The Illusion of Complex Character Systems

[Kraszu]

See, its depended on the developer, not the size of the number...

No it depends on both of those things. System with 5 skill lvls is easier to balance then system with 200 points (that is practically impossible to balance),

God dammit man, just fucking divide it by 5 and you've got yourself the same scale. Fuck.
But I give you that it can be tricky. For example, game has 20 skills, skill goes to 100, character gets 20 points per level. Now the player decides to put 1 point in each skill, each level. It would be impossible to make this build playable. But! dead end builds are ok in my book. And! you have the same problem with 1 skillpoint per level and an even distirbution by the player. Not as severe but the same problem.

The problem is bigger then that. For example you have programmed speech checks (between 80-110) at 80; 85; 93; 104 Now the character that have 92 had just wasted 7 points, not becouse of his mistake, just mindless luck becouse the system hide those information from him. With 1-5 system he at least know that each lvl has something programmed for it or it would not exist.

As for 1-5 or 1-10 it could depend on the skills, less useful skill could have less points etc.

and system with 200 don't give any more meaningful options for the player over the system with 5.

Define meaningful.

In that case meaningful = every point gives you something.

Except maybe that some people just cant do basic math and that concern is valid in the day and age of quest compass and "rpg is riding a horse and killing things"...

What more calculations you have with 1-200 system then with 1-5 system? You either got lucky and got enough points in skills that you find important or you weren't. (you don't know how much is enough because you don't on what points there are important checks)

 

[bhlaab]

Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum are just games from the Dark Ages of gaming, where each game tried its hardest to be as user-unfriendly as possible, so you had to read a walkthrough to get through some parts. I mean, did anyone of you guys discover that you can blow up the radscorpion cave on your own?

Yes, I discovered it at first play-trough. Also you are wrong.

While saying those games are from the "dark ages" is retarded, I do agree that many quest paths in the games were fairly... obscure. I mean, who could know that you can use Repair on 1-pixel-thick line next the force fields in Fallout 1 to disable them without being told?

That's sort of the nature of crpgs, though. Either you've got to hunt for specific pre-programmed solutions, which can end up being like a bad point and click adventure game, or you have objects pretty much scream "you can interact with me!!!" like rpgs tend to do nowadays.

 

[bhlaab]

In that case meaningful = every point gives you something.

100 pennies is the same as 1 dollar

 

[Pliskin]

OTOH, most other situations call for a cut-and-dried Yes / No outcome. Did I open the lock? Did I sway that NPC? Did I repair that computer? Yes / No.

That's just laziness. Consider this - Did I repair that computer?

No, I caused it to explode, killing myself and setting the house on fire
No, I caused it to explode, hurting myself
No, I caused some serious mechanical damage and it's complete wreck now
No, I cause some slight mechanical damange but maybe there's something to salvage here
No, I just can't find the problem, everything seems to be allright
Yes, but so badly that it will overheat very shortly
Yes, but somewhat badly so that it will break down in few hours
Yes, but it's still a crappy piece of shit and will break down any day now
Yes and it'll probably last a good few months
Yes and thanks to the nice spare parts it runs like a brand new one

Might be clunky in a P&P-system but with a cRPG, rolling through various tables is not a big deal for the CPU, as long as developer is imaginative enough to create enough variables.

And make it always a roll, no automatic successes and suddenly your 0-100 (or 0-300) system makes sense!

I don't see the difference. It's success / fail with qualifiers after the fact. You still have a Yes / No trigger first. You want to fancy it up after that, be my guest --- that's what makes a good game, IMO.

What's wrong with a binary system? Isn't that more realistic? .

No it isn't. There is always a chance of success depending on your skill as well as a chance of failure depending on your skill. That's what dice rolls do - chance. And that's why in, say, Fallout even when you had high skills in something the chance of success was 95% because even pros can fail. However who says that if you are weaker than a bull you won't bash the rusty lock out provided you strike at a correct place (again chance) - like in, say, JA2.
Binary system is always a predictable boredom.

See above.

And if you'd have read my entire post, you'd have seen that I suggested a random modiifier that slanted yr chance of success / fail.

Again, there comes a point where either you do it, or you don't. That's it. Effects of whether it's Yes or No are completely different. It's still 1 or 0.

 

[Phelot]

IN an attempt to make the most complicated skill checking system possible, I propose skills with various mini skills under them:

So for example, we'll use lockpicking. You have the general lockpicking skill which helps increase all the sub skills. This skill essentially measures the characters knowledge and understanding of how locks work.

