Skill-gain system NOT based on numerical values and points

[poetic codex]

By obscuring the consequences it's going to lead to annoyance as the player and creator interpret their actions differently, just like scripted Alignment changes...

Good points, and I hate scripted alignment changes with a passion. I agree that the player should definitely have some vague idea of how an action is going to turn out.

In defense of my firewood example, I did call the law arbitrary, and I did call the king whimsical. Arbitrary laws and whimsical kings do exist.

One way around this is to store data from their action and have the consequence (training from a master) at a much later stage; players are less likely reload back 30 minutes but they will for two minutes.

I really love this idea as a way to keep players from reloading to try out all the different outcomes. Much better than a checkpoint-save system.


I think it should be implemented only for some scenarios though, and not all. I think the consequences should be immediate for some situations, and we will just have to trust the player to have some self-control (This is a vain hope, I know :p )

Back on Skills, you could store data on every time a PC chose a particular skill...That's my envisaged world, and it's fucking beautiful.

Did you read the progression system I proposed on the bottom of page 1? Your idea here sounds a bit like the Morrowind "repeated-use" system but with a twist. I personally would want to get rid of any trace of numbers-based progression, but that's just me.

In Dragon Age, they experimented with obscuring the exact numerical values of certain abilities, but the number-crunchers were pissed, and people demanded a manual that spelled everything out. That's probably the biggest obstacle to making a game without a traditional numbers-based system. Many people still love the old style and maybe it's only a few of us who have grown tired of it.

 

[poetic codex]

Taking this quote somewhat outside the context of the rest of your post, since Black Cat is lazy and cannot into reading long posts, you are describing either a Metroidvania-ish game or Zelda-ish game with some bonus skills or optional upgrades instead of a role playing one. There's nothing wrong with them, really, and I actually find them to be more fun than some of the things that pass as games around here but they are not role playing games. At all. Not even a little bit. Not even close.

You took the quote entirely out of context, not just "somewhat"

If you had continued to read, you would have seen that I wasn't talking about "optional upgrades." I'm talking about gaining classes/abilities as a direct consequence of your gameplay decisions. What you choose to do in a certain scenario or whether or not you chose to explore a certain cave. etc.

I think that this is still a roleplaying game, but another approach to it. In other RPG's, you have a predefined role (thief, mage, fighter) and then you try your best to live up to that role. In my vision, the role is a dynamic one and it is defined by the player based on what they choose to do in certain situations. In one situation, you could take the combat way out, and you gain advancement in a fighting class and a combat ability. Then later on, you could choose the diplomatic method, and you gain advancement in a different class along with a different ability. And after that, you stumble upon a cave where you find an old scroll, and if you choose to learn from it, you gain advancement in the wizard class and the ability to cast a spell. The class/ skill combination that you gain from each of these scenarios is unique. So if you choose to fight in one scenario, and gain a certain combat ability, you will gain a different combat ability if you also choose to fight in a future scenario. This is how the progression system works, as I tried to outline on the bottom of page 1.

It is still a roleplaying game, but you're constantly defining that role based on your decisions, rather than trying to live up to a pre-defined one (such as a thief).

I know many people have very very strong ideas about what define a roleplaying game, but the roleplaying genre has always been broader than most people choose to admit. Just a casual glance through a list of RPG's would reveal games so different, that it's a wonder that they're lumped in the same genre. The most consistent connection is character development, and my vision certainly involves character development.

 

[Black Cat]

You took the quote entirely out of context, not just "somewhat"

It seems I did, then. Now, seen from this other perspective, yes, i think it could work.

I actually had made something similar to what you say for my Black Cat is too lazy to make a game so let's just make a design document project, that was mostly a dungeon crawler meets C&C meets Dating Sim set in a Magic School. What skill trees, sub skill trees, and unique skills you got basically depended on what asignatures you picked at the begining, what topics did you pick when having to do essays or field work, and what extracurricular activities, school clubs, who you became friends with, and cliques you joined, as well as in certain combinations of unique plot events and optional events you got based on all those choices, like having a dialogue with a character about books and then having the character later giving you as a gift the rare book you went fangirl about during the conversation if your friendship/relationship with him went high enough, and then that book became another one of your skill trees, etc. Progress through those skills trees was both use based, once you already got the skill, and plot progression or time based for when you actually got a new skill given how you were doing in class and how advanced in your studies were.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, earlier.

