There needs to be a better skill system implemented in RPGs! Make the skills applicable in most situations, (instead of predefined scripted ones). In a current game with a Doctor skill you are only usually able to use it (to heal others) in specific cases such as when a Farmer asks to to heal his cows broken leg. He might reward you for doing this with some cash or some "healing herbs". [ and you get experience points too]. The problem is that each occurence of this must be pre-scripted. So what if instead of this pre-scripted system, there was a system where any injured creature / character can be healed, then depending on how they feel about the player [angry, thankful > influenced by the personality type of the NPC] they will reward them appropriately. This could thus create situations where the player could come across a farmer who had been hurt in a "random encounter" and offer to heal their wounds, and then be paid appropriately. Whereas if the player where to break the legs of an enemy and then heal them [ the enemy would be angry because of the broken legs and not pay the player]. Some examples For example in Thief 2 a real-time first person sneaker where one of the aims is to avoid VIOLENT confrontation (which is not the same as avoiding conflict). The player has innate skills, he is good at hiding in shadows, can knock (unalerted) enemies out with a blackjack, has good hearing and so YOU can determine where enemies are by listening to the noises they make. (He also has a variety of tools which can be used in different situation) So these skills can be used most of the time, and do not require activation {ie. hiding in shadows, 3d sound} other abilities are a player choice {blackjacking}. But there are FREQUENT opportunities to use these skills. Grand Theft Auto is another great example of this where the player has skills like carjacking which can be used on all cars (except ones being driven by enemies / police). Results Deeper gameplay, more varied gameplay, as more skills will be relevent at one time. [Downside, more bug-testing and balancing needed.] More scope for player invention. Ie. The "doctor" character might find it profitable to promote civil unrest / fights so that he could get rich healing the injured. To avoid forcing the players to gain Experience Points from combat, and to increase the depth of the system. Edited by - Ketchaval on May 7, 2001 12:54:19 PM

Do you think that better skill integration could come through simulation?

As you said, it seems that in most cRPGs you have to activate a skill. You turn it on and off like a light. I notice, though, that Thief is something like a simulation. Many of the elements and obstacles are always running, and doing so with rules similar to the real world: Light and darkness and your visibility meter; facing direction and attacks on guards; sight (ko''d guards, candles) and sound triggers all operate within a continuous and consistent system.

Healing, then, would have to be a bit of a simulation. It seems you''d need to detail when it worked, on who, and what the results would be, all in advance. Since combat already works a bit like this in most games, I could see taking a combat oriented approach. Rather than an attack, with all it''s implications (whatever they may be-- alliance, reputation, justice system, whatever) you''d have an direct inversion of the same rules.

It also seems that any move in this direction would need more detailed objects. If you dump scripting, then the game world''s objects themselves would need to be information heavy. Already we know we can''t lockpick a cow, or heal a gate; but to replace scripting we''d need to know whether or not either a cow could be: poisoned, crippled, burned, hidden, blown up... etc., etc. (And the results of such).

Of course, the beauty of scripting is that we get great detail without having to do all of this. We lose freedom, however.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Wavinator,

your comparisons with Combat are justified, as the main problem with these skills is that they are not as useful as combat skills. Combat is one of the easiest things to implement in games, from simple combat [Space Invaders] onwards.

Thus combat skills usually provide more (non-scripted) opportunities for the players to use them [ and advance in the game]. Ie. A primarily medical character may be able to heal themselves, and other characters (in scripted quests).. but it won't usually help them to win a fight.

So if the skills are general enough.. to be used in many situations. Then they will become more valuable to the players, and provide more scope for play. [and increase the "roleplaying" potential of using a skill. For instance, a guy with medical skills & gun fighting skills could be paid more as an armed escort to a goods caravan.



Edited by - Ketchaval on May 8, 2001 9:02:46 AM

Howdy, folks!

I just wanted to say that I love the idea of an NPC being hurt in a random encounter. I''ve never thought of that. How could that be incorporated into a game system? Maybe it would be difficult to make something like that work, but it sure is original!

"Farmer Joe! What happened to your leg?"

"Elsie, my prize cow was missing. I went into the woods to look for her, and I was attacked by something big and hairy!"

Sure, this could work as a scripted plot device. But what if an entire game ran that way? Cool idea!

O.K., I''m sorry for interrupting. I''ll let you ger back to the original discussion. (But I love that idea!)


Jonathon

quote: "Mathematics are one of the fundamentaries of educationalizing our youths." -George W. Bush

Something from my earlier post I just want to emphasize: How come we haven''t seen the hack&slash equivalent of being a doctor?

