Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #39: Classes, Cooldowns, Attacks, Damage vs. Armor, and Tilesets

[DraQ]

I said it was the core element, I didn't say it had to be the only element. The core of any RPG is its system - that is, its skill abstraction mechanism.

The core element of *any* non abstract game using computer or tabletop miniatures or any other interface to the game's system that lacks intrinsic relation to the activities portrayed is skill abstraction mechanism.

What's next? The core element of cRPGs being that you use monitor/projector/some other visualization device to watch (or read about) the action?

 

[Infinitron]

Reductio ad absurdum. Can you respond to this?

When you load up a saved game in the middle of an RPG, play for an hour without leveling up during that gameplay session, and then quit, were you not playing an RPG?

Character development is one feature, one aspect of an RPG's system. An important one, pretty much an essential one, but it's not the core of the system. The core of the system is the stats and skills that the player actually uses on a minute-to-minute basis.

 

[DraQ]

Reductio ad absurdum. Can you respond to this?

Pointing out that purported core feature of a genre is present nearly everywhere else is reductio ad absurdum how exactly?

When you load up a saved game in the middle of an RPG, play for an hour without leveling up during that gameplay session, and then quit, were you not playing an RPG?

Is it your own save? Do you have an ability to start again using different build?
If so it's an RPG - you're playing out the consequence of your own decisions, both build related and not, and things could've gone differently if those decisions were different.

Now, picture two hypothetical games:

#1 is essentially Fallout, except without character screen and level ups.
You have no stats, success or failure rates at different things doesn't change between games or in time (unless you get crippled something), you get, say 8AP per turn, or whatever was the norm, have fixed max HP and so on. Every PC is the same, stat checks are removed, options and outcomes that can't apply to your character have been shaved off. It plays like Fallout you walk around in RT, engage in dialogue with trees and talking heads, fight in turns, may have followers, may inflict and receive critical hits, can be subjected to critical failures, etc.

#2 is essentially STALKER: CoP, except with stats.
It plays essentially the same, but your strength will determine encumbrance limit and handling penalties based on weapon's weight, as well as recoil, dexterity will determine reload speed, weapon switching and handling/aiming in general (so with low dex even light and comfortable pistol will sway around like one of heavier assault rifles, be slow to readjust after firing and generally be a bitch to aim in hurry), endurance will alter your HPs and stamina, charisma will determine your success when convincing NPCs to do something for you as well as prices, and agility will determine movement speed, jumping, falling damage and noise generated when sneaking.

#1 obviously has more "skill abstraction" - for example the entirety of your RL aiming skill is abstracted away and replaced with mechanics. In #2 you won't be a very good shoot if your character has sucky relevant stats, but even with good stats you can be sucky shoot if you don't twitch with the mouse well enough.

#2 has the same or better tactical component, because both games allow you to control only one character - #2 gives you more freedom of movement and positioning, but let's disregard it so that we can throw the tactics out of the equation and keep things simple.

So according to your logic #1 is a better RPG because it abstracts player's skill more. What.

 

[Infinitron]

#1 is essentially Fallout, except without character screen and level ups.
You have no stats, success or failure rates at different things doesn't change between games or in time (unless you get crippled something), you get, say 8AP per turn, or whatever was the norm, have fixed max HP and so on. Every PC is the same, stat checks are removed, options and outcomes that can't apply to your character have been shaved off. It plays like Fallout you walk around in RT, engage in dialogue with trees and talking heads, fight in turns, may have followers, may inflict and receive critical hits, can be subjected to critical failures, etc.

Who the fuck said anything about no stats? I'm saying the exact opposite. Stats are the core of the system. It's the improvement/development of said stats over the course of the game that is secondary.

Character development is one feature, one aspect of an RPG's system. An important one, pretty much an essential one, but it's not the core of the system. The core of the system is the stats and skills that the player actually uses on a minute-to-minute basis.

You're taking what I said about abstraction way too literally.

 

[DraQ]

Who the fuck said anything about no stats? I'm saying the exact opposite. Stats are the core of the system. It's the improvement/development of said stats over the course of the game that is secondary.