 

[GarfunkeL]

This should have been posted in the Codex Workshop, poetic codex. Then you would have gotten better discussion right from the start.

Also, I would hate not seeing the numbers beneath the terms/titles (since you need to have some numbers or otherwise there is no randomness or variation in the game as it turns into rock-paper-scissors-laser) but I guess I could live with it, especially if the descriptive text would be actually unambiguously descriptive enough. So proficient, experienced, veteran, master, grand master is better than some artsy titles people might come up with.

Baron, do people really do that kind of save-scumming? I can understand it in X-Com and JA if a turn goes really badly, to then reload but because of choices/dialogue? Man some folks are weird. That's what replays are for.

 

[Baron]

If there is a benefit like a Feat or prestige Class as a result of an action, then yeah, I think they would. Just to see what else is available, and to compare it. Which means the flow of your game is frequently broken up by multiple reloads, your replayability is destroyed, and worse(?), the player is also frustrated by what the felt they had to do to build their character.

I want to get players back into 'old-school' play by having them unlearn bad behaviour (like being overly focused on loot). But at the same time I want to avoid impossible battles, and avoid situations where I think the gameplay would break down. And obscuring multiple rewards I'm pretty sure would lead to 6 quick reloads with the majority of players. Shit, my hands aren't clean... as a kid I couldn't read a Choose Your Own Adventure book without skipping ahead to glance at the outcomes.

 

[hiver]

It all depends on implementation. if youre good youll do quests, missions, choices in them and their consequences in a believable and appropriate manner.

The example with fetching firewood is not a fortunate one.

If im teaching from a master swordsman then he would undoubtedly send me on quests or give me tasks that would increase the stats and skills that could come handy in a swordfight (apart from the exact sword techniques, strikes, styles, moves and so on).
After all when youre learning to fight with a sword to reach proficiency levels of a master swordsman there is much more to it then just waving your sword in the air in some specific manner.

Speed, agility/dexterity, precision - are just some of the physical attributes that come to mind.
Mental clarity, calmness of mind, resistance to fear or being able to properly and accurately have a clear sense of your surroundings or being able to notice enemies shortcomings and weaknesses are other - mind related disciplines.

So a master swordsman would not send me to fetch some wood from the forest.

He would make me chase and catch cats in the castle and i would need to bring him each one, alive and unharmed to pass that test.
>All, of course, except Balerion whom i could never catch.

He would make me jump through hoops and balance on one foot while jumping over railings and so on.




On a paladin getting backstabbing rogue skills.
YES! You should!
If youre a kind of player that chooses a Paladin (at least in your mind) and then goes on backstabbing people around you shouldnt get any paladin like skills and feats.

 

[laclongquan]

poetic, in that case what you describe is a sim game, the likes of Academagia, and maybe Space Rangers text adventures.I cant think of any RPG that use that kind of system. It goes another route altogether.

Anyway, the static level make me itchy. I am not sure I want a game with perks instead of skills.

 

[hiver]

No its not. What he describes would be as pure RPG as you can get. The stats, xp, skill points are just a interface by which we get to the Role playing part.
And as we can see in many examples that interface often becomes more important than what the core of the game should be.

 

[laclongquan]

King of Dragon Pass used this approach, if I remember correctly.

I horribly abused the fuck out of it, also if I remember correctly.

You remember KODP, dont you?

 

[hiver]

yeah sure.
i have no idea what youre talking about.

As to the abuse that deeply depends on implementation.

How exactly did you abuse the King and how is it similar to this system idea?

 

[poetic codex]

The stats, xp, skill points are just a interface by which we get to the Role playing part.

There's some other things that I want to respond to, but I just have to immediately jump on this quote and say "I agree 100 % !"

From since I first started playing RPG's, (Neverwinter Nights 1 was my introduction.I know..I know...), the combat mechanics aspect was secondary to the roleplaying aspect. Sure, NWN did not have the most compelling story or gameplay, but it was my introduction to roleplaying and I roleplayed the heck out of my monk.

