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

[crufty]

I think stat sheets are important, because what happens if you aren't just one character, but six? And what if you only play an hour a week, tops? A player could spend most of his time zooming in on his characters trying to figure out if the leather clad figure is his thief who can detect traps or his fighter who is just broke and can't afford better.

My feeling is that a stat sheet is a neccessary evil, like automapping, for all but the most hard core players. It's an efficient way of presenting information about the character that could be obtained via inspection of the game world. Not saying that its not better to have a strong guy be buffer, etc...

 

[EvoG]

I think stat sheets are important, because what happens if you aren't just one character, but six? And what if you only play an hour a week, tops? A player could spend most of his time zooming in on his characters trying to figure out if the leather clad figure is his thief who can detect traps or his fighter who is just broke and can't afford better.

Having a party of six and requiring you manage all their 'bio's' is a design flaw, not a flaw with this system. Anyway, and npc followers you have would be just that, followers, not robots under your control so this is a non-issue.

What does playing time have to do with anything?

I think you trivialized the system and found examples that of course would make it sound stupid. When you come across issues like this, you dont immediately assume thats just how things are. You ask "how do I improve the design to support this?" This is the core of design theory. Throw away convention. Understand your question and find an answer.

My feeling is that a stat sheet is a neccessary evil, like automapping, for all but the most hard core players. It's an efficient way of presenting information about the character that could be obtained via inspection of the game world. Not saying that its not better to have a strong guy be buffer, etc...

Funny, I saw this as a way to leave the complexity of character development and interaction, but making it EASIER for people who want to enjoy said complexity but are turned off by the numbers and stat sheets.

 

[Imbecile]

My feeling is that a stat sheet is a neccessary evil, like automapping, for all but the most hard core players. It's an efficient way of presenting information about the character that could be obtained via inspection of the game world. Not saying that its not better to have a strong guy be buffer, etc...

Funny, I saw this as a way to leave the complexity of character development and interaction, but making it EASIER for people who want to enjoy said complexity but are turned off by the numbers and stat sheets.

I guess what is being aimed for is a system that lets you completely ignore the stats. Its more of a hassle if people really need to know exactly how good they are, but much less of an issue if the player can simply accept that their character is what he/she is.
Lets face it, no-one is that bothered that we cant see an opponents stats, and since combat is relative you dont KNOW that you will win(although you may be able to guess more accurately). Losing the ability to see your own stats changes nothing - you will still have to guess.

I suppose the main benefits are

you focus on the game rather than the stats
would reduce powergaming (might put off a lot of people!)
would encourage more imaginative ways to represent "levelling up"
less overt stats means that the world feels more real. You dont have +5 armour, you simply have better armour....actually thats a point...

without stats, how do you know what items of equipment are better than others? price maybe? get it valued

 

[EvoG]

I guess what is being aimed for is a system that lets you completely ignore the stats. Its more of a hassle if people really need to know exactly how good they are, but much less of an issue if the player can simply accept that their character is what he/she is.
Lets face it, no-one is that bothered that we cant see an opponents stats, and since combat is relative you dont KNOW that you will win(although you may be able to guess more accurately). Losing the ability to see your own stats changes nothing - you will still have to guess.

More or less yes.

I suppose the main benefits are

you focus on the game rather than the stats

Yes.

would reduce powergaming (might put off a lot of people!)

Yes and no...IF all they want is Diablo, Sacred or Fate, then yes, its a different game, assuming we're agreeing on the term "powergaming".

would encourage more imaginative ways to represent "levelling up"
less overt stats means that the world feels more real.

Definitely. Context is everything.

You dont have +5 armour, you simply have better armour....actually thats a point...

without stats, how do you know what items of equipment are better than others? price maybe? get it valued

Well dont forget one important thing...we do have descriptions for everything, just no arbitrary numbers. This was similar to the sword/chair comment in the other thread; the armor could be described as crafted from the rarest metals from Tikbaka, by the royal artisian blacksmiths of Loofoofoo. It could cost more yes. Assuming this is a fantasy game with magic, you could cast a spell on it that could 'assure' the player that it indeed is great armor, again descriptive. There can be a craftsman skill that can more or less assure the player that the quality is very high, and much better than anything you currently posess in your inventory.

The +modifier or any number just isn't important.

If we dont require that combat be micro-dependent on that extra +5 to defense, or that sword doing another 2 points more of damage, we can step back from NEEDING those values because they cease to HAVE value. Should combat be about these tiny increases in equipment quality, or should combat be about player skill? How about instead of a +5 modifier to the armour, it has a magical glow? Or when worn erupts into magical flame (resistance to cold attacks)?

Instead of tiny improvments, lets have broader, more appealing and obvious improvment. From leather to metal plate to ranger to power armor to enclave armor?

Whats good about all this Imbecile is you're asking the questions we are asking ourselves here. These do need to be answered and methods created to suit the system. Its good you're not immediately finding issue without giving it thought first, as ANY problem CAN be solved creatively.


Cheers

 

[Section8]

In reverse chronological order:

Instead of tiny improvments, lets have broader, more appealing and obvious improvment. From leather to metal plate to ranger to power armor to enclave armor?

