Removing quantitative descriptions

[Lumpy]

Would it work to entirely skip quantitative descriptions of items, letting the player judge their approximate power by the description text? The stats would still exist, of course, but they would be hidden.
Thus, the player would no longer simply choose the item with the highest stats. He would have to make judgements, perhaps experiment with different items to see which one works best. A fancy new sword will not go directly to the vendor, but rather see at least a bit of battle until the player decides whether to use it or not.

In conjunction, a skill system that isn't based on weapon type would work best. Skills such as Fast attack, Power attack, Parry, Critical strike, so that each weapon the player finds is potentially useful, rather than only those that fit his particular weapon specialization.

 

[spectre]

I saw it happen in Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome and Darklands, although I am not a fan of this, because I dislike obfuscating for obfuscating's sake.

Now, the actual question I would ask here is why doing it so.
If you want players not to dismiss weapons after a glance, but instead try them out, I'd say it is the tedious way to go. Let's not forget that in game character should be way more competent than the player when assessing which weson is better, and it doesn't take much to check if the basics are there, like is the balance right, is it sharp, does it look durable, etc.
It's just a step away from making the whole process dependant of character skill, perception, expierience, wespon skill, metalworking, etc. I am all for this.
Though I would rather have a simple option to compare current weapon with another with one click, just to avoid the tedium.

If you want to reduce min maxing, as in, I see this sword is 0,5% better than the one I have, let's upgrade, I think there is a certain charm to it.
Smart weapon design with no ultimate end suboptimal weapons can help here. Also having a stat like weapon familiarity that grows when sticking to just one can complicate things here even more.

As for the system you propose, not bad, although let's not deny that not all weapons are created equal and each should have a purpose.

Problem is, I have hard time imagining a warrior that, for example, knows a lot how to critical strike, but doesn't parry or fast attack at all. You have o learn them all and use them as needed.
Although I admit, the system produces warriors with varying style even if they use different weapons, no no outright dismissing from me here.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

In a straight up action game that seems fine, but there's no way I'd want to try it in even your basic rpg. There's any number of factors constantly deciding how effective a weapon is, and it seems like it'd be too easy to dismiss something that's actually extremely useful in the right (undiscovered) situation.


A more complicated rpg could make the factors deciding your weapon's effectiveness triple. You'd spend all your time figuring out what enemies are a good base for your experiments, narrowing down uses...and then repeat the whole thing over again once you get a new weapon. You thought inventory management was a bitch at times? Hah!


And what happens when you level up during testing, or any number of other things (discovering other loot that affects your combat ability)? Do you instead devote a save slot just for testing out that weapon, so you can reload if something happens to change your character's effectiveness? After awhile of doing that, I'm pretty sure all enjoyment from combat encounters would be long gone.

 

[Lumpy]

If you want to reduce min maxing, as in, I see this sword is 0,5% better than the one I have, let's upgrade, I think there is a certain charm to it.

Do you mean, a charm to minmaxing? Because if so, I disagree. If weapons are changed too often, the changes become meaningless - rather, getting a better weapon should be a special event.

Problem is, I have hard time imagining a warrior that, for example, knows a lot how to critical strike, but doesn't parry or fast attack at all. You have o learn them all and use them as needed.

Skill synergies can come into play here.

 

[spectre]

You're right, changing them too often is bad, though changing them according to current need is not.

That's probably just me, but I always feel that if there are skill synergies, you did something wrong there. I prefer to solve such things with perks, because wither the synergy is too small and thus meaningless, or to big and the two skills blend together.

I got a nice idea off Genma's post(though not directly from what he wrote) - making weapon overall effectiveness more dependent on your current skill.
For example, at low levels you're better off using crappy weapons, cause they aren't any less effective than custom made, top-tier weapons, only at higher skill levels you can utilize these to their full potential.
Like - you're a beginner fighter, you're better off using a broadsword, or maybe a simple club, with some more skill you can try your hand with a longsword. Otherwise, its added functionality will be more of a burden than an asset.
Another example example - simple woodsman axe and a double bladed battle axe, or spear vs. halberd.

Combining it with what you propose, perhaps all the "handling" stats (speed, balance etc.) will be displayed as better for a plain broadsword than a bastard sword when your skill is below, say, 30%, become even until you reach 50%, and further up you get better mileage out of the longsword in some (but not all) areas.

 

[bhlaab]

Spectre said it: obfuscating for obfuscating's sake is no good.

Maybe it could work if it was sort of an observational thing that changes depending on context. Like:

"This sword looks like it has a sharper blade than the one you already have, but it appears much more unweildy."

