The defenition of RPG

[Pussycat669]

Consider yourself lucky .

Good to know, thanks :wink:

Since we philosophise about the issue though: I think it wouldn't be that bad of an idea to provide difficult levels (classes, percentages) for the dialogue lines you have to choose from.
Say you meet Person A who hates Person B so accenting that it became widely known in the neighbourhood. While involved in a conversation he or the PC (depending if he has been informed by a minor NPC) starts to talk about this personal agenda of his. From there on a more wide array of options can be presented like:

1. Who is person B? (no challenge)

2. Yeah, I met him. A very distasteful Person.
(Minimal difficulty whatever it is the truth or a lie. If you succeed he will start some torrent of hatred and ultimately offer the PC some quest opportunity which will probably prove harmful for Person B (which gives possibilities to raise combat and other more 'aggressive' skills). If you fail he will just suspect since his relation with B is widely known
that you want him to show more sympathy towards you, which is true. It could be simulated by simply add a little dialogue line like 'As if thats something new around here.' so the player might not even realize that he has actually failed. Nevertheless the effect is minor while a success could mean that A is more straightforward and offers more support at the beginning it will reach the same state of mind when you convince him that you are on his side.)

2. Yeah, I met him. He seems alright. What's the problem with him?
(Easy-Medium difficulty, either he won't bother to waste time with someone like you or the dialogue will initialize a discussion in whose branches you either work your way back to 2 (easy) or 3 which is both harder and need more sensitive and informed decisions from the player. It is still possible to succeed with most of the selectable lines while their chances to convince A differs greatly. Considering that the PC doesn't act too brash you might be able to 'break' the dialogue so simply end the discussion on a sensitive topic when the player thinks that his PC chances with the given lines is rather slim. When he passed the medium part and switches to part 3 it is finally counted as a successful use of the speechcraft skill in medium conditions. This seems important for me since it looks kinda odd that the player who fights through the more 'easy' way of reason being less rewarded than someone who simply convinces with words (thus more relies on luck than on his better judgement). Something that might be difficult to differ for designer and player alike.)

3. Yeah, I met him. He seems alright. You shouldn't be so harsh on him.
(Definitely the most difficult and hostile approach to initialize the conversation. The PC admits his opinion which openly conflicts with A's point of view and even tries to 'aggressively' surpass what A believes. You will probably have a hard time to find people who react positive to this kind of behaviour especially in the given situation. However, considering that your PC is an experienced talker, the annoyed A, instead of cancel the conversation right away, will offer him a chance to explain himself. This way someone who already invested much time on his conversation skills doesn't have to bother to go through part 2 from which he most likely only gains small to none experience. Although jumping over dialogue might turn out complicated since the player could miss some important background information considering the A B relationship which could turn out useful later on. After all experience shows that talking about something you have no clue about as if you've been suddenly enlightened is seldom a good idea if you want to appear convincingly....obviously :D )

And what has Person B to say about this whole affair anyway?

Yeah, I know that this was a very specific example and you can hardly provide many and detailed options in dialogue for every single possible talkative approach constantly throughout a game. Plus it ultimately ends in a 'find the 1-3 optimal branche(s)' solution anyway although this, as far as I can remember, was the common way how it was solved in the cRPGs I've played so it might be forgiven.
I believe it would be important to be more hideous when it comes to failures in conversation and to be more forgiving in the early stages of the game (so instead of more You lie! You die! moments a NPC might try to manipulate the PC in return for his dishonest behaviour or provide false informations for example) and keep the player confused if he and his PC have done the right thing.

Let's take bargain for example: the NPC says 'Show me your offer' whereon you chose between 10, 20, 50. The difference is that whatever you chose the NPC will refuse and raise his price to a signifcant degree. Depending on success/failure it could be: 60/100 (try to insult me eh?), 65/85 or 85/100 (when he throws around that much cash there ought to be more). Note that the difficulties again depends on how much you are willing to raise the offer: 50 has a great chance of success even for a rookie while 10 doesn't. So while you are confronted with obvious failure you can soon realize that the raise is unrelated to your PC which aims to familiarise you with the idea that end results of a dialogue might not be that obvious as it seems. Furthermore while a fighter will most likely be stuck with the false conclusion that 85 is the minimum a folksier character should quickly realize the difference. It's dirty but could turn out effective to prevent constant reloads.

 

[7th Circle]

St. Toxic, you are a genius.

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.

I see. So setting things like pay conditions, quotas, business priority are not being involved in a business...

The sheer thickness of mind not reading the sarcasm in a "I saw some on tee-vee" comment is beyond my comprehension.

Sarcasm in not the only form of irony. Let me help you out a bit...

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 [irony]and admit to not playing it[/irony], this is hardly surprising.

Your diatribe against me was very amusing in this context.

 

[St. Toxic]

St. Toxic, you are a genius.