Except it's ability to make different player characters different in regards to those stats that makes an RPG.

Without it you effectively have no stats - sure there must be some values in the code determining how much can you carry, how fast you can move or how much APs you get, but they aren't variables, at least not in regards to player character, and are therefore no stats in RPG sense. To make them stats in RPG sense they must have capability to differ between playthroughs and affect gameplay qualitatively, rather than on better-worse axis.

 

[Lancehead]

An example would be Diablo III's stats.

 

[tuluse]

Draq I think you missing his point. What if you get all your character points at chargen? So you get 10 points to distribute and dnd make your character, but never get any more the rest of the game. Is that an rpg?

 

[Infinitron]

Without it you effectively have no stats - sure there must be some values in the code determining how much can you carry, how fast you can move or how much APs you get, but they aren't variables, at least not in regards to player character, and are therefore no stats in RPG sense. To make them stats in RPG sense they must have capability to differ between playthroughs and affect gameplay qualitatively, rather than on better-worse axis.

Okay, I thought you would make that argument, but I'm still not sure I agree. For one thing, in such a game, you may encounter enemies who use the same stats, skills and other RPG mechanics that you do. That gives you a frame of reference for understanding the relative power of your own stats and skills, even if you can't develop them.

And besides that, I think that if a ruleset is transparent enough, the player can still feel like his stats have meaning even if they are unchanging.

 

[Delterius]

DraQ

Well, one of the things that keep Skyrim from forcing players into concepts is that the game's plot doesn't recognize archetypes. Another is that a fighter/mage/thief with perks all over the place can still be effective in combat. I don't think Skyrim even does any job at forcing character archetypes, its out of the game's scope (RPG label not withstanding.

Yes, a pure RPG is likely a silly concept under that definition.

So... players cannot learn about the strenghts and weaknesses of their characters, as well as become more adept at controlling their parties because they aren't actually Larping? Wtf?

Reductio ad absurdum. Can you respond to this?

When you load up a saved game in the middle of an RPG, play for an hour without leveling up during that gameplay session, and then quit, were you not playing an RPG?

Character development is one feature, one aspect of an RPG's system. An important one, pretty much an essential one, but it's not the core of the system. The core of the system is the stats and skills that the player actually uses on a minute-to-minute basis.

At which point every game ever effectively becomes an RPG because stats and 'skills' are what describes 'characters' in so many games, from Street Fighter to CoD.


My definition of a RPG is close to hiver's, but the wording is different and there's something else I'd like to add (bolded):

<A RPG is a game that focuses on character development and roleplaying. Given that a certain amount of freedom is required for all forms of interpretation, this focus favours minimal (on part of the developers) and player-driven storytelling, as the player is conditioned to either follow or create a character concept of his own. This character concept is popularly defined and its progression is popularly conveyed through so called 'RPG Elements', from the statistical description of a character to experience points. But more importantly, the game must also define who the character isn't, by supporting a large number of character concepts but not all or too many at the same time: creating a context that is larger than the player itself and, thus, differing player's experiences through the character concepts themselves, as opposed to the manipulation of a common avatar or a common universe.

A better RPG can be achieved by adding and further elaborating mechanics (such as character creation and progression system, ie chargen and level ups/point allocation) and game content (such as optional quests) that conditions character development. By removing any of these features without return, a RPG franchise begins its trek toward other foci (Exploration, Action, Strategy), likely on purpose.>

Keep in mind that character development, as with character arcs, aren't immediate. And there's the answer to your question. If you play a RPG before any character-defining mechanics kick in, then you didn't really roleplay at all. The game becomes more and more of a RPG as more and more choices are made as to who your character are within the game's story. If you make no relevant choice, either the game isn't a RPG or you never got to the interesting parts. If the RPG is any good, you probably started a new game, did nothing at all, and then quit.

Which is why I like Toxic's term. 'Character Development' means that the game begins at Chargen (Character Creation) and filters through the 'Clay' (pre-game/choices state where all supported character concepts are possible) as per certain mechanics, level ups, stat allocation, plot choices (Character Progression/Arcs).

