Interview A Decadent Interview at RPG Dot

[bryce777]

6. If your character is too fucking useless to do any of the above, you can scout the location and pass your info to the Noble House enforcers. The success of their attack and the casualties, including the life of the kidnapped guy, depends on your info.

I love this quest, and I especially love option 6.

 

[Hazelnut]

The suggestiong I'd make is to use a few more semicolons, colons or dashes - personally I like dashes. That way ideas can be connected more closely than is allowed by a period, without the player getting lost in a sea of commas.

I like dashes too - I find that these days I simply cannot remember when to correctly use colons and semicolons in english any more, after years of programming. I could ask my mum to remind me, since she's an ex-english teacher, but I can't be arsed. So I concur with galsiah. Commas, dashes and full stops, do not start chucking in loads of colon'y type things.

Oh, and yes, it's most definitely a 'full stop' goddamnit! I spent quite a few years as a teen getting very confused while watching american films where people would say period. I always thought "what the hell are they referring to menstruation for" :shock:

 

[galsiah]

A question on combat defeat:
IIRC losing in combat leaves you unconscious, rather than dead (right?). Is the downside to this always the same, or can it depend on circumstance? Are there some situations where you do die?

I think you said that being knocked unconscious can lead to your stuff being stolen (which makes sense). Does this always happen? Is it the guys who beat you who steal your stuff, or passing bandits - or does it depend?
If it's the guys you are fighting, do even honourable people (are there any??) steal your stuff? If not, what's the downside to attacking honourable folks who already don't like you?

If it's always passing bandits, does that make sense for every location (e.g. a sealed location / a totally uninhabited one...)? If I'm knocked unconscious in a Noble House's command room, do they throw my body out into the street?

On a related note, if I lose my items, will I absolutely need (in my view) to get them back? Will I eventually be losing a good sword and shield (replacable at moderate cost), or the uber ultra balanced, ultra sharp one-of-a-kind mithril sword of uberness...?

Assuming I usually do try to get my stuff back from a load of bandits..., what can a diplomatic / non-violent character do in this situation? "I'll give you 100 gold", isn't a strong bargaining position when bandits have stolen 600 gold from you. How much gold will a character usually have/carry in any case? Are there places to secure gold so that it can't be stolen?
I guess the diplomatic type wouldn't have the uber ultra balanced, ultra sharp one-of-a-kind mithril sword of uberness in the first place. Would he generally have any similarly valuable / rare / irreplacable items?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

One thing I was wondering, VD: There is a lot of white space on your dialogue screen, so I wonder if you could slightly expand the worldview window and maybe also use a slightly larger font?

We are changing it to:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 361#210361

As you can see, the camera window is large enough; as for the font, some people have a lot to say, so a larger font won't work. We'll make sure that it's readable though.

Yeah, that's a much better use of space.

Also, could you talk a little more about the combat system? You say the grid movement adds a tactical element: How so? What are the tactical decisions I can make? Does terrain play a role, and if so, does the engine tell me the effects or do I need to study the manual beforehand? What's the most similar combat system in a previous game?

The grid shows the movement & reach, including those of your opponents, so it's easier to evaluate the situation and find a location that may give you an advantage. Terrain doesn't affect your movements, but offers basic stuff like higher ground and natural obstacles and cover (stairways, narrow passages, barrels, ruins, etc).

Most tactical elements come from your attack options, and that, I think, is the most important element.

Higher ground is a nice touch. How will you handle things like fleeing or maybe reinforcements? How large is the playing field for combat? Hunting down fleeing foes in a TB game can be tedious, while NPC's vanishing after crossing the screen boarder or an invisible line is unrealistic and sometimes annoying.

22 Locations: I assume that means towns/areas and does not include sub-locations and larger interiors (temples, castles, dungeons, caves), right?

No interiors, but I'm not sure what you mean by sub-locations. Using Fallout 2 as an example, we count locations like the Toxic Caves, but not Klamath's Trapping Grounds.

