The defenition of RPG

[St. Toxic]

For instance

Undepending on what's added, the core is counting the amount of times the skill has been used.

In any case, the point is that evolution can't ( doesn't? ) necessarily imply improvement (as you seem to believe) since this is not true of one of the clearest examples of evolution - i.e. biological.

Well, Larmackian evolution is of bigger use in examining the evolution of cultures. Maybe biology is a bad example for game development? ( Sales? You were talking about sales? )

If you can't take any property and see that there are environments where it is advantageous, and those where it is disadvantageous, you're not thinking.

That's a given in, I think, all evolutionary theories. I'm not sure, however, about applying the theory of natural selection to a discussion about game mechanics.

I don't think you would want to call all adaptation of that kind "improvement" or "progress" - I certainly wouldn't.

For fun, I'd say it's a case of negative selection within a field so obviously part of the artificial selection. Dysgenics.

After a few more iterations of this, you'd end up with a reasonable system. Everyone knows that Morrowind's standard method is badly designed, but that doesn't mean to say all such systems need to suck.

Quality? Mein gott.

 

[galsiah]

Undepending on what's added, the core is counting the amount of times the skill has been used.

That is still a misleadingly simplistic view. It is quite possible for the "weighting" to be zero in many circumstances. You're not "counting", you're integrating a skill-use vs use-weighting curve, or summing the product of values in a table.
There are a few useful ways to think of it, but "counting" is not one of them.

If you can't take any property and see that there are environments where it is advantageous, and those where it is disadvantageous, you're not thinking.

That's a given in, I think, all evolutionary theories. I'm not sure, however, about applying the theory of natural selection to a discussion about game mechanics.

My only point is that "evolution" does not - can not - mean objective forward progress / improvement.

For fun, I'd say it's a case of negative selection within a field so obviously part of the artificial selection. Dysgenics.

That's plainly not true in the current market. If the market changes considerably in the near future (and we all hope it will, I'm sure), then perhaps current "progress" will be seen as negative (in financial terms).

In any case, your original point was that evolution cannot mean negative change. Dysgenics is a type of evolution, so it can mean negative change in that sense. [if you want to be an arse and define "evolution" as separate from dysgenics, fair enough - so long as you realize you're being an arse]

The important issue is that the selection pressures on games at the moment (i.e. the market) do not necessarily encourage increase in quality (or what we'd call it). Therefore in those terms, evolution (and not just dysgenics), can be negative.

Quality?

Yes.
Quite a few times you've gone on about how perfect balance (i.e. the highest possible quality of balance) is impossible in a use-based system. You've attempted to deiscredit such systems as not RPGs on that basis - i.e. on quality.

I'm saying that with the right weighting factors, good balance of a use-based system can be achieved.
This is an argument against your notion that use-based balance is somehow not achievable, so such systems are not viable.

Also, I still don't even understand what you're after:

Compared to the exp system, it's still restricted, giving you less than norm in dynamic character progression.

In use-based systems the character is set up around you, the player... meaning that a player defined character handed out to another player at start will end up with a setup leagues away from the original intention.

You're saying character progression should be as dynamic as possible, but never diverge from the original intention?? - unless I'm missing something.

 

[7th Circle]

The player and the character are separate enteties; there's always room for speculation on what skills the character may have used that the player has not.

I don't think that that's realistic in practice. It's kind of like saying an actor is separate from the performance of a part he/she does. In theory, yes this is true but in reality any actor brings some degree of himself/herself to the part; at the very least, in terms of interpreting what the part demands. The same applies to the player/character distinction.

Thusly the advancement system shifts weight from choice to action.

No, it doesn't. Choice of action is still choice. Also, you seem to be confounding the two different meanings of action. Choosing a line of dialogue, for instance, is an action although it is not action in the sense of combat.

If diplomacy or etiquette skills are gained through accessing and selecting dialogue choices not presented to players with a lower skill%, it's no longer a use-based advancement but a quest-based advancement, which follows the exp system closely enough.

I'm using a bit of an awkward defenition for quests, as when writing quest I'm basicly talking about any action in the game which has a meaningful reaction, ofcourse far from visual and audial confirmations.

Unless you more clearly define "meaningful interaction", there is no difference between what you term a "quest based" system and what is a use based system.

Sounds like a sandbox with physics to me. Or possibly UO mach 2.

It superficially seems like a sandbox but results in a very different experience. Saint_Proverbius gave a nice example of what it would be like on page 3 of this this thread.

No, emergence would be if you stole some food from a farmer by mugging him, so he died trying to steal food from somewhere else. He gets killed in the process, and his son swears revenge, rises up through the ranks of the fighters guild since nothing else kills him along the way. He eventually meets up with you when you're near where he is because you were walking down the same road as him or going in to a location where he was. Fight insues.

The next play through, you don't steal the food, and the kid becomes a farmer. The next time through, you steal the food, but the kid dies as a wizard because some other event made him pick magic over fighters. The time after that, a bandit steals the food, and you save the father by giving him some food on his way to stealing it.

That's emergent. Deus Ex had nothing on that.

That's a very strict crtieria for any genre containing skills. Show me a game with perfect balance.

That's why I said I regard it as impossible.

In that case, given the fact that you only apply this to the use based system, this rule strikes me as nothing more than an excuse to get rid of a rpg game mechanic you don't like. It's one thing not to like to it and argue against it, it's another to set an impossible rule for it to be used in the genre.

