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

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

How to make a numberless (but stat-heavy) system WORK

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Claw said:
The idea that the character's self-assessment depends on his personality is very interesting.

Definitely. So if your character chooses text options that are snippy or callous, you might not also have the patience to say, thread a wire through a rod to attach to a computer in a game. To play devil's advocate with my own example though, what's not to say that you might have patience for one task and not for another. Or patience when crafting but not with people.

I really think you'd have to start designing this with the genre, plot, and environments of the game quasi-decided on so that the situations involved could have the stats removed on a case-by-case basis.

But dont stop...its fun to talk about.
 

Diogo Ribeiro

Erudite
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
5,706
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Claw said:
So repeatedly coming close to success in a task may result in significant skill progress until the PC succeeds.

So what happens when the PC continuously botches up any attempts at the skill's use? Significant skill regression? Or the failure isn't counted at all and just lulls the skill advancement until successful attempts kick in? In the last case it doesn't seem like its doing much other than needlessly making the skill development go at a slug's pace in the earlier levels.
 

crufty

Arcane
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
6,383
Location
Glassworks
Perhaps the oppposite...

The more you fail at a task, when you do succeed (if ever), the greater your opportunity for skill advancement. And if one should succeed on the first try, you get a little better--perhaps scaled vs task difficulty--right away.

Like shooting free throws. If you've never picked up a basketball, good luck. But when you finally do make one, chances are you'll make then next one a little easier. Once you get to be a decent free throw shot, unless you spend a lot of time at it, chances are you won't get any better. However, make a clutch freethrow in the big game, and maybe you do...
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Having failure improve more than success is just stupid.

Practice should make improvement, regardless of success or failure.

The failure thing is the same as success, but people just don't think it through enough or cannot.
 

Stark

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
770
I thought getting rid of numbers and replacing them with the various visual cues/dialog pop-ups/npc mumblings take up too much work. the effort vs return simply does not justify the venture. Many of these suggestions do not even necessary work.

there're so few good rpgs these days. better to concentrate effort on better dialog/multiple role playing path.

arguement agaisnt stats sheet to avoid powergaming only comes about because the the game itself is inherently is imbalanced.the fault does not lie with the stats sheet.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Role-Player said:
So what happens when the PC continuously botches up any attempts at the skill's use?
Oh, maybe I didn't put that correctly. I meant the progress would be inversely related to the magnitude of success or failure. No negative effects, a near success would as insightful as a near failure.
Btw, can you clarify for me if a "near success" would be a success or almost a success?


Or the failure isn't counted at all and just lulls the skill advancement until successful attempts kick in?
But you do realize that "coming close to success" implies failure, right? So that's a no, but I explained that above already.
Alternative comparisons of skill value to the difficulty of a task could be used to determine the progress. That's more a mechanical issue than a conceptual one.
The concept is: You learn (most) from tasks which are challenging but not so far beyond your abilities that you wouldn't know where to begin.


In the last case it doesn't seem like its doing much other than needlessly making the skill development go at a slug's pace in the earlier levels.
No I don't think so, but then I don't know if that assumption isn't based on a misunderstanding anyway. Every RPG I have played so far bases progress on success, so usually there are other mechanisms implemented to compensate the increasing chance of succcess more or less successfully. I would compensate this by not giving experience for an easy success.
At the same time, I don't want characters to gravitate towards the all-rounder who is mediocre at everything, so I don't want very low skills to rise easily either.
 

crufty

Arcane
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
6,383
Location
Glassworks
bryce777 said:
Having failure improve more than success is just stupid.

Practice should make improvement, regardless of success or failure.

Disagree. Do you have any examples on failure followed by eventual success improving less than initial success? I mean if you're good enough for a task, if you did it, there's not much to learn, right?
 

Mulciber

Novice
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
87
Location
The Frozen Wastes (of Manitoba)
Marginal success and marginal failure are the situations where a person learns the most. Take the chess ranking system for example: A system set up that tracks your wins, losses and who you play against and assigns you a point value. If you want to learn something new, you play against players who are ranked slightly higher than you, not players who would trounce you in 5 moves or less. If you want to improve your current skills, you play against someone ranked slightly lower.

Critical success means that either it was so easy that it didn't challenge your skills at all or that you lucked out so big that you don't even know how you succeeded. Critical failure likely would mean that you didn't even know where to begin. In a game situation it would be a very good time to go and search out someone who can teach you the basics.

In a related note, marginal success and failure don't just have to be applied to a character's overall skill. There is also the concept of specific skill. In a task like lockpicking, it makes more sense for the character to learn more about the lock that they are picking at the moment than about locks in general. So a series of marginal successes could eventually allow the character to pick the lock that he is working on, while allowing a much smaller overall increase in his skill, representing the general knowlege that he took away from the experience.
That works particularly well in a time-intensive skill like lockpicking. Most anyone can pick a lock, but experts can pick a lock very quickly.
 

