kingcomrade said:
Things don't have to be leveled. Say, in Fallout, where everything is mostly hand crafted, it would make sense to allow equipment to take on more difficult enemies.
I was thinking of a system a bit like Metroid's, where you never really change, but you find equipment and stuff that allows you to do things that you couldn't before.
If you look at it strictly in terms of game mechanics, is there really any difference between this and the traditional methods of advancement in an RPG?
In a game like Metroid or Zelda, you find and accumulate Energy Tanks or Heart Containers to increase your total Hit Points (Life, Health, Energy, whatever). You find more powerful weapons, which increase how much damage you can do. You find other items, which give you new abilities, such as to roll into a Morph Ball, to fire beams of ice that freeze your enemies, to float on the wind... You will often obtain one of these upgrades through defeating a powerful enemy and/or accomplishing a major story goal.
In a traditional RPG your total Hit Points increase as you progress through the game. You find more powerful weapons, which increase how much damage you can do. Some of your characters' innate attributes may increase, which increase how much damage you can do, or give you more Hit Points. You find items which give you new abilities, but you also accumulate innate skills/feats/spells/whatever which... give you new abilities. Accumulation of these abilities/upgrades usually occurs through fighting enemies (and even more XP from a powerful enemy) and/or accomplishing a major story goal.
One could even argue that the former is a more streamlined, and perhaps more pure embodiment of the same principle, as it captures the essence of taking on the role of a hero taking on an epic quest. *Flame shields up*
That way, almost all items (I'm intending that they also be handcrafted, or something like) become useful, so long as they have their advantages and disadvantages. Fallout already had something along these lines, as most guns did similar damage to each other, but had greater ammunition capacity/firing rate/armor piercing ability/whatever. You might give pistols the ability to become concealed, which allows you to take a weapon into a place where you couldn't before, and need one to progress (or finish a quest, or whatever). After all, pistols aren't battle weapons.
I like the idea of making all items useful. It was great fun in Ultima VII to be a compulsive packrat, collecting everything that wasn't nailed down, but I ended up with bags full of useless junk. And I really like the approach of making all weapon choices valid. Generally, it's very evident which weapons and armor are the best choices, and most of the other types go unused. A choice isn't really meaningful if one option is always clearly the best. And I like the idea of customizing and upgrading a signature weapon, as opposed to selling your Sword +2 when you find the Sword +3 of Shiny Munchkinism.
Someone earlier used an example of some monster in the woods in Gothic. I haven't played it, but it would be just as meaningful to get something that allows you to overcome that obstacle without just being +5 levels from the last time you met?
Yes. And that's essentially one of the main design principles of "adventure" games.
It doesn't have to be equipment, it can be abilities. Metroid and newer platformers, like Psychonauts, generally allow you to unlock more content by gaining abilities that allow you to do things you couldn't before. Like, as a simple example, in Psychonauts, once you get Invisibility, though, you gain the ability to do a lot of things you couldn't overcome before. You can easily sneak up and damage or set on fire mega-censors and psychic bears and psychic cougars, you can sneak up and steal the gold watch from the squirrel, etc.
Psychonauts is an awesome game. And in your example, it isn't really that different from learning a Stealth skill or an invisibility spell in a traditional RPG. In a PnP game, you needed a mechanic so that it didn't play out like: "I sneak past the guard." "Umm, okay, he doesn't see you." In a PnP game, you roll dice. In a game like Psychonauts, Thief, Sly Cooper, or Deus Ex, a skill rating wouldn't make sense, as the game can take other factors into account to determine if you are noticed. And in some games, the effect of a higher skill level is accomplished by enhancing the ability by increasing its duration or allowing you to run and remain undetected.
Psychonauts even has an EXP system for those abilities. You don't really get more health, I think you get that for accomplishing objectives, but as you get EXP for doing and collecting stuff, you get closer to new (or upgraded) abilities.
You increase your mental health capacity by either picking up an enhancement you find (usually hidden) in a level, and also by finding the stolen brains and returning them to Ford.
That way you don't have leveled characters, but if you couldn't do without EXP you could still use that system. Like, you level up, and you get 20 skill points to spend, or whatever you like, but you don't just magically gain HP or anything like that, though this is smudging the line from a "pure" system.
What is a "pure" system?
It would make more sense that at certain points or as rewards for certain accomplishments, instead of EXP, you are rewarded with skill points directly, or to choose a new ability. That way you can still develop your character the way you want without having to deal with levels.
Having "skill points" and "XP" as distinct values seems redundant to me. Do away with "levels" altogether and give the player XP rewards appropriate to the completed task or combat. The player can choose to use those XP to increase a skill's rating, to increase an attribute, to gain extra Hit Points, to learn a new spell, etc. The main benefit of having an "Level" to to be able to quickly estimate the power and capabilities of a character in a PnP game, and the computer is pretty much free of such limitations.
