Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205
3046  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Integrating street/prison lingo on: January 07, 2008, 03:56:34 pm
The way I see it, the reason for including the lingo is for fun and to make the experience more authentic. The key then is to ensure that in a cohesive way for the player, not the character. Saying "Why translate the slang the character is supposed to know?" is pointless because the goal is to make it fun for the player. If the player isn't in on the terms, it isn't fun, it's needlessly confusing. If you automatically translate the terms, what's the point, it loses the flavour entirely.

However, simply giving links in the text or a pop up message saying "check the journal for translations!" right in the beginning is also kinda crap. Basically, it pulls you out of the experience. Imagine watching a play where every 3rd word you need to stop and pull out a book of translations. It would make the play very disjointed and pretty much ruin the flow. Well, your dialogues are mini-plays.

With this in mind, the solution to me is an introduction segment where the player is introduced to the lingo as cardtrick mentioned. A bit where a more experienced thief plays Artful Dodger to your Oliver Twist, shows you the ropes. Once that segment is done, tell the player the lingo can be referenced in the journal and leave it at that.

And yeah, it would be awesome Smile
3047  Other / General Discussion / Re: So, what ya playing? on: January 04, 2008, 07:17:33 am
Currently, I am devouring MoTB, which is one of the best RPGs I've played in a while. Haven't enjoyed a game this much in ages.

I'm also playing the Witcher, a good game but it's a pity the dialogues are a little stilted. Still thoroughly enjoyable though.

Occasionally when I just feel like mindless vegging, i fire up Hellgate. On the other end of the scale, on days when I'm feeling my inner empire builder, GalCiv2 is my master.
3048  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Settings: Turn of the century on: January 04, 2008, 04:02:31 am
I also dig this setting. I wish League of Extraordinary gentlemen had been a better movie, it had potential. Same with Rise of Legends, the game.

After Scars, was thinking along the lines of either modern fantasy or steampunk. The problem is there are SO many fun themes to explore, so little time.
3049  Other / General Discussion / Re: Codex<-->ITS Conversion Chart on: December 20, 2007, 06:49:49 am
Sorry Priapist/Section8, I got to Gareth first Wink


  Old Forum     Old Forum Username     ITS Forum Username   
  RPG Codex     Naked Ninja                    Gareth   
3050  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Personality stats - the system on: December 04, 2007, 11:58:42 am
Quote
It can also be achieved mechanically - the only way to reliably model irrational character fear.

The problem is I think that forcing it mechanically has a great potential to result in frustration, not because people are stupid or don't want challenge, but simply because lack of control isn't a fun mechanic. If your "running scared" mode is an interesting experience, cool. If you just lose control, not so much.

Quote
Second, you don't have precise information on most other stat effects. You don't need to know that you need a wisdom value of at least 17 in order to get dialogue option X. All you need to know as a player is the qualitative situation - that higher wisdom will tend to get your more wise dialogue options (and potential fewer foolish ones). I've never been frustrated at the absence of an option when I've chosen to have a lower wisdom. It's expected that there'll be fewer options, and expected that you won't know exactly which ones.

Perhaps, but you generally have a good idea how it will affect your character, and most people have a shared understanding of "Intelligence" or "Strength". The problem is, someone could decide on character creation to play a char that "mostly obeys the rules, but will break them if the cause is justified", and chooses an Order of 7/10, cause he believes that is appropriate to the concept. Then he comes acrosee a situation in game where he is forbidden from performing an action he feels is justified because the designer thinks Order 7 means he wouldn't, yet he believes his character would feel justified. The problem is the lack of a common understanding of "what is justifiable and lawful" means the designer and player aren't coming at it from the same direction. Unlike Strength, where both sides are pretty much on the same page.

Quote
Third, the notion of getting annoyed at "misjudging the worth" of a stat rather implies that the entertainment of the game is based upon character success

Thats not it. But some of the enjoyment comes from character creation. If I make a wizard who I envision as really bookish and talented with spells, but the manual doesn't tell me I need a 10 to cast high level spells and I choose a score of 9, only to discover half way through the game that a choice I made in the beginning limits me like that...ugh. I don't find that interesting, I find it annoying.