More subtle distinctions are necessary in a system that accounts for armour with more distinctions that just the protection it provides. For instance, the typical notion that palte armour offers far better protection, but hinders mobility and inhibits magic. If that's the case, then you need to make obvious improvement within the armor archetypes.

It's more difficult to set apart improvement, but it can still be done. Also, wasn't a good part of this discussion to do with encouraging players to make choices of their own accord, rather than just going for the higher stats? I think the general idea here should be that statistically similar items should be subtly distinguished, and for want of a better word, different "tiers" of equipment should be obviously distinguished. So for example:

Claymore (2d6), Zweihander (1d12), Bastard Sword (1d10), Dai-Katana (3d4) are all roughly equivalent, and should all look equivalent, despite obvious stylistic differences.

Claymore and Claymore +1, represent a tiered progression, and so they should share the same stylistic design, but the better of the two should be embellished in order to represent the superior craftsmanship/enchantment.

Of course, there should also be items that exist outside of this rule of thumb, just to keep things interesting, and to satisfy certain curiosities/exploration rewards.

How about instead of a +5 modifier to the armour, it has a magical glow? Or when worn erupts into magical flame (resistance to cold attacks)?

I think this is a great idea, amd it's a good time to introduce another concept to this snowball.

If a player is making decisions based on something other than a clearly defined statistical comparison, then they're now developing in unintentional ways. At first, this might seem like a bad thing, since on the surface, it seems like you're wresting certain liberties of control from the player, but really, if done in parallel with a system that does allow control, it can add a great deal of flavour.

For instance, take ego weapons and cursed weapons in D&D. Both have the potential to over-ride certain elements of a characters core personality, but in doing so, provide some more compelling choice to be made. Do I pick up and swing every weapon I stumble upon, knowing that it might be cursed? If I'm under a curse, do I just do what is required to satisfy it, or do I find a way to rid myself of it?

Or to be a little more dramatic, let's say a paladin decides to wield a weapon, and it turns out to be cursed. It degrades constitution for each day the goes by without shedding innocent blood. Since that goes against all of the paladin's beliefs, he tries to grin and bear it. It gets to the point where he's a decripit husk of a paladin, and one more day would see his life end. Does he make a noble sacrifice, and let himself die, or does he start killing innocents? If he falls, all of a sudden, there's an unexpected emergent plot twist, and an oppotunity to re-evaluate his character. Does he seek redemption, or does he turn to the evil that has corrupted him?

If role-playing is only about ultimate free choice, it's boring, like Morrowind. If the game inflicts "lesser of two evils" choices on the player, then that's all part of validating the character choices you've made.

I guess what is being aimed for is a system that lets you completely ignore the stats. Its more of a hassle if people really need to know exactly how good they are, but much less of an issue if the player can simply accept that their character is what he/she is.
Lets face it, no-one is that bothered that we cant see an opponents stats, and since combat is relative you dont KNOW that you will win(although you may be able to guess more accurately). Losing the ability to see your own stats changes nothing - you will still have to guess.

That's a good way to look at it. Hiding explicit stats is neither leaving the character in the dark, nor necessarily "dumbing down." If I'm able to evaluate my opponent by non-statistical means, there no reason why I can't do that to myself, with a broader and more accurate understanding, of course.

To put another wrapper on the concept, if you're in combat, and you're making your mind up which opponent to shoot, does it matter what particular "chance to hit" values are exactly, or is the comparison more relevant? It doesn't really matter than I have 90% chance to hit this guy as opposed to 60% with that guy, if I know I'm almost certain to hit the first as opposed to the slightly above average chance I have to hit the other.

Just like a general doesn't need to sit down and have a "one-on-one get to know you session" with each and every soldier he commands in order to make effective tactical and strategic decisions, neither does a player need to define their character with unerring accuracy.

My feeling is that a stat sheet is a neccessary evil, like automapping, for all but the most hard core players. It's an efficient way of presenting information about the character that could be obtained via inspection of the game world. Not saying that its not better to have a strong guy be buffer, etc...

Don't completely discount the idea of "obtaining via inspection." You start Fallout knowing only the location of Vaults 13 and 15, and part of the game is exploration and discovery. In the same way, RTS games use fog of war to good effect in making fuzzy tactical decisions. I don't necessarily know explicitly where an enemy town/base is, nor do I know what buildings it has, what defenses it has, what resource supplies it has, etc, until I find that out. But, I can make reasonable predictions, and still develop my own settlement effectively without knowing every single fact of tactical significance.

Will players, (and in particular some RPG players - who love the levelling up thrill) accept a game based on invisible stats? I think increasingly the answer is yes. I appreciate that these two examples may not be entirely appropriate, but in both Call of Duty 2, and Halo 2 there is no visible health bar. If FPSers can take this kind of uncertainty, I dont see why RPGers could not accept it on a wider scale.

Good point, but there are also some qualifiers to the systems in Halo and Call of Duty 2. Halo 2 does have a measure of shield strength, which is very important, and it is this that makes the health bar less important so it can be hidden. I haven't played Call of Duty 2, but if it follows the conventions of its predecessor, then health is largely unimportant because any firefight has the potential to be lethal, and finding ways to avoid or minimise the chance to be shot is a core part of the gameplay.

In a game like Doom or Quake, where the player is expect to soak up a certain amount of damage, being able to measure health effectively is important, although admittedly, I prefer to play both without a status bar, and instead check it periodically in the moments where I do need to know.