Well, I was in charge of the peace talks and diplomatic exchanges during the Vietnam war.

I see. So setting things like pay conditions, quotas, business priority are not being involved in a business...

Well, it is management and administration, which was my original point. These guys aren't building the cars or cleaning the hotels, they're maintaining human automatons, or if you will, creating them.

Sarcasm in not the only form of irony. Let me help you out a bit...

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 [irony]and admit to not playing it[/irony], this is hardly surprising.

Your diatribe against me was very amusing in this context.

You presented your little joke smack in the middle of an argument. Without the newly added irony tags it's presented as a serious accusation against my credibility. Had I cought any irony, it'd begin at "Considering", so if anything, you could have drawn at least some extra attention to the section you had in mind.

 

[7th Circle]

Well, it is management and administration, which was my original point. These guys aren't building the cars or cleaning the hotels, they're maintaining human automatons, or if you will, creating them.

Which is besides the point. Your original comment was

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

I am saying that, from the internal perspective of a company, administration should make their presence felt. Yes, an outside observer isn't going to see the budget policy or future directions planning but that isn't the point. They are integral to the business.

You presented your little joke smack in the middle of an argument. Without the newly added irony tags it's presented as a serious accusation against my credibility. Had I cought any irony, it'd begin at "Considering", so if anything, you could have drawn at least some extra attention to the section you had in mind.

I will concede it may have come across as a little obtuse. I would have thought that, because your "tee vee" comment was so obviously sarcasm (had you said "tv" it might have been different), it might have been clearer but, in hindsight I can see how that was a little optimistic on my behalf. My apologies to you.

 

[St. Toxic]

I am saying that, from the internal perspective of a company, administration should make their presence felt.

"-Hey Bob, who's that new guy cleaning third floor?"
"-What? Oh him, it's the COMPANY VICE PRESIDENT."

I'll simply correct my original statement, so that you'll better understand it.

Eughm.

"The player is there for the administrative position. The traces of his presence in the character and the characters actions (automaton work) should be as few as possible."

Sure, nothing is going to get rolling without a decent administration, but what these top honcho guys don't do is interfere with the actual work process, which is what I was trying to get across. Just try living yourself into the analogy I've presented.

 

[galsiah]

@Pussycat669
That looks pretty good, but it'd be a lot of work to get that into every dialogue in the game. If you're aiming for a dialogue heavy game, that'd be great, but not everyone who wants a use-based system is.
I don't have a better idea - just saying that it'd be complicated.

"The player is there for the administrative position. The traces of his presence in the character and the characters actions (automaton work) should be as few as possible."

I see what you're saying:
A player should be making high level decisions for his character, but the results of those decisions, and the impact on his character should be automatic.

So for the player to e.g. make a direct decision on a character stat increase would be bad, while leaving that to an automatic system would be good.
You are a strange fellow.

 

[7th Circle]

I am saying that, from the internal perspective of a company, administration should make their presence felt.

"-Hey Bob, who's that new guy cleaning third floor?"
"-What? Oh him, it's the COMPANY VICE PRESIDENT."

"Hey Bob. We can start the new project. It's a new area for the company."
"Good thing management didn't approve it and refused to finance it."

I'll simply correct my original statement, so that you'll better understand it.

Eughm.

"The player is there for the administrative position. The traces of his presence in the character and the characters actions (automaton work) should be as few as possible."

How is this possible when the player is the one making the character's decisions? If I want to RP a "gun for hire" then how I do it is based on my limited understanding of how a "gun for hire" behaves.

Sure, nothing is going to get rolling without a decent administration, but what these top honcho guys don't do is interfere with the actual work process, which is what I was trying to get across. Just try living yourself into the analogy I've presented.

Someone requiring certain safety and quality standards is interfering with the work process. Someone reorganising a company such that the duties in a given position change is interfering with the work process. Someone requiring an employee to fill out timesheets and progress reports is interfering with the actual work process.

 

[St. Toxic]

So for the player to e.g. make a direct decision on a character stat increase would be bad

As the big kahuna of your character (workforce), your job is to guide him(the workforce) into the path you feel is right for your company, and when the character reaches a surplus of skill and experience points, it's your job to distribute these as you see fit(personal gain or safety nets).

How is this possible when the player is the one making the character's decisions?

How is it not possible?

If I want to RP a "gun for hire" then how I do it is based on my limited understanding of how a "gun for hire" behaves.

Yes?

Someone requiring certain safety and quality standards is interfering with the work process.

Stat & skill distribution.

Someone reorganising a company such that the duties in a given position change is interfering with the work process.

Multi-class.

Someone requiring an employee to fill out timesheets and progress reports is interfering with the actual work process.

Journals are rather standard.

 

[FatalFailure]

Uh...wait... what are we arguing about now? Somewhere it went from "This is an RPG" to "I'm a company CEO" and now I'm all kinds of lost.