I meant locations split over several maps - not sure if you even do that. Your examples mean nothing to me, haven't played FO2

You mention mainly human foes. Is there at least passive wildlife, pets, etc. to bring some life to the world?

Not that I know of (means "no").

How do you intend to achieve variety with mainly human opposition? How different are the challenges in combat?

Different people use different tactics and styles. Dealing with a fast, lightly armored opponent is VERY different than dealing with a slow walking tank. Trying to approach a spearman who interrupts (special attack) your attempts to close the distance is VERY different than dealing with a hammer guy whose attacks may send you flying. Dealing with a dagger guy with Critical Strike and 4-6 attacks per turn is different than dealing with a guy with a 2H sword (most likely he would be able to attack only once per turn, but you won't survive more than 2 *successful* attacks)

Sounds good, although in practice I see many games ending up with one or two "win all" strategies anyway. Do you have an "appraise" feature to evaluate a foe before or during combat?

Quests: three to six solutions sound great, but how strongly "pre-scripted" are they?

I'm a big fan of scripting.

Have you experimented with simply defining a set of goals and leaving it to the player and the game mechanics to determine the actual solutions?

Not my cup of tea.

Are there any recyclable "random" quests a la Daggerfall?

No.

Too bad, I wish someone would try to take that model and develop it further. In light of your example, your quests sound great. The problem I sometimes have with heavily scripted quests is exactly the flag problem discussed above: when I have to fulfill certain criteia pre-arranged by the designer, although there clearly should be other logical options open. A classic example is that most RPG's do never include an option to say "I'm sorry" in dialogue - I'm not meaning that one should be able to reverse all consequences that way, but it's often a logical choice and should be handled in a logical way. Considering your quest example covers pretty much all options i could think about, and considering you use world conditions more than triggers, it sounds good to me.

 

[black francis]

Excuse me, but if I remember correctly you've stated that you can chose to play as a female. I haven't seen any models though. Are there any?

 

[elander_]

snip.

Looks very well done. There is constant interaction and we constantly use our skills in different ways to solve problems.

I would only sugest two things. When a dialog has a critical strike, persuasion or another check put a chance percent near the tag so that the player knows if it's easy or not to do the action. Or perhaps a percent interval like this 10%-50% or just simply a word like (persuasion hard) or (persuasion very hard). The other sugestion is to experiment on making some reactions to dialog choices be a bit random so that the player will experience the quest in a slightly different way when he replays and can't fully predict the outcome of a choice. This is common design in solo pnp rpgs and can work well in crpgs.

Otherwise i only have to say: go Indie go.

 

[Azarkon]

You are asked to save a noble, kidnapped by some raiders. You can:

1. Kill all raiders.
2. Assassinate the leader and intimidate the rest. It's fun when you kill the leader, but fail the intimidation check.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6083 ... t019pb.jpg
3. Deal with the raiders and convince the Noble House to pay the ransom. Negotiate with the raiders and make some money by paying them less. Pay them in full and get them to handle another quest for you.
4. If you got the ransom money, convince the Thieves Guild that raiders are bad for business. They will help you for a cut.
http://img153.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=s ... ot19sn.jpg
5. Convince the Imperial Guards to interfere if you have the balls to do what they ask for in return. You can double-cross them though. Whatever you do, prepare for more consequences than you can handle.
6. If your character is too fucking useless to do any of the above, you can scout the location and pass your info to the Noble House enforcers. The success of their attack and the casualties, including the life of the kidnapped guy, depends on your info.

Very nice. Any long-term ramifications in the game world as a result of the decisions? (not particular to this quest, but in general)

 

[galsiah]

No interiors, but I'm not sure what you mean by sub-locations. Using Fallout 2 as an example, we count locations like the Toxic Caves, but not Klamath's Trapping Grounds.

