How do you prefer to increase stats/skills?

[zenbitz]

No Its just like DRM where it punishes users not pirates.
This one leads to gameplay of type use axe and fire magic for 20mins, then capped so switch to sword and water magic. after another 20 minutes mace and earth magic. Then you want go to town speak and trade and pick locks for while. Rinse and repeat.
(And in MUDs its about how much time you can idle.)

This is just poor game design. If you can quantify what "grinding" is - then the game system can limit it or disallow it. Although a buddy of mine who worked on Spore (and PC games since Win3.1) claims that "Everyone wants us to take out grinding, but when we do, they complain there's nothing to do!"

But _sometimes_ real life is grinding. If you want to be a professional martial artist - you spend 8-12 hrs/day practicing, training, sparring, working out etc. Not suggesting that would be a particularly fun game...

Really works only level-based system in disguise. You assign to monsters and items XP and when monster is dead/ you use skill to item XP is distributed acordingly to skills you used to that object.
As level system you need steep curve/cap/no respawnable to prevent leveling by kobolds alone.

Welll, the problem there (and in general) is getting XP for things that are easy (assuming killing kobolds is easy). If the kobolds have no chance of hurting you - let alone killing or maiming you - why should you get xp for it? Actually, in general the concept of getting XP from slaughter is a bit wack (from a simulation perspective).

A simple (but I presume flawed and exploitable) mechanic might be to give XP in proportion to the damage you suffer. You want 50 xp for killing a kobold as a 10th level barbarian? Fine: Use your teeth.

 

[Kraszu]

A simple (but I presume flawed and exploitable) mechanic might be to give XP in proportion to the damage you suffer. You want 50 xp for killing a kobold as a 10th level barbarian? Fine: Use your teeth.

Great mechanic it promotes you from fighting in a clumsy way, or just flat out standing and waiting for your health to drain before you one hit kill it.

 

[zenbitz]

A simple (but I presume flawed and exploitable) mechanic might be to give XP in proportion to the damage you suffer. You want 50 xp for killing a kobold as a 10th level barbarian? Fine: Use your teeth.

Great mechanic it promotes you from fighting in a clumsy way, or just flat out standing and waiting for your health to drain before you one hit kill it.

Hey, I said it was flawed! Probably only useful in a system where combat was, you know, actually dangerous to life and limb. Another way to put this - if you can let your self get pummelled down to 1 HP before insta-killing the villian, maybe the punishment for wounding isn't extreme enough.

Anyway, it would be pretty stupid to just graft that silly idea onto a existing system without thinking about it. It's the concept that's important, not the detail.

 

[elenai]

Note grinding prevention is valid only from oldschool point of view. In modern games it would make diference between 10 or 12 reloads per game.
Incentive to grinding increases with difficulty.

No Its just like DRM where it punishes users not pirates.
This one leads to gameplay of type use axe and fire magic for 20mins, then capped so switch to sword and water magic. after another 20 minutes mace and earth magic. Then you want go to town speak and trade and pick locks for while. Rinse and repeat.
(And in MUDs its about how much time you can idle.)

This is just poor game design. If you can quantify what "grinding" is - then the game system can limit it or disallow it. Although a buddy of mine who worked on Spore (and PC games since Win3.1) claims that "Everyone wants us to take out grinding, but when we do, they complain there's nothing to do!"

level scaling is great idea just all games implementing it had poor game design. By limiting skill advancement by time you ask this problems.

Problem is not grinding. Almost all RPGs are grindy in nature.
Problem is that by exploiting weak foes you could boost skill to 100% and it would make rest of game is cakewalk.
And identifing grinding is same problem as turing test. Is character grinding by using ineffective tactic or just dumb? In muds I played none had good antibot measures but in you needed know how antibot system works or you would advance inefficiently.

Really works only level-based system in disguise. You assign to monsters and items XP and when monster is dead/ you use skill to item XP is distributed acordingly to skills you used to that object.
As level system you need steep curve/cap/no respawnable to prevent leveling by kobolds alone.

Welll, the problem there (and in general) is getting XP for things that are easy (assuming killing kobolds is easy). If the kobolds have no chance of hurting you - let alone killing or maiming you - why should you get xp for it?

[/quote]
Its static/dynamic xp problem. static xp is relative easy to make.
in dynamic you have problem of determining strength of character. Best way is simulate combat between player and monster.
Problem here is that overrated characters become weaker and weaker and underrated stronger and stronger.

