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

[Section8]

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.

I've just been getting into Trespasser, and holy fucking shit, it's impressing me. I can't believe I dismissed it without trial back in the day.

First of all, I really like the "no visible HUD" feature. It's a sort of "proof of concept" for a lot of the ideas being bandied around in this thread. It takes away the traditional feedback systems of FPS games, but more importantly it replaces them. You have the health tattoo, vocal ammo counts and even better, estimates, and also the sighting of the weapons.

A little off topic, but the other stuff that has impressed me:

* Physics, obviously, but moreso the specific gameplay implementations. Being able to drop heavy obstacles on enemies, crate stacking, rock throwing to topple crate stacks, etc. Are all good uses of physics, rather than the more recent offerings of "Ragdolls = relistic lookign deth!"
* IK, also obviously. Tying in animation to the "ragdoll physics" may look wonky at times, but from a simulationist perspective, it's so much more versatile than explicit animation frames. I'd love to be able to actually create animations within a game and assign them to actions, and a robust IK system would allow this. Of course, that's pretty mucha dev geek feature and wouldn't be appealing to many people.

you weren't in on our phone convo last night were you!?

Heh, if you're foolish enough to fall for the ol' "phone repair guy" routine, then you deserve to be tapped. :twisted:

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.

Challenge constitutes a fair portion of my reason for playing games, and that's why game like Dungeon Siege have failed to impress me. Not because they're not RPG enough, or they're too action oriented, but just because it doesn't really demand anything from me as a player. It's a "reward without challenge" game that seems so symptomatic of today's generation.

It's a difficult thing to pin down though, without making assumptions about the target audience. For me personally, a game only gets the better of me (temporarily) if there's no alternative to a challenge that I've already attempted and failed many times. I go through an "I can do this" phase, and then a "I have to do this on principle" phase and finally a "broken man" phase. A good game offers me an alternative until I can muster up the will to try again.

And you're right, surmounting a high risk or exceedingly difficult challenge is incredibly rewarding. My housemates have banned me from playing N because I either sit their screaming in frustration at my PC, or shouting in jublitation.

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.

Glad you brought this one up. This was yet another of the long list of flaws in Morrowind. Skills advancement was completely unbalanced, and so certain skills like Athletics, would constantly be on the improve, regardless of player choice, and skills like Enchant would be difficult to practice without resorting to power gaming.

But I don't think you're forced into skill progression. One of the ideas that lurks somewhere in the dark bowels of the my "designs that will never see the light of day" chamber, is the idea that (almost) every day ends with you brushing you teeth in front of a mirror, and introspectively pondering, so you effectively have a "monologue tree" to help define what's important to your character. Some of the choices would be defined by previous action, and character build,

For example, a gunslinger might have a choice like "[Pretend to shoot a finger gun at your reflection]", which wouldn't actively improve a firearms skill, but it would show the character has an interest in that skill area, and at the very least, increase the rate of skill-progression-per-use. Because this is a skill the character is already proficient in, it reinforces an archetype.

Other choices would not be tied directly into the character's current build, so the player can help to fuzzily define their future goals, and aside from statistical and skill development, the can also be choices to help define the more personal elements of RP.

For instance:

• "I don't know what to make of that <NPC dropdown>"
  • "He's friendly enough, I guess"
  • "I don't think I trust a guy that's that friendly, he's hiding something."
  • "Maybe he's queer for my gear. If I catch him staring at my junk again I'll fucking kill him"
  • etc.

There's worthwhile alternatives to numbers, and I think they should be explored, instead of rehashing the same ideas over and over again.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

For example, a gunslinger might have a choice like "[Pretend to shoot a finger gun at your reflection]", which wouldn't actively improve a firearms skill, but it would show the character has an interest in that skill area, and at the very least, increase the rate of skill-progression-per-use. Because this is a skill the character is already proficient in, it reinforces an archetype.

i had an idea like that where the first part of a game starts out where the main characters are all children and the various activities you do choose the chars skills
on to next char
ball tag: split bonus between dex, con, athletics

hand ball: major: dex minor: agility

screw around on spinning bars: con, str, dex

talk with friends:cha, builds friendship with friends, leadership with friends increases

football:dex, str, con, may give a perk that allows you to add strength to dex to con, str and vice versa

modifiers:
with friends:friendship and leadership go up
fat stomach:increases con and,decreases dex slightly
hungry:sapped slightly of all stats ,will eventually become immune

after school:
paintball:dex increase along with making attacks hit more often
video games:
arcade:increases cha and hit rate.
ddrAJOR dex increase,nimble foot feat large chance
console:dex up hit rate up
mmo:guerrilla tactics feat...cha up slightly
rpg:int, scholars eyes small chance
....
normal games:
air hockey:hit rate up
foosball:hit rate up

nerd stuff:
books:INT UP MAJORLLY,high chance of scholars eyes
pen and paper rpgs:int up, high chance of recieving the "its simple" feat

thats about it

 

[Claw]

You dont use any of your own dexterity in combat, just your characers AGI and weapon skills. This is why I wanted to have just a FEW more tactics in TB combat.

I don't want to use any of my own dexterity. As for tactics.. dunno. More sophisticated combat would be nice, though.

At least allow the player to put a bit of himself into the game.

I thought that was what making choices was about.

Choice is wonderful and entirely necessary, but so is challenge, and I dont think RPG's go far enough to intellectually challenge players.

I agree up to the first comma.

I dislike immensely that now to get the happy response to conversations, you have conversation skills, for example.

I didn't see any reason to complain about it in Fallout. I recall older RPGs without speech skill and well... they didn't have terribly deep dialogue, and getting the happy response was about picking the right choices, which didn't seem any better.
What'd be really good is an RPG where dialogue isn't just about getting "the happy response" in the first place. I don't think the speech skill would be a problem then - as long as it's not done like in Morrowind.

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 don't really look for challenging combat or puzzles in an RPG. I look at it more like a sort of interactive fiction. Especially when I think about combat in Fallout, which a few people complained about. I just enjoyed watching the show.