I meant locations split over several maps - not sure if you even do that. Your examples mean nothing to me, haven't played FO2

Klamath's Trapping Grounds is a section of an area split over separate maps. The Toxic Caves are an area you need to travel to on the world map. They are only a "sub-area" in the sense that they're in the immediate vicinity of a town which qualifies as a major area. I don't know how large they are (I've found an elevator, but I can't work it - presumably there's more). I think the Toxic Caves are a fairly one dimensional area, but perhaps there's more to them??

Another combat thought - is there a way to defeat an opponent in combat without killing him (or his running away)? Do opponents always die unless you choose to spare them, or might they be left unconscious? If I'm playing an honourable character who happens to offend someone and get attacked, will I sometimes have no option but to kill him?

I would only sugest two things. When a dialog has a critical strike, persuasion or another check put a chance percent near the tag so that the player knows if it's easy or not to do the action.

I definitely don't like the idea of having a number or a percentage range. Perhaps an easy / nothing / hard label would be reasonable - I'm not sure. I think a percentage will just encourage min/maxing of dialogue responses, rather than careful consideration of what you want to say.

The other sugestion is to experiment on making some reactions to dialog choices be a bit random so that the player will experience the quest in a slightly different way when he replays and can't fully predict the outcome of a choice. This is common design in solo pnp rpgs and can work well in crpgs.

Perhaps, but I think it'd be best if you can find a way to indicate to the player that this randomness exists. I think you need to aim at making the first playthrough as enjoyable as possible. You can only do that in this way by making sure the player is aware that things might have gone differently.
I'm not sure the best way to do this. You could indicate the randomness in the manual / tutorial (if they exist / anyone reads them). Ideally it'd be preferable to let the player know in the game itself. Having this be clear, but blend in well could be difficult.

One way to get the player used to this might be to throw a few seemingly identical unimportant situations at him early on, and have the outcome be random. This would introduce the idea that chance plays a role, in a low-stakes situation, without explicity telling the player.
Just a thought.


Another thought, while I'm at it:
What are the opportunites for a thief / grifter to use stealing skills? What are the consequences of failure? (e.g. is it always automatic combat)

In Fallout there was rarely any point stealing unless you were prepared to reload if something went wrong, or didn't mind killing half the town. The material benefits weren't worth the risk even for a highly skilled thief. Occasionally there'd be a quest objective where stealing was useful, but this would be rare. The same applied in Morrowind - pickpocketing was practically useless.

Do you think stealing is a useful and interesting skill for someone who's not going to reload when things go badly?

 

[Vault Dweller]

A question on combat defeat:
IIRC losing in combat leaves you unconscious, rather than dead (right?). Is the downside to this always the same, or can it depend on circumstance?

Usually it's the same. Sometimes it can open up a quest.

Are there some situations where you do die?

Yes, where it makes sense.

I think you said that being knocked unconscious can lead to your stuff being stolen (which makes sense). Does this always happen?

Again, where it makes sense.

Is it the guys who beat you who steal your stuff, or passing bandits - or does it depend?

The guys who beat you. Your stuff is added to their inventory and can be reclaimed later.

If it's the guys you are fighting, do even honourable people (are there any??) steal your stuff?

Very few and no.

If not, what's the downside to attacking honourable folks who already don't like you?

Well, what's the downside to attacking anyone in other games? They kill you, you reload. One of the reasons I went with non-lethal combat is to avoid unnecessary reloads.

If I'm knocked unconscious in a Noble House's command room, do they throw my body out into the street?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

On a related note, if I lose my items, will I absolutely need (in my view) to get them back?

Depends on what you view is. You won't lose any quest items.

Will I eventually be losing a good sword and shield (replacable at moderate cost), or the uber ultra balanced, ultra sharp one-of-a-kind mithril sword of uberness...?

You will lose the best stuff. Hey, if even the uber ultra balanced, ultra sharp one-of-a-kind mithril sword of uberness can't help your lame ass, you probably don't need it.

Assuming I usually do try to get my stuff back from a load of bandits..., what can a diplomatic / non-violent character do in this situation?