However, Oblivion is non-reliant -- the skills are a bonus, but in no way is there any need to surpass a skill treshhold to function in the game world. I'd possibly compare it to that ghastly Warcraft 3 modification for Counter Strike.

The same is true of diablo. If you're 1337 enough, you can kill Diablo and Baal with level 1 ice bolts, can't you?

Again, it's been a while but doesn't this also apply to Diablo? Yes, there are items that you need to be a certain level to use but there are similar level restrictions (occassionally) in Oblivion (e.g., Daedric shrine quests).

Well, being fresh from level 1 and then going to level 5 would be a rather big step, I imagine, because of your low skills and level. In Oblivion, the opponents are shaped based on your skills and level.

This doesn't address the point. Are there any specific skill requirements to complete Diablo or not?

Then I guess operation: flashpoint, if one counts the dialogue box addon, would fall well into your category of cARPG's?

I haven't played the game. Also, it's pretty pointless to guess my classification system when all I have been doing is examining and applying your criteria. In case it hasn't been clear, I have been arguing that the examples that you give of how to apply your system are not correctly applying your system (excluding the comments about how good or bad features of your classification system are).

My definition was given in general terms in one of the "Project Monkey" threads.

 

[St. Toxic]

Let's keep this up to page 109. Maybe the universe will collapse or something.

That is still a misleadingly simplistic view. It is quite possible for the "weighting" to be zero in many circumstances. You're not "counting", you're integrating a skill-use vs use-weighting curve, or summing the product of values in a table. There are a few useful ways to think of it, but "counting" is not one of them.

So saying that the system counts the times you've done X for progression is too simplistic an expression to be regarded as a proper description? Give me a break. It counts the number of times I've done X, because that's how it works, wether there are variables applied to it or not. If I don't do X an Y amount of time, I don't get +1.

My only point is that "evolution" does not - can not - mean objective forward progress / improvement.

It's not standard, but it can and does mean forward progress. Evolution is on a theoretical plane, and so comes in many different packages. Natural selection makes evolution directionless, yes, but viewed from another theorem we may establish just the opposite.

That's plainly not true in the current market.

I'm not talking about market. I'm talking about genre, and genre combination / alteration -- a minor link into the world of eugenics. Market analysis is uninsteresting, and is in no way a justification, excuse or reason. If nothing else, the market follows the chaotic theorem of natural selection, and can be expected to do full circles in what's popular or not.

I realize I'm an arse, but for the love of God just drop evolution. Had I been religious, you'd be reading quotes from the bible confirming intelligent design, so obviously it's a topic with too much diversity and uncertainty -- in other words, we could do the "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "This isn't an argument" all the way to page 405.

Quite a few times you've gone on about how perfect balance (i.e. the highest possible quality of balance) is impossible in a use-based system.

Not just in a use-based system. In all systems. The use-based system however needs it, to fill my criteria, while the other two leave balance in the capable player's hands.

You've attempted to deiscredit such systems as not RPGs on that basis - i.e. on quality.

Never thought of it as a quality thang. I'd sooner define it by amount than excellence.

I'm saying that with the right weighting factors, good balance of a use-based system can be achieved. This is an argument against your notion that use-based balance is somehow not achievable, so such systems are not viable.

I'm sure you're right. Until such a system is presented onto me, so that I may compare it to the classic exp and q systems, I'll just let the balance rest.

You're saying character progression should be as dynamic as possible, but never diverge from the original intention?? - unless I'm missing something.

Sounds about right, yeah. You're trapped inside a character, with complete freedom of choice, only obstructed by what's logicaly ( and in that case, logic is predetermined ) possible for the particular character.

It's kind of like saying an actor is separate from the performance of a part he/she does. In theory, yes this is true but in reality any actor brings some degree of himself/herself to the part; at the very least, in terms of interpreting what the part demands.

The smaller the degree of the actor in the role, the closer the role comes to realisation. Pretty good aim, thinks I.

Choosing a line of dialogue, for instance, is an action although it is not action in the sense of combat.

Well, yes, but it's on a wholly different level ( it's the reading that does it, see -- you stop to think before choosing ). Selecting something numerous amounts of times, without giving it the thought you gave the dialogue choice, instead going simply by visual representation, be it Ogosh-ZOMBIE or Box-of-Click-me +1-skill-advance, we have the 'action' action.

Unless you more clearly define "meaningful interaction"

I guess I'd say task completion with guaranteed reward?

Saint_Proverbius gave a nice example of what it would be like

Would probably be a fun sandbox.

In that case, given the fact that you only apply this to the use based system

I don't. I regard complete balance as simply something quite impossible to create, however don't consider the exp and q systems in need of such, as they have the player partly in control of the balancing.

If you're 1337 enough, you can kill Diablo and Baal with level 1 ice bolts

Beats me. But you've presented an "if" and a unique skill needed for the task, so there'd be skill reliability non the less.

This doesn't address the point.

I think it does. Oblivion uses scaling, Diablo does not -- Oblivion goes, Diablo stays at the edge.

It's pretty pointless to guess my classification system when all I have been doing is examining and applying your criteria.

If I read you correctly, you wrote that Oblivion was admittedly below Diablo in the ranking system, yet had more claim to the cARPG title than Diablo. Comments of that sort always make me hand out Operation Flashpoint and it's dialogue box addon.

 

[galsiah]

I'll be miss the middle section out if that's ok, since you seem to have lost touch with reality there to a degree. By which I don't mean that you're wrong - just that you've transcended right and wrong on a voyage to the great "WTF?" beyond.

