What's the deal with game theory, anyway?

[Squeek]

It is a very interesting field of mathematics, I took courses on it in university. Has nothing to do with game design, which is what you are thinking of...Have I just fallen for a Codex joke? Were you being lulzy?

Nope, not being lulzy. I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever makes sense. But I didn't study it in school and wouldn't mind a little clarification, because I don't get it. We all know game theory gets brought up and discussed on RPG forums from time time, and I read that stuff just like everybody else.

So if you really do understand game theory, how about some clarification. And how about a little input from you about why you think these games aren't offering players more personality and style choices.

It seems to me that each new game that gets introduced has improved clarity, but it's mostly audio and graphical clarity. What about improving the clarity in role-playing? Why aren't personality and style choices becoming more and more clear with each new game?

 

[Kraszu]

The Game Theory is roughly about figuring out the formula of the optimal choice, thus allowing something of a precognition to markets, people behaviour and so forth. Of course, with the presumption that people are rational and subconsciously pick the apparently optimal choice.

Well it is more complex then that, it sure those not assume that people subconsciously choose best option for they well being if that is what you mean by it. There can be also diferent models of behaviour in evolutionary stable population. In a logic of ~90% behave according to z model, ~10% according to x model. If there is more then 90% from z then it is better to be x so it balance out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZS9bcGEnN90

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

decline

The Game Theory is roughly about figuring out the formula of the optimal choice, thus allowing something of a precognition to markets, people behaviour and so forth. Of course, with the presumption that people are rational and subconsciously pick the apparently optimal choice.

Well it is more complex then that, it sure those not assume that people subconsciously choose best option for they well being if that is what you mean by it. There can be also diferent models of behaviour in evolutionary stable population. In a logic of ~90% behave according to z model, ~10% according to x model. If there is more then 90% from z then it is better to be x so it balance out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZS9bcGEnN90

As I said, roughly. But really, I won't say I'm an expert. That'll depend on whether or not I'll end up studying Game Theory or International Management and Strategy...

 

[Kraszu]

Well I don't really like sentences like that becouse:
what is optional, what is the goal of the choice? It just seem like a misleading sentence that is why i had commented on it.

 

[szoreny]

I did attend school and even helped run a department at The University of Southern California (Performing and Fine Arts),

I've isolated the problem.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I did attend school

I've isolated the problem.

I've generalized the problem.

 

[Squeek]

OK, I give up.

I thought this might spark a conversation that could be worthwhile and that it might be fun to start off by taking a shot right across the bow at the most knowledgeable people here.

It didn't turn out that way, obviously. So go ahead and give me some lumps. Without seeming like an even bigger ass, I'm sure I can take it.

Once I asked a guy what he thought about the technical direction of the industry he was in, and he began his response by pointing out that half the world's budget for that was his (a senior manager of development at a division of IBM). I've been in over my head a lot, and said some pretty foolish things, and I'm pretty comfortable being humble about it at this point.

I do wish I'd tried a different tact, though. Because I really would like to discuss my dream of playing an RPG with an interface where I could indicate my character's personality and style all of the time. If those indications were counted as choices, then they might be used to influence the direction of the game.

Edit: clarification and typo

 

[The Dude]

Let's just ignore the "game theory" part and concentrate on this (please fucking please read the game theory article again and realize that game theory is not in any way directly related to CRPGs):

Here’s one of my own average-Joe two-cent solutions: Change the software interface so that, instead of just deciding what to make my character do, I also get to decide how he does it. Make that count for something by design. Take the idea of “cause & effect” a little further by creating alternatives to correlate with the sum of those style and personality choices.

Sure that would be all good and dandy, but I have a hard time seeing that happen for quite a while since most game devs seem far from being able to master basic consequences for actions without any whys or hows attached to them. It's theoretically possible to do incorporate this to a greater extent than for example differently styled dialogue lines a la BI or Bio I guess, but I'm not sure it would be possible to do it well throughout a whole game. It would maybe work if you attached style and personality to actions at certain key points in the story of a game I guess, which then somehow altered how the gameworld percieved your character, though I think it still would be a lot of work to incorporate meaningful consequences and account for how the effected each other.

 

[JarlFrank]

Actually I like Sqeek's idea, now that I've understood what he actually means. It would allow for a greater extent of choice and consequence, and it would allow for putting some nuances into your character's role, little details that make it a lot more satisfying to role-play a certain character type. You could even pull it off with a good writer and enough time. But it won't happen in the mainstream industry. Like, ever.

 

[Elwro]

Here’s one of my own average-Joe two-cent solutions: Change the software interface so that, instead of just deciding what to make my character do, I also get to decide how he does it. Make that count for something by design. Take the idea of “cause & effect” a little further by creating alternatives to correlate with the sum of those style and personality choices.