There was a moment when I was alone in the sewers. And as I was about to go to sleep, I thought to myself, "Here I am with nothing but my bare fists to defend me. What if something nasty comes by while I'm asleep? I will just have to trust that my monk intuition will awaken me in time."


To me, the interface and combat mechanics should simply be the grease in the wheel. It should serve and aid the roleplaying, not become the master. But I suspect that many people see things differently, and so the number-crunching and levelling is the meat of the roleplaying for them.

 

[poetic codex]

So a master swordsman would not send me to fetch some wood from the forest.

He would make me chase and catch cats in the castle and i would need to bring him each one, alive and unharmed to pass that test.

I admit that the firewood example was poor, but I had to think of a task that would actually be translatable into a game format.

Sending you to chase cats would be more practical, but how exactly would you translate that into gameplay without turning it into an annoying, or repetitive minigame?

Speaking of translating things into gameplay format, this brings me to a crucial issue that some people have been asking about: COMBAT


In many numbers-based RPG's, there are so called passive feats. I don't really like these, because they end up just being elaborate names for a simplistic numbers boost.

Like the "Iron will" feat which has an elaborate description, but is essentially reduced to a being a simple +2 to will.

Or think of the Harper Scout feat called Deneir's Eye. A nice, elaborate name, but in practice, it is reduced to being a simplistic +2 to X.

This is a big problem for me in numbers-based RPG games. When it comes to translating feats, skills, abilties into gameplay format, they are often reduced to being a simplistic numbers boost.


So I would try to design a combat system where all feats are "active" feats. Any ability, skill, feat that you gain in the non-combat scenarios should be translatable into a gameplay format that is more active than just a simple "+ 2 to X."


First of all, combat would have to be turn based. No question about that. Real time combat often boils down to a frantic, chaotic mess. I also feel that I would be better able to translate the skills, feats, abilties into a computer gameplay format if I use turn-based combat.

I have some ideas about how even diplomatic/talking skills could have an active use in combat as well, but we will be going very far into speculative territory.

Round 1. Our Diplomat character starts combat. He uses his "Bluff skill" and if it succeeds, he would shout "There's a Dragon behind you !" and his opponent would show an animation where he's looking behind him, and would lose actions for three combat rounds.

 

[hiver]

First of all, combat would have to be turn based. No question about that.

This choice gets you 25 Cool Codex Points.
I like the way you think.

And i also happen to agree that after reading some elaborate and interesting description of some feat, realizing its actually just +2 or + 1 point in some skill is pretty crappy.

If such skill or point enhancements exist in the game then the description should not be more than "Youre "related discipline/skill" has become a little stronger."

But of course, thats just one of the unfortunate hubris D&D left in RPG medium, which was caused purely by shortcomings of D&D in the first place.

Loot and money should also be significantly remodeled from that standard cheesy model so that you earn less and there is real monetary differentiation between ordinary items and weapons and those made by masters of the trade, much like today you can buy a good sword for a medium amount of money (but your income would not allow you to buy a dozen or they wouldnt be particularly better), while masterwork would be simply out of your league.

>Monetary rewards from doing quests should be reduced seriously to some sort of semi realistic level and money should be gained as a reward only from some specific quests.
peasants, fishermen or other not so wealthy people in the game would reward you with info, items, and knowledge or help, food and shelter when you need it.



-----------------------------



Anyway, yes... regardless of the need to translate some feature in the game format - the feature should make sense depending on the type of intended gain.

A Master at arms or later on master swordsman would need to test and in the process of it train you in abilities and attributes that are really required for that specific skill.

That makes the whole thing believable, appropriate and removes possible confusion or such "tasks" turning into camouflaged fetch quests.

btw, Im sure some posters here will recognize my example with catching cats.
(it was Syrio Forel the former First Sword of Bravoos that sent Arya on such tasks when she started her dancing lessons with him)

It would not be a boring repetitive process because you would gain increases in skills and feats as you perform it.
Again - implementation is the key. You can catch a cat just by running after it, or you can trap it, or you can talk someone else into helping you, or you can find out what each cat likes from their owners or people around which would help you catch them - and so on.

Each way giving you different boosts.

And that was just an example.


Usually im very fond of the idea of gaining actual feats you can actually perform rather then gaining points.

