It important to consider the kinds of weapons and technology behind them when deciding on when they can be used. After all most people will figure out that pointy end of the sword goes into the other guy in at most one or two trys. However when it comes to more complex things such as if one of the weapons a player can use is a remotely operated floating gun drone, then without some training and users manual then more the likely they won't be able to even use it.
Do you favor hard & fast or flexible requirements?
I think the biggest problem with the 'hard requirements' is not that they're necessarily unrealistic in themselves, but they are a total pain in the arse to meet.
Let's suppose I wanted to fly a helicopter. I've never flown a helicopter, and I have little doubt that if I attempted to do so I'd probably crash it fairly quickly - assuming I could even get the thing started and off the ground to begin with.
However, I don't necessarily need to kill 500 goblins in order to level up and acquire a spare skill point to spend on the Helicopter Flying Proficiency. I could probably learn enough to at least take off and land it with some basic lessons and/or a decent amount of research - how much depends on how smart I am. After the basics, it's really just practice.
On this basis, I think it would be nice to include a slightly more interesting skill training system. For any piece of equipment, you'd need to have some basic training in order to be able to use it. That basic training can be acquired by getting proper instruction, or by finding a manual or something. It could also be gained by trial and error - but the risk of doing so depends on the complexity and inherent danger associated with an item. Finally, it could just be common knowledge, depending on the character's background. A character from an reasonably advanced civilization might find hand guns utterly trivial to use - you point the end with the hole at someone you don't like and pull the little lever. On the other hand, a character from a primitive backward world might have absolutely no idea how to use a gun, and attempting to do so would probably result in him shooting himself in the face.
Interestingly, low tech equipment is likely to be harder to use than the high tech stuff. New technology tends to be more user-friendly, whereas older stuff can actually be quite complicated. How many people here know how to load and fire a flintlock rifle?
Let's suppose I wanted to fly a helicopter. I've never flown a helicopter, and I have little doubt that if I attempted to do so I'd probably crash it fairly quickly - assuming I could even get the thing started and off the ground to begin with.
However, I don't necessarily need to kill 500 goblins in order to level up and acquire a spare skill point to spend on the Helicopter Flying Proficiency. I could probably learn enough to at least take off and land it with some basic lessons and/or a decent amount of research - how much depends on how smart I am. After the basics, it's really just practice.
On this basis, I think it would be nice to include a slightly more interesting skill training system. For any piece of equipment, you'd need to have some basic training in order to be able to use it. That basic training can be acquired by getting proper instruction, or by finding a manual or something. It could also be gained by trial and error - but the risk of doing so depends on the complexity and inherent danger associated with an item. Finally, it could just be common knowledge, depending on the character's background. A character from an reasonably advanced civilization might find hand guns utterly trivial to use - you point the end with the hole at someone you don't like and pull the little lever. On the other hand, a character from a primitive backward world might have absolutely no idea how to use a gun, and attempting to do so would probably result in him shooting himself in the face.
Interestingly, low tech equipment is likely to be harder to use than the high tech stuff. New technology tends to be more user-friendly, whereas older stuff can actually be quite complicated. How many people here know how to load and fire a flintlock rifle?
Quote:Original post by Sandman
For any piece of equipment, you'd need to have some basic training in order to be able to use it. That basic training can be acquired by getting proper instruction, or by finding a manual or something. It could also be gained by trial and error - but the risk of doing so depends on the complexity and inherent danger associated with an item.
So to flesh this out, you'd have a base requirement below which you wouldn't even be able to turn the thing on, having never seen the controls, never played a simulator nor seen a movie.
Then there'd have to be a proficiency level, below which you could fly the chopper, but you'd be making alot of (potentially harmful or fatal) mistakes.
If you blended both systems, it would be interesting if your knowledge in other areas was somehow a factor. If you have skills in logical problem solving, for instance, or aerodynamics, you might be able to figure out how the equipment works more quickly. AD&D sort of does this with their system of refering to your stat (in this case, Intelligence) whenever you don't have a skill.
Quote:
Finally, it could just be common knowledge, depending on the character's background.
Yes, this could be alluded to by default allocations in skills based on starting culture. If you're from a farming town where hunting is a pastime, for instance, your rifle skills are more likely to be higher.
I think this could also be reflected in per-character skill costs. If you're from a low tech agrarian society astrophysics might be very hard work. You can be just as intelligent as your modernized equivalent, but culture plays a huge role in how we solve problems and learn new information.
Quote:
Interestingly, low tech equipment is likely to be harder to use than the high tech stuff. New technology tends to be more user-friendly, whereas older stuff can actually be quite complicated. How many people here know how to load and fire a flintlock rifle?
[smile] Excellent point! Getting older stuff to work might be a part of some History skill.
Quote:Original post by CoffeeMug
What I always wanted was to find an RPG where the game depends entirely on my (real) skills. Another words, to beat the game, I have to learn its dynamics, not spend weeks and months acquiring items and skill points.
When you're replaying then, am I right in thinking that you're drawn by something else, like the combat or puzzle solving or story?
btw, I think a major problem which relates to this in replaying RPGs is that it's not all that fun to restart as a weakling after you've tasted power.