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
crufty said:
bryce777 said:
Having failure improve more than success is just stupid.

Practice should make improvement, regardless of success or failure.

Disagree. Do you have any examples on failure followed by eventual success improving less than initial success? I mean if you're good enough for a task, if you did it, there's not much to learn, right?


There are times when I've been "in the zone" and done something then had to repeat it later and thought "how did I do that?"

Success can give you a greater chance of doing something successfully, but its not "always" a given.

If you failed several times you might have learned along the way more than if you just did it correctly on accident.

More on this topic later.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
This is a tricky question since if you try to lockpick a eletronic lock and its your first lock you have little idea what the hell are you doing in the first place, spending days around it sould not improve your skills.

A good system is were dificulty is weighted against skill in terms of skill progression, if something its simply beyond the character skill he sould not be able to learn anything even if by sheer luck he managed to open it.

I dont think success would only count for skill progression since failure sould also allow progression but there sould be limits of how success and failure gives skill progression.
 

SilasMalkav

Educated
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
78
How about borrowing from The Witcher a bit? In the Witcher instead of having a potion making skill or a ingredient harvesting skill, you had a book that had all of the ingredients and potions that you knew about.

An under the hood system (stat-less) could do the same sort of thing. Instead of potions and ingredients, you could also have lock types (It's not a 100 skill lock, it's a Yale and needs certain tools) and combat types (I know these sword-forms, or these kata)

Then it's not a case of "I can't pick this lock because my skill is too low" it's a case of "Damn, this isn't a Yale, I don't know how to pick one of these things."

You could also have levels in each of these, but they'd be based on easily detectable things. For example you'd be able to do Yale locks in 10 seconds, or your master said that your Sweeping Crane style was sloppy. You wouldn't know how good you were until you tried it, but after you tried it then you'd know, and it would get logged in some sort of accessible notebook.
 

SilasMalkav

Educated
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
78
Heh, didn't notice the date, just came to this thread from the Project Monkey thread.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
Warning! Anecdote ahead, for whatever it is worth.



We have been doing something like this on several P&P campaigns, for years:

The GM creates an "average joe" character, then every player writes a exposition on their character from a third person point of view - The point of view, in fact, of the average joe character. The GM then takes into consideration the narrative and makes the sheet himself, keeping the point value balance original to the game system being used and giving those "points" in a way that follows the given concept. The GM then fixes the narration to the actual result, give it to you, and that is your sheet and the only information you have about your character posibilities.

When gaining XP (for a level-less system) or whatever there is to gain the player does not even know how many he got, or that he got them, or anything - they are covertly assigned by the GM to the skills he used to solve or advance the quest that won the player the XPs, or the roleplaying/characterization situation that awarded him those. When it is logical new capabilities are given based on character personality and the interests he has shown, along with the posibilities he has oppened for himself (To learn a new skill would need someone/something to learn from or the like, a previously shown disposition and interest, whatever the GM would consider as "Talent", and a lot of time to kill between adventures - and in some cases even the "emotional" or "stress" element has been simulated based on context, or even turned into quests if cool). The amount each one receives is also based around how much the character used them: More use equals a greater share of the XP.

Assesment isn't really needed but by comparation. An NPC does something, fail. A PC does something, is victorious. It follows the PC is better than the NPC in doing that thing, and by comparison of the NPC to other NPCs a "pecking order" is stablished by the player. The only one who really knows who's what is the GM. In that chronicle that "pecking order" was also what awarded you the chance to get quests and some reputation among the factions that made the context of the story. It resulted to be very organic, and to flow well.

It isn't that hard to turn that kind of thing into a crpg system (a more complex and diverse version of the old "quiz" style of character creation), works nicely, and makes the players forget about numbers and grinding and focus on roleplaying the character. The base is still the same old systems (so it is as stat heavy as you want it, no need to reinvent the wheel) - The thing that changes is feedback and emphasis.

The result is completely diferent to the usual, at least in my experience... And the GM has the absolute power he so much loves, so everyone wins.

My two cents.
 

Nog Robbin

Scholar
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
392
Location
UK
First off, excellent topic! It's discussions like this that drew me to RPG codex in the first place - game mechanics and general brain storming about ideal games or potential advances are far more interesting than general game reviews or comments about how sucky most RPG's are.