I think because we''re not simulating enough.

A doctor could have gameplay as deep as a fighter, but right now the most complicated I''ve seen is "go get these ingredients." We haven''t seen many doctor roles because being a doctor is damned boring.

Fighters have resources to manage, tactical tradeoffs, random effects on their actions, and opportunity costs for everything.

Doctors could have the same: treatment tradeoffs, wound sequences ("have to clear the clot before we repair the artery"), timed challenges ("blood pressure''s dropping!!!"), varying risks, problem solving, etc., etc.

If we invested the effort, it could be just as hard to figure how to save a life as it is to take one.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Something from my earlier post I just want to emphasize: How come we haven''t seen the hack&slash equivalent of being a doctor?

I think because we''re not simulating enough.

A doctor could have gameplay as deep as a fighter, but right now the most complicated I''ve seen is "go get these ingredients." We haven''t seen many doctor roles because being a doctor is damned boring.

Fighters have resources to manage, tactical tradeoffs, random effects on their actions, and opportunity costs for everything.

Doctors could have the same: treatment tradeoffs, wound sequences ("have to clear the clot before we repair the artery"), timed challenges ("blood pressure''s dropping!!!"), varying risks, problem solving, etc., etc.

If we invested the effort, it could be just as hard to figure how to save a life as it is to take one.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Oh no! That sounds like real research!

I think you''re right. In Thief the whole game centered around avoiding violence instead of causing it. Perhaps part of our problems w/ typical RPGs is that we try to incorporate so many classes or types of characters. In Thief they had the luxury of balancing all mechanics around a thief character rather than trying to balance things around many types of characters.


A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

This observation was brought about from me choosing to complete Fallout 2 as a minimum violence, high "talk" skill & med. high "sneak" skill character.

Whilst it is a great game, the majority of the experience (except for the Quests) consisted of me talking to characters, running away from fights (the + 2 movement points perk helped here), stealing small objects. There was little "gameplay" (ie. weighing up choices of action, their pros and cons and choosing the one which suited me best.

So, seeing how combat is an easy source of gameplay choices, it interested me to see what [non-combat damage inflicting skills] could be implemented as fairly frequent sources of gameplay. Ie. That the elements that you interact with / the techniques you use could be frequent enough for a player to choose these skills, and not feel cheated of "gameplay".

[BTW, I am now playing through Fallout 1 as a combat oriented character] [ Fallout 1 + 2 are available as a double pack in the UK, at a budget price !]

Basically visit the site, but here is the latest info on my combat system.

Ok.. I''ve got a lot of information to post and it''s scribbled down randomly on 2 pages in front of me, so I have to sort it out and re-write as well. so here we go.

I''ve decided to downplay magic to aids, rather than powerful and godlike spells as they normally are, making them basically equal to any other weapon, but different tactically.

Therefor magic now becomes normal perks, just as weapons will too (I''ll explain throughout the differences), basically chosen by perk points (except for weapons of course) and when ever practiced or active all these perks, will gain levels which will basically mean a free perk point in that perk when reaching a new level.

Perks are devided into 2 categories: 1) Feats and 2) Traits

Feats are mostly tactical skills, weapon skills and magic
Traits on the other hand are defined as permanent perks which when chosen eat up an x amount of your experience points when leveling, to alter you person permanently. You will be allowed a certain amount of Traits depending on your character level, but you can use your normal perk points to quicken your progression as with normal perks.

Also all perks can basically be defined into the 3 following categories as well 1) Offensive 2) Defensive 3)Penetrative or Counter-defensive

You''ll be allowed to active an x amount of Feats when you do battle, depending on your character level, although you still just have 2 hands so when you use more than 2 it will basically combine to give you a single effect with your chosen weapon, who also levels up as previously decided when used. When you use a weapon the perk called "swordskill" is automatically activated. The same way when u press a button to change to an axe, th "axeskill" perk is activated. You can program an x amount of perks to be activated automatically to work with that given weapon, dependant on your max allowed perks of course.

Magic: The same way magic is just a feat. You will be allowed to choose any of the 100 spells to use automatically, so you''ll never be limited to a certain range of spells, but can pick and choose as you want, or just perk up your weapon feats or other traits or perks or combinations.

You''ll really have a unique character.

The same is for hand-to-hand combat characters. There will be a number of moves to perk up as feats, for those who want to recreate those monk type characters and maybe add a few healing skills.