But once you start assigning points every other hour, modifying the character based on what you've experienced in the game or you simply changed your mind, the character becomes fuzzy, losing any of the starting idiosyncrocies that made him who he was.

This one goes both ways. I can think of quite a few games where inexperienced characters are very similar by the common ground that they're bad at nearly everything, and it's only once they have a chance to develop that they're able to blossom into an individual. There are also ways to keep a character archetype on track. There's Fallout's tags, the almost completely static SPECIAL attributes, and of course the perks.

It's only a poorly designed or overly flexible system that encourages fuzzy character definition, and so this assertion has little bearing, since a statless system also has a marked reliance on effective complementary design.

<a bunch of good logical additions and musings>

Good stuff there, but I'd like to expand on it, and say that in a game context, there's potential for abstractions beyond what's possible in reality also. For instance, to use the example of "shaking and wobbling" as a means to convey aiming skill in Deus Ex, it also provided meaningful visual abstractions, like the width of crosshairs, to represent the margin of error in shooting. It also had some other visual clues, like the representation of health on a green to red scale.

Not all visual clues have to be realistically depicted, not that I'm disagreeing with any of your ideas.

--

Anyway, my summarising of my posts in the other thread isn't really coming along in a hurry. I prefer the more organic discussion that's going on in here.

 

[Section8]

sweet jebus. Double post.

 

[Section8]

sweet jebus. <s>Double</s> Triple post.

 

[Section8]

sweet jebus. <s>Double</s> <s>Triple</s> Quadruple post.

 

[Section8]

sweet jebus. <s>Double</s> <s>Triple</s> <s>Quadruple</s> Quintuple post.

 

[Section8]

sweet jebus. <s>Double</s> <s>Triple</s> <s>Quadruple</s> <s>Quintuple</s> Sextuple post.

Feel free to retardo these. I don't think there's a word for the sort of stupidity I've displayed here.

 

[EvoG]

Man Section8, you can say that again! :D


EDIT: Gah! You caught your duplicate posts...so my little joking doesn't make sense now.


Hehe.

 

[crufty]

What does playing time have to do with anything?

I think you trivialized the system and found examples that of course would make it sound stupid....

Funny, I saw this as a way to leave the complexity of character development and interaction, but making it EASIER for people who want to enjoy said complexity but are turned off by the numbers and stat sheets.

Great responses. I think we are close to the same page. I'm no master designer, just an average joe, so its very likely I will miss some obvious points. Taking a different approach, lets take a look at the only commercial title I've played all year, Rebelstar Tactical Command.

Granted, its not an RPG--and so as an example is less than perfect. But in terms of combat, it might as well have been RPG, so lets take a look at it. Does it meet the requirements of a statless game? Sort of.

After equipping my characters, I'm able to see the results of my actions in game. Armor types, equipment layouts, etc are all more or less easily identifiable from the main combat screen. There are movement points, but a nice grid system tells me exactly how far I have to move before I'm no longer able to peform a given action=--so I can ignore those. I have a bar graph for hit points and morale (as well as numbers), so we're making progress there--and my characters kneel down when hurt, so I don't really have to pay attention to hit points at all. Characters run away when afraid, so again, I don't *have* to monitor morale.So, in many ways, this has a lot of features a statless system might have (at a high conceptual level).

But...what happens if my medic character gets killed (err knocked out) and some of my other characters need healing? How do I tell who should pick up those med packs?

Here is where gameplay time comes in. Due to the pick up and go nature, I was able to play frequently--but not for long stetches. So while I got to "know' the lead characters--X is the leader, Y the medic, Z the sniper, etc--I never really did remember much about the supporting cast. I, however, was still in control of their destinies. So I had one of them take some medic points so that they could act as a stand in.

Now--the design question. How to figure who should pick up the med packs without a stat sheet?

One way would be to have a character say "I should pick up that med pak." But then, to some degree, this is like NWN where the game would play for you at times. I'm not so sure that is a good idea. Another way would be to select the medpacks and press a button, and have the best character highlighted. Again, I feel this takes a little bit of the control out of my hands.

There may be other solutions. It is hard for me to see them, however, because I know that a simple, and effective mechanism--a stat sheet--is there. Now, I'm not saying that Rebelstar had a great stat sheet--far from it. Just that I think a stat sheet of some kind that indicates relative healing ability--I really like the idea of no numbers--is ok. I also don't think a stat sheet need be this extra screen--Ultima VII had about the nicest stat sheet I've seen, with Might and Magick - Clouds of Xeen a distant second.

 

[crufty]

Don't completely discount the idea of "obtaining via inspection." You start Fallout knowing only the location of Vaults 13 and 15, and part of the game is exploration and discovery. In the same way, RTS games use fog of war to good effect in making fuzzy tactical decisions.

I actually agree whole-heartedly. The roguelikes are particularly adept in this regard. Scrolls, potions and even weapons are entirely unknown. Any item could be blessed--or cursed. Early gameplay has such a high mortality rate, players might as well pick up everything and use it right away. Fighting with a dagger, you see a matlock. Might as well pick it up, the dagger isn't doing so hot. Equip it--doh! It sticks to your hands and now your stuck with one heavy, cursed matlock.

