how tall we are. We know how much we weigh. We know how old we are. If we get a physical, we have lots of numbers telling us how healthy this or that is. There's a reason all these things, in real life, are measured by numbers. It's because numbers are something everyone can relate to in every country and in every culture. There's no such thing as a person who is capable of playing a CRPG that doesn't know what numbers are.

Why bench press? Sure it's a common means of comparison, but does a simple bench press score give everything that a "strength" score gives? It just means you can bench press, and a guy who goes to the gym every day and does bench presses will do great. He might suck at the military press though, or not be able to do a pullup.

Does a marathon really give a good idea of his stamina? Do you think a marathon runner could take as many punches as a boxer? Do you think a boxer could run a longer marathon than a runner?

The point here is that those are all end results of stats rather than stats themselves. You can benchpress or arm curl X lbs because you have Y strength. You can take Z punches and run P miles because you have M constitution.

Not to mention that you really only have access to those numbers if you actively participate in doing those things. I have no idea how much I can bench, because I haven't even tried since college, and since most RPG settings are in fantasy worlds they don't really have Gold's Gym around so they can bench all the time.

 

[Sarvis]

but I just want people to stop and think, "perhaps it may not suck" before dismissing it completely, "just cuz".

You do realize this is the Codex, right?

 

[Atrokkus]

Tossing combat aside for a moment, where else do you REALLY need numbers? Do you need to know how good you are at picking locks down to the digit? You either can pick the door or not. Thats it. So what if you knew you were 'Reasonably Skilled' or 42%? At least reasonably skilled implies that you're good but can improve, where the 42% implies that perhaps you simply need 45% to pick the lock. Would those 3 points really be that significant? Thats where obsessing over stats begins.

Steve, I like the idea of hiding the numbers (i have already elaborated my view a page back), but you seem to propose that the player still gets the stat-sheet and sees what he's good at in those sentences (skilled, etc) instead of raw numbers. I think this approach is just the same as with numbers, really.

What I'm thinking about is doing away with stat-sheet altogether, be it verbal or numerical. That is, the player (not the character) will see only the effects and symptoms, not casues and diagnosis. He'll see his character's height when he looks at him, he'll see his strength when he actually *does* something that may test it, or just see the muscles. But he never sees the "Strong" or "Tall" line in some charsheet.

Moreoever, I like the concept of abstracting the character generation. That is, the player does not assign skill/stat points himself, he just selects the general patterns. Say, I want an intelllectual type, small-framed, european, etc etc. I just complete some kind of a quesionaire, upon the results of which the character is then generated, with most of the stats being randomized (not a fixed pattern), and of course they will never be shown to me. Or the game could give me (the player) an option to generate a totally random character - that is, you will never know the general pattern of your character until you actually start playing -- that's very realistic, because in RL you can't figure out what you are good at untill you try.

I've already elaborated on what the player *will* see: the body conditions in detail, in much more detail than shown in any existing RPG.

The first hardest thing here is to make a stat-improving system properly, and that's a problem in many games, even with standart numerical stat-system.

The second hardest is probably making the symptomatic display of your character, the analysis of his bodily and mental conditions, but without diggin in his brain and extracting all the knowledge he has -- by the way, that's another caveat of the whole roleplaying genre, but that's irrelevant in our current discussion.

Yes, it might draw away some number-crunching munchkins, and make some seasoned roleplayers feel uneasy in this new situation, but it will in no way impede their roleplaying. Quite the opposite, actually, as it'll make them focus more on it.

That's the system I'd LOVE to see in an RPG.

 

[kingcomrade]

evrywun nos katanas r bettar lol there azn an all teh things azn r bettar

Actually, I could tell you which would work better, but it depends on what you are trying to do. Swords aren't all that complicated. They are just long, sharp pieces of metal. Sure katanas were extra-super-duper sharp and durable, but so what? Normal swords are sharp enough, and a whole lot cheaper than katanas.
We just like to fetishize things foreign.

Katanas are a strange weapon, but it comes from a culture that had ritualized combat (almost all cultures developed some form of ritualized warfare. The reason the West is almost categorically superior at warmaking, and has been since Hellenic times, is because the Western way of war was not ritualistic but abstract
(as in, say, an Aztec would say: What's the best to take prisoners? This is because to his culture, warmaking wasn't war so much as organized captive taking. Blunt objects was the answer, of course. That's why the Aztecs fought with mancatchers and blunt objects, because they fought wars for captives to sacrifice and enslave and whatnot.

A Westerner would say: What is the best way to defeat this man so that I can impose my will upon him? Have you ever watched a war about, say, the War for Independence, and watched the soldiers line up to shoot at each other, and asked, "Why do they fight like that?" Simply because it was the most efficient way to fight.)

Wow that went off on a tangent. But anyways, a two-handed, single edged, short, slashing sword, meant for use by a footman, would not fit in with a culture that didn't fight it's wars with ritualized duels. (I'm speaking of samurai, the guys who actually used katanas, not the peasants with spears). Otherwise a different kind of weapon would be far more appropriate and useful.
That's why the only people who really used two-handed slashing weapons on foot were disorganized mobs of barbarians. Well-ordered and regimented soldiers in Western history have almost always used stabbing weapons in their infantry, be they shortswords or pikes. Hell, you could probably consider guns a stabbing weapon. If you are standing in formation, which was the Western hallmark of battle, you don't have any room to swing around katanas or longswords.
Where slashing footman's weapons like a katana might be really useful is in a situation like a duel or small group action which resembles a large number of duels.
Slashing weapons in major battles, on the other hand, have almost always only been really useful in the hands of cavalry, who have the room to swing and the height to put a lot of force on their downward slash.