So saying that the system counts the times you've done X for progression is too simplistic an expression to be regarded as a proper description? Give me a break.

Yes. It's like saying that a phone bill works by counting your phone calls. Or that the cashier (/till) at the supermarket gives you a price after counting your purchaces.

It's in the right kind of area, but it's not the sort of description you can usefully use to make any further deductions / predictions.

For instance, you can't assume that someone will run up a large phone bill by making many calls if those calls happen to cost nothing. Equally, in a use-based skill system, you can't assume that repeating an action all day will get you anywhere, since it is very possible for circumstance to dictate that the use provides no progress.

In any case, the ways in which a skill system is used by the player are tied in with his reaction to the rest of the game. It's impossible to know whether it's a problem that the player can e.g. beat up mudcrabs all day to increase skill, without knowing whether any players will actually do this.

You can't legitimately assume that the player will ever view increasing skills as a goal in itself, and act accordingly. It is quite possible for his focus always to be on more important considerations - e.g. quests.

In this sense again, quality is an issue - since possible problems of a use-based system (and exp. based systems for that matter) cease to be problems if the player's focus can be kept where it should be.


...wtf...
...WTF...
...wtf...

The use-based system however needs it, to fill my criteria, while the other two leave balance in the capable player's hands.

However "capable" the player, he isn't perfect - which was the criterium you were requiring at first from use-based systems. Also, the player isn't even trying to achieve good game balance - he's trying to do the best he can for his character. That might mean horrible game balance.

In that sense, the more autonomy you give the player, the harder it is for the designer to get a good balance - since the player is always there to screw things up.

Sounds about right, yeah. You're trapped inside a character, with complete freedom of choice, only obstructed by what's logicaly ( and in that case, logic is predetermined ) possible for the particular character.

Fine - I agree with that. However, it's quite possible to get that with a use-based system.

The choice is just through action, and the possibilities of the character can be defined at character generation by weighting the rate of increase (or influence of the many factors separately) of each skill.

Personally I quite like the idea of allowing (very, very slow and difficult) dynamic class shifts by altering the rates of increase etc. on the fly. I do conceed that this would move further away from traditional RPG systems.
I still don't see what is necessarily wrong with constant, slow (re)definition of a class through choice of in game action, rather than through one decision at the beginning of the game with no connection to any character action.

It is different, in that your role could change over time (though it'd be much easier for a character not to adapt in this way to any significant degree). I don't see what's wrong with that, either in terms of realism/coherence - people do change -, or in terms of role-playing.
There's no clear reason to prefer dynamic development within a rigid class to dynamic development within a (potentially) fluid class.

If there is one, please give it in a reasoned fashion, rather than going off on some delusional OMG WTF fest.

 

[Lumpy]

Quest based means that points are given directly and without player input, instead of experience, when a skill has been used successfully or when an objective is complete. Most often it's only done with stats.

You've invented about 5 definitions in this thread, without even explaining them.
To me:
- Use based is when you receive points for actions directly into those skills. Usually there has to be a certain amount of points before you receive a whole skill point.
- XP based is when you receive points for actions directly into a generic point pool. These points can either be distributed directly among skills, or distributed only when they reach a certain amount.

[XP based] means there's a pool of points that you get for succeeding with tasks. When they reach a certain amount, give the character a number of distributive points and raise a level.

Right.

Use based means there's an individual pool of points for each skill, that counts the times the skill has been used ( many such systems have an added hybrid system which counts successes and failures ) and when maximum capacity is reached a point is added to that skill and the counter is re-set.

Wrong. Wrong. Too wrong.
Existing use-based system only count the number of times. That's stupid. A good use-based should give points depending on the difficulty of the activity:
- casting a firestorm should give much more than a spark.
- performing eye-surgery should give much more points than bandaging a finger.
- persuading the master should give much more points than persuading Ian.
- sneaking through the Cathedral should five more than sneaking through Junktown.

What you're basing your arguments on is "Current systems suck, so all use-based systems suck." While both me and galsiah have repeatedly acknowledged that current systems fail at some points, and given ways to improve those points.

 

[St. Toxic]

I'll make this reply short. Use-based systems do not compare to buying groceries or paying your phonebill, since a communal pool would indicate a hybrid system rather than a pure use-based system.

Existing use-based system only count the number of times. That's stupid. A good use-based should give points depending on the difficulty of the activity

Well then, since my 4 point rule was set out not to dictate quality, I guess I can't let use-based in on the fun. But that's the core of use-based systems, to count the amount of times you interact with a skill. If it's too simplistic a view, I'll say it counts the X() amount of times you do Y(), so you can add your dream gadgetry.

What you're basing your arguments on is "Current systems suck, so all use-based systems suck."

Well A) it'd look really stupid if I based my argument on "Next-gen systems will rock"
and B) if these next-gen systems no longer utilize core use-based system functions, as in counting X amount of times you do Y, these'll no longer be purelly use-based, and would without revision of my ruleset fit the criteria from the start.

 

[galsiah]

Use-based systems do not compare to buying groceries or paying your phonebill, since a communal pool would indicate a hybrid system rather than a pure use-based system.

You didn't understand my meaning.
The bill is analogous to the total progress in one skill.
The individual calls are analogous to uses of that one skill in different contexts.

The calls are not "counted", and neither are the uses.

...count...counts...counting...

Please stop it.

 

[7th Circle]

The smaller the degree of the actor in the role, the closer the role comes to realisation. Pretty good aim, thinks I.