Personally, I would like a tag system. Where, you don't have skill points, but when the game rewards you, you get to tag a skill. Like, if you tag Small Arms, which allows you to use small arms. You can tag it a second time (or a second skill to go in combination) which allows you to use scoped rifles competently. Or something like that.
I like the idea. Don't overcomplicate a sytem by having more "levels" of an ability than you need. If you have the skill, it works. Some tasks may require an enhanced version of the skill; if you have that, it works. If everything has a certain chance of success, and you have the freedom to try as many times as you want, then there really isn't much point in having a chance of failure. Testing the player's patience isn't really the best design.
The only snag, which I think could probably be dealt with, is how do deal with random monsters lurking about. There would have to be some sort of reward for killing them. In a post-apoc game, ammunition would be nice, or health kits or other things. In Psychonauts, killing got you ammunition, health, money, and grenade recharges. The enemies were also typically in your way and had to be dealt with. There might even be some benefits in the role-playing arena. After all, if you don't need their equipment, why would you want to get into fights? The only time you would need to fight is when something is in your way, or you are surprised, or you need some ammo, etc.
Reduce the number of random -- and by "random" I mean "incidental" monsters that aren't part of an event which advances the plot -- monsters from the numbers that we usually see in games. I prefer the approach of fewer in number, but more challenging and rewarding combat encounters. Don't place enemies simply to fill up space -- give them a purpose. They're guarding something, or they are travelling somewhere. On patrol around their lair. You don't always need to have a concrete reward for killing incidental monsters. Sometimes they are in your way and you need to get past them. Other times, you want to clear the area of hostiles so that you can search the area for something and explore safely. Maybe you need to secure a safe location to rest.
I mean, why would a Vault Dweller actually take the time to clear the cave rats out, or get into fights with 50 Enclave patrols? The player does it for EXP, of course, but otherwise it doesn't make sense unless they attack him or are in the way.
That is one thing that has started to irritate me about the RPG genre in recent years. I'm always trying to strike a balance between being immersed in the fiction of the game world, and being aware of the metagame where I'm making sure I don't miss any items or XP that I know I can obtain. I'm not saying that the RPG genre has become this way in recent years -- it's always been like that. It's just that after 20 years of that style of gameplay, it's starting to wear thin.
One of the things that happens here is that the world becomes MORE dangerous. You have to pick your battles, and you have to employ tricks to deal with some enemies. I mean, no human is ever going to become powerful enough to take on a dragon, or anything like that. He would have to have abilities and equipment.
I love the concept, but I don't know how well it would fare in the mainstream market. It would take some getting used to.
Goblins will still be a problem unless those equipment and abilities help him deal with them. Why does everyone think goblins should be pushovers, anyways? If they were pushovers, they wouldn't survive in your average fantasy world, especially in their typical large numbers.
That's because few CRPGs deviate very far from the style that D&D pioneered 30 years ago. In D&D, a 1st level fighter has probably 10-14 hit points, and probably a 50% chance of hitting a typical goblin. Said goblin has probably 4-8 HP, and about a 25% chance of hitting the fighter. The fighter could probably kill the goblin with one solid blow, and it would take the goblin two very solid blows to fell the fighter. The 10th-level fighter may have up to 140 HP (or so) and about a 95% chance of hitting the goblin, who is sure to be killed by a single blow. The goblin has a 5% chance of hitting the fighter, and would probably need to hit him 30-40 times before killing him. Most CRPGs work in a similar manner. Even if the fighter faces a pack of 20 goblins, odds are that he will smite all of them before he even breaks a sweat.
The main culprit here is the D&D style of inflatable hit points. HP represent not only physical toughness and endurance, but the ability to dodge or parry a blow, the ability to anticipate a foe's next move, and everything else that equates with "better fighting ability." It's a very abstract concept, and tacking on other abilities which enhance one's combat skills is redundant. In a PnP game, such abstration is beneficial, as it doesn't bog the game down too much with calculations. In a computer game, it isn't as necessary.
If you make HP so that they do increase as the PC gains experience, but not to such a degree, then you've addressed a large part of this problem. If the PC starts off the game with 10 HP, for example, and has 20-25 HP by the end of the game, then he can certainly stand up to much more powerful foes than he could at the begining of the game. However, a couple of lucky hits from less-powerful enemies could bring him down, and the player does have to pick his or her battles more carefully. Under such a system, armor would likely serve to reduce damage taken to a degree.
On the other hand, if you're like the designers of Final Fantasy and allow characters to accumulate 9,999 HP as they advance in level, you need to have powerful monsters with 800,000 HP and capable of dealing 3,000 HP of damage in one blow.
I thought it was a good idea.