 

[Krash]

I'm having a vague feeling that this has been discussed before.


Also, if you want to see a game without quantitative descriptions done right, just check out Dwarf Fortress.

 

[J1M]

Would it work to entirely skip quantitative descriptions of items, letting the player judge their approximate power by the description text? The stats would still exist, of course, but they would be hidden.
Thus, the player would no longer simply choose the item with the highest stats. He would have to make judgements, perhaps experiment with different items to see which one works best. A fancy new sword will not go directly to the vendor, but rather see at least a bit of battle until the player decides whether to use it or not.

In conjunction, a skill system that isn't based on weapon type would work best. Skills such as Fast attack, Power attack, Parry, Critical strike, so that each weapon the player finds is potentially useful, rather than only those that fit his particular weapon specialization.

Once you correctly identify the problem you are trying to solve you will see that this is a stupid idea.

 

[mondblut]

Would it work to entirely skip quantitative descriptions of items, letting the player judge their approximate power by the description text?

LARPer detected.

Thus, the player would no longer simply choose the item with the highest stats. He would have to make judgements, perhaps experiment with different items to see which one works best.

Yeah, right

1. First player compares various weapons on the same monster, publishes the results.
2. Everyone else googles it.
3. ?????
4. FTA2.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Yeah, Ultima Online went this route and very quickly there were sites showing all the possible adjectives and how the related to each other.

Even worse, a new player had no inkling how the various adjectives related to each other - because the labels were not clear enough and you didn't even know how many there existed.

And we had this exact conversation few months ago.

 

[spectre]

It's two or more pages away, so it doesn't count.

 

[Zeus]

Would it work to entirely skip quantitative descriptions of items, letting the player judge their approximate power by the description text? The stats would still exist, of course, but they would be hidden.
.

This is how it works in Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. You just have to use a little common space-sense to decide that a Chaingun is no match for a Micrometeorite Cannon, etc.

These days you don't even have to know numbers to play an RPG. They usually turn a weapon's stats green if they're an improvement over your equipped item.

You just have to know what green is.

 

[Lysiander]

Meridian 59 did this to an extend, similar to UO. In a modern game, this would be modded asap to show the actual stats.

I'd much rather have a system that gives you the option to balance your choices and has no "best in slot" but rather "best for your stats", than a system that tries to artificially force you into judgement calls by obfuscating stats.

A carefull balance of stats, resistances and skill/ ability based weapon scaling would achieve the same end without putting of the player.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

The only logical way to describe equipment without numbers is comparison. I don't imagine buying a new weapon as looking around the store and picking the one that looks good. You'd probably need to hold it in your hand, try to swing it a few times, maybe test it in a training fight. Then you could decide whether buy it or not.
The only stat of a weapon or piece armor that could be obscured is durability - you simply have to wait and see how long it remains in good shape.

Weapons and armor should be expensive as well. Quality sword and full plate armor should be worth a little fortune, the same for modern or sci-fi firearms. Unlike, say, Diablo where anything non-magical is absolute crap.
Therefore a blacksmith should let you try his goods a bit before buying - it's a big deal. Weapons store shouldn't be warrior's grocery.

 

[Zomg]

The game would have to have enough depth so that the "stats" of an object are expressed and apparent in its use. If it's like a typical shitmill RPG where there's no particular difference between the knife of fuckoff and the axe of fuckoff there is no point.

 

[Serus]

I saw it happen in Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome and Darklands, although I am not a fan of this, because I dislike obfuscating for obfuscating's sake.

They weren't completly hidden in Darklands. The most important stat was called "quality" and it was shown (=the exact numerical value) in game iirc.

 

[Azrael the cat]

This was a common thing to do in the early crpgs of the 80s - I'm thinking of Wizardry and its clones in particular. The thinking seemed to be that the computerisation meant that the players didn't need to see the dice anymore, and so things could be kept 'realistically' mysterious.

The first few Wizardry games took that to the extreme. Not only did items lack quantitative descriptions, but so did class requirements, class abilities, spells, to hit, bonuses provided by high stats, and pretty much everything except armour class. You'd have to find out by trial and error that Samurais would eventually get mage spells and whilst the manual told you they were excellent with swords, you weren't told what the sword bonus to hit/damage was. You would be told that ninjas could get insta-kills, but the exact progression of the poison/stun/kill etc of samurais and ninjas (and thieves? I forget) was not told. Spells would have descriptions of what they did, and a rough guide to how powerful they were, but no damage range in numbers. Class descriptions would say 'this class is tough, this class is fragile' but nothing about what the actual hp bonus was (and same regarding constitution's effects on hp).

