Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Author Topic: 1 turn = 1 sec? I see real character growth issues here...  (Read 16944 times)
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2009, 09:55:41 PM »

I think levels are stupid because they are an unnecessary abstraction.  Real people don't have "levels".  The only think they are good for is a quick and dirty way to match up opponents....   Oh, you are a level 2 party?  Fight these level 2 monsters and get level 2 treasure/rewards...   You don't need that with a computer, the CPU can just calculate how tough opponents need to be (this is a general comment, not a PARPG comment).     You, of course, don't need them in a PnP RPG either.

The only reason levels exist in many (not even most) games is that D&D had them back in 1978.

Does the wiki page above not explain how character advancement works without experience points or levels?
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
shevegen
Community member

Posts: 705



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2009, 10:14:38 PM »

It is interesting that I do agree with zenbitz Wink


My favourite roleplaying game (Betrayal at Krondor) hat no XP.

Skill progression was through practise & time, stat progression was only via time (this one was a bit stupid, because after some weeks the char suddenly hat a bit more health and strength....)

Quote
There are dozens of PnP RPGs that do not have a concept of "level".  Would you like a complete list or just the major ones

Any Computer RPGS? I only know of Betrayal at Krondor. Cant recall any CRPG that had no XP
Logged

Cleaning away the bureaucracy in PARPG to make our life easier.
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2009, 10:48:12 PM »

it is my theory that no one has bothered to make a good system for cRPGs.    A typical cRPG just rips off some existing system because they've heard of it.

 All the effort goes in to graphics first then writing.   Oh, and marketing.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Suzi
Community member

Posts: 74



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2009, 10:39:23 AM »

it is my theory that no one has bothered to make a good system for cRPGs.    A typical cRPG just rips off some existing system because they've heard of it.
That`s not really true.

Quote
I think levels are stupid because they are an unnecessary abstraction.  Real people don't have "levels".  The only think they are good for is a quick and dirty way to match up opponents....   Oh, you are a level 2 party?  Fight these level 2 monsters and get level 2 treasure/rewards...   You don't need that with a computer, the CPU can just calculate how tough opponents need to be (this is a general comment, not a PARPG comment).     You, of course, don't need them in a PnP RPG either.

The only reason levels exist in many (not even most) games is that D&D had them back in 1978.
Levels are an very good indicator of what the character is able to do. In PvP situations you just have to know which level your opponent is to know if you have a change against him or not. In real-life it kinda works like this sometimes, if i`d see Mike Tyson in front of me, i`d know instantly he is on a higher level regarding unarmed combat than me thusly beating the shit out of me. This doesn`t work always, you can`t tell which one of two people is the better shooter when the conditions are the same untill one of them gets killed pretty fast. You could say the character who survived this battle has a higher level than the other. Levels are a valid indication, just like stats, without numbers telling that a >b the computer won`t be able to pick a winner. Question: So when somebody raises up his/her stats(no matter how) is that not leveling up? No leveling for me means you pick a character and his stats/skills stay the same forever, everything else is leveling up or down.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 10:43:15 AM by Suzi » Logged
Gaspard
Community member

Posts: 479


The Blackest Heart


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2009, 04:54:09 PM »

But Suzi, if you match a 2nd level boxer with a 2nd level sharpshooter, both geared up, who do you think would win ?

If you can't decide then let us place them 50 feet apart. Who would win now ?

Even if the boxer is confident that he'd take the shooter out with one well-placed blow then I'd still like to see him dodge the bullets for 50 feet all the while risking twisting an ankle, not to mention what bullets do to muscles and tendons and bones and, well, brains when they hit home
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2009, 08:55:13 PM »

it is my theory that no one has bothered to make a good system for cRPGs.    A typical cRPG just rips off some existing system because they've heard of it.
That`s not really true.

Well, it's a theory that could be easily disproven with counter examples.

Quote
Levels are an very good indicator of what the character is able to do. In PvP situations you just have to know which level your opponent is to know if you have a change against him or not. In real-life it kinda works like this sometimes, if i`d see Mike Tyson in front of me, i`d know instantly he is on a higher level regarding unarmed combat than me thusly beating the shit out of me.


I prefer to not know.    But in the case of Mike Tyson - by looking at him you'd have no idea what "level" of boxer he was.  You'd know he was big and probably very strong.   You only know he's a good boxer by reputation.   So, a good reputation system would substitutute for this "feature" of levels.    But you have hit on what they are for  - but kind of backwards.  We can give the player any other type of clue as to how bad ass his opponent is - via reputation or other graphic clue without resorting to an artificial "level"... but that's the easy task; players are smart.