Quote
If an order stat had a specific role in a game mechanic (like a strength/dexterity stat in a to-hit role or similar), then by all means it should be spelt out. If it's determining dialogue options, there's no need for it to be, any more than there is for wisdom. The qualitative trend is all that matters, since the player isn't expected or required to be making precise tactical judgements on the basis of expected outcomes of order checks.

I don't agree. In fact I have direct experience with this. I played Fallout as a sorta science/speech guy. I got a good way throguh the game only to discover what I though was "average" strength wasn't enough to let me use anything but a pistol without penalties. Believe me, I didn't think "oh, interesting!". I just wished I'd had this consequence made clear to me in the beginning. It wasn't enjoyable at all. To me it seemed reasonable that the strength I'd picked should have been able to use at least submachine guns.


Quote
How is it that all this vagueness is now an advantage? Why is a vague leap of faith in game action terms a good thing, while a vague leap of faith in stat increase terms is a bad thing?

For the same reason that concealing the consequences of dialogue choices can be very interesting but hiding the strength requirements of a common weapon isn't.


Quote
You can have all the trappings of the latter without denying the usefulness of a stat/trait/background/ethos to define a character's nature.

Perhaps. I still think explicitly showing faith as a stat on your character sheet robs it of some of its meaningfulness, just as the dark/light side metre in Bio games cheapens moral choices a bit. Part of the fun of these things it struggling with hidden meaning and difficult choices, not having the results of your actions spelled out to you on a little bar.
3051  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Personality stats - the system on: December 04, 2007, 06:21:59 am
Quote
Your comment implies that you see it as a permanent state that happens all the time. Create a brave character if you want to be able to charge at anything or increase his bravery. I mean, you don't complain if a dragon tears apart your lvl3 character. You understand that your character wasn't a match for the dragon and you increase your skills until you are ready. Same here.

Sure, but I'm assuming that just as with combat effectiveness, generally no matter what level you are there is always a creature with a higher rating. I don't want, everytime I enter into a new, dangerous area, to come across a scary beast and lose control of my char. Just picture the progression. I'm level 1 with a moderate bravery stat, so ghouls may terrify me. I go to the graveyard, bam, my char flees. (Incidentally, I believe you could do this without forcing the player to run just by making the monsters deadly, I certainly panicked when attacked by zombies in Thief 2). Ok, so I gain some levels and pump up my bravery. Ghouls are no problem. Then I'm wandering the forest and encounter dire wolves. Bam! Running. Right, so I can't go there. I go somewhere else and level, now I can take the wolves, sweet. But then I run into a basilisk. Bam, running again! And so on and so on...honestly, I think it would get really, really tedious. Even if you can pump your stat to take on a specific creature, with a starting moderate bravery skill, due to increasing challenge in encounters, you are going to dealing with that situation a lot. If it is used sparingly, I suppose it could be ok (but then that makes your normal stats FAR more useful since you will be using them all the time). But I still would prefer a system of penalties to your abilities over losing control. Or just actual dangerous combat encounters, so that I choose in game whether to be brave or cowardly.

You may say "oh, but combat scales in challenge too, whats the problem?". The problem is lack of control isn't fun. Combat, even challenging combat, is. Even being afraid is fun (which is why people go to movies). But in your system the player isn't scared, he is just forced to relinquish control.

Quote
Why? The middle ground is always the most flexible. Think of it as being a jack of all trades whereas 1-2 and 9-10 are the masteries. Some situations would require flexibility, some would require strong beliefs/positions.

For the same reason you need to explain what any of the other stats do. I'm spending my precious stat points on this Order stat. If you are vague then I'll probably misjudge the worth of a stat, and then I will get annoyed. The first time I run into a scenario where you as the designer thinks Order X means I can't do something and I as the player think Order X means I can, I will get grumpy. The 5th or 6th time...I'll be really frustrated.

Quote
Few things aren't.

Thats a worthless answer. When you let a player pick his stats you are implicitly offering a choice on how he wants to play his character. If you don't give him appropriate information on how his choice will affect his play experience, you render his choice worthless. Why should I invest 7 points into Order instead of 6? If you can't give the player a specific reason, asking him to choose how he wants to distribute stat points into that skill is worthless. Vagueness in character creation ISN'T a virtue.