I like many of EvoG's ideas, but not the rationale. I like Gothic's implementation of combat or lockpicking. I enjoy actually performing the actions, and I like the idea of "minigames" but challenge is no motivation at all for me, and I do like the concept of an RPG as a game of making choices and watching the results, both with more and less direct player interaction.
It's an interesting way of immersing the player in the game world, a form of presentation.

 

[Human Shield]

Realize that numbers in RPG are interval numbers (not a real zero, or ratio scale) and can be replaced with qualitative ordinal data. Like Fallout 1-10 names.

An RPG that uses ratio numbers would be interesting (clocked running time, weight lifted, etc...).

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.

Providing instant, objective information about a character.

Providing character knowledge separate from player knowledge.

Providing increasing orders of detail. Your character should be able to guess his odds at success, everyone does that innately. How many degrees of feedback are you going to give? What if the character gets more comfortable, skilled, and perspective?

Providing more room for random variables. In action games like GTA you never trip, never have wind, never get glare, never get dust, never get lucky. Without numbers sometimes failing and sometimes succeeding has no context.

The game is GOING to be simplified without numbers. You are going to graphically give hints on what languages a character knows, skill in every weapon type, all repair types, all science knowledge, etc... A player playing a jack-of-all-trades is going to have be a clock maniac.

You can't graphically represent everything. We aren't going to have prefect virtual reality. A lot of the depth in RPGs come from undisplayed happenings that exist on a different level. Why did a miss the arrow? With numbers I can grasp the event, without numbers I didn't line the crosshair right (non-RPG) or I get confused (my character was singing songs about arrows a lot...).

You are never going to transfer the innate understanding about our own bodies to a computer character.

You want the player to keep track of their successes while the numbers are hidden from them? Automaps and autojournals replaced players needing to write some time ago.

You want the player to arm wrestle with a whole town and conclude that he is average. Why not write average strength for the player in a journal? Why wouldn't the character pay attention to other people on his own?

Players are supposed to make choices in an RPG, depriving the player of needed information is stupid.

A player wants to jump across a pit. Without numbers the only way to get an idea is to write down and find the average of running speed and jumping distance you forced the character to do out in a field for no roleplaying reason. And if you have random dice rolls they won't have an idea of what is causing failures.

The game is going to run on numbers in the background. Taking numbers away just means that a group will run tests and to be the best at the game you have to read huge tables.

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.

If you want the player to be blind to the character's abilities. Like if you just possessed a random body as a ghost, or you lived a room your whole life. But then information should appear over time.

 

[EvoG]

I don't want to use any of my own dexterity. As for tactics.. dunno. More sophisticated combat would be nice, though.

I gather you understood what I meant by 'dexterity' by the context of my entire sentence. Games that require you use dexterity are asking something of the player, so, in relation to TB combat, instead of "I hit you you hit me", explore just a few layers lower into strategy and tactics...the context of combat, not just the mechanical "missionary position". This way the player is giving some thought to combat, intellectually challenging the player. Silent Storm did this and then some, though arguably its TOO detailed and can turn some players off (I loved it).

I thought that was what making choices was about.

Yes but simply picking from A or B is not gameplay. Choosing how to approach a situation and THEN offering gameplay off of that choice, not merely say you "you win" or "nope, you failed". That is NOT gameplay.

Choice is wonderful and entirely necessary, but so is challenge, and I dont think RPG's go far enough to intellectually challenge players.

I agree up to the first comma.

You dont want to be intellectually challenged on any level, even a bit? M'kay, that IS your perogative.

I like many of EvoG's ideas, but not the rationale. I like Gothic's implementation of combat or lockpicking. I enjoy actually performing the actions, and I like the idea of "minigames" but challenge is no motivation at all for me, and I do like the concept of an RPG as a game of making choices and watching the results, both with more and less direct player interaction.
It's an interesting way of immersing the player in the game world, a form of presentation.

I do too, so we DO agree on something, heh, but seriously, my "rationale" is flawed? My rationale is to alter the RPG paradigm, offering a fresh perspective, taking a step back from powergaming-stat management, and focus on narrative and exposition. I think thats perfectly reasonable no? Try something new because I can and because just maybe, just maybe, it will be fun?

 

[Rat Keeng]

How could ANYONE know they only have a 37% chance to shoot someone in the eyes in real life?

Dunno, maybe by factoring in your ability with said weapon, quality of weapon and subsequently it's accuracy, how much wind there is, how big and far away the target is, is it a moving target, and whether or not the target is an anime character, in which case it'd be damn near impossible not to hit it's eyes anyway. Obviously you're not just saying there should just be a switch to turn the number on or off, but i can't get in my head why a numerical representation of your chances to hit isn't "real" or immersive.

Human Shield said it well, the 37% is your character telling you whether or not he thinks he can make the shot. Most people have some idea of whether they'll hit a target or not, the percentage is just a way to express that chance in hundreds. I'm not sure how graphical representation of that might work, but a quick look at a percentage isn't going to screw up my gaming experience, thankfully i have some shred of imagination left, that i don't need everything drawn out for me.

 

[EvoG]

Providing instant, objective information about a character.

Why do you need instand objective information? You have a written background, and a written bio on the players skills and natural abilities.

Providing character knowledge separate from player knowledge.[/qoute]

I dont see numbers being required to separate what the player knows and what the character knows. Having a 75% Science skill is no different than saying the character has a "high degree of aptitude in science due to his three years attending X college". I dont see how you knowing more or less about a subject or the gameworld makes a difference if that skill is numerical or narrative.

Providing increasing orders of detail. Your character should be able to guess his odds at success, everyone does that innately. How many degrees of feedback are you going to give? What if the character gets more comfortable, skilled, and perspective?

As per my example above; who knows they have a 37% chance to shoot someone in the eye? You can't empirically determine if you can do something or not by observing the context? Of course you can...you do it all the time in every other game genre other than RPG's or Adventure Games...you also do it in real life.

If the character gets more skilled or has greater perspective, you'll know about it within the context of the game. Proper design takes care of this. Ambiguity doesn't imply ignorance, it merely removes mathematical precision thus removing the obsession for point farming.

Providing more room for random variables. In action games like GTA you never trip, never have wind, never get glare, never get dust, never get lucky. Without numbers sometimes failing and sometimes succeeding has no context.