 

[laclongquan]

In King of Dragon Pass your clan is ruled by a council of elders, each one has a very separate set of characteristics/skill/whatever. The level of each is non-number. The result of the work your clan doing is dependant on those levels. THere's almost no chance at all for increase.

One feature of the game i s that you beg for help from gods/goddesses and enter dream world. In there you perform a quest, and if you success you gain something: artifact, skill increase... The quest are pretty hard to do and even if you got a high level acolyte it's not 100% guaranteed the quest is success. However, once you understood enough game mechanic you can do it with around 60-70% chance of success. Well, get skill increase for your main quest-getter to increase the chance, using that as leverage for more and other stuffs.

 

[hiver]

Yes but in this example there wouldnt be any opportunity to spam the same "quest" over and over again and so spamm your "skill levels".

plus you wouldnt be getting skill points as such although some numerical increase would be there (impossible to avoid completely) you would gain one time only abilities or perks or feats.

 

[laclongquan]

So you mean the actions in this hypothetical game has only 1 or 2 chance to appear? Not repeatable? Because if it is you have a hell of a time to program/design a lot of other kinds of actions or it will be a very poor game.

If it's few it's poor. If it's many or repeatable it can be and will be raped.

 

[hiver]

Er, no... Im not sue what oyuve just said even means.
What "actions" and why would they appear one or two times?

I mean to say that in this game as proposed by the OP you would solve quests and the WAY YOU SOLVE IT would change your character giving him appropriate skills and feats or abilities.

Like he so clearly explained.

 

[poetic codex]

I was also confused by his post, but I think he was referring to this:

you would gain one time only abilities or perks or feats.

I think what you meant to say here is that the abilties/perks/feats can only be gained one time, not used one time. Big difference there.

Speaking of actually using abilities, I would employ cool-down timers, so you will have to use them sparingly during battle. It's a personal preference but I always felt cool-down timers were better than "X use per day" abilities in the computer game format. I once had a long debate about this on the NWN 2 forums, which is where some of my ideas had their roots.

 

[roll-a-die]

http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html#the-basics

There it's been done somewhat in PnP.

In terms of the ruleset, it's opensource, at least what is listed there is. It's designed to be Rules-light-Medium Crunch, and is pretty much made to be modified.

Otherwise you could use something like a modified form of the Whitewolf Story Telling system, only with scripted increases rather than chosen ones.

Really making a game like this would take millions of man hours to even attempt. Much less successfully give a large amount of choice.

 

[laclongquan]

Righto! Let's use concrete examples to reduce confusions.

In the KODP example, there's chances to use your skill in the god's quest. That is what I mean "action". Do you intend to let such 'action' appear again and again, making use of your skills? Or do you intend such action one time only (unique event)? If it's repeatable, it can be raped. If you let it one time only, the number of unique events will be limited and highly dependent on your design (how many events can you make).

Capiche?

 

[hiver]

si, si io capisco
mama mia....

"I think what you meant to say here is that the abilties/perks/feats can only be gained one time, not used one time. Big difference there. "
exactly.

I meant to say that abilities you would receive - would be received one time only (when you make a choice and succeed in solving a quest) instead of saying that those same abilities could be used x or y times.

Thats another matter entirely.

Depends on the ability of course.

If you get a "lucky punch" ability as poetic codex described it - it would make no sense to have it constantly active. (you can limit it in a number of ways, cooldowns being one of the simplest)

If i would gain "lockpick simpler locks more easily" ability then it would make sense its always active.

etc.

 

[muffildy]

system

I dont feel as though the core gameplay of this kind of game would be appealing at all.
Turn based combat for example is very slow and boring unless the turns are occuring in real time ala bg2. Temple of elemental evil for example put me to sleep in the first big fights since 1 fight took an hour to win. The only other way i can think of to do it is ala fallout 2 where all of the combats are rapidly resolved in either their or your death.

Anyhow, lets say in your hypothetical game that i have become a diplomat and i try to talk my way out of everything, i am eventually going to encounter a situation i cannot talk myself out of or of course it wouldnt really be much of an rpg. So, now i am entirely a diplomat in a combat situation and you say i can distract him for 3 turns with a bluff...but what then? I cant realistically kill him since i have no combat skills.

So lets say you say to jump out that window like the acrobat did at the games opening, well i am not an acrobat at all so why shouldnt i just go splat like a good diplomat?

I guess what im basically asking then is how failure is dealt with in such a game? So far all im hearing about is success! new perks!

 

[hiver]

bethesda forums are not here. Im sure you can google it.

 

[poetic codex]

Re: system

Anyhow, lets say in your hypothetical game that i have become a diplomat and i try to talk my way out of everything, i am eventually going to encounter a situation i cannot talk myself out of or of course it wouldnt really be much of an rpg.

Really? I've always wondered about why so many RPG's become combat-centric. Even the so-called "Story-driven" ones leave you in combat at the very least 80% of the time. We have become indoctrinated into expecting combat as the sole way of interaction. But even in P&P, there is opportunity for involvement outside of combat. It's just that RPG games have done a poor job of translating those non-combat concepts into a game format. One point of this hypothetical game is to challenge that combat-centric focus, and present new ways for the user to interact meaningfully with the game world OUTSIDE of combat.

So, now i am entirely a diplomat in a combat situation and you say i can distract him for 3 turns with a bluff...but what then? I cant realistically kill him since i have no combat skills.

Well, it is possible for someone who gained a diplomat class to later on choose a combat option and gain a combat skill. But even if you chose the diplomatic option all the time, it might be possible that you wouldn't ever need to enter a combat situation at all (referring to what I said above).

But I said in a previous post that I would focus on designing skills that would also have a direct effect in combat, so I would imagine that the diplomat would have other skills aside from bluff. The Diplomat's skills would indirectly affect the combatant, whereas the Brawler's skills would directly affect the opponent. Both ways can be viable.

The Diplomat would distract and confuse his opponent with his words before striking with his dagger, while the Brawler would perform a tricky combat maneuver to directly exploit his opponent's weak spot.

So lets say you say to jump out that window like the acrobat did at the games opening, well i am not an acrobat at all so why shouldnt i just go splat like a good diplomat?

I guess what im basically asking then is how failure is dealt with in such a game? So far all im hearing about is success! new perks!

But you shouldn't think of it in terms of perks! Someone on page 1 summarized my proposal as "I found a rocket launcher, now I can use rockets!"

That's not quite what I mean at all !!

A more accurate summary would be "I found an unidentified old sword, if I take it to an appraiser, I would learn its history and then gain a combat ability reminiscent of its previous owner (Attila's Bloodlust)."

You chose to take the sword to an appraiser and you gained a unique combat ability that can only be used when weilding that particular sword.


When it comes to the consequences of your choices, there is no failure. At least not in a direct way. There would be no obviously wrong choice. That's a design feature, not a bug.

Since combat is not the only measuring stick for determining success/failure, you won't be failing in the traditional way. There are no "useless builds" or "dump stats" or "worthless feats" or "gimped classes"

As I said, there will be other meaningful non-combat ways for interaction with the world, which would present their own set of challenges and difficulty (I think that bridge conversation in Arcanum was a nice example of tricky dialogue choices) . You should try to get yourself out of the combat-focused mentality we have all been conditioned for when it comes to RPG's.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Re: system

Turn based combat for example is very slow and boring unless the turns are occuring in real time ala bg2. Temple of elemental evil for example put me to sleep in the first big fights since 1 fight took an hour to win. The only other way i can think of to do it is ala fallout 2 where all of the combats are rapidly resolved in either their or your death.

Bioware social forum called, they want their uninspired troll back.

Anyhow, lets say in your hypothetical game that i have become a diplomat and i try to talk my way out of everything, i am eventually going to encounter a situation i cannot talk myself out of or of course it wouldnt really be much of an rpg. So, now i am entirely a diplomat in a combat situation and you say i can distract him for 3 turns with a bluff...but what then? I cant realistically kill him since i have no combat skills.

WHY THE FUCK would there be need for combat or the game couldn't be an RPG? Retard. RPG means that your character's stats determine the outcome of his/her actions. It doesn't mean that player must engage in combat. Game that would culminate in a situation where diplomat has to fight, especially if so far he did not need to, is a prime example of shitty design.