A couple of dungeon levels and many hit points later, you review your inventory and notice a couple of scrolls named "?READ ME?"? Maybe it's an enchant weapon scroll-read it and find out! When you read the scroll, it disappears and you get the text "Your matlock glows blue for a moment" (or red, or whatever the color may be). All right! Next step--maybe drink that bubbly potion! Doh! It was poison. You trip down some stairs and die. Oh well. Reset and restart.

The neat side effect is that as players progress up the power curve, you get to a point where you aren't so anxious to read those scrolls. You have a decent set of loot, but there is still other loot out there that can have quite a negative effect--and you just don't know what it is. You'd hate to read a scroll only to have your phat blessed plate mail + 5 turn to dust!

So I think exploration is a key point. I also would rather have "plate mail <pass elven lore skill check>that appears to be of elven construction, engraved with elven runes <pass language, elven check> of protection <pass perception check> that glow a very faint blue" rather than blessed +5 elven plate mail, though the in game effect is the same. In general, the less stats presented to the player the better--though the more record keeping the computer performs, the more "accurate" the gameplay will be--also a good thing. And as noted, these are all aspects of the game. The role playing part of RPG really requires very little in the way of stats, when you get down to the brass tacks of it...

 

[obediah]

Having a party of six and requiring you manage all their 'bio's' is a design flaw, not a flaw with this system.

This doesn't seem like the kind of statement to make that is condusive to keeping this thread on topic.

What does playing time have to do with anything?

Well if the goal is to get rid of the stat sheet, but keep the complexity and gain immersion, then the player (not player character) is going to need to keep a lot more information about the character in his/her head. Stat sheets are great for catching up with a saved game from six months ago, or when you have to play a game in 30 1 hour chunks. Without a stat sheet, refamiliarizing yourself with an older character takes minutes or hours instead of seconds. This isn't a problem if your goal is to make a good game, but it probably is a problem if your goal is to sell a good game.

Funny, I saw this as a way to leave the complexity of character development and interaction, but making it EASIER for people who want to enjoy said complexity but are turned off by the numbers and stat sheets.

Actually, I got the impression a goal of this shift was to allow even more complex stat systems - for example replace 6 stats ranked form 3-18 with 25 stats that instead of being numbers are gaussian or more complex distributions with multiple parameters. You could work on making a skill not only better, but also more consistent.

As others have mentioned, feedback is a challenge. All of the following suggestions are obvious, but are either dead wrong or have problems:

- bars, charts, {good,bad,super, very super} - are all just ways of making the stats less intimidating. This misses the point entirely, although I'm sure the PR types would be happy to slap "Innovative Stat-less System" on it and go! go! go!

- NPC feedback - more immersive, but also more frustrating. Some FABLE like "Now here's a big strong buck", or "Aren't you mr smarty pants" would drive the player insane Now some things can really only be evaluated by interacting with other people, so that would be appropriate.

- halos, color codes, etc.. - bad for immersion, but can be used to combine other senses and cognition with vision. If tied to the characters perception vs reality this would really solve a lot of problems (at a significant style cost) - that rock *looks* to heavy for me, or that orc looks like easy pickings, rather than orange = 3-4 lvls higher than me. For a thief character items of interest could be highlighted, at low levels a big gold cup might have a halo, at higher skill a painting with scuff marks on the wall neraby indicating that it slides open.

- Character mutterances - "Damn this is heavy" and others as mentioned earlier. The provide good feedback, but I HATE them. Hearing my character always bothers me, especially if you're going for a roleplaying experience. Not to mention production costs of male vs female, and haughty vs sly, and that they're never going to match what you want your character to be (not even with text vs voice).

 

[EvoG]

Having a party of six and requiring you manage all their 'bio's' is a design flaw, not a flaw with this system.

This doesn't seem like the kind of statement to make that is condusive to keeping this thread on topic.

Well sure...taken out of context.

Well if the goal is to get rid of the stat sheet, but keep the complexity and gain immersion, then the player (not player character) is going to need to keep a lot more information about the character in his/her head. Stat sheets are great for catching up with a saved game from six months ago, or when you have to play a game in 30 1 hour chunks. Without a stat sheet, refamiliarizing yourself with an older character takes minutes or hours instead of seconds. This isn't a problem if your goal is to make a good game, but it probably is a problem if your goal is to sell a good game.

Playing habits really are an issue left to the player. Having to 'refresh your memory' after being away for six months has really nothing to do with the game, game system or the genre. I mean really when it comes down to it, there's no such thing as the perfect game, and no limit to the different kinds of games that can exist. The way people having been arguing against this idea leads me to believe they feel that the way Fallout plays is THE way any game on Earth should ever play like, and there's nothing anyone could argue with that myopic view of gaming, rpg or otherwise. That said, a good system is a system supported by a good design, so I dont see this as a problem unless there's a problem with the design.

Actually, I got the impression a goal of this shift was to allow even more complex stat systems - for example replace 6 stats ranked form 3-18 with 25 stats that instead of being numbers are gaussian or more complex distributions with multiple parameters. You could work on making a skill not only better, but also more consistent.

As others have mentioned, feedback is a challenge. All of the following suggestions are obvious, but are either dead wrong or have problems:

- bars, charts, {good,bad,super, very super} - are all just ways of making the stats less intimidating. This misses the point entirely, although I'm sure the PR types would be happy to slap "Innovative Stat-less System" on it and go! go! go!