I never said no numbers. Thats the problem people are having with this concept. The numbers most definitely exist(how else do you factor challenges and thresholds of ability?), but these numbers are hidden, making the minutia of single digit numerical change obsolete, ideally removing the obsession of number crunching and focusing more on observing the world and making empirical choices.

The game is GOING to be simplified without numbers. You are going to graphically give hints on what languages a character knows, skill in every weapon type, all repair types, all science knowledge, etc... A player playing a jack-of-all-trades is going to have be a clock maniac.

Nope, I merely suggested that visuals are one avenue for contextual information, not the end all be all. Numbers do NOT immediately mean substance either, as no one can argue complexity is always a good thing for the sake of complexity, but substance they definitely can. The word simplified by your definition is negative, while the word itself is ambiguous. A simple but deep interface is a good thing. Simplifying trivalities is a good thing.

You can't graphically represent everything. We aren't going to have prefect virtual reality. A lot of the depth in RPGs come from undisplayed happenings that exist on a different level.

I agree with this 100%. Read my last response. I'm an aritist and animator by trade and even I don't propose this.

Why did a miss the arrow? With numbers I can grasp the event, without numbers I didn't line the crosshair right (non-RPG) or I get confused (my character was singing songs about arrows a lot...).

Ever play Thief? You know why you missed with the arrow...Your perceptions allow you to understand events such as these. To say you need numbers to explain this is better left for mathematicians and physicists.

You are never going to transfer the innate understanding about our own bodies to a computer character.

Don't quote know what you're implying here as its rather vague, so I can only say that every game OTHER than RPG's does just fine without visible numbers or stat managment.

You want the player to keep track of their successes while the numbers are hidden from them? Automaps and autojournals replaced players needing to write some time ago.

These are two elements are NOT synonymous. Requiring people to externalize an element such as map making or journal keeping, while sort of fun for me during the Ultima days, is asking the player to do "work", and thats not necessarily fun to lots of people. That said, I dont want the player to "work" at all. I'm not asking him to track anything. There would be a robust character bio and background and inventory and maps and journals, like any RPG, just narrative.

You want the player to arm wrestle with a whole town and conclude that he is average. Why not write average strength for the player in a journal? Why wouldn't the character pay attention to other people on his own?

Um, exactly, we would say that "<insert name>, through many years of labor working the mines of Fjordgismzlante, has developed a lean but powerful build. Stronger than the average man but not built like a bull" You hit it on the head. I'd never ask the player to run around anywhere and do anything just to 'discover one self'. Don't confuse my concepts with some of the others written here in this thread, and I DO think there are two or three going around.

Players are supposed to make choices in an RPG, depriving the player of needed information is stupid.

Are you still responding to me or someone else. I'm not being funny I'm serious. I want to make sure I'm addressing your questions but that you're also not confusing what I'm saying with another poster. If you've been following my rantings and ravings, no matter how eloquent(hehe), you'll know that my focus IS player choice, and my proposal does not obviate choice on ANY level simply because remove number crunching from player visibility. You did use the word 'stupid' though, and I believe I've been far from 'stupid' in discussing this, and have many times stated that lots of information will be given to the player, I'm just hiding the numbers. Again, you may be responding to someone else; this thread is rather long and wordy.

A player wants to jump across a pit. Without numbers the only way to get an idea is to write down and find the average of running speed and jumping distance you forced the character to do out in a field for no roleplaying reason. And if you have random dice rolls they won't have an idea of what is causing failures.

This is a rather big extrapolation of this no? Where would one EVER have to do this sort of calculation. I dont want to repeat the same thing over and over, but I'm NOT REMOVING NUMBERS from calculating ability and occurence, they are merely made ambiguous. Design is responsible for giving the player all he needs to make INFORMED decisions. Again, every other game OTHER than RPG's rely on empirical discovery of ability and consistency to then allow the player to derive probability of an action. Its not that big a deal honestly.

The game is going to run on numbers in the background. Taking numbers away just means that a group will run tests and to be the best at the game you have to read huge tables.

Um, perhaps. Many people having been anal about many, many things. I'm flattered you think my idea is so unique that I'd be forcing a whole new generation of fanboy obsessed with revealing the mathematics behind my ambiguity system. :D

If you want the player to be blind to the character's abilities. Like if you just possessed a random body as a ghost, or you lived a room your whole life. But then information should appear over time.

I suppose, but I can't really say much on this, as the abilites are never hidden from the player, just the numbers.


Cheers

 

[EvoG]

Dunno, maybe by factoring in your ability with said weapon, quality of weapon and subsequently it's accuracy, how much wind there is, how big and far away the target is, is it a moving target, and whether or not the target is an anime character, in which case it'd be damn near impossible not to hit it's eyes anyway. Obviously you're not just saying there should just be a switch to turn the number on or off, but i can't get in my head why a numerical representation of your chances to hit isn't "real" or immersive.

Human Shield said it well, the 37% is your character telling you whether or not he thinks he can make the shot. Most people have some idea of whether they'll hit a target or not, the percentage is just a way to express that chance in hundreds. I'm not sure how graphical representation of that might work, but a quick look at a percentage isn't going to screw up my gaming experience, thankfully i have some shred of imagination left, that i don't need everything drawn out for me.

Ha! I knew for a FACT someone was going to come back at me with this! Hehe...

Alright, whats important to understand is that semantics in this case are important. I literally meant, "who know for a FACT down to the number they have a 37% chance to hit someone in the eyes?". Of course everything you said is absolutely true, but then where does this number pop up saying, with all factored, you have a 37% chance to hit? Nowhere. You have a "good feeling" based on those factors that you can hit it. Why wouldn't the player say, "You know, thats a risky shot and while not impossible, its a bit tricky." That ambiguity separates the player from the math, and starts to let him assess the situation in a more organic way. The math removes the spontaneity, the exploration. The risk is reduced to a mathematical probability.

What are your chances of hitting a Nazi running across a street to another building in Call of Duty? There most definitely IS a probability in a cosmic sense. You're ability to track him, rate of fire of the weapon, your ability to hold the mouse cursor steadily on him. If the game is more realistic, you have leading. If the game is very realistic, you have wind and bullet energy decay. All these are factored on the fly in your head, but never does a mathematically precise number appear over the nazi's head.


