| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
When you fight, you gain experience and you train yourself. When you talk, you gain experience and you train yourself. When you accomplish goals, you gain experience and you've trained stuff (most likely). That's realism. That's how it works in most games. That is... good.
Only gaining experience when fighting monsters is not realistic. Not gaining experience when fighting monsters is not realistic.
Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree, then. I see all four of the systems you describe above as equally arbitrary implementation choices; none of them are particularly more realistic than any of the others. Training to use a sword (to take one example) takes years and years of hard work. Find me a game with that sort of timescale and I'll agree that it's "realistic." The games you cite, where a character becomes 10 times more deadly just because they walked from Candlekeep to the Nashkell mines and offed a few puppy dogs on the way, aren't realistic in any way shape or form.
It's OK for them to not be realistic. They're supposed to be fun. Fun sometimes isn't realistic. But the system that you correctly identify as being used by most RPGs is no more "realistic" than any of the other arbitrary choices, and I don't think you've made any case at all that the system used by most RPGs is intrinsically more fun. It's just the system most of them use, because coming up with something new and innovative is harder than doing what the guy before you did.
There's no shame in that, but we have games like D&D today because someone looked at a board-based wargame and said "Hmmmm, how can I make this better?" It took a while for them to get it right.
So I'm looking at modern CRPGs and asking how we can make them better.
Thanks again for your comments. |
Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:14 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree, then. I see all four of the systems you describe above as equally arbitrary implementation choices; none of them are particularly more realistic than any of the others. Training to use a sword (to take one example) takes years and years of hard work. Find me a game with that sort of timescale and I'll agree that it's "realistic." The games you cite, where a character becomes 10 times more deadly just because they walked from Candlekeep to the Nashkell mines and offed a few puppy dogs on the way, aren't realistic in any way shape or form.
Huh? Did I say one was more realistic than the other? (Except maybe only giving awards when goals are accomplished, since no account is taken on how you accomplish the goal).
No, none is more realistic than the other. And no, it is not realistic when you 10 times as good after a few weeks of training. However, you should look at this from a game perspective. Where things, even time, should be broken down slightly. Something I stress continously.
You have to ADAPT reality into the game in some form or another. Each system, separately still have a little realism, only not a very devloped one. You following me? ONLY giving exp is not very realistic, however, it is still realistic in the sense that you still gain exp when you fight.
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
It's OK for them to not be realistic. They're supposed to be fun. Fun sometimes isn't realistic. But the system that you correctly identify as being used by most RPGs is no more "realistic" than any of the other arbitrary choices, and I don't think you've made any case at all that the system used by most RPGs is intrinsically more fun. It's just the system most of them use, because coming up with something new and innovative is harder than doing what the guy before you did.
I said that fight-fest games are often regarded as more fun because of the simpleness and the ACTION. But fun is, as we all know, NOT something universal. Didn't you read that?
YOU might enjoy long dialogues, having the freedom to train skills to avoid fighting. Many don't care about that. Get straight to the rough'n'tumble like, you know?
I myself enjoy games that give you multiple ways to finish a mission, and to get exp/training, however, I can still see the realism and the efficiency of having a fighting-spree RPG.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:43 pm |
|
|
Lord Chambers
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 29
|
I love you guys. What a good, thought-provoking discussion.
Piln, what other boards do you frequent, any others about game design? I'd love to read more like this, and post, when my arguements aren't already being handled so well. |
|
Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:05 pm |
|
|
Wysardry
Village Dweller
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
|
The best system I've seen so far is that used in Daggerfall, which is based on skills, yet also has experience levels.
Experience is gained from using your primary and major skills, which means that all classes can gain levels from doing whatever they specialise in.
It becomes increasingly more difficult to raise a particular skill, which I feel is more realistic and is a concept familiar to those used to traditional experience level systems.
Training sessions also become increasingly less effective as your skill rises. This might not be immediately obvious when you first start playing, but it is indeed the case.
According to the Daggerfall Chronicles:-
quote:
Each use of a skill is constantly tallied... If at least six game hours have passed since the last skill increase (of any skill), and the tally exceeds (modifier * current_skill), then increment the skill (+1) and reset the tally to 0.
Training adds 10 to 20 points (randomly) to the tally for that skill. Training should takes three hours of game time. If the skill value is greater than 50 or the character has trained in the last 12 hours, training is not performed.
(Modifier is dependant on class and/or advantages and disadvantages chosen during character creation).
What that all boils down to is that it's easier to raise a skill from 1% to 2% than it is to raise it from 2% to 3% and so on.
Fighters can fight, mages can cast spells and thieves can steal, and benefit from doing so.
Of course, combat is involved, so most characters will pick at least one offensive primary skill, but it's not the only way to advance. |
|
Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:40 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Chambers
Piln, what other boards do you frequent, any others about game design?
RPGDot only at the moment. I used to check out the official Arx Fatalis board regularly, there were some great folks and great discussions there, but I haven't checked back in a looong time.
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
...viewing constant combat as a requirement of RPGs has serious narrative implications that may retard the growth of the form.
I wish I could be as concise as that. That's what I was trying to say - the concerns I expressed were to do with gameplay (specifically, freedom for the player to choose and play a role without penalty), which I guess goes hand-in-hand with narrative. btw, glad to see you returned to your thread, peterb, and that you started it in the first place - it's a great topic which I'd imagine would be of interest to anyone who visits these boards.
I am not claiming that combat should be absent from RPGs either. That, and the idea that all players should have to engage in combat are two opposite extremes, and neither is satisfactory. As usual, the middle ground is the best way - combat should be there for those who wish to partake, avoidable for those who don't.