How do you tell the NPC that they shouldn't mess with the PC?  Reputation - would help, maybe enough... but we also want a NPC (could be in the player's party or enemy or neutral) to be able to decide IN THE MIDDLE of a fight that it's time to pack up and leave.  You could use a "level" for this, but then level 1s would always run from level 3s... which is going to get cheesy.  What you really want is for the NPC to do a little battle simulation and "calculate his odds" of surviving the current fight, vs. possible rewards and other factors (maybe he's trapped).  I think we can do better than comparing levels.

And besides I hate them.
EDIT:  Missed a quote tag
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 11:09:39 PM by zenbitz » Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
GarmGarf
Community member

Posts: 16


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2009, 11:17:14 PM »

I've always had an affinity towards the concept of a level-less and classless RPG, and character development freedom in general.


About the player not (definitely) knowing whether the opposition is too tough or not before battle commences, I think the idea is great, however, the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of players saving their game right before fights and loading if the enemies are too tough. Maybe if escaping battles was easy enough or didn't cost too much resources/penalties, then it could be pulled off well.

Basically, we gotta make sure that "saving and loading" isn't a requirement to play this game effectively, and preferably make it not a common practice (or impossible) when playing this game. I think there was a thread on that separate issue though.
Logged
monkeyface
Community member

Posts: 40


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2009, 11:47:15 PM »

I've always had an affinity towards the concept of a level-less and classless RPG, and character development freedom in general.


About the player not (definitely) knowing whether the opposition is too tough or not before battle commences, I think the idea is great, however, the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of players saving their game right before fights and loading if the enemies are too tough. Maybe if escaping battles was easy enough or didn't cost too much resources/penalties, then it could be pulled off well.

Basically, we gotta make sure that "saving and loading" isn't a requirement to play this game effectively, and preferably make it not a common practice (or impossible) when playing this game. I think there was a thread on that separate issue though.

Listen to this man, this is good game design. Instead of removing the option to quick-save/load or modifying it, you should simply design the game so that the practice becomes obsolete, because it is in itself an unsustainable concept.
Logged
Border
Community member

Posts: 124


silicium_Vitae@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2009, 03:50:00 AM »

just one thing not to forgot when creating a Game.
NEVER PUNISH THE PLAYER. If players want to play with the save always on, let it play is/her way.
I notice there were similar discussion in the map thread as to avoid the in/out of building to reset fight. Good idea you think?
BAD Designer BaD!! If you want your enemy to remember that he was attacking you even if you ran into a house, Fine but never do that to punish the player if he/she want to play cowardly.
Don't get me wrong, i think it suck if player do that  but punishing him for that is like calling the police when i tell the sleeping beauty differently to my kids because i'm too tired to read the whole things.
A game is suppose to be fun whatever the ways you play it.
Lets just build an awesome game that players won't have choices but to go thought it the good way.
Oh and i'm all for levelless Game.It might feel weird at start but zenbitz is righ cRPG shouldn't rely on level. Goodbye farming...
Wasn't dungeon siege a level less game too? or it was only the aptitude that come up with the use?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 03:53:11 AM by Border » Logged
monkeyface
Community member

Posts: 40


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2009, 07:40:42 PM »

That guy there is also smart, listen to him as well.
About level though. The most optimal choice would be to not have them. But they are useful for conveying progress and spurring the player. There'd have to be a good substitute and not just "dropping" the concept.
Logged
mvBarracuda
Admin
Community member

Posts: 1308



View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2009, 10:23:05 PM »

Ways of character progression are definately needed. I don't mind a levelless concept but we have to find alternative ways of character progression that make the game worthwhile to play if we don't use levels.
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2009, 11:17:48 PM »

I have half a mind to make a cRPG (maybe not this one) where you actually get WORSE in capabilities as the game goes on.  You get older, more damaged, stressed out...  Instead of "garnering experience to improve" as the game goes on, you have to husband your resources to have some left for the end...

Load/save has been beaten to death but... your point is well taken.  I do think that, in general, fights should not be entered in to lightly in this game.  Combat should be dangerous.   Thief, I think was like this. (not an RPG).

I frankly don't care how people play the game, but I want to make it the way I think it should be.  And that means there are consequences to actions, like if you are in a fight you shouldn't be able to end it by entering a building and having enemies reset their AI.     However, I *DO* think the game should account for the fact that you might start a fight that you can't finish (satisfactorily) and it should give the player an "out" - it should just be a reasonably believable out (like fleeing, or surrendering, or bluffing, or trading something for your pathetic life)




Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Suzi
Community member

Posts: 74



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2009, 06:46:51 PM »

Hello all, sorry for the late answer.

Typical Level system:
The character gains levels, for each level you get skillpoints which you can invest wherever you want.