- NPC feedback - more immersive, but also more frustrating. Some FABLE like "Now here's a big strong buck", or "Aren't you mr smarty pants" would drive the player insane Now some things can really only be evaluated by interacting with other people, so that would be appropriate.

- halos, color codes, etc.. - bad for immersion, but can be used to combine other senses and cognition with vision. If tied to the characters perception vs reality this would really solve a lot of problems (at a significant style cost) - that rock *looks* to heavy for me, or that orc looks like easy pickings, rather than orange = 3-4 lvls higher than me. For a thief character items of interest could be highlighted, at low levels a big gold cup might have a halo, at higher skill a painting with scuff marks on the wall neraby indicating that it slides open.

- Character mutterances - "Damn this is heavy" and others as mentioned earlier. The provide good feedback, but I HATE them. Hearing my character always bothers me, especially if you're going for a roleplaying experience. Not to mention production costs of male vs female, and haughty vs sly, and that they're never going to match what you want your character to be (not even with text vs voice).

Yea, and you know, this is one of those 'try and see' design issues that I'll probably have to iterate a lot until it "feels" right. So yea, just keeping tossing in the suggestions.


Later Obediah

 

[Atrokkus]

- halos, color codes, etc.. - bad for immersion, but can be used to combine other senses and cognition with vision. If tied to the characters perception vs reality this would really solve a lot of problems (at a significant style cost) - that rock *looks* to heavy for me, or that orc looks like easy pickings, rather than orange = 3-4 lvls higher than me. For a thief character items of interest could be highlighted, at low levels a big gold cup might have a halo, at higher skill a painting with scuff marks on the wall neraby indicating that it slides open.

Highlighting must be used wisely. I really hate it when the game sets this difficulty-system for a player to consider. I mean, the rating of the monsters (like, say, in NWN) ruin the immersion (don't blame me for this word!), ruin the feeling of danger.
Gothic had the best approach here: there were NO difficulty identifiers, and no difficulty-mapping-systems - that is, creatures were randomly situated throughout the gameworld, disregarding the player's progression. Also, you could not really identify the creature's exact danger-rating, because sometimes looks might deceive. I liked this approach very much.

Now, the color-codiing of other parts of gameplay is a mixed bag. It is an effigy of conflict between player's and character's interests, just like the above monster-ratings actually.
Let's take Fallout for example: if character's speech skill was high enough, then you could see the color-hints in dialogs. NOw, that's a perfect skill representation feature, but it might spoil player's own experience, spoil the "immurshan". Player might feel as if he's cheating, as if reading a walkthru. But it's definate that it represents your character's stats (and that's what matters most in RPG).

This raises an ultimate question: where is the line between the character and the player? What actions and successes should be attributed to the stat-management and what are clearly the player's own accomplishments?

I think there won't be a strict line between those two extremes. I mean, the player and his character are inseparable, despite the stat-system that might abrogate player's own abilities (e.g., with a dumb character, player won't be able to conduct some witty interaction or plan, no matter how willing and clever he is). But still, all the decisions are on player's shoulders, not his character. What is a character then? Just a dumbed-down version of the player
Anyways, jokes aside, I think there is no need to drive the extreme and strive to attribute as much of the complex decisions to the character, instead of the player. So, the color-coding and the like is a bit too much. So, the speech skill must provide additional scenarios in dialogs, but which scenario to choose is up to the player to decide.

There should always be a certain dvision of labor between the player and his character.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well if the goal is to get rid of the stat sheet, but keep the complexity and gain immersion, then the player (not player character) is going to need to keep a lot more information about the character in his/her head. Stat sheets are great for catching up with a saved game from six months ago, or when you have to play a game in 30 1 hour chunks. Without a stat sheet, refamiliarizing yourself with an older character takes minutes or hours instead of seconds. This isn't a problem if your goal is to make a good game, but it probably is a problem if your goal is to sell a good game.

I know I wouldn't buy it. Numberless systems aren't a new idea. They've been done before and there's more, LOTS MORE, disadvantages to them than there are bonuses. What's the bonus, really? Immersion? Yeah, that's what D.W. Bradley was thinking when he decided to remove health bars from Dungeon Lords. Same thing Bethesda was thinking when they pulled them from Morrowind. Notice how quickly both things got put right back in those games. Why? Because CRPG players expect information about things.

Showing muscles on a strong character is nice, but it certainly doesn't take the place of showing exactly how strong that player is. Think about encumbrance without numbers. You add something to your pack, you move a little slower. If there's no numbers to go with how much certain things in your pack weigh or how much total weight you can haul before that situation occurs, you're making a frustrating thing a whole lot more frustrating. You're taking a limitation put on the player by the rules and making it so the player doesn't really know what those rules are exactly. It'd be like playing a football game without line numbers and chains.

 

[EvoG]

...They've been done before and there's more, LOTS MORE, disadvantages to them than there are bonuses. What's the bonus, really? Immersion?

You know, if there's "more, LOTS MORE", you'd think it would be easy to pick one solid disadvantage and share it?

Showing muscles on a strong character is nice, but it certainly doesn't take the place of showing exactly how strong that player is.

I've asked this many times now...WHY must we know EXACTLY how strong the player is?