That's why if you look up broadsword or longsword on wikipedia or such, you get descriptions of cavalry blades. That's what they were. It's just, longer swords LOOK cooler, so fantasy imagery prefers it.

also:
if you're fighting a guy in plate mail, a claymore isn't going to be much better, because in that instance you are really using your sword as a club. Swords aren't designed to be clubs.

 

[EvoG]

Steve, I like the idea of hiding the numbers (i have already elaborated my view a page back), but you seem to propose that the player still gets the stat-sheet and sees what he's good at in those sentences (skilled, etc) instead of raw numbers. I think this approach is just the same as with numbers, really.

You're absolutely right, I perhaps was being too diplomatic, meeting somewhere in the middle. You want to be more agressive with this... :twisted:

What I'm thinking about is doing away with stat-sheet altogether, be it verbal or numerical. That is, the player (not the character) will see only the effects and symptoms, not casues and diagnosis. He'll see his character's height when he looks at him, he'll see his strength when he actually *does* something that may test it, or just see the muscles. But he never sees the "Strong" or "Tall" line in some charsheet.

Dare I say it...GTA San Andreas did this more or less...the idea that you start off COMPLETELY blank and develop naturally through gameplay, perhaps with latent abilities appearing through character exploration...you know you shouldn't be suggesting this to me because I believe in it VERY strongly...

Moreoever, I like the concept of abstracting the character generation. That is, the player does not assign skill/stat points himself, he just selects the general patterns. Say, I want an intelllectual type, small-framed, european, etc etc. I just complete some kind of a quesionaire, upon the results of which the character is then generated, with most of the stats being randomized (not a fixed pattern), and of course they will never be shown to me. Or the game could give me (the player) an option to generate a totally random character - that is, you will never know the general pattern of your character until you actually start playing -- that's very realistic, because in RL you can't figure out what you are good at untill you try.

I just had this conversation tonight on the phone regarding character generation with a narrative method, very similar to what you just described.

I've already elaborated on what the player *will* see: the body conditions in detail, in much more detail than shown in any existing RPG.

The first hardest thing here is to make a stat-improving system properly, and that's a problem in many games, even with standart numerical stat-system.

The second hardest is probably making the symptomatic display of your character, the analysis of his bodily and mental conditions, but without diggin in his brain and extracting all the knowledge he has -- by the way, that's another caveat of the whole roleplaying genre, but that's irrelevant in our current discussion.

Yes, it might draw away some number-crunching munchkins, and make some seasoned roleplayers feel uneasy in this new situation, but it will in no way impede their roleplaying. Quite the opposite, actually, as it'll make them focus more on it.

That's the system I'd LOVE to see in an RPG.

Me too...dare we tread the pagan ground!? Seriously though, the above challenges are certainly not out of reach, as many games of varying genres have done all of what you wrote in some form or fashion, perhaps just not in one game. Your more extreme proposal is dangerously interesting. :D

 

[Dhruin]

Mind you I'm not defending this 'concept' as much as I'm arguing for some lateral thinking. Take what we have and try some new stuff. Why would anyone calling themselves a gamer be so against this? What if its the coolest fucking thing you ever experienced because it had high production value and interesting presentation? Sure this all remains to be seen, but I just want people to stop and think, "perhaps it may not suck" before dismissing it completely, "just cuz".

I assume that's a general response rather than a direct reply...I am all for trying to push the boundaries of the genre and I certainly don't mind a different direction. But...by the same token, I believe a good stat-based system is likely to deliver better gameplay in the end.

I don't have the time to reply properly properly at the moment- I'll will try to come back to this later. Just to make sure I'm on the same page, we're talking about a theoretical design rather than something commercially viable you actually want to make right now, yes?

 

[EvoG]

Yea I was generally speaking, but to say that one thing or another will deliver better gameplay is rather bold no? How can you say that without having all the variables(i.e. the game we're discussing) How could you know for certain this new idea isn't a better game. What does "better game" mean actually? If that isn't subjective then I dont know what is. :D

And while all this initially is theoretical, this is all in discussion about the RPG we're finally settling in on doing commerically. Logic dictates I do stay on the straight and narrow and deliver what will be widely accepted by players like us...my gut keeps telling me to explore fresh ideas because we can. All in all, there will at the very least a demo of this yet undefined system to see if it IS fun, and perhaps in the best case scenario for all involved, I'll support both systems that the player can choose from so we can experiment within the confines of convention so no one is excluded. This isn't difficult as what I'm proposing still involves statistics that I could simply make available to the player or not rather easily.

 

[Section8]

To mention combat in brief, what I was formulating was the concept of expressing an idea of action, rather than mathematical one. [...]

This is something I really enjoy in some of the P&P systems I've played, and something I try to push toward in games I'm DMing. My one of my personal favourites was putting the players up against a mad wizard in zero gravity. Even though all actions had at least one arbitrary roll attached to them, it really encouraged a good deal of thought of choice and consequence beyond "I walk over to him and swing my sword."