Explorations and experiementation within a reasonable framework of probability based on empirical observation and ambiguous statistic. Remove your thinking from convention. Don't try to fit this system into a conventional RPG design as you know it. The design MUST fit around the system. Perhaps descriptors need to be careful worded. We cannot have ambiguous narrative. I'm never going to decrease the importance of consistency in a ruleset of a game. The game has to allow for ambiguous but rational interaction with non-ambiguous REaction. The design has to work now more within thresholds of reasonable success rather than punishing for a mathematically miniscule failure. Why are you able to unlock a chest with 70% skill but not 69%?

Cheers

 

[Human Shield]

Why do you need instand objective information? You have a written background, and a written bio on the players skills and natural abilities.

Because the character innately knows about himself.

I don't want to read his description of himself he e-mailed me. I want to KNOW him.

I dont see numbers being required to separate what the player knows and what the character knows. Having a 75% Science skill is no different than saying the character has a "high degree of aptitude in science due to his three years attending X college". I dont see how you knowing more or less about a subject or the gameworld makes a difference if that skill is numerical or narrative.

1. Putting such levels is just renaming numbers and can confuse players about the correct order.
2. Why wouldn't the players then worry about maximizing: # of trees cut down, # years in college. Renamed numbers, useless.
3. Am I looking at the character subjectively from the outside (descriptions) or am I in direct control?

Stats are the character's knowledge about himself given objectively to the player. With numbers the player can be as subjective as HE wants, without numbers the player is outside the character.

The "numbers" are created by the character's mind. It lets the player be objective about the person is supposed to me. Without numbers you move the player farther back to reading what this 3rd party tells you about himself.

As per my example above; who knows they have a 37% chance to shoot someone in the eye? You can't empirically determine if you can do something or not by observing the context? Of course you can...you do it all the time in every other game genre other than RPG's or Adventure Games...you also do it in real life.

Am I inside the character looking through his mind or am I outside controlling the character?

If the character gets more skilled or has greater perspective, you'll know about it within the context of the game. Proper design takes care of this. Ambiguity doesn't imply ignorance, it merely removes mathematical precision thus removing the obsession for point farming.

Ambiguity implies a different context. He is describing himself to me, or am I = HIM. Do I see things through his mind?

And why would the players farm for more descriptions? Players are even MORE obsessed with getting more titles then raising points.

I never said no numbers. Thats the problem people are having with this concept. The numbers most definitely exist(how else do you factor challenges and thresholds of ability?), but these numbers are hidden, making the minutia of single digit numerical change obsolete, ideally removing the obsession of number crunching and focusing more on observing the world and making empirical choices.

And how are you going to write detailed descriptions for every change in ability? I have to read a novel to see everything I can do? Putting it on one screen seems like a better interface.

Nope, I merely suggested that visuals are one avenue for contextual information, not the end all be all. Numbers do NOT immediately mean substance either, as no one can argue complexity is always a good thing for the sake of complexity, but substance they definitely can. The word simplified by your definition is negative, while the word itself is ambiguous. A simple but deep interface is a good thing. Simplifying trivalities is a good thing.

And adding more ways to interact improves substance. More ways to interact means more numbers, more hidden numbers means more confusion.

You are arguing for no numbers. All words and visuals then? The player has to study pages of info and watch the character on the screen like a zoologist (again moving the player farther away from the character)?

Ever play Thief? You know why you missed with the arrow...Your perceptions allow you to understand events such as these. To say you need numbers to explain this is better left for mathematicians and physicists.

Yeah. And Thief ain't an RPG. I fire the arrow and it always fires a steady cone arc, I never improve or degrade. I missed because the cross-hair was off, it is an action game. There is no random variables, or guard dodging skill.

It has steady arrow firing. If arrow firing changed without telling me, I probably wouldn't know why I hit or not.

If you want to make an FPS where the characters moves slowly improves without telling the player, go ahead, but it ain't an RPG.

Don't quote know what you're implying here as its rather vague, so I can only say that every game OTHER than RPG's does just fine without visible numbers or stat managment.

No every other game provides control over external characters in predictable ways because of simplification and set levels.

And other games don't have reactive worlds based on a defined character. We are talking about using a character, not playing an action game.

Um, exactly, we would say that "<insert name>, through many years of labor working the mines of Fjordgismzlante, has developed a lean but powerful build. Stronger than the average man but not built like a bull" You hit it on the head. I'd never ask the player to run around anywhere and do anything just to 'discover one self'. Don't confuse my concepts with some of the others written here in this thread, and I DO think there are two or three going around.

And how does he improve? How many skills can you describe? How many levels of description are you going to have? And why aren't levels of description the same as numbers?

and have many times stated that lots of information will be given to the player, I'm just hiding the numbers.

Numbers that the character should use to describe things.

Putting abstract values into words is just another level of degradation. How much does the town like him? How many levels can you describe? How gradual can you change? One person, one day at a time; going to list every member of the town and a description? Why not have 1-100?

Again, every other game OTHER than RPG's rely on empirical discovery of ability and consistency to then allow the player to derive probability of an action. Its not that big a deal honestly.

Every other game doesn't work with defined characters. We are taking about RPGs and the gameplay that follows: using defined characters.

Um, perhaps. Many people having been anal about many, many things. I'm flattered you think my idea is so unique that I'd be forcing a whole new generation of fanboy obsessed with revealing the mathematics behind my ambiguity system. :D

Look at MMORPG guides.

If anything the player wouldn't be satisfied until they see the description change. Which means more powergaming to get a payoff instead of giving them one point and setting them at ease that they are improving.

I suppose, but I can't really say much on this, as the abilites are never hidden from the player, just the numbers.

Which means less level of detail. And less interaction because the list of abilities would have to stop somewhere.

 

[Claw]

I gather you understood what I meant by 'dexterity' by the context of my entire sentence. Games that require you use dexterity are asking something of the player, so, in relation to TB combat, instead of "I hit you you hit me", explore just a few layers lower into strategy and tactics...the context of combat,

Yeah.. I think not. I read you contrasting "your (player) own dexterity" against "character AGI" so I didn't think beyond actual dexterity.