I like the idea, even though I'm blissfully ignorant of all the implementation problems connected with it. In (a) few games, you can sometimes say the same thing in different ways during dialogue (I think I remember sth like that from Torment); that's a good start. If I get the idea, though, these choices of the way of doing something should only matter in contacts with NPCs, because they are to be about "style and personality", and no one should care if you e.g. bash a door down deep in the dungeons with a swift kick or charging at it at full speed, roaring your best battle screams. So what's evident is that choices of the style of doing things should matter to the relations of various NPCs to your character. But is there more to this idea than what could be properly represented just using extensive dialogue options?

BTW, I tried hard and I don't see a particularly reasonable way of tying all this to the mathematical game theory, could you elaborate on what you meant?

 

[Squeek]

I like the idea.. But is there more to this idea than what could be properly represented just using extensive dialogue options?

I think there is, absolutely! RPGs are, after all, set in imaginary worlds where realities are asserted and can be altered. Take your example of the character who bashes down doors deep in dungeons at full speed (as opposed to ones who carefully sneak around, listening at doors and trying to pick locks) -- what rule says the world can't respond? I think characters who act like Conan ought to have Conan's kind of adventures while characters who act like Bilbo ought to have ones more like his. Contrived worlds can react altogether differently than the real world.

But not if there's no way to indicate making those choices in the first place. That's why I want something added to the software interface, so I can indicate things like how carefully or boldly I walk down corridors.

The Dude's point about maybe providing for that at specific moments in the game also make sense to me, that it would be too problematic to have to deal with that at every moment of the game. But then again, why remove it? So what if those choices aren't always counted? It works out just as well if you you never know when those choices are important or not. In fact, it might work out even better if you never know.

Games could become darker for evil characters and lighter for good ones. Worlds could become more sinister for assassins, more complex and coniving for thieves, or more straightforward for barbarians.

That would, of course, make for much bigger games. That's actually one of the reasons why I think this sort of thing isn't already happening.

BTW, I tried hard and I don't see a particularly reasonable way of tying all this to the mathematical game theory, could you elaborate on what you meant

I'm going to take Dude's advice and just drop that. It was, as I alluded to earlier, an ill-concieved idea.

 

[inwoker]

troll wins this tread

 

[J1M]

Let's talk about the theory of fun instead.

 

[LarsTheSurly]

I understand your point and what you want, but I can tell you why it's not realistic.

You can't account for every choice that everyone who plays the game might make, especially for every little thing like "I want to walk down this hallway, but I want to stomp my feet." It's just unrealistic from a development standpoint. How could you program the NPCs to react differently to "quiet walking" as opposed to "feet stomping" or "sneaking." How should they react when you choose the "evil" dialogue option, but you decide to say it in a nice way?

You can't account for an infinite amount of variables.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

If this is legit:

If troll:

 

[Squeek]

I understand your point and what you want, but I can tell you why it's not realistic.

You can't account for every choice that everyone who plays the game might make, especially for every little thing like "I want to walk down this hallway, but I want to stomp my feet." It's just unrealistic from a development standpoint. How could you program the NPCs to react differently to "quiet walking" as opposed to "feet stomping" or "sneaking." How should they react when you choose the "evil" dialogue option, but you decide to say it in a nice way?

You can't account for an infinite amount of variables.

I see what you mean about NPC reaction and how it seems unrealistic to try to create that. And I have to admit that I'm delighted whenever an RPG does a good job of taking into account even just a handful of variables.

But doesn't this genre put players into roles like the ones they love and then challenge them to play them well? How well can they be played without personality and style choices?

It's a predicament, apparently.

If a player could indicate his character’s personality and style every step throughout the game, then those indications could be counted as choices, and like exercise performed every day, they would eventually add up to something significant. Can't a game be designed to react to that?

 

[Lord Chambers]

Why can’t game theorists figure out and fix what’s wrong with cRPG?

 

[BethesdaLove]

Game theory has everything to do with game design. Take every good strategy or rts title.

 

[LarsTheSurly]

If a player could indicate his character’s personality and style every step throughout the game, then those indications could be counted as choices, and like exercise performed every day, they would eventually add up to something significant. Can't a game be designed to react to that?

True, but how could you account for those choices when you create the game? Which player's choices should we take into consideration? Yours? Mine? You can't program "adaptation."

What do you mean by "Player style and personality?" And how could you design a game to "react to that?"

 

[The Dude]

I kinda got an idea, though it might not be what you are after squeek.

