Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


To limit or to infinity..


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
26 replies to this topic

#1 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 04:34 AM

Ok, here''s the deal. I''m tired of people trying to find solutions to how to keep players from powermaxing their characters The solution is way too simply: limit number of levels. Yes, I know many disagree with this. Attrition is a factor to some. But it''s too difficult to make rules for and impliment without being unfair to some players. If you would, run out and read my post under "What''s with Stats?" to get an idea of what i''m talking about. If ya don''t read this, then you''re missing a lot and i don''t feel like repeating it I just decided we''d gone off topic on that thread and we needed a new one for it. So how do you plan to keep powermaxing out of your RPG/MMORPG? The focus here is moreso on MMORPG''s in a sense, but any game with multiplayer can really have negative powermaxing results to other players. So feel free to discuss J

Sponsor:

#2 Landfish   Members   -  Reputation: 288

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 05:05 AM

Niphty, that''s a little misguided. If you simply say "This is as high as you go!" everyone will hit that level. Here''s a coupla crazy landfish solutions.

1. NO LEVELING. The easiest way to destroy number crunching, don''t reward it. Make sure you make the rest of the game VERY interesting.

2. ATTRITION. Creates an "effective" ceiling to what can actually be achieved, hence never stating "that''s it, go home now."

3. CHARACTER BALANCE. Since leveling''s out the window, the fighter''s no longer the coolest thing to be! If you can make sure everything is balanced, you will encourage a SMALL number of hack/slash players, which is good.


The thing is, in order to eliminate powermaxing, you have to STOP ENCOURAGING IT! Now, I may have said this before, but a hit-point based, murder-based experience system where you get money and power form perforing one action over and over is going to encourage powermaxing. You can''t design a system with any of these traits and not expect it. Don''t even try!

Some of you may have the courage to implement a different kind of system, but most people are so scared or ignorant that anything past a murder-based system is silly! Ohh, I just though of a good thread-starter! Later.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

#3 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 05:12 AM

LOL.. Landfish, you know i''m against pure murder-based exp. That''s why i told you those sick stats about the goblins.. hehe

You need to explain how to make attrition fair. Do this and I might consider using it. My other post in the other thread touched on how attrition has flaws. go read it and tell me whacha think then ;p

J

#4 Blackstream   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 04:54 PM

Its a me, Mari... I mean Blackstream,

Anyways, I have two ideas. One, use the Ogre Battle system. Basically it works like this. If you level up too fast, your character becomes evil(lower alignment), and the people hate you. And the ending of the game depended on things like how much the people liked you. When a character of yours killed someone with higher alignment, they lost alignment, and when they killed someone with lower alignment, they gained alignment. With modifiers for the characters that are killed for having a higher or lower level of course.

The second solution is to do stats like Utima. You can''t max out all your stats because as you work on some stats, other neglected stats will go down. Then the only trick is to balance out your stats so that the powermaxers don''t just max those stats out and forget about the rest.

Simply put, the two ways to stop powermaxing is to either make it undesireable for the player, or impossible for the player.

See you all later



-Blackstream

"See you later, I'm going to go grab a few Bytes. I'm so thirsty, I could drink a whole data stream."

#5 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 25 June 2000 - 06:37 PM

you know Landfish I disagree with nearly everything you write but that last post is how I''d make a MMORPG, except I''d have a large emphasis on stats (and you''d be able to change character classes freely in little shrines, each with a few classes to select from). And yes I''m a powergamer but not of the leveling/item aquisition type. Oh and attrition, why bother? Just make a set of balanced stats for each class and let the player pick, they never get better and they never get worse, until they switch classes of course. Then they can go out and do whatever. Oh and the trick to making hack and slash good is through special abilities. Thus it would take as much skill to play a warrior as a mage.

#6 Ingenu   Members   -  Reputation: 850

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2000 - 10:42 PM

I agree with Landfish.

LEVELS are evils.
Character classes are too restrictive.
I don''t know any good RPG (someone that actually play a role) that like the class system and the everything is in your character creation thing.

Most true ROLE players prefer to build their character by enhancing their skills and not falling into archetypes.
They are magic users but not wizard, some are proficient swords user, some swords master know one or two magic trick, nothing wonderfull but rather usefull to his work/life.