Yes but simply picking from A or B is not gameplay.

Funny you say that, because that's exactly what I thought some times when people mentioned gameplay in the context of RPGs. I guess for me that isn't much of an issue in an RPG. I mean, combat in Ultima VII sucks, and I still love the game. I've heard many complaints about Fallout's combat, and I enjoyed it. It wasn't much of a challenge with a strong character, but fun to watch. I'd play Silent Storm for real combat, you know? A game doesn't need to have it all, and too much gameplay in combat might actually get in the way.

You dont want to be intellectually challenged on any level, even a bit? M'kay, that IS your perogative.

I don't consider it highly necessary for an RPG. I recently replayed Fallout 2... it didn't seem terribly challenging, but that didn't seem to make it less fun.

I do too, so we DO agree on something, heh, but seriously, my "rationale" is flawed?

Well, I focussed on the "challenge" part, really.
Sorry to reduce your position one a small aspect, but the challenge thing was rather prominent in the post I quoted. Maybe I have a wrong idea of what you'd call a rationale.

 

[EvoG]

Human Shield, I dont know how else to say what I already have said. I'm not being snide or antagonistic when I say this, so please dont take this the wrong way, but nothing you've just said is a compelling argument for numbers or against ambiguity. You've GOT to be more specific, as most of what you wrote is opinion.

If you say you'll know your character more with numbers, but less with a descriptor system, how am I to argue that? I can't as you believe this.

You do make assumptions about the system that even I haven't fully developed, so if I think something can be crafted with these base concepts, why can't you? Why is it easy for you to conform to ONE type of gameplay? You wouldn't be curious to see if this system is actually really cool? How come I'm so eager? I like stat games myself, yet I'm intrigued by how this could work.

After I eat, I'm going to come back with some other ideas to help steer us towards something productive.


Cheers

 

[Human Shield]

I dont know how else to say what I already have said. I'm not being snide or antagonistic when I say this, so please dont take this the wrong way, but nothing you've just said is a compelling argument for numbers or against ambiguity. You've GOT to be more specific, as most of what you wrote is opinion.

I guess logic doesn't work.

1. RPG need defined characters.
2. Defined characters need variables.
3. Variables need ranges.
4. Slow progress needs larger ranges.
5. Broad progress needs more variables.
6. Words are restricted in range, breath, and other ways.

Second argument.

1. Player creates a character.
2. The character is defined.
3. If I create a character I should know the character.
3. Because words are restricted, the player is restricted.
4. I know the character less.

Your idea: Action game with more feedback. It can make very fun games if well-done, but it doesn't make RPGs.

If you say you'll know your character more with numbers, but less with a descriptor system, how am I to argue that? I can't as you believe this.

Everyone would know the character better, that is part of being objective.

You do make assumptions about the system that even I haven't fully developed, so if I think something can be crafted with these base concepts, why can't you? Why is it easy for you to conform to ONE type of gameplay? You wouldn't be curious to see if this system is actually really cool? How come I'm so eager? I like stat games myself, yet I'm intrigued by how this could work.

I can see that it would result in different gameplay that is different from a RPG's gameplay. You don't change gameplay and call it the same thing.

You can go make "Large-Scale Robbing Vehicles" where you read pages for a vague idea of your character and see his balls grow where he earns XP, and can line up iron sights for the player to learn things; but don't call it an RPG.

 

[EvoG]

Logic doesn't work? You believe you're being so logical its beyond my grasp, or are you merely degenerating to the common smart-ass "codex-speak" that seems to be the status-quo when people feel so superior to whom they speak with?

Also, MY IDEA is for an action game with more feedback??!?! Perhaps to my lack of logic, I can counter with your lack of comprehension?

Heres the golden moment though...HOW is my gameplay different from an RPG? JUST because the numbers are hidden? Isn't that trivializing what makes up an RPG. You're implying here then that an RPG is nothing more than a character sheet full of numbers. And again, you make assumptions about a system that has yet to be fully defined but are POSITIVE that the gameplay is SO different that it ceases to be an RPG, solely based on the fact I want to hide the numbers. You make assuptions that the descriptions about your character are vague. You somehow got it in your head the game is first person and has iron sights!?

Um, okay sure.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

SS2 had numbers and stats. It wasn't enough of an RPG for me because your character wasn't very well defined. There's no interacting with anyone else and its rather linear.

That jumping over a chasm thing was actually in in M. J. Young's RPG preference quiz.

Fleeing pursuit through some caves, you must cross a chasm wider than your height. You have no special gear, and there's no running room.

___A) My character sheet should clearly state whether I will successfully jump that far.
___B) I remind the referee that my character is a renowned acrobat.
___C) No matter how good I am, the dice could go against me.
___D) The chasm is a natural part of the terrain which makes the caves more real.
___E) The chasm is a challenge to overcome to reach the goal.
___F) The chasm increases the dramatic tension at this moment.

Minigunwielder, stop making an ass of yourself. Robert E. Lee was a general (and unlike George, very militarily adept), not a politician, and contrary to popular belief, opposed to slavery. Elections are handled locally, so being President wouldn't really give W the power to prevent people from voting. He isn't responsible for the law that prevents convicted felons from voting either.

 

[EvoG]

Has anyone ever had a PnP session, where the gamers didn't use their character sheets, perhaps because they had an idea of the capabilities of their character they're envisioning, and the GM was the only person making decisions and rolling the dice?

The whole time people are suggesting what they want to do in the story, without rolling anything or analyzing their probabilities, just having fun. The goal was for some creative solutions to a problem, and the GM would use discretion to determine the success or failure based in part on the "numbers" that only he can see, but also in part to "luck" or even in extreme cases "divine intervention". His goal wasn't to punish the creativity harshly as he could fudge dice rolls or even fake making a dice roll just to appear to be testing the challenge. What was important that the players were playing in their role and thinking about the game. Many games in fact tell the GM to reward players with "points" or other bestowments for fun "roleplaying". If they did something truly difficult or even stupid, dice rolls would become more important, and in fairness they should, or no one would fear danger. This is what I'm proposing in creating. A game that feels like you're actually being a persona and not just a page full of numbers. Where you can have a chance of trying creative solutions to problems without needing to worry obsess over your points. You just try it. If you fail, again, it shouldn't outright kill the player.