Think about encumbrance without numbers. You add something to your pack, you move a little slower. If there's no numbers to go with how much certain things in your pack weigh or how much total weight you can haul before that situation occurs, you're making a frustrating thing a whole lot more frustrating. You're taking a limitation put on the player by the rules and making it so the player doesn't really know what those rules are exactly. It'd be like playing a football game without line numbers and chains.

All this tells me you still have no clue what we're talking about, yet you persist to complain Saint. ENCUMBRANCE is a QUANTIFIABLE value, just like COST is. All this time we've been discussing removing the numbers that have been artificially quantified. The GOAL is to distance the player from powergaming, and draw him into play a character role rather than a spreadsheet. OF COURSE there's going to be NUMBERS in the game for crying out loud! Where in the world did you come to the conclusion that we want to do away with NUMBERS for the sake of them being numbers?

Please dude, if you're gonna complain(but participate), at LEAST read all thats been said and humor us by actually comprehending what we're talking about, or talk to me on ICQ first. This is nonsense otherwise you crazy silly old man. :shock: :D

 

[OverrideB1]

First up, let me say that I really like the idea of a mentor coming up and offering to tutor you because he's seen that "you have potential" or has heard that "you have a problem with iron locks". That, I think, would be much more fitting than my "trainers" idea and would provide more of that illusive immersive feel than just having the player go out and get trained. Besides, you could then mess with the players' heads by having the mentor offer you advice (i.e. training) at points other than at the traditional "levelling up" moment :twisted:

While feedback from the NPCs or the player are good ideas, there are problems with this as I see it.

With NPCs providing feedback, you're limited to 2 options. Either you have the shouted comments a la Fable, or you have to have dialogue options when you speak to an NPC. There is a danger that either of these will make the NPCs into the thing we're trying to avoid: walking stat-sheets as opposed to the more traditional spreadsheet display. However, done with a degree of subtly, this does provide a very handy reference for the player as to how his character is evolving.

Character feedback - having the character make a comment like "Hmmm, that lock looks a little complicated" - is a better idea than converting the NPCs into walking stat-sheets IMO.

Avatar feedback - having the avatar bulk up to represent strength increases and the like - introduces several levels of complexity in as much as, how do you represent increased intelligence or wisdom in a purely graphic manner? For that matter, how do you display a characters ability to swing a sword or pick a lock in this manner? While a progressivly more muscular avatar works fine for representing strength increases (attribute rather than skill), some of the more abstract attributes (intelligence, wisdom, charisma) are going to be very difficult to represent in this way.

Once we can figure out a way to display those attributes graphically, we have the basis of a non-number system of displaying both stats and attributes. Using a combination of NPC comments, player comments, and entries on a "hero sheet", it should be possible to give a player some idea of his rough level of ability in any given area. (I do feel that it is important to provide at least this level of detail). This, coupled with the graphic representation of the avatar (used to show attributes rather than skills), would be sufficient to provide the player with enough feedback.

This system should be robust enough to satisfy obediah's concern about tracking information on the character if the player is away from the game for any length of time. It should also make keeping track of several characters fairly easy - since each would have their own feedback.

There are still some things I want to think about on the character side before I start to think about how a numberless stat system might translate into the representation of in-game "stuff", although there has already been one post that has covered many of the ideas I already had.

 

[Section8]

One way would be to have a character say "I should pick up that med pak." But then, to some degree, this is like NWN where the game would play for you at times. I'm not so sure that is a good idea. Another way would be to select the medpacks and press a button, and have the best character highlighted. Again, I feel this takes a little bit of the control out of my hands.

One thing I'd like to see in that sort of tactical game, or for that matter, any game where the player has control over pre-generated characters, is the idea of character interactions beyond simply what the gameplay dictates.

The Jagged Alliance games for instance, had character rivalries, and various elements of gameplay around the team make-up. As long as you're only wresting control from the player in really dramatic instances, I think it's of benefit to the game. It's certainly better than the alternative, like ordering Khalid to kill Jaheira in BG, and then having him sulk about his "own" actions.

So in a round about way, back to the "who gets the medkit?" discussion. If the medic has a close friend in the squad, then maybe they spam a "I gotta save Bubba!" response, or maybe the "never wanted to do this for a living. I always wanted to be... a MEDIC!" character steps up. It may not have any bearing on their skill at using a medkit, but its a little cit of curious tactical play.

The other option, revolves around the common abstraction that you, as the player, are actually assuming the role of a person in a commanding role. In that case, why not allow the player the option to poll his soldiers about certain things. So for anything that doesn't require a constant feed of info, the way you gain it, is to ask the soldier.

Me: "How are you holding up soldier?"
Soldier: "I've been better, sir, but I'm not about to quit now" (Morale = 80%)

Me: "What about you, sniper?"
Sniper: "Cool as a cucumber. Might want to keep an eye on grenadier though, he's getting twitchy." (Morale = 100% + an additional observation of another team member)

Me: "Grenadier, are you okay?"
Grenadier: "Fine sir, I just...nevermind" (Morale = ???)

Basically, I see a lot of potential in such a system to not only convey periodical information, but also to lend more personality to your soldiers. Would be great in JA.