My first thought on this was to do with how much progression a character should expect within a game span anyway. If stats increase dramatically there needs to be a way of showing it equally dramatically. If increases across the game duration are more subtle it is less of a problem. Having a game that offers wildly different characters at the start but then change little over time may be more fun than one where you go from zero to hero in no time flat. It also reduces the potency of the jack of all trades character as by selecting average skills across the board you gain no main proficiency so would struggle at any aspect of the game (but likewise would not struggle so dramatically at certain aspects as someone who did specialise elsewhere). The skill selection part could be background based as previously discussed (where you build a back story which determines the characters starting skills).

Feedback is still important. Health being a most critical one - players don't like dying and like to know how close they are to this happening. Graphical changes are one way of handling this - slower movement, limping, blood etc. Still leaves a lot up to the player. Of course, if killing was less often (especially in humanoid encounters where murder carries a sufficient penalty) it wouldn't be such an issue. Of course, wild creatures or certain situations may be to the death.

Skill/stats feedback is perhaps less important. Sure, players want to know how well they are doing, but giving precise levels is not (to my mind) essential. The figures can still be held in the background (obviously), but the idea of feedback coming from the environment and peole around you seems better. Of course, there could always be competitions or tests available for a character to see how well they are doing if they really want to quantify things (taking exams or tests with trainers, entering competitions to see how you stack up against competition etc.)

The danger level of creatures is another awkward one - especially when it comes to humanoids. With creatures a character could have access to known creatures which includes stories of the creature including pictures from which the player can assess whether or not to tackle it. It could also include notes about previous battles you've had with them and whether you won quickly or had ran away. This knowledge could be expanded through books within the game. If you choose to face an unknown creature, it's on your head!

Magical equipment should always be concealed unless the effect is obvious. Showing a + rating while ok in P&P for calculations readily breaks immersion for a character. Specific skills or spells should be available to interogate items to see if they are enchanted and to give rough descriptions of the effect, but not to exact mathematical exactitude. Knowing a ring when worn makes your skin feel more durable and less susceptible to damage probably tells you it's a ring of protection. How much more so? Well, how would you quantify that in a non-game environment? Maybe comparing it to materials that may offer similar protection? Better than showing +3 anyway.

Mini games should be removed though - anything that replaces character skill with player skill is removing a certain aspect of an RPG. More so if the mini game takes place in a safe bubble of time outside of the game world (lock picking/speech craft in oblivion). If you try to pick a lock your character should be seen trying to pick the lock - not a simple click & fail/succeed. You should be able to leave the character trying until you decide to give up - and the character should give feedback during the attempt based on whether he stands a chance or not (head scratching, shaking the head etc. or even not know which tool to use to start with). In a multi character/party game a character may respond to the player with feedback based on how well he/she thinks they were doing and whether they believe they would have succeeded given more time).

That's it for now - just a few scribbled ideas that came up while reading the thread.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
1,386
Sorry to play Cassandra and join the “it’ll never work” camp, but based on the discussion thus far the title of the thread is misleading. If the skill system under consideration was purely boolean, like Gothic’s skills, it might work, otherwise it’s very much a number filled game where the players are simply denied access to information.

An RPG is a structured game, not a movie, or interactive fiction, or some sandbox SIMs style make-believe. As such it requires the player to make strategic and tactical management decisions - a vital area of which is character development. Making those decisions is a fundamental part of the gameplay experience and obfuscating information relevant to them adds nothing but frustration. All of which leads to one of the motivations posed in the original post:

“Do we try this to appeal to players interested in playing a deep RPG, but otherwise intimidated by complex systems?”

To me this is an oxymoron, why would a player interested in deep RPGs be turned off by character development mechanics? It’s part of the core experience. If character development is "teh hard" then either the system is unnecessarily convoluted (which could be said of earlier editions of AD&D) or another genre of gaming might be more suitable for that player.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
muds_animal_friend said:
As such it requires the player to make strategic and tactical management decisions - a vital area of wich is character development.

Not really. X-Com is a game where making strategic and tactical management decisions is the core. An rpg is a game where you are supossed to build an interesting, complex character and then guide him through the story and world, not through tactical or strategic decisions but through the decisions he would make, stupid as they might be. He reachs a dead end? His fate did come, make another one.

Not knowing the full extent of the skills, or lack of skills, of the character actually helps the player to become the character, instead of being the great all-knowing number-juggling bearded guy in a cloud.

The systems is there to make the simulated world consistent and cohesive, but the numbers are NOT the game. If you want to win, yes - Knowing the numbers is a must. If you want to roleplay, not so. If you do not want to roleplay, then do not play rpgs. Quite simple, actually.

So: In ToEE, the number juggling was logical since it was a fantasy combat simulator in all but name. In Arcanum the number juggling was stupid since you should be thinking on the character, not how many action points he had or how fast did his fatigue restore or by how many points raise strenght to use that uber-cool armor you just found. He acts, he wins, he loses, he dies. His story, not your game.