Quote:
For instance, when I start playing I'm a novice, know nothing about the game, and can't take on tough challanges. As I play, I learn more about the game, and can engage in more complicated activities. If I accidently wipe out my entire install, and am forced to start from scratch, I'd like to be able to start almost where I left off and base my game on skills I've acquired, not on skill points of my character that take me hours to get.
This is the famous debate between player skill and character skill. But what do you do for those activities which have no associated gameplay, like hotwiring a car or pickpocketing something? Either the RPG has to be entirely action based, or you have to let some of this rest on the character.
This is why I think inventory + gesture-based gameplay would be ideal. The player has to get the tools and learn the gesture to hotwire a car. Of course, then you'd just have extensive reference manuals on the gestures, but it would be an interesting approach.
Would come out sort of like those Sierra games where you wonder "if I do X with Y, will it do Z?"
Would come out sort of like those Sierra games where you wonder "if I do X with Y, will it do Z?"
Quote:Original post by Run_The_Shadows
To keep it from being a simple "choose a weapon, level up skills with that weapon" game to swap out for the "choose a skill, wait for the next good weapon" style, toss in multi-weapon combos that get stronger as multiple skills increase. If you want pure overkill style, say the sort of thing where your character uses a katana to deflect a blow from an enemy with one hand, then uses the other to pull a gun and deliver a point-blank shot. Only if the skills on BOTH weapons are high enough, though.
This is a great idea, but it's very heavily dependent on visuals and animation for effect, otherwise the difference between hacking versus feint-dodge-parry-strike is lost. The main problem that I see here is that since your representations of skills require a geometric expansion of art assets, what you have left to do for anything else in the game goes down.
Consider, for example, if your RPG has combat as just one element, rather than the mainstay (more Morrowind than Diablo). Now you've got to apply the same concept on a per item basis: Give the player something as simple as say, a radio, and the skill system will need to have multiple techniques which can be unlocked.
So as the detail of any one item goes up, without an army of developers to help you the number of items has to go down, doesn't it?
Quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
Well, sorry for that little rant so I'll get back to the topic on hand.
No worries, this really bugs me, too. However, psychologically speaking it undeniably creates short term goals, which feed the whole compulsion-satiation cycle of simulated progress, aka leveling.
Quote:
I'd prefer to have a system of difficulty ratings that determine success and failure, so If each skill level translate to 100 skill points that would mean that mean at half way to level three in firearms I would have 250 skill points and if a .357 magnum has a difficulty of 50 and a threshold of 1 then the test to see if I fire it properly would amount two d100 rolls and 1 d50 roll against the target number of 50 and more then 1 success is need to pass the test. The more successes I score the better I was able to operate the gun, which could translate into a more accurate shot, less wear and tare on the gun, etc... While if I failed the test then the number of failures I rolled would determine how badly I failed to operate the firearm, which could translate into, lower accuracy, more wear and tare on the gun, chance of the gun jamming, the gun could explore or it could mean that I failed to even fire the gun.
Could you do the same thing but simplify it from the point of view of the player? You could have a tables of such results based off of one number. From the player's perspective, they need to know why good things happened, how to maintain or increase the chance that they'll happen, and why failures result and what to do about it.
Quote:Original post by Kars
i.e. club you can pick up and hit someone over the head, simple right. But take nunchucks, pick them up, hit someone over the head and if you have no training the part you hit will is likely to fly back and hit you in the head.
Sure everyone can pick up a loaded gun and start firing, but not everyone knows how to load a gun, not to mention what do you do in the middle of a fight and the gun jams. This is a case where a little training will go a long way. Also, some people will think nothing of looking down the barrel of a loaded gun to check for dirt, etc.
Another example would be a tank. Do you think anyone could just hop in a tank and start firing the main gun with no training. Trying to find the fire button (or whatever is used in a tank) could take a while.
Another way to represent this in the game is to have either a mishandle chance for people using a weapon without any training or to increase the cercal failure by 5 to 10 times depending on how simple the weapon is to use.
I like the idea of a mishandle chance. You could put some effort into making individual equipment class tables which have different events for failure, in degrees. Misuse a club, and you're likely to simply throw it and become weaponless. Misuse a radio, and you're likely to just get static or maybe break the antenna. But misuse a rifle or a tank and you could injured by moving parts, not position yourself properly, damage the weapon itself, etc (with maybe critical failure being looking down the barrel).
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
So to flesh this out, you'd have a base requirement below which you wouldn't even be able to turn the thing on, having never seen the controls, never played a simulator nor seen a movie.
Basically yes. However, to avoid this limitation becoming an annoyance, I think the requirements for meeting this basic proficiency level should be fairly light - acquiring an instruction manual or hiring an instructor. Provided you can afford or find the appropriate information, there shouldn't be an arbitrary level based limit to what you can learn.
Quote:
Then there'd have to be a proficiency level, below which you could fly the chopper, but you'd be making alot of (potentially harmful or fatal) mistakes.
Yes. Once you'd had your basic crash course, you could opt for further lessons, (relatively safe, but more expensive) or just jump in and practice by yourself.