In pen&paper games, we move from AD&D to more innovative and interesting systems (that can be abused for powergamers) in which your character as no more class and change through all his life, going best @ some things while staying on its knowledge on other areas.

The new RPG don''t want to be called RPG any more but prefer to referred as ''Interactive storytelling''.
The action is no more essential, but it''s the character tha now is the master piece of the game.
I''ve always (ok not in my earlier games) play that way, and almost all my players like it.

When they saw classic AD&D games, they are amazed how its ROLL playing rather than ROLE playing.
No character build up, just STATS enhancements.

Xp don''t exists anymore, instead they are character points and earned when facing a challenge/strong opposition and finding an efficient way of solving it /getting out of trouble.
Their is no reward killing people.
You''re rewarded only when you surpass yourself...

Isn''t that what the heroes are ?
People surpassing their weackness ?

All IMO.

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

#7 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 01:16 AM

There''s one other way to avoid PowerMaxing.
Making it impossible to know if you really are the "best" at anything. You know you are alright, because most of the time it works well for you. But then you run into this thing that doesn''t even seem slightly annoyed at your pathetic attempts to poke it with your sword, and you start wondering. Is my sword bad? Is this thing immune to physical attacks? Do I just SUCK?

If there''s no indication of how close to "maximum" you are, you never really know how "good" you are. Like the hobby chess player, that beats everyone in his village, and then goes to a tournament to be thrashed utterly by the first semi-professional player he meets.

"Skill" is all very relative. What if you keep winning all your sword battles ''cause you have a VERY strong character. Basically, you''re using that sword as a club, but it''s worked fine so far. And then you meet this really tiny, weeny-looking swashbuckler. You think "I''ll turn that guy into daisy fertiliser in a second", but then none of your attacks get THROUGH to him ''cause he keeps on parrying.

It''s not a clear thought, I know, but I think the best way would be if it''s never really clear how good you are. You have your strengths/weaknesses, and you know which they are, but not by how much they differ from "average" or "maximum"


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important functions will be disabled from now on.

#8 Ingenu   Members   -  Reputation: 850

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 05:04 AM

MadKeithV it sounds to me like not displaying the players stats.

Or using a system in which you have X/unknown max.

Sounds interesting to me, even since I use % in my game systems.



-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

#9 SHilbert   Members   -  Reputation: 647

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 08:44 AM

The system should only allow a "slow" increase in strength, like humans -- if you start exercizing too much all of a sudden your muscles explode or you collapse or something.

lntakitopi@aol.com | http://geocities.com/guanajam/

#10 The_Minister   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 09:56 AM

I think the way to go about preventing this sort of thing would be to select the kind of things that should gain the player rewards. And which things remove them from him.

This is based upon Blackstream''s thoughts.

Suppose we have a Mr. I. N. Joykillen, new to the town. Some rumour that he is here to stop the evil goblins (shock!) from overrunning the village, by destroying their evil leader (shock again!), is passing among the townsfolk. Joykillen, after a brief chat with the locals, decides to enter the dungeons (oh the pain) and slaughter all the goblins in his path to the leader.
And this Joykillen does. As expected, his battle experience rockets upwards as he cuts down, kills and generally annihilates all the little green creatures in his path.
But his respect for life drops. He now sees no problem in messing with the blacksmith, maybe threatening him for a new weapon. These new options open to Joykillen. And he uses them. He likes them. As a direct consequence of such, he loses more and more respect for his kinsmen. And his kinsmen start fearing him.

What happens now? Does the town plot an assault on Joykillen? A strategic ambush, perhaps? Maybe they summon a mystic mage, one who Joykillen has no chance of competing with?

Let me take this down a different road. He can threaten the blacksmith. The blacksmith knows it. The blacksmith starts feeling uncomfortable around him. He tells the rest of the townfolk. They start losing respect for Joykillen... and, likewise, plot to make him feel less at home. Does the local healer now refuse Joykillen treatment? Does the tavern owner not tell him gossip? How can such a ruthless killer be welcomed into such a warm and loving society?
Perhaps he is exiled, never able to perform heroic deeds again?

The RPG is an untapped resource. I want to see this change.