Quote
Like? Throw me an example of a good quest that makes the proposed faith stat redundant.

Simple. All it requires is sacrifice and choice. Almost all games are continuous reward structures. For a player to play a character with strong faith he must be willing to give up things. Every religious text shows priests sacrificing of themselves for their faith.

Simplest example I can think of, say you have a city and there has been a war nearby, in a nation which isn't really liked here. Refugees arrive at the city. You are a priest of mercy and justice. The refugees are kept outside, in camps. No one tells you "Do the quest to save them!" However, you, as the player playing this priest, can take the initiative to go talk to them. You can choose to empathise with them. They need supplies and medicine. Expensive medicine. You can take the initiative to go buy the medicine (they don't reward you with exp or gold, or even really ask you for your aid directly  Roll Eyes). There is no immediate penalty if you don't though. You can go talk to the local council about letting them in the gates. However, since people in this town don't like the refugees, doing so makes you unpopular. Certain characters who could be allies are more negative towards you. You encounter merchants who raise their prices for "a filthy XXX lover". And all of this without getting awesome quest rewards or even much in the way of a noticable quest. You just do it because you are roleplaying a priest of compassion, and that's the behavior encouraged by the doctrine. Maybe in dialogues with the refugess you preach the faith a bit. And, underneath, in the code, doing these things is tracked by a hidden stat. Eventually, it goes up enough and it triggers some text while you sleep...a dream, in which your god speaks to you, and commands you to go into the mountains and find "The tears of the prophet". Or something. No more than that, no clues, no promise of reward...and who knows where that takes you.... Wink   That, for me, would be so much more awesome than a stat to put points into as I level up. A stat the player can watch and min/max robs the experience of any real meaning I think. In the example quest I proposed above it would make it too simple for the player to choose the optimal path. Especially when you throw in some interesting conflicts, for example.

In the scenario above, one of the refugees has been caught by the guard. He was trying to steal food, got interrupted and in a panic hurt an innocent bystander. The locals are howling for blood. Now, your god is a good of mercy, but also of justice. The 2 are at conflict here, what do you do? You can sit back and watch, (because he deserves to be punished, after all, it was his choice to hurt someone), try to defend his actions, saying that it is the towns fault for leaving the refugee to starve, try for a middle road by trying to talk the townspeople into a lesser punishement than they have planned...if the player can watch a stat go up or down it is too easy to min/max. Leaving it hidden lets you assign relative "faithfulness" values to each action, even dialogues where you justify your choice, which can affect the player later. For example, if you get the prisoners punishment lessened, but lie to achieve it, is that justifiable under your faith? It has a nice "did I choose/do right?" feeling to it, a moral quandry. Thats just a simple example off the top of my head, I'm sure with thought some more engaging and complex scenarios can be imagined. I think faith is something that should be role-played, not forced via stats.
3052  RPG / The Age of Decadence / Re: AoD Team on: December 03, 2007, 09:27:55 am
That screen is great. Really, one of the best you've shown. Can't wait for a video showing off the environments. 
3053  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Personality stats - the system on: November 28, 2007, 12:41:37 pm
Quote
Well, the whole idea is to add a system of reactions/responses to different conditions and turn your character from a zombie on strings to a "living being" with fears, emotions, beliefs. If that means that *sometimes* you won't be in control, which really means that you too will have to respond to new situations, then it's a very affordable price to pay.

Perhaps, but it's a fine line. As has been brought up before, modeling realism isn't always fun. If I got into a fight with something like a dragon that would cause my player to run in uncontrollable fear every time I got within 20 feet, well, it might be cool the first time but I think I'd quickly get annoyed by it. I'd far prefer a system of "trembling in fear" penalties, like chances to fail spellcasts and suchlike, while still leaving me able to choose what action I want to perform, over something that essentially turns me into a spectator.

Quote
The middle ground. You don't mind the rules, but they are not sacred to you.

But what does that mean, explicitly? It can't be the same as Order 1, so it must restrict my actions somehow? Can you come up with a single paragraph right now which I can use to clarify how it would affect my player in any situation he ran into? As in, what would go in the manual so that I'd know, choosing a score of 6, if I encountered a situation Y the result to myself would be...what? If you can't, I think it is too open to interpretation. Without listing every encounter where that variable is checked in the game and what each score means for each encounter, I don't think you can convey how it will work to players in a manner that they will all interpret the same way.