My opinion, in any case.

And the "you" is like "generic reader" not "you."
 

cardtrick

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,456
Location
Maine
I don't think a truly stat-less system is a good idea for a CRPG, although probably interesting for MMORPGs or P&P.

In real life, a person generally has a fairly good idea of how good they are at any given task, assuming they've tried it before; and since they live every moment as themselves, they have tried a good many things. They have no need to keep some record of their abilities, because it's instinctual.

However, in a CRPG you are going to be playing a character for, say, 40 hours. Moreover, character development is part of the appeal of the RPG genre, so rate of time flow and thus stat development is necessarily faster than in real life. To complicate matters even further, a player may only play the game for an hour or so every couple of days.

For all those reasons and more, I believe a CRPG requires an in-game record of character abilities. However, this stat sheet doesn't necessarily have to be numerical or exact. One interesting system is used in the MUD The Eternal City. In that game, stats are represented internally by the system as a number (of course), but this isn't visible to the player. Instead, they see a word ("average," "abysmal," "quite good," etc.) that represents a broad range of numerical values. These ranges aren't uniform; although players aren't told the actual distribution, it appears to be fairly Gaussian, so that the "average" category encompasses the broadest range of numerical values, and the most extreme (good or bad) categories encompass the fewest. Similarly, when they train stats (on, for example, an obstacle course) players can tell that they're improving a stat, but can't tell by how much (this varies randomly). This is similar to "feeling the burn" after working out, but not being sure how much you have improved your strength. It is generally more difficult to train stats the better they are. What this system ultimately accomplishes is that the player can see at a glance what his character really ought to know: broadly, how well suited he is to various tasks and how he compares to others.
 

EvoG

Erudite
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
1,424
Location
Chicago
Gah, you know, I can't believe we talked about this in 2005...holy shit.

Second, all of you, please read and understand the thread if you're really interested in the concept and not simply contrarian.

The CORE idea is that we do away with the NEED to micro-manage the numbers...of course they exist behind the scenes but to you they are invisible so there's a more natural (thus less calculated) expression of the character in the gameworld. I saw it in my head as an adventure game where you created your character as a biography and not a clinical metric of your abilites. Imagine 'rolling up' a Ben character from Full Throttle...you have an idea of what he may be able to do and within the context of the gameworld, you express him as such. He's a tough guy, likes to fight and ride bikes. Reasonably mechanically inclined (not as much as Mel) and doesn't take shit. So from that you get this mental picture of a real character, and not simply a stat sheet with 8 for Str, and 75% for Fix Stuff and 100% for Doesn't Take Shit skills.

...and as I've always said ad nauseum...the game needs to be desiged for the concept, not the concept squeezed into a old design.
 

Nog Robbin

Scholar
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
392
Location
UK
Do dramatic stat/skill increases need to exist in an RPG? As I mentioned, if a player chooses a character at the beginning who's skills are dramatically different from another character, the whole experience would be different. It still uses stats and skills, but because they don't grow dramatically managing them is less of an issue.

Doing this would also allow the balance issue to be addressed - gone would be the aimless drudge through petty minions simply to level up. Each character is fully rounded (more or less) right from the get go. So a thief/rogue has a good ability to sneak or hide, climb or pick locks, a ex soldier has good martial skills, a mage is not a student but an experienced mage with a good spell complement etc. You could have combination characters still, but they wouldn't be as advanced in any one area as a specialist (a general adventurer for example wouldn't have the martial skills of a soldier, but are likely to be better than a professional thief. Likewise they may have a few spells they can rely on, but no way near as many or as strong as a studied mage. They may stand a chance to pick some locks, but not as many or as efficiently as a thief etc. Each time you played the game you would find different challenges based on your current character - so where a thief found and opened a secret door to bypass a guard room a warrior ends up fighting his way through, and a mage would try charming or distraction and invisibility to get by.
 

EvoG

Erudite
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
1,424
Location
Chicago
From what you guys were talking about Claw, perhaps its the systems themselves that need to adjust. Instead of measuring cumulative success (Wasteland), or skill degredation even (UO), remove the need to manage skills and have them adjust/improve/decrease through narrative. The idea here is to not fit all of this into current RPG convention.
 

EvoG

Erudite
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
1,424
Location
Chicago
Oh and to note, not that increases through narrative would be timed and paced with the story, but through a discovery during play...measured increases but not like current RPG convention. Reward system would revolve around story and quest progression and tasks and abilities would be aided with items and other non-stat/skill based reward.

Recall how in FO you could increase your stats through only two means (that I recall), which were those rare chips, and through a mutation perk? (if there were others, I apologize :D ). I'm thinking along those lines. You would still become 'better', its just not at every rung on the ladder so to speak.
 

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