There was also a great deal of ambiguity as far as how much the players could measure the success of their actions in advance. As it started, they we're all asking "can I do this?" and I'd respond "try it."

Aside from that, I put the same group up against steam tanks, and once again, the onus was on creative problem solving. However, the biggest factor in these situations being playable, was firstly, the fact that a human DM is in control to make appropriate judgments, assess difficulty of player actions, and assign appropriate skill checks.

Second of all, the campaign was pretty obscure, and actually relied on player death being a frequent thing. It was the ultimate munchkin campaign, where players and NPCs alike were all completely over the top, phat loot was in constant supply, and each death caused physical mutation and mental disorders.

But these two things serve to highlight a couple of issues with ambiguous player actions. In the case where the player doesn't make the dash to cover, and the enemy is ready for him, is he fucked? The acceptable margin for error has to be broaden in parallel to the degree of ambiguity. In a tight turn based tactical game like X-Com, a bad move would mean your squaddie is fucked, but in the scheme of things, most squaddies are little more than pawns, and so death doesn't have to be a game ending experience.

In an adventure-ish game like you propose, it's my character that's in the line of fire, and so you need to provide leeway somewhere. An interesting idea to overcome the cycle of save->fail->load->repeat, is the idea of a rewind button, so each turn is groundhog day! That way, you can be as unforgiving as you like, as long as a situation isn't utterly impossible. Repeatable actions, like shooting 4 times in a turn, and rewinding until all four shots hit should be covered by using the same random seed, to encourage the player to make different choices.

Or, alternately, you take the approach of being more forgiving, to encourage (hell, just allow) the player to continue despite a "wrong" move. If you wanted to be smart about it, you could calculate enemy results according to desired player actions. So, if your player wants to try the mad dash, and doesn't make it, the computer is a little more lenient.

It's a precarious balance, because on one hand, you have frustration, and on the other, a reasonable challenge. When you introduce more ambiguity, you present a wider range of seemingly valid choices, so you have to account for the player making them.

To use your feedback example with FPSs, the player doesn't need to know the exact numbers when it comes to weapons, or monster health, because they rely on their own skill and dexterity to avoid damage, and inflict damage, so as long as they're able to surmount the challenges the game offers, it's largely irrelevant.

But imagine taking away the crosshair from a FPS. Now you've added an ambiguity that actively makes the player less effective, despite their skill. You can overcome this by either reducing the degree of ambiguity (ie Doom doesn't require a crosshair, since accuracy is more or less determined by the X axis) and/or, by fudging the shot within a margin of error (auto aim).

So basically, as long as your combat system provides challenge without frustration, then ambiguity is fine. To build on your example:

The player decides they want to make a mad dash from cover to cover. Let's say making it 75% of the way is deemed "close enough" in accordance with an appropriate margin for error, and fudge accordingly. A player capable of making it 100% of the way makes it with no penalty. A player who would almost make it, runs most of the way, and dives at the last second out of desperation, making it, but starts their next turn lying on the ground, so at the very least, they have to spend some of their turn getting up again, or maybe the landing knocks the wind out of them, and they need to spend time recovering. Maybe it jolts their gun out of their, or helmet off their head, and so they have to take the time to pick them up again.

Of course there's also potential for the character to make an evaluation, regardless of the player's input. Just don't be completely totalitarian about it. The player should be able to make really stupid decisions post warning.

Player: <click>
Character: Er, there's no fucking way I'm going to make that...
Player <click again>
Character: ...but fuck it, you only live once.

What I'm thinking about is doing away with stat-sheet altogether, be it verbal or numerical. That is, the player (not the character) will see only the effects and symptoms, not casues and diagnosis.

The second hardest is probably making the symptomatic display of your character, the analysis of his bodily and mental conditions, but without diggin in his brain and extracting all the knowledge he has.

I think it's reasonable to have a record of the character's self perceptions. The more you do something, the more accurate it becomes. It would certainly be interesting if it was calculated according to a limited perception too.

Imagine your character has just spent a whole day cutting up giant rats with a sword, and that posed no challenge to him. A smart character realises that rats are hardly a reasonable test, and so his assessment is positive, but not overly so. A dumb or self-absorbed character believes that he's a fucking hero, and a master swordsman to boot.

Just think of character stats as the same thing as journal entries/dialogue trails and what not.

The first hardest thing here is to make a stat-improving system properly, and that's a problem in many games, even with standart numerical stat-system.

I think that perhaps a goal based, skills-increase-with-use system would work well, especially if it's abstracted well. Think Betrayal at Krondor's system of tagging skills to focus on improving, but not done so specifically. Maybe part of it is affected by character interactions, like the typical:

NPC: You look like you can handle yourself, can you swing a sword?

1. That I can, in fact, someday I aspire to be the best swordsman in the land.
2. I prefer the slightly clumsier art of swinging a mace, but it gets the job done.
3. Actually, I prefer to fight my battles with words.
etc.

So you're introducing reactive roleplay. Rather than using numbers to define a character, you're using their own choices during the course of the game, which helps to reinforce a game response to RP choices.



In any case, this an interesting discussion, and beats the fuck out of over-analysing another identical Oblivion preview

 

[kingcomrade]

I did enjoy Doom, because you actually COULD aim using the little pixelated sights on the guns.
What I miss about it, the Doom marine could run at like 90mph. Not many games that give you that much control anymore. They're all about artificial restraints. In Doom, you actually COULD avoid being shot. In most modern games, you are just supposed to soak up the damage and find a medpak.