Your proposal:
http://wiki.parpg.net/Proposals:Use-and-Study-based_Learning
Learn-by-doing; Learn-by-study;

Both systems have certain "levels", let`s use for example "outdoorsman" - skill.
55 points outdoorsman is obviously less than 80 outdoorsman.
So a player B with higher outdoorsman has a "higher level" then player A.
In the end all boils down to numbers and when you increase the number of that skill,
no matter how, i`d call it "leveling up" because that`s what it is.

I`m not defending the typical leveling system, because it`s flawed.
Giving players the option to put skillpoints where they want makes no sense.

I prefer the leveless system too , only if following points are not being ignored:
a) Mastering skills must get harder after each improvement
aka "Easy to learn, hard to master"
b) Skills only stay very high when they are in use or being trained,
if not they get back to a certain point
c) Skills are dependent on the character stats.
> Stats(like Strength etc.) not only define with how much skills you start with
but also how fast you are able to improve them(Intelligence etc.) and how much
you are able to raise that skill (skill MAXIMUM depending on stats)

Then again, this goes even deeper. Why should stats be constant?
When you start with strength 7, it`s not realistically when it stays constant
if you don`t do physical training at all or when you do physicial training
it actually gets higher. The question is: How close to reality do we want
our RPG?

Zenbitz most of your wiki entrys read like lists to me not like a solution to a certain
problem or offer a way how you would like to see them implemented. Maybe this was
or is your intention to make a "rough sketch" first, i`d like to see a more detailled
approach with a stricter direction.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 06:53:50 PM by Suzi » Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2009, 08:05:06 PM »

Hello all, sorry for the late answer.
No problem it's a good answer, and we are in no hurry.
Quote
Both systems have certain "levels", let`s use for example "outdoorsman" - skill.
55 points outdoorsman is obviously less than 80 outdoorsman.
So a player B with higher outdoorsman has a "higher level" then player A.
In the end all boils down to numbers and when you increase the number of that skill,
no matter how, i`d call it "leveling up" because that`s what it is.

OK, that is not a standard definition of "leveling".  "Leveling" implies to (most of the gaming world) a threshold where MANY skills/stats/whatevers increase simultaneously.  So, let's just agree not to use the word the way you use it above.   Just call it "skill increase" or something.


Quote
a) Mastering skills must get harder after each improvement
aka "Easy to learn, hard to master"

Yes.
Quote
b) Skills only stay very high when they are in use or being trained,
if not they get back to a certain point

Not worth the trouble, and very annoying to players.  Literally forces them to (try) to grind to keep their skills honed.  Maybe something like a (temporary) minus to using a skill that is "rusty"...

Quote
c) Skills are dependent on the character stats.
> Stats(like Strength etc.) not only define with how much skills you start with
but also how fast you are able to improve them(Intelligence etc.) and how much
you are able to raise that skill (skill MAXIMUM depending on stats)

Maybe.  I don't really see the point of this.   Systems like this usually end up making "Intelligence" by far the most important skill.  There are plenty of superstar athletes and martial artists who are dumb.

Quote
Zenbitz most of your wiki entrys read like lists to me not like a solution to a certain
problem or offer a way how you would like to see them implemented. Maybe this was
or is your intention to make a "rough sketch" first, i`d like to see a more detailled
approach with a stricter direction.

Feel free to edit them!  Just sign your changes with your username.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Suzi
Community member

Posts: 74



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2009, 09:23:18 PM »

To point b)
Yes that is my idea as well.
Basically there is "knowledge", a theoretical part of a skill
and a practical part of a skill meaning your character has to
use and train that skill to keep that skill momentum.
If a certain skill looses that momentum, it temporarily decreases
untill a certain point which is in that case "knowledge", converting
it ingame it means a skillpoint limit, where no further decrease
is possible.

To point c)
Maybe i should use better examples to put more sense into it.
Or at least let me try, probably not the best examples.
Fallout: A sniper requires high perception and a high "small guns" skill
Now the question is how can somebody with low perception even become
such a good master of the "small guns" skill?
Or
Fallout: The "Barter" and sometimes "Speech" skill requires charisma,
now how can you become a good barter with low charisma, how can you
convince people with speeches if you lack charisma? My idea is
stats not only define skill starter points but also a skill MAXimum
depending on stats.


I won`t edit your work except it is by adding missing stuff in text-form.
My critism is just when i take the role of the programmer and see such entrys
i´d maybe know what is desired but whats lacking is a strict direction with
strict solutions, basically a "how to make it and convert it into a game".
Currently i lack the time to write everything as desired, that`s why i
hope you appreciate  that advice from me and keep that in mind.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Jump to: