Bloody well said Hapaboy!
Terabyte, I started playing MUDs 7 years ago, and although they are fun at times, I get bored quite quickly. I find that the emphasis on most MUDs is still hack and slash, with minimals input from players. Although you do find some MUDs that have a strong emphasis on RP.
To anyone that is deeply interested in RP online, I suggest you check out the games known as MUSHs (Multi User Shared Hallucinations).
These games are RP only, with little or no system implementation for battle. Usually, battles are role played totally, overseen by and admin. The whole world is filled with people like myself that crave RP online ... as a result, amazing characters are created and experienced.
The requirements for most MUSHs is that you create a bckground for your character. This consists of writing about a page/page and a half on your character, describing what he is like, how he got where he is, what education/skills he has, etc. The BG is then submitted to admin for approval before you re allowed on the ''grid''. Already strong emphasis on creativity.
TinyPlots, PlayerRunPlots and just general RP gives the game itself a history and always shapes the world in some significant way. TinyPlots are plots run by the admin for PCs and often involve intricate plots that players involved flesh out and play through.
PrPs are TPs run by players. These are thought up by the players, executed by the players and concluded by the players. They are overseen by an Admin for approval first.
RP is just that. It can consist of just sitting in a coffee shop tlking to one character or more to just about anything you can think of.
What I like about these games is the emphasis that you do NOT have to fight. If you don''t want to fight then don''t, simple. You can become a shop owner instead, or a farmer. Everything is welcomed as long as it fits the theme of the MUSH.
As an example:
I am currently playing doctor for the Yakuza in an online version based on FASAs Shadow Run (been up since 94). Being a new character on the grid, I noticed there was silence in the drug market. Not even the Mafis or street thugs were selling drugs. I figured it was because there was nothing appealing to compell people to buy them.
So, over the past few days, I have researched and developed the specs for a new drug to be released into the public. It has been approved by the admin, I have gained IC (In Character) approval by my Oyabun (Yakuza Boss) and now I simply have to manufacture the drug ICly.
That is just one tiny example of something that you can do. the choices are limited only to your imagination (of course, once again I say as long as it''s in theme).
If anyone is interested in this, please drop me a line at tcook@bigpond.net.au where I can give you more detail according to which genre you would like to play in.
If anyone is interested in CyberPunk, please connect to ShadowRun - the more the merrier! Email me for connection details.
Oh, as a side note, the reason I ask you to email me is so that I know you''re fairly serious. I could post up the info here and any old Joe would connect, probably to a half arsed job on his bg, etc, get rejected and then be disillusioned by the whole process. I would much rather have people who I KNOW are interested, because they are worthy of my extra free time.
Also note once again - MUSHs do NOT revolve around combat. Combat is welcomed, but it is not a necessity.
Cheers!
15 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
Qualifying attributes in an RPG
113
August 26, 2001 10:41 AM
DIODOR:
Hiding the numbers and replacing them with words or with testing through actions is just a matter of esthetics.
True, it is just a matter of aesthetics... and if I compare the two (number/no-number) I think the design that can function without the visual display of numbers is the better one.
You still won''t get rid of the achievers, and the first thing they''ll do is learn the testing process by heart and then play to raise stats just like they did before.
True, you still won''t get rid of the achievers, but I''m betting that the number of achievers will be far less if they don''t have numbers to compare themselves with one another.
Right now, two players walk up to eachother and start boasting about their stats (stats really do seem to be the major issue in most MMORPGs that I read about). ''My Archery is 100, yours is only 50. I rule. Look at that target, if we both shoot at it with our just-click-on-target-and-character-will-auto-aim skill, I''ll hit twice as much as you will.''
Now using a system without numbers... the boasting can only take place AFTER the fact. ''Hey, you say you''re a good archer? Well I happen to think that I''m a good archer as well. Want to test our skill on that target over there? Our aim-at-target-in-arcade-mode combined with our secretly-hidden-skillnumber will determine how many times we hit.'' Not just a high character skill will determine the outcome, but also to a degree the player skill.
The first thing I''d do before starting a new RPG is dump the large skill increases completely (with the few exceptions that make sense of course). Away with the human tanks! Instead I''d focus the character building on things like NPCs you befriend, money you have, etc.
Myself, in current rpg ideas I almost purely focus on the combat element. Simply because I think it''s easier to design a good combat system (true, rpg is not really that much about combat, so it wouldn''t really be an rpg) than to design a good ''roleplaying'' game, where you can ''befriend NPCS'', influence the virtual world, become a part of its society etc.