So... are we arguing about what's a better system for character ability progression? ie: XP-based (all skills/abilities/quests/actions are 'rewarded' with 'points' that can be cashed in for specific gains in character skills) or Use-based (Skills/abilities can only be increased by using that particular skill)

If that's the case, I'm a big fan of turn-based, xp-based gaming. To me that relies on the smallest amount of input from me as a *player* to reflect on my *character(s)* meaning, i could play a 'role' more effectively in *character* than myself as a *player* could.

Bored readers can continue. Those of us with ADD can feel free to skip the next bit as it'll be a rant worthy of some emo forum.

In other words, let's say had two hands. I could play a game like Oblivion no problem. This button works for stabbing, these work for moving, and I have all my buttons available for quick-pushing/hotbuttoning. Then it's a matter of my PLAYER skill and not necessarily my CHARACTER skill to beat up some mudcrabs. Sure, the game will force things upon me due to weapon selection, weapon skill, armor types, and blah blah blah... but it still stands that since it's a *realtime* simulation of combat, and we only have so many ways to fight/attack/whatever, it's a matter of how well I can line myself up with the bad guy and hit the right button to actually tell the game "Roll for initiative, now roll for my to-hit, now roll for damage". it's fun if you like action, not fun if you want to let your character do their thing.

Now, let's say I'm playing oblivion with just my one hand. Barring any magical one-handed XBOX controllers or some weird multi-button mouse+voicerecognition-into-button-pushes technology on the PC, I'm pretty well much screwed. To move I have to jump my hand to one end of the keyboard (controller). To attack, I have to move my hand to the other side. To use a quickbar item, hop again. Granted, i could use other bodyparts to help accomplish this task, but it just goes to show how little a game with action like oblivion has to do with actual ROLE playing. Suddenly because I have only one hand IRL my character in the GAME has to suffer? That means I'm stuck doing the things that don't require two-hand coordination, which means I become some sort of uber-alchemist (Click, click done!) and I end up getting smoked by some evil daedra of doooom the second I leave the city because I just leveled up 15 times before I fought my first 'real' encounter. That's BS. it eventually comes down to the game putting player skill ahead of character skill, which makes it some sort of weird hybrid hack-n-slash, where the only thing more important is bigger and better dice rolls and equipment/items.

Now lets look at a turn-based solution, like say Fallout 1. Just like oblivion, I have the ability to develop/create my character before the game actually starts. I choose to make a weird swordsman type that just likes running up to shit and slashing the shit out of it with a knife or similar. Once the game starts and I get into my first fight with a rad scorpion, the little AP bar and combat window kick in. Now, I have all the time in the world to tell my dude what to do, and all my abilities are directly resolved from my character sheet. Doesn't matter whether or not I have two hands or one hands, or I'm dancing naked and slapping the keyboard with my 3 inch dick, only the character's stats can determine how well my tactics will work (barring any shitty rolls/extra tough enemies/etc). Since I'm roleplaying (and created!) an up-close-and-personal melee fighter, I can use my guy's stats to that advantage. I can point him in the right direction, plan things a bit, and effectively play the character even though we have *zero* in common knowledge wise. I have no clue what a stimpak is or how to use it, but I know if I click on it, my character has the nominal knowledge needed to make it work. I, as a player, know Modoc and such are in the pacific northwest, and are vaguely based on an old screenplay, but my character has no knowledge of this, and therefore, there shouldn't be any dialogue questions about this he/I can answer, unless he finds out about it in-game. As long as I know my characters strengths and weaknesses, and role-play accordingly, there's a pretty good chance I can get through most of the game without dying too much. And for non-combat situations? The same amount of difficulty, click-click-done, with possibly a skill check or two to make sure my character can actually *do* what I (the player) is suggesting. it doesn't matter what I can do as a player, I'm stuck to playing out my role as i created

One problem with pencil and paper (or "tabletop") RPGs is making sure the players keep 'player knowledge and abilities' separate from 'character knowledge and abilities'. Just because a player just read about this whole adventure start-to-finish in the latest Dungeon magazine (do they even make those anymore???) doesn't mean that their lvl 11 cleric knows that he needs to pack in a whole lot of cure poision spells/items because the 3rd level of the dungeon is filled with lots of centipedes and a giant rocksnake of party poisoning and 3 different poison traps in remembered rooms. And just because another player's sneakthief is a world-class capable gymnast and knows 8 different spoken tongues doesn't mean the *player* can suddenly do a backflip while singing the national anthem of Ancient Moldonia.

Longer story shorter, XP-based character progression, although unrealistic at times, offers the best amount of freedom for the player within the confines of the game, *especially* if combined with turn-based combat. Use-based character progression DOES have it's strong points, unless game mechanics involve things the PLAYER can't accomplish, even if the CHARACTER's abilities/skills/stats/knowledge says it's possible.