Quote
Have you played Nethack, good sir?

No, but I'm well aware it is "Iron man mode". Are you suggesting you'd add both the faith system and forced Iron Man Mode into the game at the same time, to counter the scenario I suggested, with people simple saving till they get favorable results? In that case, I must mention I dislike the idea of being forced into Iron Man Mode immensely.

Quote
Sure, but how do you measure the depth of your faith and your devotion to your deity?

By the quests. And by not making the quests simple "I win with no tradeoffs!" situations. To follow the questline to the most "faithful" completion point should involve sacrifice. And I really don't think you should reveal a number to the player so they can simply choose an option and see if it is beneficial. That cheapens it, hide the stat.

Let them do a quest, make hard decisions, have them interpret their faiths philosophy, and make sacrifices to follow their faiths principles (almost all religion's stories show religious figures suffering for their beliefs, they don't get money as a quest reward Tongue ). Make other factions turn against and persecute them (the romans and the christians Wink). Quite frankly, I'd much prefer some well written quests than a number I can min/max for occasional buffs.


3054  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Personality stats - the system on: November 28, 2007, 07:09:20 am
I don't really like the stats you proposed Vince (except for leadership, thats fine), for the following reasons :

Bravery : I don't like the losing control aspect. That has the potential to be very frustrating (not the same as enjoyably challenging). Especially if you lose control of your character and your pathfinding AI isn't up to scratch. For example it runs down a hall you already know is filled with traps or leads to a dead end. Ok, sure, your character is panicked, but running into a situation the player knows is deadly to escape another deadly situation doesn't make sense. I have yet to see evidence in AI companions in games that anyone has made decent AI to the point I'd trust it with even my panicked fleeing character.

Order : Too open to interpretation. On a scale of 1-10, what is 6? If the rules are "no casting in town", will a 6 allow me to cast if my life in in peril? If I'm stolen from? What if I'm on a vitally important quest to save the Universe and Stuff? The problem is your interpretation as the designer probably won't be the same as mine, and that could very easily make it annoying for the player. Annoying (I'm not talking about challenging) is not a good thing. In P&P a player can tell the DM his reasons and the DM can make a judgement call if it is reasonable. Not so in a CRPG.

Faith : I REALLY don't like that random table crap. It isn't actual depth, it is just a random table to exploit. People will just save before they pray then reload if the result is unfavorable. They are doing it with Eschalons treasure chests, they will certainly do it with this. I'd prefer faith based quests and difficult choices. I don't want religion that is just a slot machine, put in enough tokens so that "prizes" come out.

Altruism and Avarice : Same problem with Order. We had a difficult enough time reaching a unanimous interpretation of ethics on the Codex, good luck with reaching the same interpretation of these stats as each of your players will Tongue



3055  Other / The Reading Lounge / Re: Andrzej Sapkowski on: November 26, 2007, 10:11:43 am
After I heard about the game I picked up The Last Wish (translated), I loved it. The stories are great, nice moral ambiguity.
3056  RPG / RPG Discussion / Re: Must play RPGs 2000-2007 on: November 25, 2007, 08:03:50 am
Mount and Blade isn't really an RPG, but I'd add it to the "must play" list simply for its fantastic combat. Definitely one of the best combat systems to date and THE BEST horseback combat I've played. Anyone designing a medieval RPG should try it simply to experience their combat system.
3057  RPG / RPG Design / Re: Personality stats on: November 25, 2007, 03:49:33 am
Mmmm, dangerous territory here. The problem with this discussion is a lot of people aren't looking at it from the metagame level, which is how a good RPG needs to be designed. Everything needs to be designed from the point of view of "how does this enhance the players experience?".

The immediate problem I see is most people aren't taking into account that RPGs are power fantasies. All of them. Look at the classes you can play : Wizard, Warrior, Rogue, etc....all of them are power fantasies in different realms of experience, whether magic, combat or trickery. Even in AoD, the gladiator, knight, grifter, loremaster...still power fantasies. Now imagine you added a class "Guy who just sucks". How many people do you think would pick that class? None. Likewise, imagine you had the stats "Strength", "Agility"...blah blah...and finally "Fragility"? How many people would put points into "Fragility"? Very few. The problem is it isn't psychologically rewarding.

