Major_Blackhart
Codexia Lord Sodom
Assuming we all know what they are, my question is this:
Should stats be stagnant? Should they have a limiting factor? Regarding intelligence, eyesight, and other things, it's possible to be limited to what you started with (as in real life, there are no miracle operations for the most part). But there are some exceptions to the rule.
Eyesight can be improved nowadays via surgery and glasses, etc.
Appearances (beauty) can be modified, improved upon etc. via surgery, makeup.
Strength can be augmented, like endurance, through excercise and hardwork or steroids of various kinds.
The list goes on and on. Some things, however, like Charisma, are stagnant because they rely on personality.
Skills, on the other hand, are mutable, always changing with each level, depending on what you put into them, etc. However, they rarely degenerate in a game, if ever. In real life, this is not so. People fall out of practice.
Now, it's true some skills come naturally to a person, but really, everything is practice, practice, and more practice. It's how skills are improved upon in the real world. Without oiling the gun, it gets jammed easily. People are the same way.
Abilities, the third topic, are a horse of a different color. They are often based either on background, or on a combination of skills and statistics. Many are available to all individuals, and some are available only if the proper combination of stat and skill are chosen, or if a person has chosen the appropriate background. Often, they are applied as bonuses with little to no drawbacks.
If there are background options, as in Arcanum, they often have a drawback to them of some significance, in a way forcing you to play a certain style, or trying to balance things out. Races are often done in this way as well, gaining a bonus while losing out on something else. Others, like titles of master rank, etc, are available only to those that have invested incredible amount of effort in that skill, etc, and the bonuses are incredible, with the drawback being that the player invested an incredible amount of himself into that skill.
Now, here's my point:
Should stats be mutable or static throughout a game? I have to wonder myself, because in games like Wizardry 8, etc, skills and spells and abilities are directly dependent upon stats, while in games like Fallout, they are the basis, and continue to have a huge impact throughout the game on the character, but are stagnant and in the end, only give you a starting bonus to work on with your skills. Should stats have a limit? Or is it possible for a character to reach a certain point where he's beyond everyone else?
Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them? SHould they have a base value that they will ALWAYS fall to if they do deteriorate and never go below? Or should it not be regulated? And also, how do you do it in a game without making it tedious? That's a biggie.
Regarding abilities, what type of rarity should they have? Should they be based on stats, skills, or both? Should the rewards depend upon the rarity obviously? Should NPC's have access to the same abilities if they meet the appropriate requirements? Should they be based on level? What if a game (like AoD) has no levels?
That's it for now. To me, abilities are more of an afterthought, but skill degeneration and surpassing natural statistics are both biggies that I want to get other's opinions on.
Should stats be stagnant? Should they have a limiting factor? Regarding intelligence, eyesight, and other things, it's possible to be limited to what you started with (as in real life, there are no miracle operations for the most part). But there are some exceptions to the rule.
Eyesight can be improved nowadays via surgery and glasses, etc.
Appearances (beauty) can be modified, improved upon etc. via surgery, makeup.
Strength can be augmented, like endurance, through excercise and hardwork or steroids of various kinds.
The list goes on and on. Some things, however, like Charisma, are stagnant because they rely on personality.
Skills, on the other hand, are mutable, always changing with each level, depending on what you put into them, etc. However, they rarely degenerate in a game, if ever. In real life, this is not so. People fall out of practice.
Now, it's true some skills come naturally to a person, but really, everything is practice, practice, and more practice. It's how skills are improved upon in the real world. Without oiling the gun, it gets jammed easily. People are the same way.
Abilities, the third topic, are a horse of a different color. They are often based either on background, or on a combination of skills and statistics. Many are available to all individuals, and some are available only if the proper combination of stat and skill are chosen, or if a person has chosen the appropriate background. Often, they are applied as bonuses with little to no drawbacks.
If there are background options, as in Arcanum, they often have a drawback to them of some significance, in a way forcing you to play a certain style, or trying to balance things out. Races are often done in this way as well, gaining a bonus while losing out on something else. Others, like titles of master rank, etc, are available only to those that have invested incredible amount of effort in that skill, etc, and the bonuses are incredible, with the drawback being that the player invested an incredible amount of himself into that skill.
Now, here's my point:
Should stats be mutable or static throughout a game? I have to wonder myself, because in games like Wizardry 8, etc, skills and spells and abilities are directly dependent upon stats, while in games like Fallout, they are the basis, and continue to have a huge impact throughout the game on the character, but are stagnant and in the end, only give you a starting bonus to work on with your skills. Should stats have a limit? Or is it possible for a character to reach a certain point where he's beyond everyone else?
Regarding skills, should they deteriorate over time if you don't use them? SHould they have a base value that they will ALWAYS fall to if they do deteriorate and never go below? Or should it not be regulated? And also, how do you do it in a game without making it tedious? That's a biggie.
Regarding abilities, what type of rarity should they have? Should they be based on stats, skills, or both? Should the rewards depend upon the rarity obviously? Should NPC's have access to the same abilities if they meet the appropriate requirements? Should they be based on level? What if a game (like AoD) has no levels?
That's it for now. To me, abilities are more of an afterthought, but skill degeneration and surpassing natural statistics are both biggies that I want to get other's opinions on.