 

[DraQ]

Draq I think you missing his point. What if you get all your character points at chargen? So you get 10 points to distribute and dnd make your character, but never get any more the rest of the game. Is that an rpg?

Why not?

Okay, I thought you would make that argument, but I'm still not sure I agree. For one thing, in such a game, you may encounter enemies who use the same stats, skills and other RPG mechanics that you do. That gives you a frame of reference for understanding the relative power of your own stats and skills, even if you can't develop them.

But pretty much all action games do just that.

For game to qualify as RPG you must be able to define your role within its mechanics. Ergo variable stats and builds.

For a role to be a role it can't be completely fluid and must have some inertia. Ergo not diablo 3 and loadouts.

 

[DraQ]

DraQ

Well, one of the things that keep Skyrim from forcing players into concepts is that the game's plot doesn't recognize archetypes.

The thing is that stuff like guild questlines have ample room for that already.

Modify skill system so that casting required spells is not possible without some investments in perks, skills and magicka - boom, non-mage can't enter the college (except in MQ and then there is shouting workaround, but it shouldn't allow for progression in college quests - easy enough to change). You don't even need to change actual content already in place or drastically modify base character system.

Other guilds also typically have test assignements so why not crank them up and allow fail condition?

Another is that a fighter/mage/thief with perks all over the place can still be effective in combat.

That's not inherently bad, as long as you're still limited in areas outside your expertise, even when your eareas of expertise are spread out.I don't think Skyrim even does any job at forcing character archetypes, its out of the game's scope (RPG label not withstanding.

So... players cannot learn about the strenghts and weaknesses of their characters, as well as become more adept at controlling their parties because they aren't actually Larping? Wtf?

Wait, what.

Which is why I like Toxic's term. 'Character Development' doesn't means that the game begins at Chargen (Character Creation) and filters through the 'Clay' (pre-game/choices state where all supported character concepts are possible) as per certain mechanics, level ups, stat allocation, plot choices (Character Progression/Arcs).

Indeed, but I think we should distinguish between pre and in game character building as well as between horizontal character definition, and purely vertical character growth (as is the case in some jPGs).

 

[Infinitron]

But pretty much all action games do just that.

Do they? Seems to me that most action games (including many action RPGs) are assymmetric. Enemies don't follow the same systems and rules that you do. They don't have the same stats and skills as you do. You have nothing to learn from comparing them to yourself.

 

[Delterius]

DraQ
Why not crank up guildline tests and allow for failure? Well, haven't Bethesda fanboys answered that 'silly' question since Oblivion?

TES is about Exploration, cutting off content is a 'cheap way to increase replayability'. From my point of view, TES hasn't been a RPG since the last game that did things just like what you suggested (once I head it was Morrowind, but I haven't played it).

And, yes, I'm under the impression that Bethesda wanted to use perks to balance character development. But either they chickened out half way through or ran out of time - that fighter/mage/cleric/thief I was talking about never felt limited by anything. He was good with swords, bows, magic and I could make do through lockpicking. Not to mention those skills that are more than what you need without perks, such as Speechcraft.

Anyway, player skill VS character skill is a fallacy, see below.

(...)

You can't actually use your real life swordfighting, sharpshooting or mobility skills when all you have is your KB and mouse. You can't let your real life charisma shine through computer screen.

Wouldn't that be why player skill x character skill is a fallacy? The fact that my dexterity, as a example, doesn't effect the characters' performance (which isn't true of Action RPGs), doesn't mean that my ability as a player doesn't. Over the course of a session, the player gains better knowledge of the gameworld's rules and becomes more adept at developing his characters. If he starts a new game, that accumulated experience might result in another, better, initial character concept. Further, player skill isn't the only thing affecting the characters' performance, the player's vantage point do that as well: bird's eye vision and etcetera.

My argument is that when a Action game incorporates RPG elements, it merely manipulates its standard gameplay, but not too much so that the player's skill becomes secondary. In RPGs, the player's skill must conform with the character's attributes/skills.