Now take a cowardness stat. Unless is added bonuses, it isn't particularly appealing. The trade off is too much and too negative. (Saying "Oh but look at Rincewind is pointless, Pratchett writes comic fantasy with carricature characters, unless that's what you're aiming for it doesn't fit"). Examine how the dragon scenario looks, from a metagame perspective. Option A, the player goes to fight the dragon, there is combat and danger and thrilling derring-do...and rewards of treasure. Option B, the fight is declined, the character is appropriately "role-played", the player who is playing the game for an enjoyable experience gets...what? No action, no excitement, no treasure. Maybe a little xp? The satisfaction of knowing that the option he took in the beginning has cut off a whole bunch of fun in exchange for a minor joy of proper-role playing? It doesn't work because it is totally unbalanced from the metagame level. Remember, in a game, ALL aspects must work within the "Is this fun?" framework. Remember your discussion about crossbow insta-kills? This is the reason why truly realistic combat is never modeled in RPGs, despite how "real" it would make the role-playing, it just ain't fun.

The problem first is with the name of the stat. Cowardice is a negative connotation. I know, some of you will be tempted to say "Oh no, heaven forbid that the player gets some stat with a negative connotation!!!". Thats missing the point. Re-read the above paragraph. The trick is to introduce options that are more "carrot" and less "stick". More rewarding the player and less taking away fun.

Now, I have thought about this a bit in the past. What I came up with is a system of Reputations. For instance, to fit the dragon quest example, you have a Reputation slider that is kind of like the Dark Side/Light Side slider in KOTOR. At one end, Aggression, at the other end, Caution. Now the dragon quest as you described it is very "stick". However, under my system it is more "carrot", the player would not get offered the quest to take on the dragon unless he had a reputation for Aggression ("Ho there (Player), your reputation precedes you. We need someone with your spirit to handle a problem for us!"). But, on the other end of the scale, you have a quest that involves careful negotiation of a diplomatic scenario. If the player has a reputation for Caution he will get offered that quest ("Ah (Player), please, join us. We are currently faced with a rather tricky situation, something that calls for a level head and plenty of patience!").

In either case, the player is REWARDED for their choice, and not made to feel like their option is the "sucky" one. The aggressive player feels like he is rewarded for his courage and the cautious player is pleased the game recognises his careful forethought. In each it feeds into the concept that the player has for their character, AND the reputations are built up by the player choices during the game, so it has a nice C&C aspect.

The only issue with the system is to add enough content to make it really work. I would really like to implement it with Scars but even with only a few of these Reputation sliders the amount of extra content and complexity required becomes significant.
3058  RPG / RPG Design / Re: High skill/stat levels on: November 24, 2007, 03:35:40 am
Agreed, definately some good points there Galsiah.

I was actually talking to a friend about Dues Ex last night, he said he didn't get past the one part...the one where you are fighting an agent and actually have to lose the fight to progress since it ends with you awaking in a prison. I got past that part fine but he said he reloaded a couple of times because he kept losing that fight...the point being that we need good ways to introduce "little defeats" to players, to make them willing to see what happens. We've all been trained in binary win/loss by games, to the point where someone will reload when it seems like they are going to "die".
3059  RPG / The Age of Decadence / Re: Town Districts on: November 23, 2007, 04:15:12 pm
Very, very nice, a HUGE improvement, welll done guys Smile

I'm fine with filler houses. I prefer that to very small looking settlements where everything is enterable.
3060  RPG / RPG Design / Re: High skill/stat levels on: November 23, 2007, 04:09:30 pm
I like the unlocking skills idea but with a point to note. I prefer it when you know what combination of skills unlocks what talents, something which Spiderweb games didn't do.

I know some people might say "oh but it is a fun surprise!" but I still enjoy building up my character, and I think the psychological "carrot dangling before your nose" adds spice to the progression, ala Diablo. Then there is the fun of creating builds around strategies, something that is difficult when you have no idea what skills unlock what. And as a last point, usually people will post guides on the internet (like the one I had to download for Heroes of MM 5), so hiding the tree just adds annoyance.

Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205