No it's a stupid aim because it is completely unachievable. Achieving it would also cut the player out of the game, which strikes me as rather self-defeating.

Well, yes, but it's on a wholly different level ( it's the reading that does it, see -- you stop to think before choosing ). Selecting something numerous amounts of times, without giving it the thought you gave the dialogue choice, instead going simply by visual representation, be it Ogosh-ZOMBIE or Box-of-Click-me +1-skill-advance, we have the 'action' action.

That's entirely irrelevant; a complete red herring. Your discussion of a use system is deliberately ignoring any possibility of dialogue skills. Whenever something is raised as an objection, you just define it away as something else (e.g., quest based) even though it clearly can be part of a use-based system.

One last time. When I initiate dialogue with someone as opposed to combat, I have made a choice because I have chosen one action over another. When I try to use an intimidation etc. check on someone, I have made a choice. The character's actions decide the skill advancement but the player decides the character's actions. The main difference between the xp and use based system is that the character's actions essentially function as a middleman.

I guess I'd say task completion with guaranteed reward?

You're kidding me right? What about the possibility of failure in a "quest" (as you defined it)?

Would probably be a fun sandbox.

The things about a sandbox is that you are the driving force in the world. It's called a sandbox because you can shape the world in your way without other factors getting in the way (like a child shaping the sand inside a real sandbox). The whole point of a dynamic world with emergent AI is that it wouldn't play that way since forces outside your control or even prediction would be shaping the world along with you.

I don't. I regard complete balance as simply something quite impossible to create, however don't consider the exp and q systems in need of such, as they have the player partly in control of the balancing.

And why does that matter? What difference does it make that the player is involved in the balancing? Surely, you're not going to assert that the player can do perfect balancing.

Beats me. But you've presented an "if" and a unique skill needed for the task, so there'd be skill reliability non the less.

Have you even played Diablo II?

The use of the word "unique" here is completely wrong. I could have said level I firebolt instead or level 1 thorns or lots of others powers. Hell, it should be (theoretically) possible to finish the game without using any skills at all.

I think it does. Oblivion uses scaling, Diablo does not -- Oblivion goes, Diablo stays at the edge.

Actually, it still misses the original point. You've provided absolutely no evidence of the skill reliance that you are asserting for Diablo.

If I read you correctly, you wrote that Oblivion was admittedly below Diablo in the ranking system,yet had more claim to the cARPG title than Diablo. Comments of that sort always make me hand out Operation Flashpoint and it's dialogue box addon.

As before, I haven't played OF so talking about it to me is meaningless.

More importantly, you've misread me. I never suggested that Oblivion was below Diablo on either your criteria or mine. I did acknowledge that Diablo had a more complex skill system but I also commented that Oblivion had other features that were more rpg-like (hence the "pretensions" comment). Both Oblivion and Diablo are cARPGs but Oblivion is (marginally) closer to a cRPG than Diablo.

 

[elander_]

I think Oblivion is more of a cRAPG . But you made some good arguments. If we make a dialog choice we should get persuasion, dialog skill or whatever rewarded and not lockpicking or alchemy. Use base works best with non-combat skills like dialog, lockpicking, alchem. While combat works best by allowing the player to distribute it's xp points but thats becasue use base systems don't do it right. Assigning a skill increase to every successful use of a skill without paying attention to the level of difficulty leads to players doing crazy things like puting a weight on their sneak key and go to sleep.

The best use base system i know works like this. You can only raise your skill a certain amount per day otherwsie you become exausted and need to rest to be able to gain more skill points. The level of difficulty of the task you want to use your skill determines how mich xp you gain. The maximum gain is for a chalenge that is close to your own skill. If the chalenge is too big or too low you gain very little xp. Daggerfall works similar to this because you drop statmina when you use a skill but it doesn't acknowledge the difficulty rating of a task which was a mistake.

 

[Lumpy]

Nope, Oblivion is a cRNGMDRPG. And a FPR (First Person Roleplaying). Anyone has anything to object?

 

[St. Toxic]

The calls are not "counted", and neither are the uses.

So the system can be made to count variables, I thought I already wrote that.

No it's a stupid aim because it is completely unachievable.

What happened to all that hippy bullshit? Peace in the world and freedom from prejudice and stuff like that? End world hunger? Not really, no. It's an aim, it's not an estimate.

Achieving it would also cut the player out of the game, which strikes me as rather self-defeating.

The player is there for the administrative position. The traces of his presence should be as few as possible.

Your discussion of a use system is deliberately ignoring any possibility of dialogue skills.

I don't think so. I've mentioned dialogue quite a number of times.

Whenever something is raised as an objection, you just define it away as something else (e.g., quest based) even though it clearly can be part of a use-based system.

I've partly embraced the hybrid system, which is more than other diehards might do. Fact of the matter is, experience points can be a part of a use-based system, but you haven't gone that route to argue that "Gosh they're all totally RPG, because they're all like so alike and shite".

One last time. When I initiate dialogue with someone as opposed to combat, I have made a choice because I have chosen one action over another.

Grand. But, um, when dialogue or combat are initiated by the npc in question? Does this mean there'll be no advancement?

When I try to use an intimidation etc. check on someone, I have made a choice.

Should I assume there's a big red button with "INTIMIDATE" on it in the right corner of the dialogue screen, or... not? And, as established, the intimidation action will add a percentage to the intimidation skill pool, to be raised after another X intimidation actions.

The character's actions decide the skill advancement but the player decides the character's actions. The main difference between the xp and use based system is that the character's actions essentially function as a middleman.