I actually really liked that - figuring out all that stuff was a major part of the game's appeal to me. Of course, I was a rather young kid at the time, so I probably wouldn't have the same patience and dedication to a game today. And the internet may have made that obsolete just like it did puzzles: it would only take a few seconds of succumbing to laziness/frustration to look it all up on a faq.

 

[Zyrxil]

This was a common thing to do in the early crpgs of the 80s - I'm thinking of Wizardry and its clones in particular. The thinking seemed to be that the computerisation meant that the players didn't need to see the dice anymore, and so things could be kept 'realistically' mysterious.

The first few Wizardry games took that to the extreme. Not only did items lack quantitative descriptions, but so did class requirements, class abilities, spells, to hit, bonuses provided by high stats, and pretty much everything except armour class. You'd have to find out by trial and error that Samurais would eventually get mage spells and whilst the manual told you they were excellent with swords, you weren't told what the sword bonus to hit/damage was. You would be told that ninjas could get insta-kills, but the exact progression of the poison/stun/kill etc of samurais and ninjas (and thieves? I forget) was not told. Spells would have descriptions of what they did, and a rough guide to how powerful they were, but no damage range in numbers. Class descriptions would say 'this class is tough, this class is fragile' but nothing about what the actual hp bonus was (and same regarding constitution's effects on hp).

I actually really liked that - figuring out all that stuff was a major part of the game's appeal to me. Of course, I was a rather young kid at the time, so I probably wouldn't have the same patience and dedication to a game today. And the internet may have made that obsolete just like it did puzzles: it would only take a few seconds of succumbing to laziness/frustration to look it all up on a faq.

As I said the last time this topic came up, obfuscating doesn't really mean that everything is hidden, it just means you're forcing people to experiment and find out what all the values are. In the best case scenario, it temporarily lends a bit of immersiveness in not having a bunch of game mechanics formulas around. In the more common scenario, people who actually care about getting good at the game get annoyed and spend time figuring it all out. In the worst case, the devs are shit and behind the obfuscation are game mechanics that make no gdamn sense and stats that were not ever properly balanced, and they depend on the obfuscation to hide how shit they are.

Revealing mechanics is always better.

 

[Zeus]

As I said the last time this topic came up, obfuscating doesn't really mean that everything is hidden, it just means you're forcing people to experiment and find out what all the values are.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Does that mean things aren't "really hidden" if they're eventually found?

Revealing mechanics is always better.

I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of hiding mechanics from the pen & paper scene. For instance, players who know immediately how to deal with every threat, because they got a look at the monsters manual, it takes all the mystery and feeling of danger out for them.

When 4th Edition was released, a lot of people complained that magic items were moved from the Dungeon Master to the Player's Guide. Now instead of people finding some mysterious chalice and having to experiment with the properties, or even just head to town for identification, they just had to cross reference the Dungeon Master's description with the handy index in the back of their player's manual.

Of course, some things probably shouldn't be obfuscated, like enemy hitpoints. Even in a pen and paper game, the DM has to describe how damaged the enemy is with every attack--it staggers, it's bleeding, it's moving slowly, etc. Since you can't get that sort of flavor text or visual feedback in a video game (most of the time), a nice hitpoint meter is pretty much necessary.

 

[Merlutz]

behind the obfuscation are game mechanics that make no gdamn sense and stats that were not ever properly balanced, and they depend on the obfuscation to hide how shit they are.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I like the idea of obfuscating the stats. I feel a little "empty" every time find a new weapon and instead of "nice, let's see!", I just take a quick look at the numbers, throwing them into the vendor trash pile if they're worse than my current one.

 

[laclongquan]

Obfuscation? That is the main reason Gamefaqs came into being in the first place. A place to post data on various games with obsfucation.

Such a game doesnt worth shit. I can tell you right away that I will download a data file, compare it straight away and ignore totally the in-game descriptions. Why hurt your eyes to read idiotic things to serve a purpose easily served by compare item list? IT's not like the description is any good material for reading.

Larpers and closeted larpers always want to remove numbers. Why?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Perhaps because looking at number tables is as interesting and difficult as watching paint dry.

Unless you have assburgers, of course. Then it becomes incredibly fun.

 

[laclongquan]

Are we playing the game just to read item desciption?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No, but it makes dealing with items way more interesting than "Found a +3 sword...+3 sword is better than +2 sword! I will sell +2 sword to next vendor I meet"