Oblivion=use-based ROLLplaying.
Fallout=xp-based ROLEplaying



PS. I'm not saying that use-based progression is ALWAYS bad, I just usually see it combined with Real-Time action, which then tends to rely on player skill more than character skill, which starts to make character skill kinda pointless. Does anyone have some good examples of use-based progression with a non-RT oriented title? Most of the ones I've played were rather more on the strategy-side of things, and not necessarily what I would call 'RPG'.

 

[galsiah]

<stuff>

What you're saying has pretty much nothing to do with use-based vs exp based, but only on player vs character skill and real time vs turn based.
So what if most games with use-based systems suck in many other ways? That's a correlation, it's not causative (at least you've given no evidence to suggest that it is).


The only time where the XP vs use-based issue directly touches the player vs. character issue in the above, it supports player influence rather than character influence. I.e. the player deciding what stats to increase without any necessary connection to character action.

Use-based systems are more character-skill focused, since they require the character to do something in order to increase it. XP systems disconnect stat increases from character decisions, and put them squarely in the hands of the player.

Whether this is good or bad is debatable, but the idea that "Use-Based == Player skill" is nonsense. That's only the case when the ability to carry out the action already depends largely on player skill - and there's nothing to suggest that it needs to.

 

[Baphomet]

XP based expendatures can be silly. I recall a PnP game where we (european based characters) went adventuring in oriental lands. We had been there for about a week game time when our half-orc barbarian leveled. He killed a bunch of mages and somehow learned Chinese in the process.

 

[Blahblah Talks]

XP based expendatures can be silly. I recall a PnP game where we (european based characters) went adventuring in oriental lands. We had been there for about a week game time when our half-orc barbarian leveled. He killed a bunch of mages and somehow learned Chinese in the process.

That's a problem with your GM, not the system. I'm not sure how you enforce it in a cRPG, but in PnP, the GM should never allow silly skill purchases like that.

 

[FatalFailure]

<snip>

Whether this is good or bad is debatable, but the idea that "Use-Based == Player skill" is nonsense. That's only the case when the ability to carry out the action already depends largely on player skill - and there's nothing to suggest that it needs to.

For starters, the only 'use based' progressions i've come across always seem to combine it with 'real time action' based on player skill. Whether it'd be something like 'do this minigame' (and with statgains, minigame gets much easier) or 'swing your sword when your opponent is in front of you' (statgains= you do more damage/hit more often), or 'click this moving blinky to automagically make your character do X' (and doing X gives statgain) it basically means that 'Unless you find every single place possible to utilize this skill, this skill will inherently be weaker than those the game forces you to use constantly, whether or not that's fitting your character'. I honestly feel that a skill/ability shouldn't be in the game as a red herring or worse, something that you'd only use 2-3 times in a game. The many times I've seen use-based gains ends invariably means my character is in a game where they *must* fight a gazillion things, so even if I chose to play a merchant gossipmonger, i'd still end up with "Gunplayaster" or "Sword lvl 99" or "Flame Magic: MAX" by the end of the game, where my merchant skill basically just gets me a 5 coin discount at the local apothecary, and I'd have been better off getting 'healing' or 'shoot farther' or some other combat related skill.



Actually you pointed out a glaring oversight on my part... you're right, all the games I've played with 'use based' progression have either been Real-Time, or heavily combat-oriented TB. I can't think of any titles where one can 'get by' without having to be some sort of combateer (or sneaky hide-behind-the-cannonfodder leader of such) by the end of the game.

In order for 'use based' to come into play, there has to be a pretty large number of places/situations one can effectively *use* that skill in order for it to be 'worth it' to the player. Again, since I stated that I didn't know of any good examples of 'use-based' progression in a turn-based oriented title, *especially* with non-combat skills, I really can't defend or condone use-based all that much. Can you point out some titles that are use-based (RT or TB) and don't force the character to unecessarily grind/etc non-combat skills to make them match their combat ones?

XP based, although unrealistic (as per the whole gain-a-level-and-suddenly-know-Chinese) can be disconnecting at times, but I look at it as a necessary stopgap in our current video-game RPG worlds because of the numerical significance we've placed on an intangible concept of 'experience'. If we have a use-based system, designers need to make sure all skills get equal treatment, or you'll have someone complaining that X skill/ability is pointless and a waste of time. in a use-based system, artificial limits must be imposed by the game to prevent the player from 'exploiting' something relatively harmless. eg: A workshop that allows the player to create/dismantle things, but only gives statgains the first few times it's used, because otherwise the player could sit there and use it ad nauseum until the desired stat level is obtained. Use-based can also bar the idea of eureka moments where through accident, hearsay, tutelage or diligence, the character learns something entirely new that might not be related to the skill at hand (say... pathsmanship while searching for herbs/minerals to use alchemy/etc with), or may require an 'advanced' level of said skill (making a stronger item through better/inventive/accidental creation techniques).