 

[EvoG]

But these two things serve to highlight a couple of issues with ambiguous player actions. In the case where the player doesn't make the dash to cover, and the enemy is ready for him, is he fucked? The acceptable margin for error has to be broaden in parallel to the degree of ambiguity. In a tight turn based tactical game like X-Com, a bad move would mean your squaddie is fucked, but in the scheme of things, most squaddies are little more than pawns, and so death doesn't have to be a game ending experience.

In an adventure-ish game like you propose, it's my character that's in the line of fire, and so you need to provide leeway somewhere. An interesting idea to overcome the cycle of save->fail->load->repeat, is the idea of a rewind button, so each turn is groundhog day! That way, you can be as unforgiving as you like, as long as a situation isn't utterly impossible. Repeatable actions, like shooting 4 times in a turn, and rewinding until all four shots hit should be covered by using the same random seed, to encourage the player to make different choices.

Or, alternately, you take the approach of being more forgiving, to encourage (hell, just allow) the player to continue despite a "wrong" move. If you wanted to be smart about it, you could calculate enemy results according to desired player actions. So, if your player wants to try the mad dash, and doesn't make it, the computer is a little more lenient.

It's a precarious balance, because on one hand, you have frustration, and on the other, a reasonable challenge. When you introduce more ambiguity, you present a wider range of seemingly valid choices, so you have to account for the player making them.

To use your feedback example with FPSs, the player doesn't need to know the exact numbers when it comes to weapons, or monster health, because they rely on their own skill and dexterity to avoid damage, and inflict damage, so as long as they're able to surmount the challenges the game offers, it's largely irrelevant.

But imagine taking away the crosshair from a FPS. Now you've added an ambiguity that actively makes the player less effective, despite their skill. You can overcome this by either reducing the degree of ambiguity (ie Doom doesn't require a crosshair, since accuracy is more or less determined by the X axis) and/or, by fudging the shot within a margin of error (auto aim).

So basically, as long as your combat system provides challenge without frustration, then ambiguity is fine. To build on your example:

The player decides they want to make a mad dash from cover to cover. Let's say making it 75% of the way is deemed "close enough" in accordance with an appropriate margin for error, and fudge accordingly. A player capable of making it 100% of the way makes it with no penalty. A player who would almost make it, runs most of the way, and dives at the last second out of desperation, making it, but starts their next turn lying on the ground, so at the very least, they have to spend some of their turn getting up again, or maybe the landing knocks the wind out of them, and they need to spend time recovering. Maybe it jolts their gun out of their, or helmet off their head, and so they have to take the time to pick them up again.

Of course there's also potential for the character to make an evaluation, regardless of the player's input. Just don't be completely totalitarian about it. The player should be able to make really stupid decisions post warning.

Player: <click>
Character: Er, there's no fucking way I'm going to make that...
Player <click again>
Character: ...but fuck it, you only live once.

This is a very important chunk for everyone to read and understand, as we're definitely on the same wavelength. The mere suggestion of GM leniency(you weren't in on our phone convo last night were you!?) and a measured threshold of success is the core of making an ambiguous system work. Its less about finding ways to punish the player for a 'bad decision' and more for inspiring creative solutions that dont walk that razors edge of life and death. Suggesting a margin of success in the dash example is brilliant.

I'd add anyone who's played Shadowrun is familiar with aspects of karma and 'divine intervention'...the idea that there is, as you more or less said, an almost precognitive essence to a players action within a reasonable framework...this encourages experimentation without fear of harsh retribution...its a system that thrives and experimentation and immediate reaction.

How important is it for a game to punish the player for the sake of challenge. What is challenging is subjective sure, but does it need to be black and white? i'm fairly certain most of us at one time or another, playing a game, took a risk trying to do something that maybe we felt we JUST might be able to pull off, but almost expected to fail. If we made it, it was terribly fullfilling, but if we didn't, fine, it was our call, and the system gave us every reasonable opportunity to at least let us try.

I think that perhaps a goal based, skills-increase-with-use system would work well, especially if it's abstracted well. Think Betrayal at Krondor's system of tagging skills to focus on improving, but not done so specifically. Maybe part of it is affected by character interactions, like the typical:

NPC: You look like you can handle yourself, can you swing a sword?

1. That I can, in fact, someday I aspire to be the best swordsman in the land.
2. I prefer the slightly clumsier art of swinging a mace, but it gets the job done.
3. Actually, I prefer to fight my battles with words.
etc.

So you're introducing reactive roleplay. Rather than using numbers to define a character, you're using their own choices during the course of the game, which helps to reinforce a game response to RP choices.

Interestingly, also in this "phone conversation" I keep bringing up(it was with the writer), we talked about taking RPG conventions, and placing them contextually in the game world, effectively using an extension of the gameworld to tie into what was otherwise an excercise of sheet managment. Your example is placing the characters choice in skill within the context of the world by offering an NPC that is responsible for delivering the character to a new level of skill or a brand new skill even. This beats out simply clicking your character sheet and dumping a couple points into mace.

In any case, this an interesting discussion, and beats the fuck out of over-analysing another identical Oblivion preview

*cough* Yea I've been looking cross-eyed at this obsession with that :shock: */cough*


Great read Section, thank you.