Yes, it's by far the more direct approach.

You're kidding me right? What about the possibility of failure in a "quest" (as you defined it)?

Well what? It's a failure. May or may not include a safety net.

The whole point of a dynamic world with emergent AI is that it wouldn't play that way since forces outside your control or even prediction would be shaping the world along with you.

So it's a multi user sandbox with ai as the core user group? I'd bite if there was coop.

Surely, you're not going to assert that the player can do perfect balancing.

In the same line, I write that I regard complete balance as something impossible. I'll assume you went out of the room for a half hour, before you read about the player control. No, the player can't do perfect balancing, but he's the one responsible for the character builds that he creates with the material, and as in charge of balancing it's simply up to him wether he will be TEH BEST CHAR EVAH or OGOSH, IT'S LIKE PLAYING IT IRON MAN. That is, if the game has sub-par balancing.

Have you even played Diablo II?

I saw some on tee-vee.

The use of the word "unique" here is completely wrong. I could have said level I firebolt instead or level 1 thorns or lots of others powers.

Well then, every level 1 skill that can be used to beat Diablo 2 from the very start will have players with that aim in mind reliant on that particular skill-base.

Actually, it still misses the original point. You've provided absolutely no evidence of the skill reliance that you are asserting for Diablo.

Mein gott im himmel, why do I have to repeat myself so damn often over such a simple issue? One game adapts it's difficulty after my character, the other one does not. One game lets me run around in hell with nothing but speechcrafting skills under my belt, and yet come out victorious, while the other beats me over the head if I try to skip a level and go for tougher opponents. Can it get more obvious?

As before, I haven't played OF so talking about it to me is meaningless.

That's ofp eh, and let me tell you something else about ofp. It's one heck of an rpg.

More importantly, you've misread me.

Well, I must have:

all I have been doing is examining and applying your criteria.

which isn't what that is.

 

[Lumpy]

I give up.

 

[Pussycat669]

Use base works best with non-combat skills like dialog, lockpicking, alchem.

While I haven't followed the thread closely I can't agree with this statement but rather claim the exact opposite especially when it comes to dialogue. I have doubts that it is possibel to implent a coherent used based conversation system which can deal with failures in a convincing way. It greatly differs from a straight combat situation where the term means ultimately that you miss the target (and worse) but where you also get a chance to repeat your hostile actions as long as you health bar doesn't hit the bottom (or bellow depending on the system). This is a good scenario for use based system for it offers a good training ground which ultimately advances the player's character. So even though failures occur ocassionaly (and are mostly elimenated later on for the most part) the end results can still be satisfying. In Morrowind enemies respawned so there was no need to think about opportunities. But what about NPCs, locked chests and other strict implented 'gameplay objects'?

Here it starts to become more difficult. Say I want to play as a diplomat and start to talk with a fine clothed but blant cititzen (difficult level 1 if you put it that way) who crosses my path. First of all I didn't like the dialogue system from Morrowind (and never experienced a cRPG that deals with this gameplay approach in a comparable/better fashion) so I will disband the idea right away. Non-quest related I ask him if he could spare some change, he refuses. Now, that could end the dialog and motivate the man to never talk with that hairy bum again if you take the most unforgiving way to simulate social interaction but of course I can't do this in an used based system. Simply because I need as much NPCs as possible converted so I get a chance to master my verbal skills. Besides if I fail with someone like him right at the beginning chances are slim that I will success to convince a bandit to spare my life (quest related).
So we'll probably have to either remove or limit the possibility to reach the bottom of the sympathy bar (not Morrowind related) that quickly. This circumstance alone gives too much room for repetive dialogue which is, in my eyes, one of the most catastrophic ways to present narrative aspects of a game. While combat can be both climatic and tactical challenging repeating the same or similar lines of dialogue (as a result of bad game design) is not. And if you come in a succes against combat/critical mistake situation it will most likely resolve in trial&error behaviour as usual.

Please don't get me wrong. I know that XP based games can also be conflicted with these problem but unlike used based sytems I have access to every single experience point gained (even from combat heavy quests which can occur depending on the scenario) to minimize the amount of unnecessary loading times early in the game while the other side is maybe plagued from start to finish. Starting Attributes might solve this problem but they could stand in the way of the learning by doing mentality depending how much you give into it.

More easily to implent is lockpicking. Not so much of an issue really despite that it might be difficult to explain where all the high end level 100 chests come from. But since I believe to have read somewhere that you imply that the character advancement are regulated by quests I see no problem. Even if not I guess no one will really notice.

One last thing that bothers me is sneaking. It has been a passive skill until now and is only vaguely an individual act but rather a constant state of being. How do you want to implent sneaking into a plausibel learning curve and make your system recognize it (if not quest related)? Is the area important? That would be too easy. The difficult level of the guards? That would probably resolve in a 'watch them while your skill grows' thing like in Morrowind. Not a common behaviour of a thief I think. But what are the good alternatives? I can't think of one spontaneously but I guess I just lack in imagination.

 

[galsiah]

While I haven't followed the thread closely...

Consider yourself lucky .

Mostly I agree with what you're saying. I think dialogue related skills are probably the hardest to do in a use-based system. Do consider that it's "use-based", not "success-based" though. Success should be encouraged, of course, but needn't be the only thing to learn from.

To make things reasonable, you'd clearly have to give no advantage for having the same conversation twice.
To make sure that a click on everything approach isn't encouraged, you'd need to make sure that most conversations had relatively important implications. That way the incentive to explore every dialogue path to get the most use is countered by the need not to say anything unhelpful. So long as what you say to a NPC has significant game consequences, saying the right thing will be more important than 10% of a skill point.