Lastly, about the terms. I'd assume Creation and Progression (subsystems of Development) both have Horizontal aspects to them, whereas Vertical is mostly the province of Progression. That's assuming you mean Horizontal 'Development' as the learning of multiple Competences/Skills and Vertical as further 'Growth' within a single Competence.

But pretty much all action games do just that.

Do they? Seems to me that most action games (including many action RPGs) are assymmetric. Enemies don't follow the same systems and rules that you do. They don't have the same stats and skills as you do. You have nothing to learn from comparing them to yourself.

Assymmetry is something else entirely. Wether you can compare your characters individually with your enemies doesn't change the fact that both are described in the gameworld through attributes. Not to mention that assymetry isn't universal in Action games.

 

[DraQ]

cutting off content is a 'cheap way to increase replayability'.

But that's bullshit.

Making dumb barbarian unable to become a wizard, let alone an archmage, or making a scrawny type in a bathrobe not really cut for the companion isn't cheap way to increase replayability. It's a way to enforce the gameworld making sense, you know, in an exploration game where both the gameworld and it making sense are of paramount importance.

(which isn't true of Action RPGs)

Even in action RPG sliding your mouse around and pushing buttons isn't quite an accurate representation of aiming a sniper rifle or engaging in sword duel (footwork included!). No matter how flawless your execution is, there is still enough gaps for game to fill in your input (said footwork, your grip, angle, force, blahblah) that it can make you suck horribly if that's what your stats say, regardless of your performance with controls.

but not too much so that the player's skill becomes secondary.

But it doesn't have to be secondary. There needs not be any overlap between the role of player and character skill in the same action. Even if both are controlling stuff like hitting the target, they may control different aspects of it.

Think of it as of an AND function. Neither of arguments is more important than the other.

Lastly, about the terms. I'd assume Creation and Progression (subsystems of Development) both have Horizontal aspects to them, whereas Vertical is mostly the province of Progression. That's assuming you mean Horizontal 'Development' as the learning of multiple Competences/Skills and Vertical as further 'Growth' within a single Competence.

This or just choosing what your main area of competence will be - whenever you move across the spectrum of available choices it's horizontal.

 

[hiver]

In bethesda games, player skill overrides character skill. Not completely but it does. Character skill isnt completely useless but player skill is more important - especially since difficulty of the content adjusts itself to always be easy enough in numerous ways.
So, even though the games are still RPGs, they slide towards action/exploration/adventure subgenre.

 

[Delterius]

cutting off content is a 'cheap way to increase replayability'.

But that's bullshit.

Making dumb barbarian unable to become a wizard, let alone an archmage, or making a scrawny type in a bathrobe not really cut for the companion isn't cheap way to increase replayability. It's a way to enforce the gameworld making sense, you know, in an exploration game where both the gameworld and it making sense are of paramount importance.

I know it is bullshit, but gamers are conservative. And Bethesda made their fanbase with Oblivion, I think. Or maybe most people would be fine with mutually exclusive content, but Bethesda might just be afraid of pushing that envelope.

(which isn't true of Action RPGs)

Even in action RPG sliding your mouse around and pushing buttons isn't quite an accurate representation of aiming a sniper rifle or engaging in sword duel (footwork included!). No matter how flawless your execution is, there is still enough gaps for game to fill in your input (said footwork, your grip, angle, force, blahblah) that it can make you suck horribly if that's what your stats say, regardless of your performance with controls.

But that's not really relevant. It doesn't change the fact that the player's input and the gameworld's rules affect one another. My idea is that you can differentiate between Action/Strategy games with RPG elements and RPG games with Action and Strategy elements (rather, most every RPG) is that the first's RPG elements are a additional twist to the testing of either the player's dexterity or the player's wisdom; whereas in RPGs, the character's attributes define more rigid guidelines to the player's performance.

but not too much so that the player's skill becomes secondary.

But it doesn't have to be secondary. There needs not be any overlap between the role of player and character skill in the same action. Even if both are controlling stuff like hitting the target, they may control different aspects of it.

Think of it as of an AND function. Neither of arguments is more important than the other.

I'm failling to come up with a example from a RPG, but would that be analogous as when in Dwarf Fortress the player have indirect control of his dwarves?