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

#11 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 03:04 PM

Levels are not evil. You just choose to see it that way. I know more people that see it the other way, so i''d be careful what you blindly accuse. Levels merely give a way of classifying your status. Even karate has levels, as i mentioned elsewhere on GD.net You''ve got a major level (belt color) and minor level (number of stripes). This is how you tell who''s more advanced than who in an HONORABLE system. I admit, people in reality usually don''t have honor and respect as it is taught in karate. But i believe levels can still be useful. How do you enforce roleplaying? you simply make it illegal to be out of character. My game features a reporting command to allow you to report people who''re talking out of character. This policy is STRICTLY enforced. Any GM on my staff who catches someone doing this can immediately send this person to what we call "OOC Jail". From there they get a warning the first time.. after that they either take a reduction in skill levels or they can attend RP Classes which we will sponser. This will be a session for anyone interested and anyone who has been sent to OOC Jail and choose this option. In it we will discuss how to RP and how not to. Anyone caught doing this a third time will get an even stiffer punishment You lose one strike against you every 3 or 6 months, because we all know accidents can happen.

AD&D was originally based on storytelling. profeciencies are an OPTIONAL rule. Player''s OPTION: skills and powers is an OPTION. Anyone choosing to play that way accepts the risks. Try playing D&D without profeciencies and such.. only stats. The DM is forced to come up with their own guidelines as to how things should work. D&D is merely meant to provide the DM with a set of base rules to build something around. They never say "do this for certain" and in fact say "bend the rules if nessicary". AD&D is NOT designed to be played by the books all the time. A DM''s best judgement is the ruling factor. However, D&D provides rules for things the DM might not want to think about or might not know about

The_Minister, scarey name First off.. i think you''re too realistic. Why? well it''s true.. in reality things like that happen. But how can we tell morals in a game? We can''t simply make a table of morals, can we? The paladin who slays something does on only because he must. Senseless killing is not in his nature, and this the character should resist attempts by the player to do certain actions! This character IS it''s own being, and the player is merely the consciousness of it. But it goes hand in hand with stats and skills to have the character resist the player''s commands if they go against the character''s alignment/profession or whatever. A paladin by nature would NEVER harm something that he feels is weaker than he is. He would merely turn it loose and let it go. This is why AD&D was VERY strict on this. If you acted out of alignment with a paladin, you could LOSE your title and become a mere FIGHTER! and you lose all the perks of being a paladin. This is the kind of playing that should exist. I don''t believe fighters should only have swords.. i think they should be able to pick a secondary guild they''d like to dabble in. perhaps they like to play with magic? cool for them. They''ll never gain magical abilities like a mage would.. but they can certainly learn some stuff. I totally agree with this, but they''re still a fighter! It''s just the rules of life.. hehe.

I agree that people should respond to people who''ve done senseless killings. We''ve already discussed and turned away from the "murder-based" exp as landfish calls it. So how about we move on to something else instead of still trying to act like it''s an issue? Yes, i think some murder-based exp should exist. Why? because it''s a serious way to learn something. I don''t think we should say the character has no morals for killing something. I mean, if it were life and death, you''d kill something, too! I wouldn''t shun you for defending yourself. I admit, if they go nuts with it, they''d likely go mad from it, but we can''t program this yet. We don''t know how the human mind responds to these things, we could only guess. There are some people who''re emotionally cold and thus see killing as an act of mercy sometimes. They''re not evil because they kill, they just have "misguided morals" according to mainstream society. This is in no way wrong.. but the person is likely to be shunned and be a loner. But someone who kills dragons.. whoa.. there''s a different story. you could wipe out all sorts of dragons and NO ONE would really mind, except people who''re overly senseative to life. You''ve got to imagine that if you grew up with the threat of attack by goblins, or if you had your family killed by them at a young age, you''d likely be on a quest to wipe them all out. Why? because you''ve had a problem with them in the past and you''re tramatized. It happens in real life, too. How do you plan on coding things like this, where a player can justify their senseless killing of an enemy because of some past trama? I had something like this with some of my characters in which i particularly hated something. Rangers in AD&D must pick a species enemy at 2nd level. This is something they get a bonus to attacking because of some rage associated with something these creatures did to him/his friends in the past. it''s perfectly acceptable and happens in real life. So what about these things?

J

#12 Ingenu   Members   -  Reputation: 850

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 09:40 PM

Niphty : D&D is a battle system, not a set of RPG rules dixit Gary Gygax himself !