Not much. There are 2 exceptions to that though, but they are quest related.

How much gold will a character usually have/carry in any case? Are there places to secure gold so that it can't be stolen?

Depends on you, really; and yes.

I guess the diplomatic type wouldn't have the uber ultra balanced, ultra sharp one-of-a-kind mithril sword of uberness in the first place. Would he generally have any similarly valuable / rare / irreplacable items?

Sure, why not. However, I assume that a weak diplomatic type won't try to attack heavily armed people for fun, otherwise he would have every opportunity to avoid combat.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Excuse me, but if I remember correctly you've stated that you can chose to play as a female. I haven't seen any models though. Are there any?

Yes.

I would only sugest two things. When a dialog has a critical strike, persuasion or another check put a chance percent near the tag so that the player knows if it's easy or not to do the action. Or perhaps a percent interval like this 10%-50% or just simply a word like (persuasion hard) or (persuasion very hard).

That would ruin the element of the surprise - :shock: When you are thinking of sneak attacking someone, I don't think you should know what your odds really are, and how fast your seemingly slow opponent may turn out to be.

The other sugestion is to experiment on making some reactions to dialog choices be a bit random so that the player will experience the quest in a slightly different way when he replays and can't fully predict the outcome of a choice.

There are plenty of different choices to, well, choose from, no? Scouting the camp is very different than dealing with the Guards.

Very nice. Any long-term ramifications in the game world as a result of the decisions? (not particular to this quest, but in general)

Yes

I've found an elevator, but I can't work it - presumably there's more

You can use the elevator to access the lower level, but it's very small.

Another combat thought - is there a way to defeat an opponent in combat without killing him

Huh? You defeat your opponents by knocking them unconscious (you can also use poison for that). Then you can choose to kill them (similar to the Gothic system), if you are the bloodthirsty type or have some good reasons.

If I'm playing an honourable character who happens to offend someone and get attacked, will I sometimes have no option but to kill him?

No, which is another reason why I like the non-lethal system. You don't need to become a mass-murderer unless you really, really want to. The game reacts to your preferences in that area.

Gotta run, will reply to the rest later on.

 

[galsiah]

Well, what's the downside to attacking anyone in other games? They kill you, you reload. One of the reasons I went with non-lethal combat is to avoid unnecessary reloads.

Good point. I guess taking successive non-penalized beatings just to improve my dodge skill is not the most enjoyable way to play the game in any case (I hope ).

Huh? You defeat your opponents by knocking them unconscious (you can also use poison for that). Then you can choose to kill them...

Great stuff. I assumed for some reason that the unconsciousness was only for the player. Very happy to hear that the player doesn't get special treatment.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Another thought, while I'm at it:
What are the opportunites for a thief / grifter to use stealing skills? What are the consequences of failure? (e.g. is it always automatic combat)

The opportunities are everywhere, just like in any other decent game. The failure doesn't start the combat, but you will be thrown out or your target will leave.

 

[Hazelnut]

I would only sugest two things. When a dialog has a critical strike, persuasion or another check put a chance percent near the tag so that the player knows if it's easy or not to do the action. Or perhaps a percent interval like this 10%-50% or just simply a word like (persuasion hard) or (persuasion very hard).

That would ruin the element of the surprise - :shock: When you are thinking of sneak attacking someone, I don't think you should know what your odds really are, and how fast your seemingly slow opponent may turn out to be.

That's probably the first explanation of why you're doing things the way you are where I don't really understand where you're coming from.

I'm trying to look at this from a roleplaying perspective. It seems to me that if the PC has a skill at a level which gives him the option to try a particular approach, then having that skill the PC would also be able use it to appraise his chances of success in the given situation. This would be dependent on the level of skill, the higher the skill (maybe compared to the level needed to even get the option) the more accurate & reliable the information, but surely leaving it to the player to weigh up, with no feedback from the PC as to the chance of success, is rather like relying on player skill - which is something you say you dislike. Obviously the player must make decisions and control the PC otherwise you get a screensaver/movie, but to rely on the player skill and disregard the PC's skill by not giving some information about probable success just doesn't seem to fit your design ideologies. How to provide this information is probably the subject for another AoD codex-design-workshop thread.

Please be gentle if I've missed a stupidly obvious point here.

I also had a thought that the chance could also depend on what actions the player had taken in allowing the PC to size up the situation beforehand though observation (locations & time) as well as preceding dialogue. I'm not suggesting that you do this for AoD, as it's probably a whole can o' worms of its own, and probably needs to be an aim right from the start. I just thought it an interesting idea to throw out to you, maybe for AoD 2.

 

[galsiah]

I also had a thought that the chance could also depend on what actions the player had taken in allowing the PC to size up the situation beforehand though observation (locations & time) as well as preceding dialogue.

Well, it ought to depend entirely on that - and what the PC can directly observe. The actual chance of success shouldn't be involved at all in any PC risk assessment.

If VD were to do this, it would only be a good idea IMO if done as you suggest - i.e. calculating the odds through PC observation and information, not through the actual chance of success. Doing that well would be a can of worms as you say.

 

[Claw]

I'm trying to look at this from a roleplaying perspective.

From a roleplaying perspective, I believe you ought to choose the option that suits your character best. :wink:

 

[bryce777]

I would only sugest two things. When a dialog has a critical strike, persuasion or another check put a chance percent near the tag so that the player knows if it's easy or not to do the action. Or perhaps a percent interval like this 10%-50% or just simply a word like (persuasion hard) or (persuasion very hard).

That would ruin the element of the surprise - :shock: When you are thinking of sneak attacking someone, I don't think you should know what your odds really are, and how fast your seemingly slow opponent may turn out to be.

That's probably the first explanation of why you're doing things the way you are where I don't really understand where you're coming from.

I'm trying to look at this from a roleplaying perspective. It seems to me that if the PC has a skill at a level which gives him the option to try a particular approach, then having that skill the PC would also be able use it to appraise his chances of success in the given situation. This would be dependent on the level of skill, the higher the skill (maybe compared to the level needed to even get the option) the more accurate & reliable the information, but surely leaving it to the player to weigh up, with no feedback from the PC as to the chance of success, is rather like relying on player skill - which is something you say you dislike. Obviously the player must make decisions and control the PC otherwise you get a screensaver/movie, but to rely on the player skill and disregard the PC's skill by not giving some information about probable success just doesn't seem to fit your design ideologies. How to provide this information is probably the subject for another AoD codex-design-workshop thread.

Please be gentle if I've missed a stupidly obvious point here.

I also had a thought that the chance could also depend on what actions the player had taken in allowing the PC to size up the situation beforehand though observation (locations & time) as well as preceding dialogue. I'm not suggesting that you do this for AoD, as it's probably a whole can o' worms of its own, and probably needs to be an aim right from the start. I just thought it an interesting idea to throw out to you, maybe for AoD 2.

There is a difference between player skill and player brains.

Actually, this ups my estimation of the game considerably. If you always know whether a gambit will work, there is zero gameplay to it; it is just watching a movie.

 

[Kraszu]

Yes that is the way it should be done, just point that you think you have 10% chance and you are sure about it, not very sure.

 

[Hazelnut]

I also had a thought that the chance could also depend on what actions the player had taken in allowing the PC to size up the situation beforehand though observation (locations & time) as well as preceding dialogue.

Well, it ought to depend entirely on that - and what the PC can directly observe. The actual chance of success shouldn't be involved at all in any PC risk assessment.

Why so? All the observation and time spent beforehand simply gives the PC more opportunity to make a better appraisal of success probabilty. It's just a refinement to my main thought - that their should be some info provided to the player dependent on the PC's ability & skills to appraise chance of success in a given situation. It's not like there is much else to go on - gut feel, modified by knowledge of current skill levels of the PC and how much you fancy a gamble. Unless you think exactly like VD then you will probably be off annoyingly often. You're not actually there, you're not actually skilled in <whatever> so the game surely should provide indications based on your character. I'm not advocating that you should always know that you'll succeed, but the PC should be able to feedback whether an approach is an incredibly risky gamble or a pretty sure bet, or sometimes even that the PC has no idea.