Cheers

 

[EvoG]

To use your feedback example with FPSs, the player doesn't need to know the exact numbers when it comes to weapons, or monster health, because they rely on their own skill and dexterity to avoid damage, and inflict damage, so as long as they're able to surmount the challenges the game offers, it's largely irrelevant.

But imagine taking away the crosshair from a FPS. Now you've added an ambiguity that actively makes the player less effective, despite their skill. You can overcome this by either reducing the degree of ambiguity (ie Doom doesn't require a crosshair, since accuracy is more or less determined by the X axis) and/or, by fudging the shot within a margin of error (auto aim).

Oh I forgot to respond to this; This is one of the reasons why I LOVE Trespasser. You had to completely sight the weapons and it was thrilling. Medal of Honor Pacific Assault does this and one thing a bit more extreme...nowhere do you know how many bullets OR clips you have. Gun stops firing, desperately find another gun. I'm a big fan of the latest in reality FPS's without crosshairs...if I want any precision, aim down the sights. Love it.

 

[kris]

1. What I'm thinking about is doing away with stat-sheet altogether, be it verbal or numerical. That is, the player (not the character) will see only the effects and symptoms, not casues and diagnosis. He'll see his character's height when he looks at him, he'll see his strength when he actually *does* something that may test it, or just see the muscles. But he never sees the "Strong" or "Tall" line in some charsheet.

2. Moreoever, I like the concept of abstracting the character generation. That is, the player does not assign skill/stat points himself, he just selects the general patterns.

3. with most of the stats being randomized (not a fixed pattern), and of course they will never be shown to me. Or the game could give me (the player) an option to generate a totally random character

4. - that is, you will never know the general pattern of your character until you actually start playing -- that's very realistic, because in RL you can't figure out what you are good at untill you try.

5. I've already elaborated on what the player *will* see: the body conditions in detail, in much more detail than shown in any existing RPG.

6. The second hardest is probably making the symptomatic display of your character, the analysis of his bodily and mental conditions, but without diggin in his brain and extracting all the knowledge he has -- by the way, that's another caveat of the whole roleplaying genre, but that's irrelevant in our current discussion.

7. Yes, it might draw away some number-crunching munchkins, and make some seasoned roleplayers feel uneasy in this new situation, but it will in no way impede their roleplaying. Quite the opposite, actually, as it'll make them focus more on it.

1. The only way for this to work would be if you play the character a lot, otherwise you will be playing a stranger you hardly know. Also this would be really strange assuming you play a grown up character as someone by his 20+ know very well what he can and can not do. We wouldn't be roleplaying if we don't know about our character, we wouldn't be roleplaying if we can't define it ourself. Those two things must be kept well in mind.

2. Better still:

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.

Things like this, but more what I and others talked about in another topic. To play out childhood in the game, there you can define who the character is. While a questionary and/or choices about background works well a playable childhood/teens would be more enjoyable. Fable tried this, but it sure had no effect on the game whatsoever as your choice there had practically no effect on the game whatsoever and you couldn't affect the storyline at all. I will be looking forward to see how Dragonage will handle this.

3. I most certainly won't agree and I most certainly would not like a randomised system like this. That basicaly takes the character out of my hands, does not let me define him. Its like the GM telling the players who they should play and not giving them a choice in the matter. WORSE. Since you propose the random numbers to be more or less hidden they don't even know who they play until they tried things out, how realistic is that? Unless the players play 3 year old characters. :D and with random you would just get people restarting until they get a character that they feel fits them and/or is badass enough.

4. No it is not realistic at all for a grown up person, are you 7 years old by the way? I know very well most of my limitations, of course not in the "I have 53/100 in strenght way" but in the "I can lift that thing" way. What be realistic would be you not knowing the level of your opponent for instance, just knowing "that guy looks badass, I better stay clear of him".

5. Basically you can only show some measure of how strong someone is this way.

6. How so? Since you already displayed you don't want and "sheet" and that all things should be showed by testing the way forward. Then you would get to know those things and keep it in your head...

7. How does this enrich roleplaying? Knowing your character less won't improve roleplaying, that makes it harder. What it do is improve immersion, but you can improve that immersion and still have a spreadsheet as a feedback info to the player. from what I see Fable is the closest to these ideas when it comes to games I played. While it was nice having a character change by how you played (very poorly done IMO) the roleplaying sure wasn't prevalent. No roleplaying is created by how the game reacts on actions.

 

[Atrokkus]

Very Happy and with random you would just get people restarting until they get a character that they feel fits them and/or is badass enough.

Uh-huh, you miss a point here: the player *can't* possibly see if he made the right decision or not - there are no visible stats! That is, he'd have to restart the game *after* almost finishing it.

4. No it is not realistic at all for a grown up person, are you 7 years old by the way? I know very well most of my limitations, of course not in the "I have 53/100 in strenght way" but in the "I can lift that thing" way. What be realistic would be you not knowing the level of your opponent for instance, just knowing "that guy looks badass, I better stay clear of him".

Well, you are right here, if we are talking about grown-up PCs. Of course, there should be some pre-defined patterns to choose from.

5. Basically you can only show some measure of how strong someone is this way.

Remember that I was not only talking about the character's body model. Visual representation can provde the player with information concerning his char's endurance, health conditions (disease etc), physical strength, agility (that may depend on the battel system of course), charisma, perception (poor eyesight and you got blurry screen etc), health-level (abstraction that might actually be broken up into several aspects). This is all very complex and requires A LOT of work both in the art/programming and design departments.
other characteristics (intelligence, persuasion etc) are of course evident to the player when he actually uses them.

6. How so? Since you already displayed you don't want and "sheet" and that all things should be showed by testing the way forward. Then you would get to know those things and keep it in your head...

No, the point is to show that which you, in RL, acquire through senses: pain, visual and aural information, which, in its turn, provides you with the information about, for example, your health condition (rash on your skin etc), plus all the attributes i descirbed above (if your charisma is low, your char. model is ugly etc).

from what I see Fable is the closest to these ideas when it comes to games I played.

Ha! Fable is not even a pure RPG. sure it has some bits and pieces of the concepts we are discussing here, but it's just that - bits and pieces. It is not really an implementation, not even a poor one. It's completely off-topic to mention it, really.

About RP: well, I may have exaggerated the impact on roleplaying: this system sure can't be much of an incremement, other factors have more influence on that, but it sure can't be a decrement either.
Makes it harder? Yes. And that's very good.
With numerical representation of your talents, you can almost compute your way through a difficult negotiation. Say, you need to be charismatic to succeed in some diplomatic quest. With numbered system, you can almost always know for certain if you have enough "points" to succeed. But how, in RL, can you be sure about whether you are charismatic enough or not?

 

[kris]

Very Happy and with random you would just get people restarting until they get a character that they feel fits them and/or is badass enough.

Uh-huh, you miss a point here: the player *can't* possibly see if he made the right decision or not - there are no visible stats! That is, he'd have to restart the game *after* almost finishing it.

What? If he have not realised what his stats are before the game is over then we come to the next point, either he played a little child or the ways to show what he can do is not intutive enough.

Remember that I was not only talking about the character's body model. Visual representation can provde the player with information concerning his char's endurance, health conditions (disease etc), physical strength, agility (that may depend on the battel system of course), charisma, perception (poor eyesight and you got blurry screen etc), health-level (abstraction that might actually be broken up into several aspects). This is all very complex and requires A LOT of work both in the art/programming and design departments.
other characteristics (intelligence, persuasion etc) are of course evident to the player when he actually uses them.

So basically I talk with someone and then discover my character can hardly put a sentence together? then I know he isn't smart... did I roleplay then or just discover what character I was dealt? clearly the latter. When it comes to some physical characteristics then I do agree, but I still think it is very retarded not to have it in the players hand to determine what his character is good at. Basically you take the character FROM him and gives YOUR/the games character for him to use. True console game style. I don't want the game to treat me as a child learning if I don't play a child.

No, the point is to show that which you, in RL, acquire through senses: pain, visual and aural information, which, in its turn, provides you with the information about, for example, your health condition (rash on your skin etc), plus all the attributes i descirbed above (if your charisma is low, your char. model is ugly etc).

Charisma != appearance

this is still a dumbing down where you are quite out in the blue of where your character is, more so if you didn't play for some days and then don't remember what he could do. worse if you play several characters. This is even more prevalent when it comes to skills and possible character traits. How to show that your character is "stubborn" or "kind"? I hope your answer isn't "put horns on the character if he is evil" :D

Ha! Fable is not even a pure RPG. sure it has some bits and pieces of the concepts we are discussing here, but it's just that - bits and pieces. It is not really an implementation, not even a poor one. It's completely off-topic to mention it, really.

No it is not off topic at all since it is one of the only games ever using some of these ideas. The only thing I agree on is that it does feel right that your character looks stronger when you are stronger, rest unimportant and stupid.

About RP: well, I may have exaggerated the impact on roleplaying: this system sure can't be much of an incremement, other factors have more influence on that, but it sure can't be a decrement either.

I agree partically, but I would like a bit of two worlds, most certainly I would like something else to show me what I can do. Also skills can't be showed. But most of all, Regardless of it is done, I want my character defined by ME, not by the computer or someone else. If that is by questions or childhood actions instead of putting numbers on a sheet isn't as important.

Makes it harder? Yes. And that's very good.

We are not talking difficult rating, we are talking about how easy it is to ascertain what you can do and can not do.

With numerical representation of your talents, you can almost compute your way through a difficult negotiation. Say, you need to be charismatic to succeed in some diplomatic quest. With numbered system, you can almost always know for certain if you have enough "points" to succeed. But how, in RL, can you be sure about whether you are charismatic enough or not?

Nonsense. This only applies for a shitty system, it is not the fault of the numbers. We must also talk about action and consequence. The less random factor the easier it is to calculate, some games even make it as easy as telling you "95% chance to hit". I have been if anything against all combat systems that is "hacking away at the health bar", instead I would want a more lethal and consequental combat system (like Rolemaster). Otherwise it will be with numbered systems just like one without numbers, you will know when it is easier to succed and when it is harder. In both cases you can use the "load game" to cheat your way trough both.

In fact I can't come up with one game where I could calculate whether I would succed in with Charisma "rolls". I only knew that in most games they designed me to be able to succed around where I was in the game, not certain but clearly able. In fact I would be more inclined to know IRL whether I am able to succesfully use my abilities in that field than I am in many games... Because the difficult number is never shown.