The game world is no less rich in NPC's to talk to. The gameworld is no less rich in non-linear exploration. Combat is no less violent and exciting. There's no limit to the number of towns or the size of the game or day/night scheduling or bartering or character development. This is an RPG in the purest sense of playing a role.

Nevertheless, it's quite obvious the only way to solve this is with a demo. I'm STILL interested in hearing the pro's and con's(not just "its stupid") for the sake of fleshing out the ideas. Section8 gave me lots to think about so I'd love to hear more.

Human Shield, I dont want to argue with you. I'm far from stupid nor naive. So if you want to talk about this then cool. I do understand where you're coming from and I dont agree. I disagree numbers are necessary, not that they aren't fun. I've played every relevent RPG to date. I personally have zero problem with stats. I'm not arbitrarily trying to 'innovate' for the sake of it. I'm wanting to explore if there are new ways to explore gameplay in an interaction rich environment. If you have comments regarding where numbers are necessary, please tell me. Avoid generalities AND ask yourself if its entirely reasonable for a given example to be done without numbers first. Challenge yourself to look past convention. See how YOU would do it if you were asked to work out an example you may come up with, without using visible numbers.

Cheers

 

[Human Shield]

Then solve the problem: Can words give equal range, breath, and innate understanding as numbers for defining a character and the world?

And what is the point of replacing 1-5 with 5 titles?

And all your examples of not needing them have been action games. You don't need stats if you don't have a defined character, but RPGs are about defined characters.

If you want to have a 'game' and not pretend sessions you need rules.

The game world is no less rich in NPC's to talk to. The gameworld is no less rich in non-linear exploration. Combat is no less violent and exciting. There's no limit to the number of towns or the size of the game or day/night scheduling or bartering or character development. This is an RPG in the purest sense of playing a role.

Except it was an exercise in group storytelling with an editor. Not a fair simulation of a defined character in a defined world.

How were you "playing" a role? Were YOU playing or were you suggesting story elements to a GM? Could you interact with the world directly, or did you need a middleman?

A good middleman can make things fun but it is farther away from pure RPG, where your character is the game factor interacting with the environment. GMs are needed to create an environment and can do so better then computers because we don't have VR, but having less direct interaction is not closer.

With a good enough middleman it could be transparent enough, but you can't move that to a computer.

Avoid generalities AND ask yourself if its entirely reasonable for a given example to be done without numbers first. Challenge yourself to look past convention. See how YOU would do it if you were asked to work out an example you may come up with, without using visible numbers.

And I realize I would have to change gameplay to do it, as is the result with the suggestions seen here.

 

[EvoG]

Then solve the problem: Can words give equal range, breath, and innate understanding as numbers for defining a character and the world?

This is all arbitrary though. WHY must I express range as "near/far" or breadth as "wide/narrow"? Why must we place mathematical values on these otherwise visual elements. You can define all of this just by SEEING it.

And what is the point of replacing 1-5 with 5 titles?

Ambiguity. Why MUST you know down to the tiniest digit? Fallout does this with stats, yet they simply include numbers as well. You see, I have nothing against the numbers, but the 'focus' on a numerical value. Names are not as clear as a specific number. They reflect reasonable ability. We dont need vast sets or ranges of ability, only to know its there and how good you are at it.

And all your examples of not needing them have been action games. You don't need stats if you don't have a defined character, but RPGs are about defined characters.

CJ isn't defined? Mario isn't defined? Solid Snake or Dante or Indiana Jones aren't defined enough for you? We can easily get an idea of they can do in a situation, why must we know them as numbers?

If you want to have a 'game' and not pretend sessions you need rules.

Isn't this terribly obvious that it really doesn't need to be said?

Now, where did I ever say "my game has no rules"!?

Except it was an exercise in group storytelling with an editor. Not a fair simulation of a defined character in a defined world.

What was? Whats "it"? What are you talking about? I was referring to a game that is no different than Arcanum or Fallout, just that you're focusing on exploring and interacting with the world and interacting with the characters than how many skill points do you have for lockpick and is it enough for this mighty chest?. In fact, take out combat, and what IS roleplaying? Storytelling, but with a character of your choosing in a defined world. WHERE do you need numbers in that?

How were you "playing" a role? Were YOU playing or were you suggesting story elements to a GM? Could you interact with the world directly, or did you need a middleman?

A good middleman can make things fun but it is farther away from pure RPG, where your character is the game factor interacting with the environment. GMs are needed to create an environment and can do so better then computers because we don't have VR, but having less direct interaction is not closer.

With a good enough middleman it could be transparent enough, but you can't move that to a computer.

You're speaking in the past tense? Are you referring to my last post about the numberless GM session? No no middleman. None of this is about a middleman. You control your character directly and interact directly. I dont understand the concern here.

And I realize I would have to change gameplay to do it, as is the result with the suggestions seen here.

Yes so? Go ahead and change the gameplay. Where in life has it ever been said something has to be one way and that is it forever and ever? Where has it ever been said change is inherently bad? My suggestion was to challenge YOU, not repeat whats been said. To get you to ask the questions I'm asking. Ask yourself, then force yourself to answer, "why must there be numbers, isn't there another way?". Dont cop out and just say no...try it...see what you come up with instead of going with whats "conventional"

 

[Deathy]

And all your examples of not needing them have been action games. You don't need stats if you don't have a defined character, but RPGs are about defined characters.

CJ isn't defined? Mario isn't defined? Solid Snake or Dante or Indiana Jones aren't defined enough for you? We can easily get an idea of they can do in a situation, why must we know them as numbers?

This is something that has bothered me throughout this thread.

Sure, you can easily define static chracters without showing numbers, that's because what they can do doesn't really change. You know how far Mario can jump at any time, and that doesn't ever really change

And important part of an RPG is developing your character, which means, he does change.
The difficult part is representing that change without using numbers.
I see the idea that using text and graphics to demonstrate these changes as a possibility, but really, where's the point? you've just got a text or a graphic replacing what would be a number in a traditional CRPG.