Actually, in general the concept of getting XP from slaughter is a bit wack (from a simulation perspective).

Its because DnD and other rpg are about slaughtering monsters,
Level-based system is kill all monsters or you would have lower level.
Use-based system is spend enough time practicing skills or you would be bad at it.

So I want point-buy system for completing quests.
Its most just. You get fixed reward regaldless of method used.
So makes sneaking/diplomacy as valid choice as smashing all monsters.
And heroes could behave more reasonable and walk directly to arch-villian istead of collecting all XP packs.

 

[elenai]

Note grinding prevention is valid only from oldschool point of view. In modern games it would make diference between 10 or 12 reloads per game.
Incentive to grinding increases with difficulty.

No Its just like DRM where it punishes users not pirates.
This one leads to gameplay of type use axe and fire magic for 20mins, then capped so switch to sword and water magic. after another 20 minutes mace and earth magic. Then you want go to town speak and trade and pick locks for while. Rinse and repeat.
(And in MUDs its about how much time you can idle.)

This is just poor game design. If you can quantify what "grinding" is - then the game system can limit it or disallow it. Although a buddy of mine who worked on Spore (and PC games since Win3.1) claims that "Everyone wants us to take out grinding, but when we do, they complain there's nothing to do!"

level scaling is great idea just all games implementing it had poor game design. By limiting skill advancement by time you ask this problems.

Problem is not grinding. Almost all RPGs are grindy in nature.
Problem is that by exploiting weak foes you could boost skill to 100% and it would make rest of game is cakewalk.
And identifing grinding is same problem as turing test. Is character grinding by using ineffective tactic or just dumb? In muds I played none had good antibot measures but in you needed know how antibot system works or you would advance inefficiently.

Really works only level-based system in disguise. You assign to monsters and items XP and when monster is dead/ you use skill to item XP is distributed acordingly to skills you used to that object.
As level system you need steep curve/cap/no respawnable to prevent leveling by kobolds alone.

Welll, the problem there (and in general) is getting XP for things that are easy (assuming killing kobolds is easy). If the kobolds have no chance of hurting you - let alone killing or maiming you - why should you get xp for it?

[/quote]
Its static/dynamic xp problem. static xp is relative easy to make.
in dynamic you have problem of determining strength of character. Best way is simulate combat between player and monster.
Problem here is that overrated characters become weaker and weaker and underrated stronger and stronger.

Actually, in general the concept of getting XP from slaughter is a bit wack (from a simulation perspective).

Its because DnD and other rpg are about slaughtering monsters,
Level-based system is kill all monsters or you would have lower level.
Use-based system is spend enough time practicing skills or you would be bad at it.

So I want point-buy system for completing quests.
Its most just. You get fixed reward regaldless of method used.
So makes sneaking/diplomacy as valid choice as smashing all monsters.
And heroes could behave more reasonable and walk directly to arch-villian istead of collecting all XP packs.

 

[zenbitz]

Its because DnD and other rpg are about slaughtering monsters,
Level-based system is kill all monsters or you would have lower level.
Use-based system is spend enough time practicing skills or you would be bad at it.


So I want point-buy system for completing quests.
Its most just. You get fixed reward regaldless of method used.
So makes sneaking/diplomacy as valid choice as smashing all monsters.

Interesting. Although I might say DnD is _often_ about slaughtering monsters... there is plenty of flexibility built into the system.

But what if you - at character creation time - specify your goals and ideals. You would only get XP for following them. I guess this is just a complicated way of saying Mage doesn't get XP for stabbing kobolds in the back.

I am also of the opinion that you can't "magically" gain skills that you neither used (or even tried to use) or have a teacher in. Well, maybe magic skills.

I had an epiphany about RPG levels during my drive to work this morning. Levels are a bookkeeping device - actually much like "management levels" in any medium size corporation. Remembering the miniature wargame roots of DnD - you need a way to quickly distinguish the basic "power" of a given mini - maybe a level 3 guy is leading 3 level 2 guys who are each leading 5 level 1 guys.

You get a hierarchy of organization - more like rank.

I realized this while contemplating NPCs in a game - what would be a good way to keep track of leaders and followers (and middle managers, etc.). Duh, levels. But somewhere along the way they morphed into GOALS fueled by killing things.

 

[Imbecile]

Use based. Although it's difficult to design and balance properly.