Me: "Cliff, what are you like when it comes to using an automatic?"
Dr Clifford Highball: "I can shoot one, just don't blame me if that bloody keffer gets hit by a few stray bullets."

actually agree whole-heartedly. The roguelikes are particularly adept in this regard. Scrolls, potions and even weapons are entirely unknown. Any item could be blessed--or cursed.

I also really dig the expanding monster lore as you experience more encounters with a certain type of critter. God I hate anything with the qualifier "It breeds explosively."

Character mutterances - "Damn this is heavy" and others as mentioned earlier. The provide good feedback, but I HATE them. Hearing my character always bothers me, especially if you're going for a roleplaying experience. Not to mention production costs of male vs female, and haughty vs sly, and that they're never going to match what you want your character to be (not even with text vs voice).

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't mind my character saying things as text (even better if you as the player get to pick what they say, a la dialogue trees) but giving them voice is always a surefire way to distance the player from their own creation. Neverwinter Nights was the fucking pits as far as character speech was concerned. There were too many voice sets trying to be quirky and funny, but failing, and the tolerable ones were usually specifically geared toward a certain character class. I think the only female vioce set that didn't bug the shit out of me was called "Female, Neutral" or something like that, but it was constantly saying shit about, nature, animals, and other druid stuff.

Baldur's Gate was similarly innane, with every second character trying hard to funny, spouting shit about space hamsters, or being utterly broken by the fact that the player had full control over their actions.

For a thief character items of interest could be highlighted, at low levels a big gold cup might have a halo, at higher skill a painting with scuff marks on the wall nearby indicating that it slides open.

This sort of thing is good if it's tied in with a skill, such as perception, detection, assaying, etc, and also if there are secrets that wouldn't otherwise be spotted unless the player was using the "Wolf3D trial and error" method. It also ties in with some of the concepts of this thread where character perceptions paint a fuzzy picture for the player rather than everything being presented in an unmistakable fashion.

Gothic had the best approach here: there were NO difficulty identifiers, and no difficulty-mapping-systems - that is, creatures were randomly situated throughout the gameworld, disregarding the player's progression. Also, you could not really identify the creature's exact danger-rating, because sometimes looks might deceive. I liked this approach very much.

This is a good method, but to a certain extent, it relies on a player exceeding their limitations as part of the discovery process. ie Get in a fight that's too hard, die, reload, which is arguably a more significant break in immersion than an obvious measure of relative difficulty.

With some of the character feedback systems being discussed, there are also elements that tie in with fuzzy logic evaluations of opponents. If I'm able to estimate the abilities of a human enemy because he/she, like me, has physical characteristics based on statistical make up, then it makes it easier for me to choose my battles, without being too unrealistic about the abstraction of that information.

For anything that doesn't follow the same rules as humans, there should be lore within the game, or behaviours to let the character evaluate their enemy prior to conflict. This can be as simple as asking NPCs about monster lore, and getting guided responses that are actually comparable. Even something as simple as "You don't look like you've got what it takes to bring down a snapper, and don't try to prove me wrong. It's for your own good."

Or even better than that, find ways to illustrate some kind of pecking order in the wild. Pack of wolves > wild boar, and my character can't beat a wild boar, so obviously wolves aren't an option either. There are all sorts of imaginative ways to convey this sort of thing to the player, and once again, the fact that the player has to discover the information in character within the game world certainly can't hurt RPing or "immersion."

This raises an ultimate question: where is the line between the character and the player? What actions and successes should be attributed to the stat-management and what are clearly the player's own accomplishments?

Here's my take. Reflexes and dexterity shouldn't form part of the integral challenge in gameplay that an RPG offers. Since an RPG by its very nature is about the player using their imagination, then the challenges should be in line with that, in other words, problem solving challenges. That's why turn-based tactical combat fits so well with RPGs, because it's little more than presenting a problem, and asking the player to solve it within acceptable limits.

At no point should player skill be able to circumvent character skill. KOTOR's efforts in this regard were particularly bad, meaning that repair parts and computer hacking resources (whatever the fuck they were called) were little more than a way to bypass some fairly simple puzzles. Add in to that that the puzzles were basically all just rehashes of common puzzles, like completing a fibonacci sequence, and you've suddenly completely invalidate a character choice.

Arcanum handled the compromise quite well with its persuasion skill, which added both "right" and "wrong" dialogue choices, actually make that whole dialogue trees when it came to using persuasion for major problems, like Lukan the Witless and his thugs guarding the bridge in Shrouded Hills.

When it comes to the notion of character intelligence having a bearing on puzzle solving in the game, I think it can be handled fairly neatly by an introspective hint system, not unlike the typical "little hint, big hint, walkthrough" system in games like the 7th Guest and 11th Hour. That way, even though the character knows the solution, it doesn't deny the palyer an opportunity to take the challenge themself.

 

[heiamll]

I think stat sheets are important, because what happens if you aren't just one character, but six? And what if you only play an hour a week, tops? A player could spend most of his time zooming in on his characters trying to figure out if the leather clad figure is his thief who can detect traps or his fighter who is just broke and can't afford better.

Having a party of six and requiring you manage all their 'bio's' is a design flaw, not a flaw with this system. Anyway, and npc followers you have would be just that, followers, not robots under your control so this is a non-issue.

What does playing time have to do with anything?