D&D rules are based on previous chainmail ones, which were fantasy battle system rule set.
And TSR means Tactical System Rules (or Research)...

As you can see D&D rules were NOT designed to make someone play a role but rather to make someone play a kind of killing machine.
Class and levels were simple tricks to know a creature power and to balance the game, nothing more.

True RPG rules are only recent in the history of pen&paper RPG.

Those rules emphasis the play of a ROLE.
They gives you reward whenever you''re playing your role adequatly, no more xp earned when killing someone.
No more trick to balance and see the power of a creature, much more real life rules.
Why ?
Just because heroes are based on real life, and so must be a rule system.


AD&D books mention the fact that the MD is the ultimate chooser, and can brake the rules. But only in the new releases.
(2nd and upcoming 3rd edition)

The ranger fact you mention is one of the very few things that tend to make a player follow his role.

I agree about the Evil thing.
Morality is a matter of education, no more.

(I love my no life caring character. A character that have no respect to life of being calling themselves superior, and making other sufering without taking care, or worst, closing their eyes on crimes toward nature. [Ranger like;o)] )


I think we agree on the fact that only recent pen&paper games have rules allowing freedom and enhancing the role playing.
(I choose disadvantages simply to enhance my character role)

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

#13 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 09:56 PM

quote:
Original post by Ingenu

True RPG rules are only recent in the history of pen&paper RPG.




That''s a contradiction in terms, for true roleplaying, you need no rules! If you''ve ever played Vampire LARP, you know that the ONLY rules they have are scissors/paper/stone.

Recent RolePlaying games DO emphasize the story part of the game more than the statistical part. This is because play had evolved from roleplaying to "find the stat to whack the rat". I know people that can roleplay very well within the ADnD system, and I know people that can''t roleplay to save their lives in the Vampire-The Masquerade system, but the Vampire system at least encourages roleplay.

I believe that in CRPGs - we need to push the players more towards roleplaying, more in the style of Vampire. Benefits and problems that only crop up if you play inside and outside of the role you picked. But perhaps that''s not such a good idea, because you''ll be limiting player freedom once again. It''s a very hard tradeoff to make.


Back on-topic - I believe in unlimited, but declining, advancement. By that, I mean that you can advance to an unlimited height in "absolute" value, but that your actual stat, as a percentage, climbs toward a limit, ever slower. For instance, at a strength value of 200, you''d have 45% strength, where the percentile maximum is 50 ( you add a skill to your roll as well, which makes for the other 50% )





Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important functions will be disabled from now on.

#14 Jeranon   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 12:15 AM

MadKeithV is jiggy with it.

Anyway, before Vampire ever existed, there was the Amber diceless roleplaying game. That was the first game that promoted role-playing - even in battles.

Anyway, whether a game is role or roll playing, it is irrelevent. If the game isn''t fun, not many are going to play it.

First rule of game design: Make it fun.

Don''t take my word, read that game dev book that ghowland did a rave review about in GameDev''s own little book review section.

#15 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 12:28 AM

This is a time when I wish I could Rapidly Prototype my ideas and show you all what I mean, so you could tell me if you thought it was fun or not

But yes, FUN is the biggest part of a game.
The thing is, we''re discussing what "fun" is for those people who love playing Role-Playing games...


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#16 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 01:42 AM

I was thinking of adding "Level 3 Game Designer" to my resume actually. I wonder how a potential game company employer would look at that. LOL :-)

Game balancing skills = 86%
Creative thinking = 34%
Game design problem solving = 45%

It was a good joke while it lasted.

Level 1 comedian!!



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#17 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 01:53 AM

Character Kit specific weakness: No sense of humour


Just kidding, don''t take it the wrong way


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#18 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 02:02 AM

quote:
Original post by MadKeithV

Character Kit specific weakness: No sense of humour


Just kidding, don''t take it the wrong way


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^/) /<é!t/-/ ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.


Tip MadKeithV: Don''t upgrade your version of life 1.0. It''s not worth it :-). Plus i heard there''s a hack anyhow.
- I''m not depressed, it''s just a joke -


WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#19 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:22 PM

LOL..

I think it''s more like "World Flaw: no intelligent life on this planet" hehe

J

#20 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:27 PM

Huh? I don''t get it?
Where''s the elephant?
( am I offtopic or what )


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS