RPG Stats system idea

Its a fine idea, but how will the player manage his stats? If it evolves on its own, that suggests you want to have in game actions move the position around. Allowing that means the player will try to grind actions that move the stats to the position they want them. How do you make sure you don't reward boring repetitive actions with perfected stats early in the game?

Use based systems do often suffer from what Jas has suggested, but it can also be easily circumvented. You can limit the change to "physically exhausting" activities, which is an easy explanation for the typical RPG approach to experience (that is, only combat counts). Swinging your sword, for instance, would only improve strength when it actually hits something, stamina would only increase around the time that you hit something or are hit (in other words, only in combat and this can be quite sophisticated - "potential" gains can be stored to some variable and decremented over time until the player hits or is hit, meaning that it can tell if an action is "in combat" before combat as well as after), and likewise with agility. Then you can take it a step further and use "hit or hit by an enemy of sufficient strength" rather than just hit or hit by anything, and now in order to improve you have to take on harder and harder enemies.

It's the best solution I came up with when I was considering a stat free system (ie, players have only skills that improve by use). Things unrelated to combat may also allow for increases - like near deaths from falling off cliffs. Anything risky should improve stats, and once it is no longer risky (you gain enough stamina to withstand that 100 ft fall), you should garner less (but not zero) gains from it. Higher risk should, of course, yield better results.

The problem I see with losing skills is it just means you have to regularly take time out from playing the main story quest to grind your skills back to what you want.

I think its a very interesting idea, however the bottom line is... Will it be fun for the player. In my experience with players and rpg style games, probably not.

I was thinking to make it mostly "invisible". The player could consult, see the results on paper, but not really mind about it. The idea was that, over time, the character's stats would fit his own playstyle well, increasing his efficiency with routine operations. Everything else, however, out of his routine, would become harder over time, by "lack of practice".
The actual events that trigger motion in this pie are not grindable so to speak.
Lockpicking can't be done for the sake of doing it. It needs to be done on a locked door somewhere, etc. If the player lockpicks door instead of blowing them out, then over time, he gets better with his own dexterity, etc, and in turn, develops better lockpicking aptitude.

Since the player is not "losing skill" I think this system avoids attempting to grind stats (ala Strength in GTA)

As for the fun of it, I really intend for this system to be more of a supporting system, which gives a form of impression of realism. It is not meant to be the uber-cool-feature mechanic of the game: the game has already its bulk of designspace regarding gameplay. It is just an idea on how I could improve with rpg elements what is already there.

It could be a good system it just depends on how it works in with the rest of the gameplay.

Once point to consider though how will you balance the challenge aspect of the game? If my favorite activity in the game becomes easier over time, how will you scale the difficulty so that it continue to be challenging and interesting?

I had a similar idea to this. It was to set three stats, "mind" "body" and "spirit" on a triangle with a moving stat position giving the ratios between the three stats. Regardless of the actual stats used in the system this is what has been described here. I think that aspect of it works fine as a three-way slider just as a normal slider would be a good solution if you only had two stats to set against each other.

Where the thread now seems to be going though is an entirely different topic, applicable to any stat system. Sorry for that as it was my comment that sent it that way. None the less though, I think the issue of use based stat changes is almost always a bad idea. The system can be made very hard to figure out, but some one will. It will eventually be worked out and manipulated. The only answers to that I see working well are simply to hide it so completely that it is entirely internal and can't be seen at all, or entirely open and manipulate-able so the player can craft their character how they like. If you let the player craft the character, it needs to be a fun aspect of the game, not poisoned with repetitive tasks that make the process unpleasant in use based systems.

If a use based system is really what you want, I have some suggestions.
•Keep it to directly using the skill.
•Allow the player access to practice areas where the process is turned into a mini game, i.e, sparing with trainers.
•Allow a more expensive fast track that may use up game time but is instant to the player.

The first means the player will know exactly what is worth doing to achieve that goal. The second means he has quick and time efficient access to the task if he wants to do it. And the third means that the repetitive task is a choice not tied to the desire to manipulate the stats. He can train, or fast track, and both will manipulate the stats for him.

One thing to check though is that the method for getting the gold to buy fast track training isn't a boring and repetitive task too.

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth It could be a good system it just depends on how it works in with the rest of the gameplay. Once point to consider though how will you balance the challenge aspect of the game? If my favorite activity in the game becomes easier over time, how will you scale the difficulty so that it continue to be challenging and interesting?

Considering it is a three-way slider that means getting better at your preferred task means getting worse in at least one of the other two stats. You may not actively use those normally, but situations can force their use which will become challenges for you. They can also be used passively.

In my example of mind-body-spirit, if spirit is by defense against magic, then even if I choose to wield an axe, I am more vulnerable to magic.