XP addresses the lack of a truly free-flowing world, or worse, covers up for some crappy railroading-type game scripts, or better, frees the player from the possibility of a relatively boring ability grind. Besides, since we usually don't have the benefit of a decent GM to give us kudos for good roleplaying, XP is a nice fill-in.

So again, can you point me to some titles that have use-based stat/ability gains which you feel would be good examples? If there's something out there that's wicked awesome and can help me see your POV, I'll gladly check it out.

 

[galsiah]

For starters, the only 'use based' progressions i've come across always seem to combine it with 'real time action' based on player skill.

Sure, same here - though my experience isn't too wide.

So again, can you point me to some titles that have use-based stat/ability gains which you feel would be good examples? If there's something out there that's wicked awesome and can help me see your POV, I'll gladly check it out.

No joy I'm afraid. Perhaps someone else can suggest something, but I haven't played such a game.

In any case, my point isn't that there are good Use-Based systems out there - just that I think there could be. I don't deny there are issues (as with any system), but the present faults seem to be due to a lack of developer resources (i.e. time + thought) aimed at solving the problem, rather than the difficulty of the problem.

What you said first, is similar to saying that there couldn't be a good RPG made in a single province of Tamriel. We have no great examples so far, and two badly flawed ones (I quite like modded Morrowind as a game, but not an RPG).

It's reasonable to say that good RPGs made in one province of Tamriel are unlikely in the near future. I might agree that it's reasonable to say the same for use-based systems.

That's not a failing of Tamriel, or use-based systems - just of the designers using such elements (presuming they're aiming to create a good RPG).

It's difficult to be sure that a great use-based system can be made until we have a good example, but I'm certain that much better can be done than has been so far.

In order for 'use based' to come into play, there has to be a pretty large number of places/situations one can effectively *use* that skill in order for it to be 'worth it' to the player.

Agreed, but these don't have to be equally common for all skills, or equally distributed for all skills. Each skill needs to be balanced within itself, and provide interesting gameplay for the player. That's about it - e.g. there's no reason to suppose that all skills need to be equally useful, just so long as the usefullness of skills is taken into account when balancing character creation / development.

Can you point out some titles that are use-based (RT or TB) and don't force the character to unecessarily grind/etc non-combat skills to make them match their combat ones?

First - no.
Second, you're asking a somewhat silly question. An interesting character shouldn't be a Morrowind/Oblivion style master of all trades. There's no reason why most non-combat skills should get high if he's a combat based character. The reverse is true too, of course.

As to ways to avoid the non-combat grinding, here are a few thoughts:
(1) Make non-combat gameplay interesting, and a viable way to go about completing most quests. There's no need to grind these skills up if you can use them interestingly instead.
(2) Take emphasis away from skill progression as much as possible. Keep things continuous, rather than requiring certain skill thresholds for big bonus perks (this avoids getting the player aiming to get skill X to level Y for perk Z). If there are special techniques to learn, make them e.g.:
Learnable at any skill level, but next to useless at low skill levels.
Learnable through the game world (trainer / granted abilities...).
Cost something to learn (in general terms - perhaps not gold. This will give something to aim at).

These two aspects alone will mean that the player is less likely to focus on skill increase as a goal in itself, and more likely to adopt the more interesting training route of using them where it matters.

Content still has to be carefully constructed of course - diplomats mustn't be forced to spend hours talking to passers-by in order to stand a chance with real challenges.

Also, TES style trainers are actually a good idea, provided:
(1) They can give you a start with a skill, but won't make you great at it.
(2) Increasing skills (through training or use) is significantly harder for non-"class" skills.
(3) The cost of training is significant (balanced economy required).

This means that if a character wants to get a lesser skill to a level where it's at least useful, he can train rather than grind. In fact, I'd say that he ought to be forced to:

Rather than TES style:
Start at 5 (utterly incompetent - at least in MW), grind/train to 30 before using for something important.

It'd make sense to have:
Start at 0 (you cannot use the skill at all), require training to e.g. 20 or 30 (possible in one stage) to use the skill at all.

At this minimum level, the skill would be reasonably useful, so hopefully real use would result rather than grinding. Perhaps more training could get things a little higher (with class based restrictions), but would soon become much less useful (cost more to do less).

Of course Bethesda won't do this, since it'd get in the way of FREEDOM!!!1!

If we have a use-based system, designers need to make sure all skills get equal treatment, or you'll have someone complaining that X skill/ability is pointless and a waste of time.

Not true at all. The entire system needs to be balanced. In no way does that imply all skills need to have the same importance, any more than it means a skill needs the same importance as an attribute / the health bar....

You're assuming that the character creation/progression system is set up in such a way as to make skill equality required for balance. That doesn't need to be the case.

Bethesda seem to do this:
Come up with an uber symmetrical, simple 7 by 3 system then shoe-horn it into the game.