It does occur to me that even just doing this well enough not to be retarded would not be particularly easy. But without something like this, many players may very well end up reloading because they didn't feel they were given enough information to decide upon as a matter of course rather than dependent on situation and PC they're playing. Since this is something VD says he's trying to avoid, it begs the question of his direction on this aspect of the game.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[Hazelnut]

I'm trying to look at this from a roleplaying perspective.

From a roleplaying perspective, I believe you ought to choose the option that suits your character best. :wink:

Well, that's assuming that it's always obvious what's appropriate for the PC, but I really hope that things can get a little more complex than I'm playing x type so I always do y.

There is a difference between player skill and player brains.

Actually, this ups my estimation of the game considerably. If you always know whether a gambit will work, there is zero gameplay to it; it is just watching a movie.

Yes there is a difference, but I think you need to have another read of what is being suggested. It's certainly not that the game should indicate whether you'll be successful or not. As you quite rightly say, that would be intensely moronic. The idea of presenting an option, but telling you it will definitely fail, is rather absurd.

Having some information based on the char abilities & skills & current situation, where sometimes the assessment will pretty certain (never definate unless there's a precog skill) and other times pretty vague range of chance. Am I really missing something here?

 

[Claw]

Well, that's assuming that it's always obvious what's appropriate for the PC, but I really hope that things can get a little more complex than I'm playing x type so I always do y.

My reply wasn't meant to be nuanced, my point is you shouldn't decide mainly based on success. Do what your character would do, not what gives you the highest % of success.
Better not to know, imo. Also, VD has a point: Your opponent might surprise you. The situation may develop in an unforseeable way. Choose an action, not an outcome.

 

[galsiah]

Why so? All the observation and time spent beforehand simply gives the PC more opportunity to make a better appraisal of success probabilty. It's just a refinement to my main thought - that their should be some info provided to the player dependent on the PC's ability & skills to appraise chance of success in a given situation.

Sure. I was taking the dependence on skills / attributes as given.

I just wanted to emphasize that the actual chance of success should have no direct effect on the PC's evaluation. If everything looks like it's easy (/hard) to the PC, from info, observations, actions etc., then he should get feedback that it's easy (/hard) - even if he actually has a 1% (/99%) chance for some hidden reason.

To do it properly, the PC's evaluation should be totally independent of the actual chance of success (though it'll correlate highly in most circumstances). That means you need a fairly complex independent evaluation system, including a range of factors for every type of check. These game world factors (combined with or modified by player skill) will determine the perceived chance of success. Player skill could be used to modify each factor (i.e. players with high skill will notice ???, so factor that in only if the player has high skill), or, for a less accurate system, could modify the result - e.g. perfect perception gives 60% chance of success, but low skill adds a large random factor.

Anyway, I still think it's a good idea if and only if it uses a complex system of PC observations, combined with / modified by player skills/attributes. A simple indication based on the actual (rather than perceived) chance of success is not a good idea IMO.

 

[bryce777]

I'm trying to look at this from a roleplaying perspective.

From a roleplaying perspective, I believe you ought to choose the option that suits your character best. :wink:

Well, that's assuming that it's always obvious what's appropriate for the PC, but I really hope that things can get a little more complex than I'm playing x type so I always do y.

There is a difference between player skill and player brains.

Actually, this ups my estimation of the game considerably. If you always know whether a gambit will work, there is zero gameplay to it; it is just watching a movie.

Yes there is a difference, but I think you need to have another read of what is being suggested. It's certainly not that the game should indicate whether you'll be successful or not. As you quite rightly say, that would be intensely moronic. The idea of presenting an option, but telling you it will definitely fail, is rather absurd.