The issue of realism is a seperate one, and as peterb and Hexy correctly point out, true realism rarely makes for a good game. What matters is consistency - an RPG should treat all players equally regardless of their role-playing choices. I believe that a strong case has been argued (in this thread, and peterb's original article) for the fact that traditional monster-xp systems are unbalanced in favour of those who choose to fight and kill (thus restricting narrative, gameplay and appeal), and I do not believe this argument has been (or can be) successfully disputed. If we can agree on this, then perhaps we can move the discussion on to how this imbalance can be rectified.
quote:
Originally posted by dkhalsa
Piln - I have enjoyed reading your comments and agree with most of what you said related to games (except that after 5 hours, I grew intolerably bored with everything about Morrowind).
Thanks, and I actually had a similar experience with Morrowind. I like a lot of things about the game mechanics, but not a lot about the game.
quote:
...the movie Gandhi... is a fictionalized account at most loosely based on the life of a real person
 my bad... I'll stick to games.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
One approach, the level-based one, I find better in a game related fashion. Why? Because it fits better with improvement that should be swift and easy. Why? Because it is a GAME.
I have no problem with your personal preference of the level-based system. And I understand that a simple, streamlined sytem helps when playing pen & paper RPGs. However, this is not an issue with CRPGs - behind-the-scenes mechanics can be complex if necessary, and the player need never worry about them. And you haven't explained why the level-based system is more conducive to swift and easy improvement - I don't believe this is the case. The way I see it, this is more an issue of an individual game's balance, not something inherent to any ruleset.
quote:
That action part is of course for people who enjoy it. Which seem to be a majority, if you look at games today. Growing crops, opening a buisiness in an RPG would be kind of boring IMO, especially with today's AI. If you find that enjoyable, you could always play SimFarm.
Your intial point is central to this debate, and entirely true, but you undermined it by suggesting that players who do not share your gaming tastes should play non-RPGs. I agree with you unreservedly that action/combat should be there for those who enjoy it - but you must extend that logic to all players and playing styles. You must understand that the things that you find fun in an RPG are tedious and uninteresting to other players (see the recent comments about TToEE for proof), just as the activities you described are boring to you. I for one (and I know I'm not alone, simply from the evidence of the TToEE discussion and many others on these boards) am bored to death of hack n' slash RPGs, I have played countless such games and find nothing of interest in new ones. I think it's high time RPGs followed the examples of Fallout and PS:T and took a more mature, intelligent, but above all flexible approach, and traditional game mechanics must be updated if this is to happen. |
|
Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:31 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
The issue of XP for combat and level system are quite separate issues IMO. Developers need to change the balance of XP generation away from combat and onto quest resolution.
But dispensing of XP and/or levels altogether loses a fun-factor for me. Striving to achieve that next level to unlock that ability (or whatever) is part of the appeal.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:50 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Your intial point is central to this debate, and entirely true, but you undermined it by suggesting that players who do not share your gaming tastes should play non-RPGs.
Ok. I see now that what I said could be misinterpreted. I was still talking about MY opinion, i.e. I think that crowing crops and that kind of stuff is like playing SimFarm. Of course that is not something universal.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
However, this is not an issue with CRPGs - behind-the-scenes mechanics can be complex if necessary, and the player need never worry about them. And you haven't explained why the level-based system is more conducive to swift and easy improvement - I don't believe this is the case. The way I see it, this is more an issue of an individual game's balance, not something inherent to any ruleset
No. Behind-the-scenes mechanics have an impact on gameplay and in the momental experience of the game. At least for me and many others.
You DO notice a large difference between how different systems (level or skill) play out in a game.
A level based system has an overall improvement approach, while a skill system often has a more specialized approach (e.g. you concentrate on upping skills indívidually). I do believe that the overall raise approach is easier and swifter. Although you raise a few things individually in some level-based systems aswell (BG 2), but not to the same extent.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Developers need to change the balance of XP generation away from combat and onto quest resolution.
Quest solving often yield more exp than combat. However, quests are harder to implement (at least good ones) and thus combat is often the major of the two.
Furthermore, quest resolution is much harder to appreciate the difficulty of, and thus combat is still viable as an exp-mill.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:17 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Yes, it is harder. Just as it's harder to make non-combat avenues interactive and interesting but hopefully devs will try.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:08 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
No. Behind-the-scenes mechanics have an impact on gameplay and in the momental experience of the game. At least for me and many others.
You DO notice a large difference between how different systems (level or skill) play out in a game.
I didn't dispute that. I only said that there is nothing inherent in either model (skill-based or level-based) that makes character development more "quick & easy" than the other. I would never suggest that game mechanics have no impact on gameplay - that would be insane.
quote:
A level based system has an overall improvement approach, while a skill system often has a more specialized approach (e.g. you concentrate on upping skills indívidually). I do believe that the overall raise approach is easier and swifter.
I don't see how. Level-based, you advance in steps after gaining x amount of exp. Skill-based, you advance gradually but constantly in the skills you use. The speed at which you advance is determined by balancing issues in each individual game. To illustrate this point, look at the mods made for Morrowind that alter the rate of advancement - the game is still skill-based, but can be modified to make advancement as quick or slow as you like. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine something similar is possible with NWN. Depending on execution, there could be factors in either system that determine ease of advancement, but in a skill-based system like Morrowind's you advance by using your preferred skills, so you're pretty much constantly advancing. I can't see any reason why this is harder for the player than a system like BG's.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
The issue of XP for combat and level system are quite separate issues IMO
Yes, I agree. There's no reason why Morrowind's system couldn't function without character levels. In fact, I'd prefer it that way. Plenty of P&P RPGs have demonstrated that levels are not necessary, and in any game with an emphasis on realism I would prefer not to have them. |
|
Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:46 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