For less important NPCs, it probably would be reasonable to encourage the player to explore most dialogue options. Such NPC dialogue is often there to provide information, rather than decision-making opportunity.
This would be unfortunate if the player were re-playing the game as a diplomat, since he'd be clicking through information dialogue he already knew, just to increase skill.

You're right that sneaking is difficult too. I don't think it'd be too hard to do better than Morrowind, but I can't think of any method which particularly attracts me.

Perhaps using the ground covered while successfully not being noticed by at least one observer (modified by the observers' stats and environment properties). Going over the same ground many times could lead to progressively slower learning (you'd need to store sneaking stats for each small area). Penalties for repeated sneaking in the same area could be reduced with time and with increased skill (since different things could then be learned).

I think this would do a reasonable job of encouraging purposeful sneaking. It's certainly not perfect though.

 

[7th Circle]

No it's a stupid aim because it is completely unachievable.

What happened to all that hippy bullshit? Peace in the world and freedom from prejudice and stuff like that? End world hunger? Not really, no. It's an aim, it's not an estimate.

I'd bet money that you are going to misinterpret what I am about to write but oh well...

What you've listed are all stupid "aims". Oh sure, there are good thoughts behind them but anyone setting them as "aims" is going to have a hard time creating good policy (especially in the long term). These are laudable ideals but an "ideal" is not an "aim"...

Any organisation that tells me that their aim is "to end world hunger" probably is completely clueless about the nature of hunger on a global scale. Now, if they say to me "our aim is to dramatically reduce the number of currently malnourished people in the world" then that's fine. (Subject to issues of probity and methods of implementation, they might even get my money.) The problem is that giving every single person enough food will not solve the problem of world hunger in the medium to long term. Indeed, the problem of world hunger is one to be "managed" not "solved" - constant interventions (of varying types) will be required to make sure the number of malnourished people is at a minimum.

The player is there for the administrative position. The traces of his presence should be as few as possible.

That's a contradiction. How can you administer something without being involved in it?

I don't think so. I've mentioned dialogue quite a number of times.

You said that's "quest based" not "use based".

Whenever something is raised as an objection, you just define it away as something else (e.g., quest based) even though it clearly can be part of a use-based system.

I've partly embraced the hybrid system, which is more than other diehards might do. Fact of the matter is, experience points can be a part of a use-based system, but you haven't gone that route to argue that "Gosh they're all totally RPG, because they're all like so alike and shite".

You missed my point. What you describe as a "quest based" system doesn't have an independent existence. Depending on the implementation details, it either falls under the category of a use based or xp based system.

Grand. But, um, when dialogue or combat are initiated by the npc in question? Does this mean there'll be no advancement?

It's folly to argue that this robs the player of choice because the player can choose the type of response they want. In a combat situation, you can choose to fight or flee, to use certain weapons/skills/spells etc. In a conversation, you can choose your response, which may be skill related.

When I try to use an intimidation etc. check on someone, I have made a choice.

Should I assume there's a big red button with "INTIMIDATE" on it in the right corner of the dialogue screen, or... not? And, as established, the intimidation action will add a percentage to the intimidation skill pool, to be raised after another X intimidation actions.

Ok, I'll play this with a straight bat...

Depending on the type of use based system...

1) there could be a dialogue choice that reads "Tell me about the king's little secret/hidden treasure room or I'll paint your face arterial red/tell everyone your little secret. [intimidation]"
2) as you suggest, there could be an simple intimidation button in dialogue.
3) intimidation ability could be implemented as the likelihood of success resulting from using an aggressive tone in dialogue.

In addition...

1) The intimidation skill could be raised after n such attempts.
2) After n successful attempts.
3) Successful and unsuccessful attempts may both count with different weightings.

(These lists are not meant to be exhaustive.)

The character's actions decide the skill advancement but the player decides the character's actions. The main difference between the xp and use based system is that the character's actions essentially function as a middleman.

Yes, it's by far the more direct approach.

It's more direct but that's hardly grounds to say that one system is rpg worthy and another isn't.

You're kidding me right? What about the possibility of failure in a "quest" (as you defined it)?

Well what? It's a failure. May or may not include a safety net.

My point was that your earlier comment implied that a failed action is not a meangingful interaction. Do you hold that or not?

So it's a multi user sandbox with ai as the core user group? I'd bite if there was coop.

No, it's not a multi-user sandbox. Sandbox implies an almost completely static world outside of the pc's (or, in this case, pcs') actions.

Surely, you're not going to assert that the player can do perfect balancing.

In the same line, I write that I regard complete balance as something impossible. I'll assume you went out of the room for a half hour, before you read about the player control. No, the player can't do perfect balancing, but he's the one responsible for the character builds that he creates with the material, and as in charge of balancing it's simply up to him wether he will be TEH BEST CHAR EVAH or OGOSH, IT'S LIKE PLAYING IT IRON MAN. That is, if the game has sub-par balancing.

Nice selective quoting of me there.

Answer the question I posed. Why does the player being able to balance things mean that xp based system avoids the impossible criteria of perfect balance that you insist is essential for use based systems?

I saw some on tee-vee.

Then you shouldn't be discussing the underlying game mechanics of it...

Well then, every level 1 skill that can be used to beat Diablo 2 from the very start will have players with that aim in mind reliant on that particular skill-base.