Lastly, about the terms. I'd assume Creation and Progression (subsystems of Development) both have Horizontal aspects to them, whereas Vertical is mostly the province of Progression. That's assuming you mean Horizontal 'Development' as the learning of multiple Competences/Skills and Vertical as further 'Growth' within a single Competence.

This or just choosing what your main area of competence will be - whenever you move across the spectrum of available choices it's horizontal.

Agreed.

 

[Mrowak]

But that's not really relevant. It doesn't change the fact that the player's input and the gameworld's rules affect one another. My idea is that you can differentiate between Action/Strategy games with RPG elements and RPG games with Action and Strategy elements (rather, most every RPG) is that the first's RPG elements are a additional twist to the testing of either the player's dexterity or the player's wisdom; whereas in RPGs, the character's attributes define more rigid guidelines to the player's performance.

I'd say character skills are merely tools wielded by the player (with his) skill - they have a function - they are just a means to achieve an end, rather than the end itself. Character skills should merely define the approach as opposed to being rigid guidelines.

It is the player's skill that is paramount in all possible instances. The moment the game ceases to be about player's skill is the moment it ceases to be a game and becomes - in worse case scenario - a gamble.

 

[Delterius]

But that's not really relevant. It doesn't change the fact that the player's input and the gameworld's rules affect one another. My idea is that you can differentiate between Action/Strategy games with RPG elements and RPG games with Action and Strategy elements (rather, most every RPG) is that the first's RPG elements are a additional twist to the testing of either the player's dexterity or the player's wisdom; whereas in RPGs, the character's attributes define more rigid guidelines to the player's performance.

I'd say character skills are merely tools wielded by the player (with his) skill - they have a fuction - they are just a means to achieve an end, rather than the end itself. Character skills should merely define the approach as opposed to being rigid guidelines.

It is the player's skill that is paramount in all possible instances. The moment the game ceases to be about player's skill is the moment it ceases to be a game and becomes - in worse case scenario - a gamble.

I meant that when compared to other genres, the character's attributes are more of a rigid guideline. Making Strategy and Action games are more freeform than RPGs. When, in the context of RPGs, character attributes 'merely define the approach', if translated into a Action or Strategy game with full integrity, they'd feel much more of a rigid guideline. Which is why in those genres, RPG elements are less important than the player's own competence.

 

[DraQ]

I'm failling to come up with a example from a RPG

Fast, dirty and clunkily implemented one, but working as intended:

To hit roll in Morrowind. You as a player need to swing or shoot in right direction (exact right direction in the latter case), game's to-hit check must succeed.

No matter how expert you're at twitching you will fail if your character sucks. No matter how good is your character you will fail if you can't aim properly.

The best thing is that it doesn't have to be high level roll. Ranged weapon may fail to fire reliably in the direction you try to aim it if your skills are poor, melee weapon may be swung badly, you may lose grip, get disarmed or thrown off balance by dodged or parried swing, opening you for lethal counter.

 

[Delterius]

Hmm, this makes your perspective a interesting facet to the issue. Thanks for point it out. I'll backtrack and think some things over.

 

[Lancehead]

Fast, dirty and clunkily implemented one, but working as intended:

To hit roll in Morrowind. You as a player need to swing or shoot in right direction (exact right direction in the latter case), game's to-hit check must succeed.

No matter how expert you're at twitching you will fail if your character sucks. No matter how good is your character you will fail if you can't aim properly.

The best thing is that it doesn't have to be high level roll. Ranged weapon may fail to fire reliably in the direction you try to aim it if your skills are poor, melee weapon may be swung badly, you may lose grip, get disarmed or thrown off balance by dodged or parried swing, opening you for lethal counter.

And the same can be applied to where players have to apply thinking skills instead of twitching skills. A turn based game, for example. But people are generally more averse to reliance on twitching skills, probably because the tabletop roots don't have that application?

 

[hiver]

That is why Morowind is more of an RPG then Oblivion and Skyrim. Character skills create more limits to what the player can do, or - it is tougher to override character skills in Morowind.