I really don't like the idea of hidden stats. Imagine a game like chess or go if to increase the challenge they didn't tell you the rules, do you think that would make it more fun or more frustrating?

Generally speaking taking choice away from the player results in less fun to be had, because not only will you essentially cut of the design space of min max gamers but you are removing one of the staples of CRPGs in general. PnP games could get away with this kind of hidden stat system because there is greater roleplaying involved. However in CRPG, many players will care more about their stats because combat is often a large role in CRPGs.

Well I mostly wanted to use this system to replace "class"-based characters. In the approach of "you do what you are" and not just "you pick what perks you want". Since each of the angles of this pie would represent one of the 5 ideologies present in level-design (there are always 5 ways to get through the level, or at least, 5 different thematic approaches) there is no shortage or moment where the player feels he has taken the wrong choice. It is really an upside down system where the game tries to gauge who the player is, and not enforce a reality on him.

Of course, this is all theory. But do not consider it as a maintream RPG system by itself. It is rpg-oriented, but serves a different purpose. As a matter of fact, the game is a form of shooter more than a rpg.

Quote:

The idea is not to let the player mess with this, but let it evolve slowly according to how the player plays. The more intensely physical he plays, the more the balance shifts towards A (at the loss of B and C). There is no such thing, in this design, as "becoming better" but there is such a thing as "adapting to the playstyle". The things the player does most will inherently become easier, though the things he never does will become much harder over time.

Final Fantasy Tactics: Advance did this without penalizing the player, which I loved. It certainly wasn't a classless system, but part of the reasoning was that the game is TBS, so you have up to six units on the field, and twenty-four units to choose from in your party. Each party member could choose from any of the classes in their race, and could learn every ability in all of their race's classes. However, each party member could only use two skillsets in battle (one had to be the skillset of the current class) and each class increased stats at a different pace. So how each character fought could be customized, but every level-up would make certain stats dominate. You might be playing as a mage right now, but if your last ten levels were spent as a fighter, you'll have a hard time adjusting. This system never limited the player from learning certain abilities, but it did encourage specialization.

However, you seem like you're talking about a classless party of one, so I'm not sure how the dynamics would change. What options are you offering the player to choose from, since you're assuming all playstyles are equal?

Grinding is only possible if you allow it. In a CRPG with a definite plot there might be no other opportunity for skill use than what advances the story; the player would have a choice of tasks and some control of changing skills, but only as allocation of a finite amount of experience and things to do.
For example, if the character at some point has to exterminate the rats in the city sewers and capture a necromancer the player might want to practice all sort of spells against rats to train for a later magical duel against the necromancer (under the assumption that spells are expected and a somewhat rusty physical condition would be acceptable in both missions), or climb the wizard's tower and catch him by surprise to practice stealth and evasion against rats (under the assumption that being pinned in mass combat too many rats would be dangerous).

There's also another obvious way to customize specialization: swapping equipment.
For example, weight limits can allow the player to travel with a set of heavy spellbooks or his best armour, but not both. Perhaps medium armour with the first volume of fire spells and no sword? A slow mule instead of a horse that can carry less? There can be a lot of interesting decisions, without grinding (except perhaps travels back and forth between the front lines and equipment caches).

@ bardbarienne
Think like Deus Ex for example. A single mission, but different ways to solve it. Say you need to reach a rooftop. You could use acrobatics to reach it, or hack through the security network of the building and get through the elevators, or you could kick soldier's asses and steal a chopper to get there.

Each of these alternatives come with their own "playstyle" so to speak. Without actually creating "classes" there are gameplay ideologies underlined clearly by the user's choice. So someone who hacks through computer would get their mind attribute to increase over the rest.
The gymnastic guy would get dexterity bonus from his choices, etc etc.

The idea of "no drawback" is interesting, but since this isn't an RPG per se, it felt a little too heavy to incorporate.

As for grinding, it is impossible to grind if there is no "gain" all in all. Only a shift in balance.

@ LorenzoGatti

Equipment decisions have already been taken into account to give another layer of depth to this system. Additionally, "purchasable skills" (through earning experience points and spending them like money on skills) are there to either cope with flaws, or enhance natural feats.

A shift in balance is still grindable.

Lets say we have finished off the black mage and are in full mage dueling form now faced with a horde of stone golems. Fireballs are not the most effective choice and perhaps stealth is best. Unfortunately I don't have a stealth spell so I need to rebalanced to full sneaking mode. The tasks that shift that balance can, and will be grinded at this point to make that change before the player heads into the situation calling for it.

You supposition clashes with my explanation of the system. Every obstacle in this game design can be overcome with any of the different choices. What you bring forward is an example where only stealth could prevail and not brutal force, but in the basic game idea, there is no such place. We want to please exactly 5 different playing type/ideologies equally by giving them a scenario where they can see what they're looking for.

Obviously, a brutal player will simply launch an attack on enemies and try to use their mouse/wasd skills to shoot everyone dead, but a more stealthy person will try to find a elevated spot to snipe everyone down. Then a hacker will try to find an alternate path.

since all of these elements are present at all times, there is no need to grind. The brutal player will not feel the need to grind his stealth skill because he knows he can take them on, and vice-versa.

In your case, it is not the system that is faulty, but the actual level design. Because of the pre-supposed flawless level design of my project, I can safely assume such cases should not happen. Of course, balancing will reveal some flaws, that's murphy's law, but such flaws in balance will not be big enough to actually demand shifts in the system from the player's part.

I see your point, I just don't think it applies to the current project at hand.

I could see it working as long as you are careful with the different options for overcoming scenarios.

To use your rooftop example, what if the character isn't good enough at any of the three skills to pull it off? Maybe I spent most of my time killing, but also hacked some of the computers along the way while climbing into some interesting spots. I'm not Rambo-esque enough to kill all those guys, but I'd never make it through the entire security system or climb all the way. You'd have to account for this (I'd like it if I could maybe hack some security turrets to kill some of the guys for me, and maybe get up to some not-so-horribly-scary ledge to gain an advantage in my helicopter-stealing battle).

If you don't account for these in-between characters, the only choice would be to grind as some people have said is inevitable. It is doable, but balance will be hard I think.

Quote:

Original post by Orymus You supposition clashes with my explanation of the system. Every obstacle in this game design can be overcome with any of the different choices. What you bring forward is an example where only stealth could prevail and not brutal force, but in the basic game idea, there is no such place. We want to please exactly 5 different playing type/ideologies equally by giving them a scenario where they can see what they're looking for. Obviously, a brutal player will simply launch an attack on enemies and try to use their mouse/wasd skills to shoot everyone dead, but a more stealthy person will try to find a elevated spot to snipe everyone down. Then a hacker will try to find an alternate path. since all of these elements are present at all times, there is no need to grind. The brutal player will not feel the need to grind his stealth skill because he knows he can take them on, and vice-versa. In your case, it is not the system that is faulty, but the actual level design. Because of the pre-supposed flawless level design of my project, I can safely assume such cases should not happen. Of course, balancing will reveal some flaws, that's murphy's law, but such flaws in balance will not be big enough to actually demand shifts in the system from the player's part. I see your point, I just don't think it applies to the current project at hand.

My point was only that there are times when the player will want to make a change and the tasks required to do so may not be enjoyable (the grind) despite the ultimate change being enjoyable. My example was purely to give reason for such a decision. I realize that in a game designed for this sort of mechanic all the options much be usable all the time.

I see your concerns now.

@ Krez: An interesting point. At first, I went "Oh but I thought about it, you just need to..." - Make the game too easy? That's just no option...

1 - I can't force players to play in only one way if I offer them freedom of choice

2 - Levels are built around options. These options have requirements of their own, and offer solutions of their own

3 - I have a skill system that limits and offers access to different options (2)

Some solutions

a - Make a "general path" that can be taken by any 'balanced' character. The idea is that the best agent may indeed be someone skilled in many areas and not focussed on much. Truth is however, that some missions would have an unbalanced level of difficulty set directly in relation to reality. Some types of agents are simply required for some missions. You can freely enter a military base if you are a killer-dude, or if you are a stealthy assassin, but no 'average joe' could do it.

b - Force a form of specialization of the player. Although this would kinda make the game choices be artificial

c - Alter the rpg system so that stats are incremented through use rather than a mobile balance-pie (this kinda defeats the purpose and originality of the system at hand).

d - Go into in-depth level design and account for several pre-determined average 'balanced' characters. This means that some hacking areas could be 'every decent jack' whereas others would be 'hardcore' but that where there is an every decent jack hacking area, the fighting level would be hardcore, and where the hacking is hardcore, the fighting would be every decent jack...
It is the best solution I have so far, but it feels like the choice is kinda hindered here. It becomes more of the player's capacity to judge of the lowest risk for his own good and pick a path that is pre-destined by the build he has. Since he is forced into that path more or less, his character will not evolve differently than the traced path and it may kill the regular progression of choice.

Which leads us to Jasronq's point. It is no solution to offer a chance to the player to grind to change his current stance to face new obstacles. We must not give the player the need to "change entirely" or feel that he may not proceed further until he has developped towards a certain attribute. That should certainly limit the hassle.

I'll think about it, thank you all so much for the input.