Just for the heck of it, explain to me how you think Diablo II's skill system actually works? You seem confused.

Mein gott im himmel, why do I have to repeat myself so damn often over such a simple issue?

Because I am trying to work out whether the apparent factual and logical errors are due to poor expression or actually are due to your lack of thought and knowledge. Given the way you are carrying on and your admission that you feel perfectly fine about talking about Diablo mechanisms when you haven't even played the game, I'll assume it's the latter...

One game adapts it's difficulty after my character, the other one does not.

Wrong. Diablo does adjust its difficulty; it just chooses to do so via plot and level as opposed to direct levelt scaling.

One game lets me run around in hell with nothing but speechcrafting skills under my belt, and yet come out victorious,

Having now established that you haven't played Diablo, I now have to ask have you even played Oblivion?

One of the biggest problems with Bethesda's sledgehammer implementation of level scaling is precisely the opposite of what you are talking about. I learned this by trying to do this the Kvatch quest after RPing a thief to level 22 - my combat skills just weren't up to scratch. Hell, travelling in the wilderness became more dangerous not less as my character levelled.

Also, the comment about having "nothing but speechcrafting skills under my belt" is completely non-sensical as all character have all skills in Oblivion (just at differing levels).

while the other beats me over the head if I try to skip a level and go for tougher opponents.Can it get more obvious?

Considering you can't really skip levels in Diablo II*, has it dawned upon you that maybe it's not obvious because you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about?

* You can dodge some side/sub quests but you need to complete Act 1 to start Act 2 and so on. You also have to complete the "normal" difficulty before continuing with your character to "nightmare" and then "hell" difficulty?

which isn't what that is.

Your descriptions of your criteria do not match your examples of application of said criteria. Considering, you don't seem to understand the gameplay mechanisms underlying Diablo and admit to not playing it, this is hardly surprising.

 

[jiujitsu]

My definition:

RPGs give you a choice as to who you want your character to be.

Everything else tells you who your character will be.

Does it really have to be more complex than this?

 

[Wysardry]

Does it really have to be more complex than this?

Yes, because as it is your definition includes games such as "Sonic & Knuckles" and "Mario Kart".

 

[Sarvis]

It shouldn't be complex at all, my definition is actually quite simple.

 

[Lumpy]

My definition:

RPGs give you a choice as to who you want your character to be.

Everything else tells you who your character will be.

Does it really have to be more complex than this?

No.
But I suppose you create a character, not choose from some preset ones.

 

[Micmu]

That doesn't make nor brake an RPG (choice of a starting character), you dumbfuck(s).
There are plenty of RPGs that prove you wrong.
We've been over this for 38943943 times now.

 

[Lumpy]

That doesn't make nor brake an RPG (choice of a starting character), you dumbfuck(s).
There are plenty of RPGs that prove you wrong.
We've been over this for 38943943 times now.

What? What doesn't make or break an RPG? St. Toxic's bullshit? Or mine?

 

[stargelman]

You guys are totally silly. Everyone knows RPGs are yummy, come in all colours and have peanuts inside, and they go great with a glass of coke while you're watching the telly.

 

[St. Toxic]

Any organisation that tells me that their aim is "to end world hunger" probably is completely clueless about the nature of hunger on a global scale.

I hate to break it to you, but there's a difference between aim and estimate, and the logic you present here isn't exactly enough to convince people not to follow their dreams or set the bar lower in their every project. Hell, I know just as well as you do you dumb fuck, that ngo's with slogans such as "STOP ALL POLLUTION" or "SAVE MOTHER EARTH" or "We promise no species will become extinct under this millenia" aren't going to fill the shoes they set up for themselves, but expecting that they adapt "Stop 5% of all pollution", "Save Oklahoma" or "We promise at least 10% of the endagered species will dodge the bullet" is but another overestimation. You set the bar as high as you can, and you work towards that impossible goal, so achieving a better general result than if you set realistic expactations and fill them.

That's a contradiction. How can you administer something without being involved in it?

Heck, ask a big corporation. A good deal of the higher-up's probably don't even know what actual work their company is doing, what sort of workers they got going at the bottom floor. It's not a contradiction, because a rather standard general practice philosophy is that workers don't interfere with the administrations administration, and that the administration doesn't interfere with the workers work. They're co existant and dependant of each other, and they do make decisions for each other on a regular basis, but they are not directly involved with each other.

You said that's "quest based" not "use based".

This is either a lie or a misinterpretation.

What you describe as a "quest based" system doesn't have an independent existence.

You mean in current systems? I thought this was a big argument for use-based, y'know, that the next generation would pick it up and perfect it and shite eh.

It could have an independent existence, as it's an advancement system based on the premises of exp, that is rewarding successes, but without a communal pool.

It's folly to argue that this robs the player of choice because the player can choose the type of response they want. In a combat situation, you can choose to fight or flee, to use certain weapons/skills/spells etc.

Your sub par thinking obviously doesn't extend into THE FUTURE, where you might have bested me at this argument by blurping out "You could also, of course, initiate dialogue in combat mode, rolling a diplomacy check for success." Nevertheless, I would assume there's some advancement to be gained from fleeing.

In a conversation, you can choose your response, which may be skill related.

"Which may", as in "may and may not be"? I guess you want dialogue skill advancement as a sort of minigame puzzle, where you choose the right responses to gain skills accordingly?

It's more direct but that's hardly grounds to say that one system is rpg worthy and another isn't.