It doesn't actually change anything rather than making things a bit fuzzier to the player.
Forgive me if I've missed something here, but really, what's the point? To confuse the player as to what the abilities of the character are? Why would we want to do that?

 

[Section8]

Because the character innately knows about himself.

I don't want to read his description of himself he e-mailed me. I want to KNOW him.

I think this is a good point, and very pertinent to RPGs and games in general, rather than the more specific discussions going on in this thread. It's essential that all reasonable measures are taken to let the player put "their stamp" on their character.

That's why amnesia and "blank page" characters are very effective RP tools. It's also why active character development is important. And in the context of the statless RPG, it's why a certain amount of discovery is essential.

It's all very well to say, "if my character is a grown man, then he ought to know what he can and can't do," but that leads to the symptom Human Shield pointed out. It would be really good in an ambiguous, descriptive character sheet to not only have a description of the skill, but to have a qualifier too, referencing player driven discoveries, or lack thereof. For instance:

Swordsmanship: I feel confident enough with a sword in my hand that I could defeat all but the most adept soldier.
"I still can't believe I bested the Lieutenant when we last duelled. I ought to be wary though, the desperation of a life and death struggle can bolster even a poorly trained opponent's chances."

Firearms: Horribly inelegant things, I'd only use one as a last defense.
"The last time I even fired a pistol was back when I first joined the King's militia, and I could barely even hit a paper target."

Speechcraft: I could talk my way into a nun's bedroom.
"I must admit, my silver tongue failed to talk me out of Lady Nesbitt's chambers when her ignoble fool of a husband found the pair of us."

Fire Magic: I've no real measure my aptitude.
"My first and only dabblings in fire magery left me without eyebrows for much longer than I'd care to be without them."

Etc. You could even expand it so that the little memories link to a page in a quest log or journal, and if you wanted to, you could even color code the observation according to the influence it had on the overall perception.

Ideally, I'd like to see some other reactive roleplay elements tied in to this. If the player commonly selects surly dialogue choices, then their descriptionsadapt accordingly, likewise with other factors such as intelligence. The above example descriptions should fit the idea of a Cary Elwes style swashbuckling girly man, because that's the way the player leans when making their own dialogue decisions.

You could even start redefining the actual skill names if you liked. "Swordsmanship" is pretty pompous, maybe "Cut stuff good!" would be more appropriate for an unintelligent character.

Numerical values may help to keep a character feeling like "your character," but despite the huge amount of extra effort involved, adaptive descriptions can have the double effect of associating the player to the character, but also reinforce the strength of character actions as far as the game's accountability goes.

Damn good point though.

--

However a counterpoint I'd like to make, is that ambiguity is a double edged sword. Numbers may be a simpler way to measure most things, But there's still a great deal of ambiguity to them. For instance:

Sword: 57%
Athletics: 37%
Nature Magic: 76%
Etc.

What do any of those actually mean? You still have to either read up on the formulas being used, or take the quicker, more effective approach of trying to see. Even if a skill of 37% in Athletics translates simply as "Able to jump 37 inches," there's still an ambiguity in judging that distance, even moreso in a game.

Another fun little counterpoint. Ever been frustrated at a game, such as Fallout, where you miss 5 shots in a row, even though your accuracy was a flat 50%? Descriptive ambiguity not only eliminates the "die rolls aren't playing fair" argument, but it can account for it in gameplay terms. "Wow, maybe I'm not quite as good a shot as I thought," and the character's perceived skill level drops. The upside to this degradation, is that lower expectations can only mean pleasant surprises.

 

[EvoG]

This is something that has bothered me throughout this thread.

Sure, you can easily define static chracters without showing numbers, that's because what they can do doesn't really change. You know how far Mario can jump at any time, and that doesn't ever really change

And important part of an RPG is developing your character, which means, he does change.
The difficult part is representing that change without using numbers.
I see the idea that using text and graphics to demonstrate these changes as a possibility, but really, where's the point? you've just got a text or a graphic replacing what would be a number in a traditional CRPG.

It doesn't actually change anything rather than making things a bit fuzzier to the player.
Forgive me if I've missed something here, but really, what's the point? To confuse the player as to what the abilities of the character are? Why would we want to do that?

The point is for us to step back from numbers. I'm not saying lets make a game JUST like a traditional RPG but replace the numbers with names. You would be right, what WOULD be the point in THAT.

Lets create a NEW paradigm.

The reason I mentioned those characters was actually rather subtle. Imagine, in comparison, you could create a character REASONABLY as rich as those characters, but ALL your own. Not numbers, but personality. Idiosyncrocies. History. Attitude. Then express that character through the game world. SURE he can grow and evolve. Get better at his skills. Have party memebers. Save the world(or not). But instead of driving to reach the "next level" and get a few more points on small arms skill so he can raise that 37% to 41%, you're driving to participate in the world. Watch it unfold. Influence the lives of the characters in it. The numbers are meaningless. It doesn't make the world less rich or the dialogue less robust.

Why must you know the EXACT percentile to achieve a task, rather than a range of "easy, doable, challenging, difficult, impossible(but maybe!), no way!"? Why cant you use colors to abstract the difficulty of a task? Whats the difference between 50% and 51%? 1% and its meaningless. The difference between 50% and 60%. Quite a bit. Difference between green, yellow or red? Well aside from hue, it tells you that green you have a good chance at success, yellow has challenge to it and red is very hard or impossible. These are MERELY examples, but they work.

Perhaps you dont really need anything at all, at its most extreme. If you're trying to do something that you as a person know is difficult, you can expect that it may fail. Shooting someone running full speed across your path at 50 yards at night is a hard shot period. 12% chance to hit or red color or just empirically, its hard and you know it.

The point, again, is to get players to care more about their "character" and not just a spreadsheet. Thats it. A seamless way to interact with the world, and remove the things that remind you you're playing a game, rather than being immersed in a world.


Cheers

 

[EvoG]

Wow forgive any perceived ass-kissing here, but you REALLY are making large strides right towards exactly what I'm talking about Section8. Hell, while I wax philosophical about "ideas" and "concepts", you're making clear examples that I'm very excited about.

Like I said, we're edging are way towards the first demonstration of this, so as they say, the proof is in the pudding (actually I have no idea what that really means).

Cheers

 

[Human Shield]

This is all arbitrary though. WHY must I express range as "near/far" or breadth as "wide/narrow"? Why must we place mathematical values on these otherwise visual elements. You can define all of this just by SEEING it.

Because we came the conclusion that there is a limit on the breath you can show visually. And I stated that between your choices:

1. You have the abilities grow in the background: Player is confused on how good he is.
2. You have descriptions: Don't have enough descriptions to create a large range.

Ambiguity. Why MUST you know down to the tiniest digit? Fallout does this with stats, yet they simply include numbers as well. You see, I have nothing against the numbers, but the 'focus' on a numerical value. Names are not as clear as a specific number. They reflect reasonable ability. We dont need vast sets or ranges of ability, only to know its there and how good you are at it.

Then that is just a random variable added to how many description levels you have. The the range of description levels is limited, and they basically replace numbers that you can do more with.

CJ isn't defined? Mario isn't defined? Solid Snake or Dante or Indiana Jones aren't defined enough for you?

Their success exists on player's ability, they aren't defined in the gameworld in terms of existing as a separate entity from the player's skills.

We can easily get an idea of they can do in a situation, why must we know them as numbers?

They are action games for the third time.

Isn't this terribly obvious that it really doesn't need to be said?

Now, where did I ever say "my game has no rules"!?

Having the GM throw things together for a story instead of following rules makes it less of a game.

In fact, take out combat, and what IS roleplaying? Storytelling, but with a character of your choosing in a defined world. WHERE do you need numbers in that?

To more accurately and with detail define the character and world.

You're speaking in the past tense? Are you referring to my last post about the numberless GM session? No no middleman. None of this is about a middleman. You control your character directly and interact directly. I dont understand the concern here.

To interact directly you need numbers. The numbers have to exist, you just want to hid them.

Yes so? Go ahead and change the gameplay. Where in life has it ever been said something has to be one way and that is it forever and ever?

Math, science laws, trying to keep definitions clear.

Where has it ever been said change is inherently bad? My suggestion was to challenge YOU, not repeat whats been said. To get you to ask the questions I'm asking. Ask yourself, then force yourself to answer, "why must there be numbers, isn't there another way?". Dont cop out and just say no...try it...see what you come up with instead of going with whats "conventional"

Change is change, it is something different. You want change while calling it the same.

I think this is a good point, and very pertinent to RPGs and games in general, rather than the more specific discussions going on in this thread. It's essential that all reasonable measures are taken to let the player put "their stamp" on their character.

It's all very well to say, "if my character is a grown man, then he ought to know what he can and can't do," but that leads to the symptom Human Shield pointed out. It would be really good in an ambiguous, descriptive character sheet to not only have a description of the skill, but to have a qualifier too, referencing player driven discoveries, or lack thereof. For instance:

Swordsmanship: I feel confident enough with a sword in my hand that I could defeat all but the most adept soldier.
"I still can't believe I bested the Lieutenant when we last duelled. I ought to be wary though, the desperation of a life and death struggle can bolster even a poorly trained opponent's chances."

This goes directly against my point.

I feel it is against roleplaying to feed the player lines. I feel it is better to have the player come to his own conclusion.

I can be inventive and decide how I improved. Descriptions take that element away and feed me a canned description on something I am was supposed to be in charge of.

Numbers are unbiased, they let me craft without someone else's ideas interfering. What if my 5 isn't average but a underweight child that I struggled to build up?

Removing numbers puts someone else's words on my character, I feel that is a detriment.

 

[EvoG]

Okay, this is really getting nowhere. All you keep saying is that "to interact or do this or do that you need numbers".

WHY?

You can argue all you want that it helps you "define" your character "more", but how? Why is this important? Give me ONE specific non-combat gameplay example where you absolutely MUST have numbers OTHER than "just because it helps you define your character". Otherwise we're getting nowhere, and you're arguing to argue, not to further the discussion.

The ONLY thing so far that you said that made sense to me was this:

I can be inventive and decide how I improved. Descriptions take that element away and feed me a canned description on something I am was supposed to be in charge of.

Numbers are unbiased, they let me craft without someone else's ideas interfering. What if my 5 isn't average but a underweight child that I struggled to build up?

Removing numbers puts someone else's words on my character, I feel that is a detriment.

...and while I can totally agree with this, I have to say, is that dialogue does this very thing currently in RPG's, it puts words in your mouth, and everyone agrees to how vital strong dialogue is. So this is contradictory. Why would you be so adverse to effectly 'write' a bio for your character (assuming the system is robust enough to have many different types of descriptions for a character) like you do in pnp games, albeit sure, less flexible than really writing it, but nonetheless, no different than when a game puts words into your mouth when you're speaking with NPC's? If anything, the bio is a one time thing, but talking to NPC's is a continuous part of the game through to the end. Section8's example of 'self reflection' sounds very cool and interesting. You're still controlling the character you want, you're just getting some 'flavor'. I dont fundamentally see the problem.

 

[Twinfalls]

Dammit this debate keeps getting bogged down with the 'you just can't do it' arguments, rather than somewhere productive. EvoG, may I suggest you start a new thread, titled 'Ideas for a numberless RPG' or somesuch, in which it is assumed that a numberless (to the player) (but nonetheless stat-heavy) system can be beneficial, for whatever reason. Then we can more cleanly build ideas on how to do it...

 

[EvoG]

Dammit this debate keeps getting bogged down with the 'you just can't do it' arguments, rather than somewhere productive. EvoG, may I suggest you start a new thread, titled 'Ideas for a numberless RPG' or somesuch, in which it is assumed that a numberless (but nonetheless stat-heavy) system can be beneficial, for whatever reason. Then we can build ideas on how to do it more cleanly.....

Funny, I was just thinking this, I just didn't want to suggest it for fear of being called a baby (or bastard!) and leaving with my toys. Hehe.

You know, if you want to start it and have something on your mind, by all means we'll move over there(plus it will be a centralized source of information). I agree though that we're spending too much time yelling over eachother (the pro's and con's) rather than moving forward, so yea, lets do it.

You want the honors? :D


Cheers