You could after all track a lot of the PC's actions through the game fairly easily. Stuff like time spent sneaking, doors bashed, times you picked a certain type of dialogue line (surly, asshole, joking, etc) types of magic used (fire, ice, mind control, etc), types of attacks used (power attack, backstabs, called shots), and a lot more stuff like that. Then the game could periodically check these stats and award a Fallout like perk affecting the game, the PC's stats or skills or something along those lines. Such a system wouldn't even be that time consuming to implement if done right, and could be pretty rewarding. There would of course be the possibility of the system forcing perks on the character that the player would see as an ill fit, though that risk wouldn't be huge if it was well thought out.

 

[Naked Ninja]

The problem is Game Theory is about the player choosing the optimal path to achieve a goal, not about the designer of a game making it have the most roleplaying.

For example, Game Theory could tell you the optimal build order in an RTS, or the best possible character build in an RPG to achieve victory. As in, where to spend skill points to maximise potential success. It's about the maths of the system.

But it won't tell you how to design a system to provide the most subjective roleplaying for the largest number of people. For that you probably need to turn to psychology and the creative arts.

 

[Squeek]

I kinda got an idea, though it might not be what you are after squeek.

You could after all track a lot of the PC's actions through the game fairly easily. Stuff like time spent sneaking, doors bashed, times you picked a certain type of dialogue line (surly, asshole, joking, etc) types of magic used (fire, ice, mind control, etc), types of attacks used (power attack, backstabs, called shots), and a lot more stuff like that. Then the game could periodically check these stats and award a Fallout like perk affecting the game, the PC's stats or skills or something along those lines. Such a system wouldn't even be that time consuming to implement if done right, and could be pretty rewarding. There would of course be the possibility of the system forcing perks on the character that the player would see as an ill fit, though that risk wouldn't be huge if it was well thought out.

That's exactly what I'm after, Dude. I'm imagining it opening up opportunities to emphasize and increase the value of role-playing. Decisions pertaining to personality and style could be measured and added to the character profile along with other decisions such as character class and alignment. It could be factored into the game, putting more "R" into the RPG.

It occurred to me too that the system could potentially force changes that the player might feel are an ill fit. So there would need to be clarification. Some games already stop and ask you to clarify things like, "Do you really want to drop that item?" or "Do you really want to delete that spell?" This kind might stop and ask you, "Why did you just kill that guy?" or "Why didn't you just pay for that?"

What I'm really imagining is a game that might ask you things like, "Did you just twist that knife?" or "Were your eyes just lingering on that merchant's daughter?"

An earlier poster put his finger right on the problem, when he pointed out the difficulty of trying to account for, and then express immediate reaction to, all of that visually. I suppose he must be right.

But so what if everything doesn't get expressed visually? Everything doesn't get expressed visually now. I've never seen an NPC recoil from a fighter I'm playing when he's splattered in blood and armed with a weapon that's dangling indistinct chunks of meat. It's OK for some things to be left to the player's imagination.

Personality and style should be a part of these games no matter how well they can be expressed visually. They're the kinds pf choices players ought to make that would enable the kinds of consequences players want.

 

[Squeek]

True, but how could you account for those choices when you create the game? Which player's choices should we take into consideration? Yours? Mine? You can't program "adaptation."

The Dude's response was right in line with what I'm thinking.

What do you mean by "Player style and personality?" And how could you design a game to "react to that?"

You could put a control right on the interface (btw, if I said "player," I meant "character"). That way a character could walk into a bar with an attitude or make eyes at someone else's wife or show good faith to a stranger he meets while traveling along a road.

Here are a few examples of how a player might be able to indicate his character's style in specific situations: An assassin might inflict particularly painful blows to someone he hates, taking care so that he can stare into his eyes and watch him die slowly. He might offer to put him out of his misery in exchange for information -- a promise he may or may not keep. A paladin might negotiate with a merchant in good faith, determined not to cheat him, knowing that his status and charisma could give him an unfair advantage. A thief might start targeting his victims for their political, religious or social status.

As far as game reaction, the sky's the limit. Just imagine all the mods a player might consider for his second time through a game like Morrowind. He's keeping in mind the character he's going to play, right? Mods are limited, though. Devs could be a lot more creative.

 

[Cassidy]

This thread is a lose-lose situation.

Nobody can program every single possibility on how to take an action. This is something where it's extremely unlikely CRPGs will ever catch up with tabletop RPGs, specially as those who might afford such investment of programming and game design are catering to console kiddies with pretty graphix and babysitting gameplay.

It could be implemented a way to support any direct input of the player during conversations with NPCs, but would it really matter when the NPC replied "Hello" as you typed "Go to hell motherfucker!" ?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Cassidy returns!

And he's actually right!