I've given a number of reasons why a use-based system as a standalone is unfitting for this type of genre, and while these have been debated ( many times with "Gosh you're thinking of current systems. Just wait untill 2032" ) I wouldn't say they've changed much.

My point was that your earlier comment implied that a failed action is not a meangingful interaction. Do you hold that or not?

If you set out to fail, it's not quest material and would in all likelyhood not be rewarded. (ie. having no locksmith experiance at all, not to mention being dastardly unlucky, yet attempting to bypass an intricate lock mechanism ) Interacting on the grounds of possible success, as in aiming for a successfull result, we have a meaningful interaction undepending of the consequences.

No, it's not a multi-user sandbox. Sandbox implies an almost completely static world outside of the pc's (or, in this case, pcs') actions.

Well, per the example a player was still needed to get the ball rolling. The likeness to a sandbox, where you shape your surroundings by your presence, is, at least in my book, damning. A completely static world, that I'd have some difficulty to regard as a sandbox, as a dynamic world is one of the biggest criterias to the title -- I mean, what good is the sandbox if you can do nothing with the sand?

In the same line, I write that I regard complete balance as something impossible. I'll assume you went out of the room for a half hour, before you read about the player control. No, the player can't do perfect balancing, but he's the one responsible for the character builds that he creates with the material, and as in charge of balancing it's simply up to him wether he will be TEH BEST CHAR EVAH or OGOSH, IT'S LIKE PLAYING IT IRON MAN. That is, if the game has sub-par balancing.

Nice selective quoting of me there.

Answer the question I posed. Why does the player being able to balance things mean that xp based system avoids the impossible criteria of perfect balance that you insist is essential for use based systems?

It's already answered.

I saw some on tee-vee.

Then you shouldn't be discussing the underlying game mechanics of it...

Oh I don't know, I just ordered myself a rpg mechanics doctorate diploma over eBay. Soon I'll have titles to bash you with. I might even be doing guest-lectures in your community!

Just for the heck of it, explain to me how you think Diablo II's skill system actually works? You seem confused.

I am.

Diablo II: Passive abilities, Agressive abilities, Combat proficiencies. However, classes provide a whole lot of variety on this field.

Diablo I: Stat based advancement, class difference only in caps.

Because I am trying to work out whether the apparent factual and logical errors are due to poor expression or actually are due to your lack of thought and knowledge. Given the way you are carrying on and your admission that you feel perfectly fine about talking about Diablo mechanisms when you haven't even played the game, I'll assume it's the latter...

If I would call you up right now, and ask you if your refrigerator was running, you'd say "Please hold." and go into the kitchen and check?

Wrong. Diablo does adjust its difficulty; it just chooses to do so via plot and level as opposed to direct levelt scaling.

I assume you mean Diablo II then? Diablo I allows for more laxed Super Mario gameplay, ai. skipping levels and using shortcuts asf. Not to mention randomly generated opponents, or if you don't clean out entire dungeons to progress to the next ( because the exit could often be just 5 steps from the entrance ).

Having now established that you haven't played Diablo, I now have to ask have you even played Oblivion?

Sadly, yes. However, I never went beyond level 15, and I had done nothing but prodded and poked after choices and quests where speech mattered, so maybe 10 of these levels were nothing but speechcraft skills. Still, being a sub par combatant on the theoretical plane, was not a factor of increasing difficulty. If your argument is that I should have tried the same at level 20, it's -- well -- pretty shit esé.

Also, the comment about having "nothing but speechcrafting skills under my belt" is completely non-sensical as all character have all skills in Oblivion (just at differing levels).

Cant leave anything already assumed alone can you?

Considering you can't really skip levels in Diablo II*, has it dawned upon you that maybe it's not obvious because you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about?

* You can dodge some side/sub quests but you need to complete Act 1 to start Act 2 and so on. You also have to complete the "normal" difficulty before continuing with your character to "nightmare" and then "hell" difficulty?

You can in Diablo 1, so hey. And yeah, Diablo 2 has a good lot of those underground lairs which you can just run on by. In fact, you can basicly run up to the boss monsters without it getting all that hairy, and whack em.

Still, here's a thought.

If you're 1337 enough, you can kill Diablo and Baal with level 1 ice bolts

I'd say that's a statement that warrants non-linearity.

Your descriptions of your criteria do not match your examples of application of said criteria. Considering, you don't seem to understand the gameplay mechanisms underlying Diablo and admit to not playing it, this is hardly surprising.

The sheer thickness of mind not reading the sarcasm in a "I saw some on tee-vee" comment is beyond my comprehension. Maybe -- I don't know -- but maybe, and take this possibility into consideration: You have a problem with understanding what's communicated to you, and what you read is not compliant with the signals analyzed by your brain. The arguments you present often conflict with your earlier arguments, while others are rehashes of the same thing in continuation. Perhaps before responding, you could re-read everything a second time, and then have a festive debate with yourself, taking up pro and con positions in your own privacy, and forming your opinions of such, instead of attacking me for things obviously taking shape in your head, and not mine.

 

[galsiah]

That doesn't make nor brake an RPG (choice of a starting character), you dumbfuck(s).
There are plenty of RPGs that prove you wrong.

That's not what was meant. "Create a character" / "choice as to who you want your character to be" both refer to an in-game process, not just rolling a character up. It also refers to more than stats.
Every important decision in an RPG acts to create (your) character.
A linear story without choice doesn't allow such decisions, so doesn't provide any character creation.

I'm not saying I agree with the above definition (I think I'd at least add that the character you choose to be really matters), but it isn't trivial.