The sub skills would be things such as tumbler locks, combination locks, lever locks, car door locks, electronic locks, etc etc.

Each sub skill measures the characters understanding of the specific type of lock and they would increase it by encountering and successfully unlocking it. So, just as a loose example, a character has 20 points in lockpicking and perhaps every 2 points in that increases their knowledge of each sub skill by 1 point, so the character would also have a sub skill of tumbler locks at 10 points. They can further increase specific sub skills by, as mentioned, using them or by trainers and what have you.

Why use this system? idklol

 

[bhlaab]

Heh It reminds mind that whole 4 pixel chair drama but anyway, Yes I did in fact did that (thought I don't remember if it was repair or science), I thought myself "hm maybe there is way to overcome this FF by small console" and heck, it worked.
I don't know why someone complains about such feature, since they are not the only one solution available in FO1. Those small details are just reward for people who really put effort to find alternative solution, often unusual thought possible. It has it's own magic that I like see in more and more games. P

Even the most observant players aren't going to find alternate routes if they don't know they exist.

 

[shihonage]

I expected this thread to lament the disconnect between the illusory complex character sheets and their impact (lack thereof) on the gameplay itself.

 

[Tails]

Even the most observant players aren't going to find alternate routes if they don't know they exist.

Yet somehow there are people on this world who find those little details in Fallout and I assume in other, similar games. Because you couldn't find them it doesn't mean no one else is able to do that.

 

[zenbitz]

The perfect rulesystem is, of course, impossible, but I find no reason to debate endlessly how to do so-called "realism" best, when GURPS has spent years and even had the backing of scientists to facilitate a rule-surrounding that emulates realism yet is actually possible to play.

Actually, a computer can trivially simulate any distribution of successes and failures, not necessarily a normal one (one approximated by XdN, or in GURPS 3d6).

And of course the normal distribution of 3d6 can be easily mapped by a computer to 1-100. Because in the end, all you are really doing is saying "if I attempt X, what are the odds of any possible result" and pulling a number from a pseudorandom number generator.

But with regards to OPs question of why 1-100 vs 1-10 vs 1-20; it hardly matters except if you want to allow characters to incrementally be better at something.

Since in any RPG (real life paper or computer) the difficulty of the task is hidden by the GM (or the computer), then "knowing" the difference (as a player) between a 8 or 9 or 80, 85, 90 in a skill is totally irrelevant.

 

[MetalCraze]

I don't see the difference. It's success / fail with qualifiers after the fact.

It's only a result. However more complex skill-system leads to more complex causes of success and failure. With the binary system you can be 100% sure that you succeed or fail so you won't even try some things. This was my point.

In such RPGs you can try lockpicking the same lock with the same character and you can easily have it broken even if your character is a pro if the character "makes a mistake" (a very small - because your skill is high - chance rolled by dice), however normally the character would open the very same lock. This also leads to a better balance where your character won't become a 100% master where you will always be sure that you'll succeed.
It's much more interesting.

 

[DraQ]

Since in any RPG (real life paper or computer) the difficulty of the task is hidden by the GM (or the computer), then "knowing" the difference (as a player) between a 8 or 9 or 80, 85, 90 in a skill is totally irrelevant.

In before Joe Krow throwing a temper tantrum ITT.

 

[Sartar__]

This thread is descending into gobbledygook. Everybody has preferences, some people like scripted adventure games and to puzzle out pre-scripted solutions while others prefer to role-play and have the game try to adapt to their choices. The scripted approach (such as Fallout) is naturally easier to program.

Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum are just games from the Dark Ages of gaming, where each game tried its hardest to be as user-unfriendly as possible, so you had to read a walkthrough to get through some parts. I mean, did anyone of you guys discover that you can blow up the radscorpion cave on your own?

Yes, I discovered it at first play-trough. Also you are wrong.

Once you have discovered that secret the challenge is over. How to deal with the caves becomes a very easy choice once you know about it.

Should role-playing games use the kind of design which is typical of linear adventure games?

I think Fallout is a perfect example of illusion of choice.

 

[Radisshu]

Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum are just games from the Dark Ages of gaming, where each game tried its hardest to be as user-unfriendly as possible, so you had to read a walkthrough to get through some parts. I mean, did anyone of you guys discover that you can blow up the radscorpion cave on your own?

Yes, I discovered it at first play-trough. Also you are wrong.

Once you have discovered that secret the challenge is over. How to deal with the caves becomes a very easy choice once you know about it.

Should role-playing games use the kind of design which is typical of linear adventure games?

I think Fallout is a perfect example of illusion of choice.

Uh, right? With the radscorpion caves as an example?

 

[laclongquan]

How the hell do you get this, this fucking radscorpion cave as example of choice? The fuck? You are setting forth argument about the fucking CHARACTER system, then argument of skill sets, then you fucking jump to this fucking example of fucking radscorp cave ... then you say it's THE example of illusion of choice.

You need a Mentats to get smarter?

 

[Tails]

Once you have discovered that secret the challenge is over. How to deal with the caves becomes a very easy choice once you know about it.

Should role-playing games use the kind of design which is typical of linear adventure games?

I think Fallout is a perfect example of illusion of choice.

Wrong amigo, killing radscorpions give you more exp as far I remember, and also you could gain some items during exploring (Ammo, Stimpacks) and Radscorpions tails for Antidote(s). Blowing up the cave entrance was obviously the best choice for non-combat character or similar kind of character build.

 

[MetalCraze]

I could hack through scorpions grabbing some exp and loot on the way or I could blow the cave up illushn of choiz waaaaa

 

[GarfunkeL]

This thread is descending into gobbledygook. Everybody has preferences, some people like scripted adventure games and to puzzle out pre-scripted solutions while others prefer to role-play and have the game try to adapt to their choices. The scripted approach (such as Fallout) is naturally easier to program.

I think Fallout is a perfect example of illusion of choice.

You seriously need some Mentats.

 

[Castanova]

Really depends on the game. If combat and character progression is almost the entire focus then a bigger scale is probably better with lots of incremental gains (like Wizardry 8).

If you're doing a lot of other activities that require skill checks but don't really have significant gradations of success, then I'd prefer having a relatively larger number of small, discrete scales that are intuitive for the player to understand. Then, your success at a particular action would depend on several of these stats combined.

For example, if you wanted to do a skill check on an Intimidation attempt, you wouldn't have an "Intimidation" skill (pretty silly, imo). Rather, you'd have the skill check based on your Strength, Charisma, Stature (if you've got multiple races), Impressiveness of your weapons/armor, etc. relative to the character you're talking to.

 

[Nymphomancer]

See, its depended on the developer, not the size of the number...

No it depends on both of those things. System with 5 skill lvls is easier to balance then system with 200 points (that is practically impossible to balance),

God dammit man, just fucking divide it by 5 and you've got yourself the same scale. Fuck.
But I give you that it can be tricky. For example, game has 20 skills, skill goes to 100, character gets 20 points per level. Now the player decides to put 1 point in each skill, each level. It would be impossible to make this build playable. But! dead end builds are ok in my book. And! you have the same problem with 1 skillpoint per level and an even distirbution by the player. Not as severe but the same problem.

The problem is bigger then that. For example you have programmed speech checks (between 80-110) at 80; 85; 93; 104 Now the character that have 92 had just wasted 7 points, not becouse of his mistake, just mindless luck becouse the system hide those information from him. With 1-5 system he at least know that each lvl has something programmed for it or it would not exist.

We covered that before, man, 2 pages. Your example only shows a subtype of c&c or that the developer placed the checks badly. There is no theoretical/logical failure of the scale!

If the game has max 100 points and the developer places the checks between 83 and 85 in the whole game - its his fault, not the scales! A bigger scale has no significant disadvantages but some small advantages like adding flavour.
And dont argue that the big scale would encourage bad behavior on part of the developer. I hope the devs can divide and such...

 

[Cassidy]

many quest paths in the games were fairly... obscure. I mean, who could know that you can use Repair on 1-pixel-thick line next the force fields in Fallout 1 to disable them without being told?

There is not really a A or B choice between either "totally obscure pixel hunt with no in game hints about" or "Show a big shining pointer to the thing and give an "ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" message once the player disables it". You can do a mentally-challenging approach with environmental interaction that someone who is not a dumbfuck could discover through subtle hints given through NPC interaction etc instead of either obscurity or babysitting.

Also, I managed to discover the forcefield trick by my own in Fallout 2. It doesn't really take a genius to do that anyway. And that wasn't a bad implementation on something that statistically most won't discover in their first playthrough but would reward people who don't shut down their brain when playing a game that isn't a 4x. The best example of a poorly implemented obscure environment interaction design is Prisoner of Ice's Falklands level because of the 2 pixels long needle that you need to find to advance the plot. The fact there is no alternative to it as that is an adventure made it really bad.