Quote:If you blended both systems, it would be interesting if your knowledge in other areas was somehow a factor. If you have skills in logical problem solving, for instance, or aerodynamics, you might be able to figure out how the equipment works more quickly. AD&D sort of does this with their system of refering to your stat (in this case, Intelligence) whenever you don't have a skill.
In my earlier post, I mentioned categorizing equipment according to their similarities and complexity, which might help determine whether a character already has relevent skills which might enable him to figure out a new piece of equipment. Actually designing a sensible, realistic hierarchy might be a bit of a daunting task though. It may be easier to group things in broad categories rather like D&D 3rd edition does, but in each group include a list of 'similar' groups.
For example, human handguns might include a very wide range of weapons, but also include a certain level of familiarity with human assault weapons, Zoblian handguns and assault weapons and Vlortrian handguns and assault weapons, so depending on the complexity of the individual item, the character has a good chance of figuring out how to use any of them safely. Gl'Qluurbian weapons on the other hand, require at least three arms and infrared vision to operate successfully, and therefore they won't be included on the familiarity list.
Quote:
Yes, this could be alluded to by default allocations in skills based on starting culture. If you're from a farming town where hunting is a pastime, for instance, your rifle skills are more likely to be higher.
Even if their starting skill level is zero, they could be assumed to have already completed the 'crash course' part, so they can pick up a weapon and start learning it straight away. So even if Bob from the Hunter planet has never actually bothered to practice his shooting skills, preferring instead to sit in his room and play computer games all day, at least he'd know enough about the rifle to pick one up and start using it, even though he's a hopeless shot.
I think there is a closely related problem about designing a skill system for a weapon, which is, what are the differences between the weapons and the types of weapns. In general, this problem can be expressed as what are the differences between abilities, and how a character acquire an ability.
An ability can be defined as anything that a character can perform. In games that have weapons of different levels, weapons of each level is an ability, such as [Equip lv63 flame sword]. In games with weapon skills, each skill is an ability: [Use Dancing Edge]. For guns mentioned before, there are [Equip rifle] and [Fix jammed rifle].
So, the original problem can be put this way:
1) should a fixed skill level be used to enable an ability?
2) or should abilities be all acquired initially, but the success rate be dependent on a skill level?
Statistically, the two options are the same. Meaning that, you can always adjust the requirements so that the two have the same effect.
Most implementations can be modeled in these definitions.
For example, Bob from hunter planet has a [marksmanship skill] that is initially 10 to model his base knowledge about guns. However this does not answer the question whether Bob can [Equip Lv11 Rifle], you still need to choose between option 1 or 2, or that there is no [Equip Lv11 Rifle] ability, but a general [Equip Rifle] that is enabled at [marksmanship skill] level 0.
To model familiarity among weapons, the skill associated with [Operate Tank] can be [Mechanics Operation Skill], which can be calculated from other skill levels.
The weapon skill system, after fitting to this model, provids no answer to the question. In that system, [Equip any weapon] requires no skill level, but [Use Special Combo1], [Use Special Combo2], etc still requires a skill level, but it does not answer whether option 1 or 2 should be used (and they are identical statistically).
What I am trying to say is that all the methods mentioned above are the same. The differences is only the definition of the skills and the abilities. Also, the event that a weapon is being misused could have happened to either options, modeled as [Misfire Event] that is dependent on a skill level. Therefore, the problems come down to:
3) How is a skill level improved?
[Edited by - Estok on July 8, 2004 5:50:29 PM]
An ability can be defined as anything that a character can perform. In games that have weapons of different levels, weapons of each level is an ability, such as [Equip lv63 flame sword]. In games with weapon skills, each skill is an ability: [Use Dancing Edge]. For guns mentioned before, there are [Equip rifle] and [Fix jammed rifle].
So, the original problem can be put this way:
1) should a fixed skill level be used to enable an ability?
2) or should abilities be all acquired initially, but the success rate be dependent on a skill level?
Statistically, the two options are the same. Meaning that, you can always adjust the requirements so that the two have the same effect.
Most implementations can be modeled in these definitions.
For example, Bob from hunter planet has a [marksmanship skill] that is initially 10 to model his base knowledge about guns. However this does not answer the question whether Bob can [Equip Lv11 Rifle], you still need to choose between option 1 or 2, or that there is no [Equip Lv11 Rifle] ability, but a general [Equip Rifle] that is enabled at [marksmanship skill] level 0.
To model familiarity among weapons, the skill associated with [Operate Tank] can be [Mechanics Operation Skill], which can be calculated from other skill levels.
The weapon skill system, after fitting to this model, provids no answer to the question. In that system, [Equip any weapon] requires no skill level, but [Use Special Combo1], [Use Special Combo2], etc still requires a skill level, but it does not answer whether option 1 or 2 should be used (and they are identical statistically).
What I am trying to say is that all the methods mentioned above are the same. The differences is only the definition of the skills and the abilities. Also, the event that a weapon is being misused could have happened to either options, modeled as [Misfire Event] that is dependent on a skill level. Therefore, the problems come down to:
3) How is a skill level improved?
[Edited by - Estok on July 8, 2004 5:50:29 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