But of course there is always a catch to your lmits and that is the key to the new system.
The important part of this sytem is that attribute points fall away. There will of course be traits that will increase your strength and overall damage, or alter your health and your magical abilities, but these skills, while being perks now will grow with usage as well. If you keep swinging that axe, you''ll increase strength

Weapon usage are limited by stamina and fatigue and Magic by mana and fatigue.

Magic work as follows. If a spell needs 30 mana to cast and you only have 6 mana, you''ll still be able to cast that spell but the spell will have a 1/5 chance to fail etc. You can activate a button to not cast unless you have atleast a certain percentage change the spell will work or you will waste mana. The same way if you have 60 mana you can have (depending on you limit at that time) do a double cast. When doing a double cats though (depending if it''s a 2x, 3x etc cast)you''ll do 2x etc the damage at the same time, but at an increased penalty to your fatigue, an added chance of failure and a slight increase to damage.

It''s your choice to use these bonuses or just cast normally.
With weapons the same basically counts. You''ll need a certain amount of strength to use a weapon so if you need 30 stamina and you have only 6 you''ll have a 1/5 more chance to miss your hit. Also you can decide to use more of your stamina to do a double blow or quicker swings.

Extra exertion too quickly though quickens your fatigue and when you become to weak you''ll be hit more easily or even lose health. Also all chance to hit are still modified by armour etc. and other traits.

To be able to qualify for a Clan, Guild or Order, you''ll need a certain specific set of Perks at certain levels, these Perks often vastly improved by the expertise you gain after joining such an organization. Although warriors can only belong to one or 2 oraganisations depending on your level, some of these organisations often ban your use of certain forbidden Perks to that organisation, or ban you in joining other organisations.

Strong warriors often find their way arround such limitations. You''ll gain points at certain levels you can use to disguise banned perks. You''ll thus fit the requirements to join an evil organization will disguising the fact that you practice dark perks from the holy organizations. When you use these banned Feats in front of your organization members though, you''ll lose personal lore points as well as lore amongst that organization, eventually being banned.

And last here are a few more perks I might add:

Dark Merchant - Skilled and merciless barterer
Juggler -
Tumbler -
Illuminator - Proficient in fireworks
Magician
Wild Pagan - Proficient in natural healing, druidic spells and akin to animals
Herb Healer - Allows you to use plants and herbs to heal animals and people
Tribesman -
Necrophiliac - Derives sexual pleasures from the dead. This perk raises your charisma and charm amongst the Undead.
Cannibal - Feed on the livers and hearts of slain enemies to sustain your life.
What do you think of this all?? Will this work or is it to complex. I like it and will work this week on updating and expanding the current perks before I come back this weekend to do weapons research.

http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/claimingsanctuary

Just saw a related topic on www.GameDeveloper.net.

Saying about how conversation could be broken down into a system, (either symbol based, or sentence based) as opposed to a pre-scripted dialogue.

This is a good example of how skills could be made more universal, as it would allow you to talk to characters at any time.. and have them react appropriately.

As a matter of fact, the premise of rules-based language synthesis is something I''m hoping to implement for a commentary system in a sports game that I should do sometime this millenium...

Coming back to the original topic of discussion, I once proposed a simulation/RPG in which the central character is in situations of standard physical danger, but has a personal abhorrence of violence . He won''t touch a gun and he won''t hit anybody. So for him he has to resort to methods of inhibiting opponent progress while he tries to stay one step ahead and unravel the mystery (okay, I got a little sensational there). I had elected to have the character as some form of electrical/mechanical engineer, and thus able to tamper with any system in the game world (security systems at banks and other public buildings, fire alerts, smoke detectors, etc) and use the response of other NPCs to slow down his attackers.

However, I also decided to include a "cop character" who was helping him, but make it a her so that the prospect of violence was limited. I wanted to create an intellectual virtual thriller, not a slugfest. As with all of my ideas, it''s on the back burner while I complete my transition to Windows...

The point is that I agree that there are many opportunities for gameplay provided gamemakers create worlds that operate based on rules, not scripts. Gameplay is then a case of manipulating those rules against the challenge.

Taking this a step further, consider sports games. If the rules of the game and of how to play it are properly implemented, an ingenious player should be able to employ strategy - not patterns - to defeat opponents, but need to draw up different strategies for different matches. The opponents should aslo be able to react to situations as they are simply events subject to the same rules, not unscripted scenarios. the real difficulty lies in writing rulesets robust enough to handle all the possibilities in the game world without limiting the gamer too severely. Therein lies the challenge; are we up to it?

---
Those who can do nothing criticize; those who can, critique.