What needs to be done is this:
Come up with interesting skills and other stats. Build a game. Balance the character creation / progression so that it works well with that game.

That way you have the design freedom to make the important part - i.e. the game -, as interesting and balanced as possible. You are then constrained by that when you design the character system - which doesn't particularly matter, since it's arbitrary in any case.

With Bethesda's model, you waste your design freedom by deciding to go for a certain system first. You then spend your time either making concessions to that system (is it a coincidence that they had a neat 21 skills? Hardly), or failing to and unbalancing the game.


If a character system needs to be complex - particularly in a use-based system -, then it should be. If you want to provide simple alternatives to all the scary weighted sliders and interrelations, then provide a choice of premade classes / races / whatever.

If you want to come up with a good use-based system, take Morrowind, look at it hard - then change pretty much everything. Examine the thought "they might have got this bit right" with the same scepticism you'd apply to "perhaps I should pitch my tent on the rail-track".

in a use-based system, artificial limits must be imposed by the game to prevent the player from 'exploiting' something relatively harmless. eg: A workshop that allows the player to create/dismantle things, but only gives statgains the first few times it's used, because otherwise the player could sit there and use it ad nauseum until the desired stat level is obtained.

So don't do it artificially.

Think about that situation in real terms. What would happen if someone tried the same task many times over? He'd learn quite a bit the first time (at least potentially), less the second time (but perhaps still a fair bit), then less and less until he's learning nothing new.

Now think about how you'd approach that as a player. You'll likely do quite a few new things, since you'll know that that'll get you more skill. That's good from a design point of view, since it encourages the player to keep moving and try new things.

Also, so long as you apply the same learning drop-off to every similar task throughout the game (e.g. workshops), the player will know that continuing to craft things now (when he doesn't need them) will only mean he'll learn less later - since he's bound to want to craft some things in the future.

In that case he's better served doing things either:
(1) because they're new and gain him quite a bit of skill.
(2) because he needs to do them.

Both of these are desirable.

If something like workshop-crafting is the only means of increasing a certain skill, then it makes sense to replenish the amount of learning possible over time (continuously - no silly arbitrary time limits). That way it'll be useful to use the skill every so often, or perhaps quite a bit if you haven't for a long time, but never to use it for a very long time all at once.

Again, this isn't rocket science - it just needs to be thought through.
Importantly, it doesn't matter how complicated it is behind the scenes, so long long as the system makes sense on an intuitive level. The above does (with carefully balanced numbers), so it's fine.

Use-based can also bar the idea of eureka moments where through accident, hearsay, tutelage or diligence, the character learns something entirely new that might not be related to the skill at hand (say... pathsmanship while searching for herbs/minerals to use alchemy/etc with)

There's nothing to stop that particular example, provided the situation contains elements which could be useful for pathsmanship.
My notion of use-based includes passive gains through exposure to useful situations for the skill. Pathsmanship could easily be improved just by being in a variety of environments, so wouldn't need only to gain through active use. [basically, any skill increase which results generally from a character's actions / environment, rather than from scripted quest gains or menus is what I mean by "use-based". I think most people agree on this]

or may require an 'advanced' level of said skill (making a stronger item through better/inventive/accidental creation techniques).

I'm not sure I follow you here, or exactly how this (whatever you mean) couldn't occur as part of a use-based system, but could in an XP-based one.
Please explain.

XP addresses the lack of a truly free-flowing world, or worse, covers up for some crappy railroading-type game scripts, or better, frees the player from the possibility of a relatively boring ability grind.

XP can result in "farming" of less dangerous creatures for XP, which is a similar problem to grinding.

All systems have their problems - it's just that Bethesda are hard to beat in designing-terrible-mechanics stakes.

Besides, since we usually don't have the benefit of a decent GM to give us kudos for good roleplaying, XP is a nice fill-in.

To a degree - they certainly have their advantages (though I prefer use-based in theory).

However, I'd say that a cRPG XP system is somewhat like a player left to controll XP rewards and results without any GM intervention.

Any reasonable GM will stop giving XP for repetitive killing of easy creatures without purpose or danger - most XP systems don't.
Any reasonable GM will place restrictions on exactly what the player characters can learn, depending on the situations they've been in / have access to - most XP systems don't.

I'm not saying that XP systems are necessarily flawed in these respects, but they are issues. I think a good use-based system plays more to the advantages of computers - though making a passable XP system is easier than a passable use-based system.

 

[St. Toxic]

In any case, my point isn't that there are good Use-Based systems out there - just that I think there could be.

The issue however is not quality but adherence. I could envision future and current use-based systems adding to a variety of action games, however cannot envision a deep enough stand-alone use-based advancement system to hold the fort as well as an exp or quest system previously did in the world of cRPG's.

I don't deny there are issues (as with any system), but the present faults seem to be due to a lack of developer resources (i.e. time + thought) aimed at solving the problem, rather than the difficulty of the problem.