Having some information based on the char abilities & skills & current situation, where sometimes the assessment will pretty certain (never definate unless there's a precog skill) and other times pretty vague range of chance. Am I really missing something here?

To me, it's the same basic idea.

 

[Hazelnut]

Well, that's assuming that it's always obvious what's appropriate for the PC, but I really hope that things can get a little more complex than I'm playing x type so I always do y.

My reply wasn't meant to be nuanced, my point is you shouldn't decide mainly based on success. Do what your character would do, not what gives you the highest % of success.
Better not to know, imo. Also, VD has a point: Your opponent might surprise you. The situation may develop in an unforseeable way. Choose an action, not an outcome.

But you're still assuming that it's always gonna be as simple as scan the list for the one that fits my PC archetype and choose that, regardless of the possiblity for there to be two (or more) avenues that fit. Maybe one is not the usual modus operandi for the PC, but you can decide that the circumstances warrant it. As for "Choose an action, not an outcome" - I really don't think that choosing an outcome 's what I'm saying at all. That's possibly the worst possible scenario gamplay wise, where you simply choose the outcome rather than action. Maybe you could read what I said again more carefully, and see if you get it or I really am saying something I'm not actually thinking.

See, I want to be weighing up the different options, and possible success (based on PC stats) and consequences. Not just choosing *steal* every single time because by char is a 1 dimentional thief who doesn't know how to do anything else, and steals to solve every problem. Yes it's great that VD is providing several opportunities at every stage, but I really doubt it will come down to simply choosing the one that fits the char best every time - otherwise the game may as well choose for you or just provide a single char sensitive option. With or without PC & situation based success chance feedback, I don't think the game will play in the menners you suggest - given what VD has said about the game.

 

[Hazelnut]

Having some information based on the char abilities & skills & current situation, where sometimes the assessment will pretty certain (never definate unless there's a precog skill) and other times pretty vague range of chance. Am I really missing something here?

To me, it's the same basic idea.

How? You're given the PC's, not always definite and somtimes vague, sense of their ability to successfully carry out an action. Not that they'll succeed, or even (as galsiah quite nicely put it) that the actual chance of succeeding is the same.

I think that to do it right is probably far too complex to attempt this far into AoD's development, but I was really just curious as to why VD held that never providing this kind of information is the ideal design model. I'm talking conceptually, rather than practically so I guess this maybe wasn't the best thread to ask, but it prompted the query so..

I'm not evangelical about this, and it doesn't seem like either you or Claw are seeing what I'm saying - maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly, but I've yet to see an explanation of why my thinking is wrong-headed rather than simply not understanding what I am trying to convey.

Ah well, I'm off to bed soon anyway.

 

[bryce777]

Having some information based on the char abilities & skills & current situation, where sometimes the assessment will pretty certain (never definate unless there's a precog skill) and other times pretty vague range of chance. Am I really missing something here?

To me, it's the same basic idea.

How? You're given the PC's, not always definite and somtimes vague, sense of their ability to successfully carry out an action. Not that they'll succeed, or even (as galsiah quite nicely put it) that the actual chance of succeeding is the same.

I think that to do it right is probably far too complex to attempt this far into AoD's development, but I was really just curious as to why VD held that never providing this kind of information is the ideal design model. I'm talking conceptually, rather than practically so I guess this maybe wasn't the best thread to ask, but it prompted the query so..

I'm not evangelical about this, and it doesn't seem like either you or Claw are seeing what I'm saying - maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly, but I've yet to see an explanation of why my thinking is wrong-headed rather than simply not understanding what I am trying to convey.

Ah well, I'm off to bed soon anyway.

I think it's a bad idea for the same reasons. If there is a percent chance then it should be kept secret; otherwise, you have too much knowledge and are using your head less.

So long as the percentages make some sense (IE not much chance of talking the king out of his castle, but a good chance of convincing a stupid ogre you know where a treasure is) then you should take your cues from the situation at hand.