On the OP subject. Simplicity of game rules is important for a tabletop CRPG for obvious reasons, for few want to spend 15 minutes calculating damage from a single attack move in a tabletop RPG through 10 spreadsheets These limitations don't exist in CRPGs because if a computer can generate all the bloom, soil erosion and crap they keep pumping in artistically worthless games, why can't one calculate a complex combat ruleset with realistic anatomy considerations? It's not like the average player would even notice it. Fallout didn't show the "dices" being rolled in its combat messages, for example.

The numbers displayed to the player aren't really the meat of this subject. There is no big deal between 1-10 or 1-100 when the way things are balanced will be similar. However, the core combat mechanics between normal and critical hits and something like % chances of hitting specific vital organs and implied impairment and damage could be very enriching to a soundly designed combat system, specially a turn-based one. Now of course, these combat mechanics would require a more complex character system to serve as more than a mere gimmick. What if "living anatomy" for example was instead of a perk an actual skill synergic with Doctor and Science?

On skill checks, In my opinion the more technical skills should have smaller randomness in their checks, while human skills like persuasion and barter should have broader variations. This would actually make sense. Repairing a machine is less prone to random factors or "luck" influencing a character skills than talking to a NPC and attempting to convince such NPC to believe or do something is. On this subject, different NPCs could very well have ranges with different amplitudes for successful checks. A more emotional NPC would have a wider range when defining success., while a more rational NPC would have a narrower one.

 

[Kraszu]

We covered that before, man, 2 pages.

And I had already answered to those points already .

Your example only shows a subtype of c&c or that the developer placed the checks badly. There is no theoretical/logical failure of the scale!

Yes there is, it is a theoretical failure to assume what is practically impossible. No developer will do enough quality context to have checks on every skill lvl. Let say that you have 8 skill 8x200=1600 lets even say 1500 becouse you will always have >1 in every skill. If somebody would try to program all those checks then quality of quest will suffer, and you will often end up with a stupid shit as a result of it you were in place x but you couldn't use your science skill becouse it was short by couple points. This will be much less of a problem/much easier to balance with 5 point system. And nobody had given any reason on why 5 skill points system is worse other then that they like big numbers. It would force you to make the same choices, you could max as much as with 1-200 system, you gain clarity, and you loose nothing.

 

[Big Nose George]

So you actually dont understand what constitutes a theoretical failure. A theoretical failure of the big scale would be if it was impossible to represent a smaller scale with a bigger one. But it isnt. Lets fucking visualize it.

See. Small example of a game. All quests/checks are performed at distinct values on both scales. They are fucking identic. This alone invalidates all your points.
For example: there are 15 quests that check if the fitting skill is at least a 3/60 skillpoints (SP) in it.

But hey, there is this thing with how the devs place the checks and how you as a player distribute it. Lets look at it.
This would be your average normal distribution of checks, which I assume goes on in your average rpg.
RED are individual quests/checks
BLUE is the function that would describe them in dependency of SP. The integral, the area below the line represents all the quests.

Below is a perfect non-linear game. The blue line shows how the developer intended for you to proceed. Think Sandy Sands -> Vault 15 -> Junktown -> Hub -> SomethingSomething -> Cathedral/Military Base.
The xy plane represents the gameworld. The z plane - the skillcheck difficulty. All quest can be repeated ad infinitum. I didnt place the quests in there cause its fucking hard to see anything if I did.
But the next picture has a sideview of the gameworld!

What we have here is the sideview of the gameworld with the 10 different skills and their fitting quests.
Individual dots again represent the quests.
And again we see a normal distribution.
Lets look at a dead end build. Dude is expected to get 15 SP, he distributes them all across the range and gets what? He gets 5 skills with each 2 SP and 5 with 1 SP. He only gets those quest under the red line.
The Dude with the big scale places 30 SP in each skill and get the same result. Not a lot of quests.
What is important to recognize here, is the normal distribution on the right side of each diagram. They are the same.

Looky here, a possible buld. Maxes skill number 3, 6 almost, 7 is good, 5 meh, and 1, well 1.
Again the same picture, thanks to the normal distribution of quests.
What do we deduct from this findings? That the scale doesnt fucking matter!

But those results are for a perfect non-linear rpg, with repeatable quests, you say.
Well, for a more linear rpg with 1-try quests it would be the same. You know where the player character is expected to have so many SP and plan accordingly.
But for some reason you keep falling back to the following. While its true, that you could miss that particular quest, you would still get all those below that particular threshold!

I hope you have seen the light now.
I certainly did...

 

[GarfunkeL]

Everyone who claims that auto-leveling is a necessary mechanic in story-driven RPG's need to read and understand that post, BNG.