One of the things I've presented as a "problem" ( not to the system, but to the genre adherence ) is advancement as a reaction to initiation instead of, as per the classics, success/completion. Being the core part of the use-based system, what hellish reform would untangle this web of deceit?

What you said first, is similar to saying that there couldn't be a good RPG made in a single province of Tamriel.

Now for a bit of thread derailing.
In a way it's saying there won't be any rpg's where you play a sonderkommando at Majdanek, with MB1 throwing zyklon b cannisters into the jutten shower-rooms and MB2 heiling Hitler. Sadly, I think it might be true.

That's not a failing of Tamriel, or use-based systems - just of the designers using such elements (presuming they're aiming to create a good RPG).

More derailing.
I think they've set a standard for alot of other people to follow. The market shows that it's a high, winning standard, and as there are other waters to fish in, I'd rather not have loosing battles fought in this particular field. It's not part of my argument doh.

Agreed, but these don't have to be equally common for all skills, or equally distributed for all skills.

Yes, kill a goblin get 1+ sword. Talk to an NPC, get +50 diplomacy. Oh I'm just throwing mud.

there's no reason to suppose that all skills need to be equally useful, just so long as the usefullness of skills is taken into account when balancing character creation / development

Ultima Online? :'M

Can you point out some titles that are use-based (RT or TB) and don't force the character to unecessarily grind/etc non-combat skills to make them match their combat ones?

First - no.

I can. That franchise-wrecking mmo thing, rite, Ultima Online.

Second, you're asking a somewhat silly question. An interesting character shouldn't be a Morrowind/Oblivion style master of all trades. There's no reason why most non-combat skills should get high if he's a combat based character.

I think maybe he mean't, for instance, being proficient with Maces at the same time as being fancy schmancy with Agriculture; farmers son that grew up a champ, or whatever you want it to be.

As to ways to avoid the non-combat grinding, here are a few thoughts:
(1) Make non-combat gameplay interesting, and a viable way to go about completing most quests. There's no need to grind these skills up if you can use them interestingly instead.
(2) Take emphasis away from skill progression as much as possible. Keep things continuous, rather than requiring certain skill thresholds for big bonus perks (this avoids getting the player aiming to get skill X to level Y for perk Z). If there are special techniques to learn, make them e.g.:
Learnable at any skill level, but next to useless at low skill levels.
Learnable through the game world (trainer / granted abilities...).
Cost something to learn (in general terms - perhaps not gold. This will give something to aim at).

These two aspects alone will mean that the player is less likely to focus on skill increase as a goal in itself, and more likely to adopt the more interesting training route of using them where it matters.

Sounds like a scale reliant game system to me.

Content still has to be carefully constructed of course - diplomats mustn't be forced to spend hours talking to passers-by in order to stand a chance with real challenges.

So, speedy advance or what?

Also, TES style trainers are actually a good idea, provided:
(1) They can give you a start with a skill, but won't make you great at it.
(2) Increasing skills (through training or use) is significantly harder for non-"class" skills.
(3) The cost of training is significant (balanced economy required).

Sounds like that UO game.

Of course Bethesda won't do this, since it'd get in the way of FREEDOM!!!1!

Oh, we know Beth won't stray from their win formula. How about others, doh. I mean, wasn't the fancy-schmancy pr about use-based centered around gaining skills at whatever rate you liked, without being, y'know, limited by caps and other exp-ish dangers?

Not true at all. The entire system needs to be balanced. In no way does that imply all skills need to have the same importance

But is there any actual reason to go for a skill that's less useful, just because it's faster to achieve perfection in? And how would these work with the holy skill-cap? Would they run like, down another river path, or, y'know?

If you want to come up with a good use-based system, take Morrowind

How about no?

look at it hard

You mean, squinch your eyes?

then change pretty much everything.

Yeah. And then -- this is the best part -- then buy a car, and throw everything but the novelty horn. Totally rad and awesome to the x-treme.

Think about that situation in real terms. What would happen if someone tried the same task many times over?

He'd get better at executing the task, form a general working habit. A year or two, and the failure ratio would be, what...? Oh, fail once every solar eclipse? Really?

Now think about how you'd approach that as a player.

I wouldn't. EDIT: I'd perhaps go for a hybrid system, as was previously suggested, and split skills into theory and execution. It's straying a bit, sure, but anything to come to a complete agreement.

In that case he's better served doing things either:
(1) because they're new and gain him quite a bit of skill.
(2) because he needs to do them.

Both of these are desirable.

You desire to interact with Ultima Online, while perhaps chanting "What -- I mean WHO are the gargoyles?" in your best avatar impression.

There's nothing to stop that particular example, provided the situation contains elements which could be useful for pathsmanship.

How about observing the natural curvature of the trees, getting inspiration for a better sword construction?

