Section8
Synaesthete
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 4309
Location: Wardenclyffe
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| galsiah wrote: | | I think the character creation is fine - good even. Arguably it's the standard means of stat-picking that's the more indirect, since the player will first decide on relative importance, then convert those decisions into stat choices. This could be seen as cutting out the middleman. |
That's a good way of rationalising it.
| Quote: | | I like the idea of text descriptions too. Would those discrete descriptions reflect particular underlying stat levels, or stat ranges?? - i.e. does [description X] give the player perfect information on his ability in that area, or a vague idea? |
It'll be an extension of the relativity between the stats and the mean more than an absolute measure, the same system, with varying degrees of accuracy/data applies to the player character observing an NPC. Rather than quantifying, you're identifying:
Barry is all about pure strength, and it shows. He's also pretty quick, making him a formidable brawler. You'd probably say he's handsome, but a bit lacking in personality. And he's just not bright. At all. He's neither quick-witted nor prone to deep philosophical thought, so you wouldn't really want to see him trying to operate anything more perplexing than a screwdriver.
Obviously there's a lot of work going into the function that generates that chunk of text, and a whole lot of writing for enough variation to make it worthwhile, but the same functions and words/phrases are going to be driving critical features like dialogue.
| Quote: | | From a hard-nosed powergamer point of view, whether imprecision is annoying will probably depend on the use of stats in game. If there are points where a 7.3 gives a radically different outcome from a 7.4, the player will at least potentially have reason to dislike his lack of precision (even if he isn't shown the numbers). If outcomes usually vary fairly smoothly with small changes in ability, there's little reason to care about that precision. I guess that it's almost inevitable for some branches in the game to go very differently based on a difference in ability scores though. |
The aim is to not have too many absolute cut-offs on stat checks, so it would be very rare to have something agonisingly close like that. If it did happen, it's not transparent to the player, so they need never know. The worst thing I see happening is a player who considers their character to be exceptionally strong to repeatedly fail at strength-related tasks.
Also to be kept in consideration is that you're part of a small community of people with varied skill sets. If you can't charge down that door, maybe you can get someone else to pick the lock for you - but unlike D&D where you have a party that works like a swiss army knife, the idea is to get rid of that convenient unity of purpose.
| Quote: | Presumably the aim is to get the player interested in, and entertained by, the narrative - regardless of the path taken, or the degree of player control over that path. So long as that's the case, imprecision shouldn't be a problem.
If the player starts out by thinking "I'm aiming for game results X, Y and Z", it might be - but I guess that's a mindset you'd be discouraging(??). |
Yeah the general idea is to dismiss any notions of permanent failure. If you can't get that door open, then there should be something just as compelling going on elsewhere, and maybe you can come back when you're better at breaking down doors, better equipped to do so, or have enlisted help. Hopefully, there will be some form of dynamic snowball effect to whatever happens.
| Quote: | | What i see on this kind of approach is that there are less chances of ending up with attributes/skills that are in the category "unimplemented" or "hardly worth it". I 'll stop here, maybe i 'll add more thoughts later on this thread. Don't really know if it will work (i mean designing the other way around) - never made a game myself or something. I just hope i contributed something with my opinion instead of messing you. |
Yep, that makes a lot of sense, just bear in mind that I'm showing off bits of design documentation that already exist though, and not writing here on the fly. The only stat pairing that doesn't really have any directly associated gameplay attached is Mettle which is mostly passive in nature. There's still potential for player to min/max toward a certain type of gameplay, but hopefully I can provide enough incentive to have a broader, more balanced player character.
| Quote: | | About how to make certain your stats are balanced, I don't know for sure what is the best way. eth suggests designing the other way around, and I agree it is important to know what you want each stat for. However, I think your best bet would probably make a cycle of designing. Design a bit on what each status do, then look at the status. If any of them aren't very useful, change their functionality, or merge it with another, or simply take it away, then go back to the rules. Keep doing this until you are happy with the result. |
That's pretty sound advice as well, and I've been doing what I can to evolve my initial designs. Along with that comes getting input from outside sources, which is why I'm gradually going to be throwing bits out there to discuss with you guys. The ideal I'm shooting for at the moment is that all characters should have an enjoyable outlet for their strongest points, and that a reasonable balance between stats gives more opportunities. When I get around to talking about skills, this should become clearer.
| Quote: | | Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like there will be a lot of adventure gaming elements in this game. Since your character is not static in terms of ability, and you're creating a dynamic gameworld this sounds like it could be pretty challenging, because you're going to have to design every puzzle/roadblock/obstacle with some sort of solution for every character build. |
Not quite. There will be varied solutions according to character build, but not reliably so. The idea is more to provide a world "busy" enough that a single roadblock ought to simply divert the player to other things. Gothic 2 is a good example, where at any given time you have a journal full of stuff you're just not capable of (yet).
| Quote: | | I can see using the npcs as a crutch with this to help a character out with areas that aren't the PC's main strength, but that could possibly trivialize things. The events should have some solutions which are more positive than others. Also, I hope you're conisidering the npcs expendable. It'd be neat that if the player relies on their help too much, or asks the wrong person to help with the wrong task that could cause their death. |
Yep, I want to be really diligent on avoiding the "swiss army knife" of a D&D party. For the most part, the Community will be collaborative, but not in the sense of a well-drilled unit of half-a-dozen like-minded individuals functioning with a unity of purpose. Time is very precious, and NPCs require motive to favour your request over what they're already doing, which would sensibly be what they consider most important. Obviously, a charming sort will have an easier time getting their way, but they're going to need it since weighting in favour of charm takes points away from somewhere else. That sort of thing.
As for NPC mortality, I give you a big yes. It's pretty crucial to a game focuses on survival. It's not going to be taken lightly though, given the very limited supply of NPCs. But yes, I'd expect you'd run into situations where you'll very much regret having convinced that frail little egghead doctor to join you on a combat "mission" as a field medic. 
| Quote: | | A thought on the issue of rewarding more difficult or well thought out solutions to game problems. [snip] You get different endings depending on how much story you've uncovered in your playthrough. |
Ultimately, I'm not really aiming toward traditional reward systems, where clever/more difficult solutions mean more XP, more cash and so forth. The aim is to have the rewards come in a couple of different forms - first of all a natural gameworld reward. If you synthesised a poison and put it in the water supply to kill off the mutants, then you've risked less by avoiding direct combat, you're not using combat resources/munitions, you're not spending time healing wounds, and you're not causing collateral damage. Secondly, there should be a form of narrative reward. I can't hope to cover every solution to everything, but ideally the game should recognise as many solutions as possible and trigger conversations, plot arcs and so forth to give the player/character that warm fuzzy feeling of being recognised for supreme cleverness.
| Quote: | | You have a target play length? If you're working on aiming for a dynamic world with many permutations it should be fairly short to encourage replays to explore other avenues. |
I haven't really pulled out a magic number, but yes, I'd expect something fairly short and sweet. It depends on how well we can get the dynamics to gel.
_________________
| crakkie wrote: | | Multiheaded dick swings and hits you in the ass and leg for 10 points. |
|
|