 

[Mulciber]

In an adventure-ish game like you propose, it's my character that's in the line of fire, and so you need to provide leeway somewhere. An interesting idea to overcome the cycle of save->fail->load->repeat, is the idea of a rewind button, so each turn is groundhog day! That way, you can be as unforgiving as you like, as long as a situation isn't utterly impossible.

I really like the idea of a RPG based upon the Groundhog Day. It fits perfectly into a computer game framework. Unless you're playing a Roguelike, your characters are effectively immortal and have limited precognition anyway due to the abovementioned cycle.

Make an epic, immersive city for the character to explore, give them things to do, people to save, hard comparisions and choices to make (do I save the baby over there or the small child over here>. Bring them back every day, perhaps earning 'karma', and have them eventually break the cycle. The possibilities are endless. It could be fantasy (a la Chrono Trigger), sci-fi (Dark City), everyday, whatever. You cold make for yourself a different role for everyday.

 

[Sarvis]

In an adventure-ish game like you propose, it's my character that's in the line of fire, and so you need to provide leeway somewhere. An interesting idea to overcome the cycle of save->fail->load->repeat, is the idea of a rewind button, so each turn is groundhog day! That way, you can be as unforgiving as you like, as long as a situation isn't utterly impossible.

I really like the idea of a RPG based upon the Groundhog Day. It fits perfectly into a computer game framework. Unless you're playing a Roguelike, your characters are effectively immortal and have limited precognition anyway due to the abovementioned cycle.

Make an epic, immersive city for the character to explore, give them things to do, people to save, hard comparisions and choices to make (do I save the baby over there or the small child over here>. Bring them back every day, perhaps earning 'karma', and have them eventually break the cycle. The possibilities are endless. It could be fantasy (a la Chrono Trigger), sci-fi (Dark City), everyday, whatever. You cold make for yourself a different role for everyday.

Ephemeral Phantasia for the PS2... well, except for the choices of course.

 

[Bluebottle]

Oh I forgot to respond to this; This is one of the reasons why I LOVE Trespasser. You had to completely sight the weapons and it was thrilling. Medal of Honor Pacific Assault does this and one thing a bit more extreme...nowhere do you know how many bullets OR clips you have. Gun stops firing, desperately find another gun. I'm a big fan of the latest in reality FPS's without crosshairs...if I want any precision, aim down the sights. Love it.

OT
If you like that level of realism you should have a look at Operation Flashpoint. It's ugly as sin, granted, but it features (on veteran difficulty);
no crosshair
ironsights
absolutely no HUD feedback (i.e. no magic ammo or health displays)
no magic icon on your map showing your position (instead you have to use landmarks and a compass (not a magic Bethesda compass))
no floating names over characters (cue online games full of people saying "I'm the guy jumping up and down and looking at the floor)

It's extreamly unforgiving, but can be very rewarding.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

1. What I'm thinking about is doing away with stat-sheet altogether, be it verbal or numerical. That is, the player (not the character) will see only the effects and symptoms, not casues and diagnosis. He'll see his character's height when he looks at him, he'll see his strength when he actually *does* something that may test it, or just see the muscles. But he never sees the "Strong" or "Tall" line in some charsheet.

2. Moreoever, I like the concept of abstracting the character generation. That is, the player does not assign skill/stat points himself, he just selects the general patterns.

See, you're still in the "Wuudnt it b kewl if" mode of thinking. No, it wouldn't be. Without the numbers, you're pretty much forced in to the whole use progression system of skill advancement. That may work fine for combat skills, but what about lockpicking? Repair skills? Or any skill which may be useful at certainly places but those places aren't overly common.

With a number system, you're free to come up with any skill advancement system you want. There's no limit on it. You can do the XP buy system like Bloodlines had. You can do the character level = new skill points system like Fallout and d20. You can do a hybrid system like Prelude to Darkness had. Heck, you can even do a strict use progression system as well, but you're not just limited to that like you would be without numbers.

So, not only do numbers have the advantage of being easily recognized and identified by every single person on the planet capable of playing a CRPG *but* they also allow a flexible system in terms of progression of the character with multiple ways of doing things. You can take any of the above mentioned systems with numbers and use them straight or you can mix and match elements of them. That's something you just can't do without numbers.

 

[Mulciber]

Without the numbers, you're pretty much forced in to the whole use progression system of skill advancement.

I think that is the fundamental difference in the way that you are looking at an RPG. My position is that presenting the advancement of skills and stats as an issue of managing a spreadsheet turns the game into little more than an optimization excercise. There is no reason that a player needs access to this spreadsheet to go out and interact with the game world in interesting ways. Being able to act upon and change the game world are the fundamental bits of a roleplaying game, not character optimization.

 

[kris]

Without the numbers, you're pretty much forced in to the whole use progression system of skill advancement.

I think that is the fundamental difference in the way that you are looking at an RPG. My position is that presenting the advancement of skills and stats as an issue of managing a spreadsheet turns the game into little more than an optimization excercise. There is no reason that a player needs access to this spreadsheet to go out and interact with the game world in interesting ways. Being able to act upon and change the game world are the fundamental bits of a roleplaying game, not character optimization.

You don't mean to say "stumble around half blind in the gameworld is my view of a roleplaying game"? Being able to act upon and change the gameworld is in no way whatsoever tied to having stats or not.