I believe I understand your point. However, crufty brings up an important note. In a computer game stats sheets of some type are important because the player is most likey not going to remember every single detail of what they did if they fire up the game a week or year later. Pen and paper is different because I can ask the other players and DM questions about what my character did. I can be reminded of things I cannot recall. As of now asking the game questions like that is not possible. No matter how much you flesh out your character or "live" your character, memories fade. Look to real life. Sometimes it takes a certain smell or even others convincing you something happened before you remember.

One time I had an induced "dream' where I forgot all about my life here on this earth and found myself to be in body of a ginseng farmer in Wisconsin. I not only had memories as this person, I had a life there. The entire experience felt like a lifetime. There was a family of mine that never really existed, complete with 3 children and a loving spouse. I remember my death approaching when a cave-in at a fools jade mine occurred at the end of my property. Despite the absolute clarity and vividness of all of this, I cannot remember certain aspects or things I know were there. Like my favorite beer or what movie we saw when I got my teeth busted out in a fight (I think it was Jaws). Anyways.

There is a nice discussion going on here. A lot of really good ideas. I must bring up my opinion that having a totally numberless rpg system is something that can only be accomplished well in a pen and paper environment due to the other humans involved. People drive a system like that and until computers have consciousness, crpgs will have to settle for numbers. Some of the things proposed are a numbers system with replacement numerals (1=bad, 2=average, 3=good, etc), something not so exact, something where it takes a feel and some guess work to get a handle on your character. That I am totally for since it disuades the number-crunching power gamer in me.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

ENCUMBRANCE is a QUANTIFIABLE value, just like COST is.

EVERYTHING is QUANTIFIABLE.

 

[crufty]

The other option, revolves around the common abstraction that you, as the player, are actually assuming the role of a person in a commanding role. In that case, why not allow the player the option to poll his soldiers about certain things. So for anything that doesn't require a constant feed of info, the way you gain it, is to ask the soldier.

That actually would work out pretty well I think. Hmm...

So a presentation devoid of actual stats would have to rely on paper-dolls and extensive dialog trees.

One nice thing is that pcs could give fuzzy responses--for example, an insecure npc could downplay their skill, while a proud pc could wrongly boast that they could do it all. And then an NPC that didn't speak your language might respond with jibberish. Interestin'.

 

[EvoG]

I believe I understand your point. However, crufty brings up an important note. In a computer game stats sheets of some type are important because the player is most likey not going to remember every single detail of what they did if they fire up the game a week or year later. Pen and paper is different because I can ask the other players and DM questions about what my character did. I can be reminded of things I cannot recall. As of now asking the game questions like that is not possible. No matter how much you flesh out your character or "live" your character, memories fade. Look to real life. Sometimes it takes a certain smell or even others convincing you something happened before you remember.

Oh of course, which is why you have a journal. You're not playing the game without information, don't misunderstand that. We are not trying to tear down every old convention and make the player and character so inseparable, that his experiences are your experiences and vice versa. This is about focusing player attention away from being simply a list of numbers, and more like a real character, rewarding roleplaying rather than rewarding powergaming.

Perhaps now's the time we start constructing a tangible outline so at the very least the intentions for our design are not "ambiguous", eh Section8? :D

One time I had an induced "dream' where I forgot all about my life here on this earth and found myself to be in body of a ginseng farmer in Wisconsin. I not only had memories as this person, I had a life there. The entire experience felt like a lifetime. There was a family of mine that never really existed, complete with 3 children and a loving spouse. I remember my death approaching when a cave-in at a fools jade mine occurred at the end of my property. Despite the absolute clarity and vividness of all of this, I cannot remember certain aspects or things I know were there. Like my favorite beer or what movie we saw when I got my teeth busted out in a fight (I think it was Jaws). Anyways.

I don't know, as cool as what you wrote sounds, I don't think you can compare the retention abiility of a concious mind versus the unconcious or even subconcious mind. I for the most part never remember any my dreams for example, and my buddy retains the most amazing and tiny details about books, movies and games that are just baffling, which shows that you can't account for anyones ability to retain information, even important information.

There is a nice discussion going on here. A lot of really good ideas. I must bring up my opinion that having a totally numberless rpg system is something that can only be accomplished well in a pen and paper environment due to the other humans involved. People drive a system like that and until computers have consciousness, crpgs will have to settle for numbers. Some of the things proposed are a numbers system with replacement numerals (1=bad, 2=average, 3=good, etc), something not so exact, something where it takes a feel and some guess work to get a handle on your character. That I am totally for since it disuades the number-crunching power gamer in me.

You know whats funny about this...on the contrary, the reason numerical stats and skills exist in CRPG's today is because of the PnP environment. Despite the computer lacking a conciousness, it works with numbers pretty damn well, thats for sure, so its kinds of ironic eh? But yea your last sentence hits it on the mark. We're not trying to be confusing for the sake of being ambiguous, we're merely trying to steer people away from obsessing about their numerical representations of their characters.

The ONE thing I've been stressing that a few naysayers dont seem to understand, is you can't fit this system into the old, conventional CRPG paradigm. You need to design FOR the system, so sure while certain contradictions or difficulties may appear when you try to fit this system with old design, thats where you go and work on the design, not force a fit.

 

[EvoG]

And then an NPC that didn't speak your language might respond with jibberish. Interestin'.

Like Saint!