[basically, any skill increase which results generally from a character's actions / environment, rather than from scripted quest gains or menus is what I mean by "use-based". I think most people agree on this]

Sounds reasonable.

I'm not sure I follow you here, or exactly how this (whatever you mean) couldn't occur as part of a use-based system, but could in an XP-based one.
Please explain.

I'd assume he's talking about the parts of the character we don't see.

XP can result in "farming" of less dangerous creatures for XP, which is a similar problem to grinding.

It goes without saying that as soon as you give the player a little freedom to abuse, some of these jump at the opportunity. However, while exp based systems can adjust that issue by simply allowing for bigger scripted rewards through, well, non-action/lethal gameplay, npc interaction and that lot, the use based system has no easy way of doing the same, as npc interaction and non-action gameplay can be as big a grind as going after them darn pesky critters.

However, I'd say that a cRPG XP system is somewhat like a player left to controll XP rewards and results without any GM intervention.

At least you'll only have yourself to blame.

Any reasonable GM will stop giving XP for repetitive killing of easy creatures without purpose or danger - most XP systems don't.
Any reasonable GM will place restrictions on exactly what the player characters can learn, depending on the situations they've been in / have access to - most XP systems don't.

I'm not saying that XP systems are necessarily flawed in these respects, but they are issues.

They're as big an issue in a use-based system, if not bigger.

I think a good use-based system plays more to the advantages of computers - though making a passable XP system is easier than a passable use-based system.

Well, I skirmished through your post and UO looks to be pretty close. A few add-in's and a single player campaign and I think you'll have something going.

Sure, but it doesn't help to give the player the (often conflicting) aims of doing the best for his character within the rules, and making sure that the character remains true to the spirit of the game (even where the rules do nothing to promote this spirit).

While this isn't one of my main arguments, a broken or unbalanced exp system leaves the player somewhat in charge of the quality of his game experiance. A broken or unbalanced use-based system may at best leave the modding community in charge. I won't go into a big discussion about it, because it's alot of quality talk really -- variables and assumptions and not that much set in iron.

I wouldn't say they're bigger issues - just perhaps harder to solve.

I'm just pointing out that every system has issues, so saying e.g. "this system has this issue..." is no real argument against such a system unless you've thoroughly explored possible solutions.

I'd agree.

I presume you're talking about Ultima Online?? I've never played it (or any MMORPG). Do you have a link to a description? - I couldn't find anything substantial.

You actually nailed it with your previous big rant. It's basicly filling the biggest chunk of your suggestions, at least as far as I noticed. At the same time, y'know, I wouldn't much go for UO mechanics in a singleplayer game, whether they speed the skill progression up or, hell, whatever. But if you want an isometric rpg-engine to mod, with use based progression and multiplayer support, drop the mw.

What does it do better / differently from, say Morrowind?

Not sure, didn't make it too far in that particular game. But you did say Morrowind was broken, I guess that differates it a bit? Anyways, no level system, skills decay when unused, skill advancement reliant on stats / theoretical skills, theoretical skills advance faster than practical skills etc.

Do you think it works well as a game system (leaving aside whether it's a good RPG system)?

Let's just say that on the right servers it's a pretty good dark ages simulation.

 

[galsiah]

However, I'd say that a cRPG XP system is somewhat like a player left to controll XP rewards and results without any GM intervention.

At least you'll only have yourself to blame.

Sure, but it doesn't help to give the player the (often conflicting) aims of doing the best for his character within the rules, and making sure that the character remains true to the spirit of the game (even where the rules do nothing to promote this spirit).

A DM controlling a player character in a p&p game is unlikely to get much fun out of playing that character (compared to other players), since he has to evaluate everything from two perspectives.

I'm not saying that the player in an XP based cRPG has the same role as a p&p DM, but there are similarities. I'd much rather have the game sort out these issues imperfectly, than have to constrain my character decisions on the basis of rules not included in the game, or face an utterly nonsensical outcome.

Of course use-based and XP systems are opposite ends of the scale in this regard, so it might well be that the best solution lies in the middle ground.

Personally I think it makes little sense for the player to have any input after the fact on "what his character learned recently". However, I've enjoyed many games which do that without too much worry. (I'd change things about Fallout, NWN and PS:T, but Morrowind is the only game I've played where I'd call the entire system broken).

They're as big an issue in a use-based system, if not bigger.

I wouldn't say they're bigger issues - just perhaps harder to solve.

I'm just pointing out that every system has issues, so saying e.g. "this system has this issue..." is no real argument against such a system unless you've thoroughly explored possible solutions.

Well, I skirmished through your post and UO looks to be pretty close. A few add-in's and a single player campaign and I think you'll have something going.

I presume you're talking about Ultima Online?? I've never played it (or any MMORPG). Do you have a link to a description? - I couldn't find anything substantial.

What does it do better / differently from, say Morrowind?
Do you think it works well as a game system (leaving aside whether it's a good RPG system)?