 

[EvoG]

Whats happening here reminded me of a little anecdote:

I was in an AP biology class, and my teacher occassionly like splitting the room to have a seminar on evolution vs. creationism. My whole schooling was about seminars, and learning from other opinions and learning from other peoples interpretations of a subject/book. Anyway, what happened in biology was not only a vast disporportion of students on a side, where I, and three other students and the teacher even were on the evolution side, while the rest of the class, perhaps twenty students, were on the creationism side. The entire two hours were spent with their heads in their hands and scathing disbelief at what we were saying. The entire two hours, our side spoke 85% of the time, suggesting ideas and concepts about the evolution of certain species and the beginings of time. While we encouraged the creationism side, ALL we got were, "because God said so"...or..."because God made it"...or my favorite..."just 'cuz". Of course the replies were envenomed and came with matching glares or eye-rolls, with the occasional disgusted sigh. Never though were there any actual thought given to their responses. They had every opportunity to talk about anything on the subject, yet they were so dismissive, that rather than approach the two hours with discussion, they were more interested in ending the discussion so they could, I guess sit there, disgusted. Rest assured, we walked away with a bit of interesting talk on evolution, while the rest of the class...well I dont know actually, I suppose they just tuned out.



All the nay sayers here, bordering on being defensive, have yet to counter with a solid argument in favor of the traditional "stat system" other than "because God said so". The people excercising some creativity and thought are writing long dissertations on some outside the box ideas. Thats what these are, ideas. If you love gaming and love the genre especially, isn't it at the very least important enough to you to expound on your disapproval of any sort of change? We get nowhere really with small little paragraphs about how stupid the idea is or again, "just cuz". Just 'cuz is the hallmark of stagnation and complacency.


Now, NO ONE has said there would be NO numbers. The goal, at least for me, Section8, originally Ismaul(be nice if he showed), and Mulciber and mEtaLL1x, is to approach convention and give it a twist. Ideally done right, that twist would encourage character centric roleplaying rather than spreadsheet roleplaying. I'm sorry, but I identified more with CJ in GTA San An by the end of the game more than I do with most of my RPG characters. They have no substance, limited to a sheet of numbers. Perhaps it worked out to CJ's advantage that he has a personality, but I know I felt connected to his 'stat growth' because I initiated it within the context of the game. I was better at some things than others because of the way I played. This is a vital part of what we're talking about, and what I meant the several times I've said that we have the COMPUTER to take care of the stats.

How could ANYONE know they only have a 37% chance to shoot someone in the eyes in real life? I know its a game, but you all defend how 'real' the representation of numbers are TO real life. You know what, I appreciate that system too, but you know what else, it makes me obsess about increasing my chance to hit rather than focus on the game world and my character in it. If you know you have so low a chance, you know not to take the risk...risk is minimized. If you didn't know you had so low a chance, knew your character was pretty good at shooting, you might still go for it 'hoping' it works, or if its dire, because you dont know how dangerous exactly the situation is, you take more care in trying to shoot at something you're pretty confident you can hit, such as the legs or body. What if the NPC's had more reaction to your actions, so you could spray the area with lead, and they'd naturally try to find cover, effectively suppressing them? They dont know you only have a 37% chance to hit shit, they just dont want to get pegged. Reactive NPC's on this level start to expand your repertoire of interactions.

How come a high science skill only gets you an extra dialogue option with the appropriate NPC or allows you to hack a computer to open a door/turn off turret/get info? Why can't the player empirically solve a problem because a 'smart character' or someone who has a science background was gleaning more information from what he was observing, and the player then acting upon it rather than saying "yay you did it! Heres XP stat master!" The character still used his skill to offer the player clues as to what the problem really is rather than just doing it for him. A character with no science background wouldn't have a clue, so he'd get no such information on observation. You guys all berated Dungeon Siege for automating play, and while I dont disagree, in a game like Fallout, OTHER than perhaps combat, you dont really DO anything BUT make choices. You dont solve puzzles really, unless you count making a choice a puzzle. If you spent enough points on a given skill, odds are you can do 'something' in the game world but amounts to no more than clicking on it..."oops, no good, need more points on my computer skill! I'll go kill something"...and so on.

Where do you actually experiment? Where do you actually solve puzzles or at the very least have that "ah ha!" moment and figure something out? Where do you even use tactics in combat where all you're offered is "shoot/aim/stimpak/save AP to duck behind wall"? Once we step back from this clinical method of gameplay, we can perhaps have experiences like you have in other genres. Thief, System Shock2, GTA...lots of games offering roles in which you are not functioning off of your stat sheet, but off of you perceptions of the gameworld and experimentation of your abilities. If you EVER felt like you were playing a real role, Thief is the benchmark, as you had a focused character, but lots of choice to play with your thief toolset.

"No I'm not suggsting making games just like Thief!" I yell quickly to someone shifting uncomfortably in their seat somewhere in the back row, pitchfork at the ready.

If you want to defend numerical systems, tell us why they are mandatory. Give examples that cannot possibly be done any other way than with numbers. Or for even more of a challenge, I dare you guys to actually think of ways where we DON'T need numbers, and try to envision gameplay that was about living in a breathing world where you can interact and get reaction to your actions.

Contribute rather than spit, otherwise you aren't really doing your position any justice...and I dont think God would be too thrilled.


Cheers