I think that games should be what they are and not try to appear to be anything they''re not. Don''t do many things so-so, rather do one thing and do it good (this is NOT directed towards you Diodor!).
Sarazen
[i\I think that RPG could still stand for computer games, but instead of Role Playing it should be Roll Playing. Ultimately, it doesn''t matter how much you change the number system, you''ll always have power gamers in pc rpgs. It is too hard to ROLE Play in a computer game because the focus is always about building your character.[i/]
Couldn''t agree more with you. There''s no room for role playing yet in the computer industry. The only role playing I''ve done in the last two years was NOT in the game Everquest, but through a PBeM RPG campaign. Roll-playing indeed!
So you''re a Neophyte powergamer? Simple .. go and kill shitloads of things until you''re no longer a Neophyte.
That''s about the typical computer rpg
Design an online RPG that is overseen by a ''GM''. Like many good MUSHs have, include a nomination system for the players to use to nominate others for various achievements - Best Character Interaction, Best Thief, Best Villain, Best Samaritan etc. - and, at the end of a month the ''GM'' (who only has to be present occasionaly) will announce the winners of each ''award'' category, and then will subsequently give to those characters a certain amount of ''points'' to invest in skills.
Feedback is a feature that has been sorely UNDERused in online computer games. I think feedback is one of the strongest tools to create any hint of role playing in a computer game.
When I did play Everquest, I started out with role play inspirations... and ended up with roll play actions. I role played but there simply was no response, no feedback whatsoever. If I encountered 100 characters, maybe one of them would interact in a role play fashion... and usually just because they needed something from me. Every one was in a rush to kill another creature, gain more experience, get to next level... I guess they must''ve thought that once they reached the top level they''d get a prize reward or something.
Anyway, the PBeM I play in has a DM. He distributes experience points MOSTLY on non-combat actions. If you write good, role play your character well, you get added points (not a whole bunch. Don''t think that role playing well for a week will gain you two levels. I''ve only gained one single level -now level 2- in a full year of playing). This really gives posters a boost to be just a tad more descriptive, create just a little bit more atmosphere.
For online games, the current trend seems to be to draw in as many subscribers as possible. I''m not sure what system would ever work to get those players to role play instead of roll play, but I''m certain that ANY system can create an improvement, however small that improvement might be.
I''m not even sure if the players need a reward in the form of point to be distributed to skills (might get people to just role play so that they can improve their roll playing, which partly achieves what you want -people will role play- but will still leave the core of the game unchanged -people role play to roll play-). I think that the true role players will take pleasure with a title. Or other rewards that do not have any effect on the roll playing aspect of the game (medals of honor or something of that fashion).
KYLOTAN:
I agree that defining ''role playing'' is not like defining black and white. There''s a huge grey area in the middle. But I think that the true definition of ''role playing'' is a lot more aimed towards what the ''Roleplaying Purists'' claim it is, than what current ''rpg'' computer games claim it is.
To ME, role playing means that YOU as the player try to put yourself in the MIND of your character and control the actions of that character, trying to NOT use any of the knowledge that you as the player posses, but instead ONLY act and react on what you think the character knows/sees/hears.
You can still act out the character like YOU want it.
The hard part about current computer rpgs is that the players know way too much about the ongoings of the game itself. They know exactly what to do, where to go, even though their character should have no such knowledge. The best role playing in MMORPGs is usually done by complete newbies. It''s not about how they talk, what they do, it''s all about the PLAYER NOT KNOWING anything about the game. They have to ask questions, questions that their newly created character might ask as well. ''How do I get to location X?'' ''What are the dangerous monsters around here?'' ''What do I do with this item?''
Once the player knows the answers to most of his questions, that''s when the role playing suddenly ends and the roll playing begins. The player finds online sites that describe in detail the entire path of their character. Where to go, what to kill, what to wear, whom to talk to. There simply are no secrets for the player. And since most players don''t keep character knowledge and player knowledge separated... there are also no secrets for the characters anymore. Role playing has just died.
One way to fix this, would be to keep things more secretive from the players. If the player doesn''t know something, he won''t be able to tell his character. How to go about this? I have no idea... yet.
If you can keep the player guessing, you can keep the character guessing. If you can keep the character guessing, you can keep the character role playing (well, to a higher degree at least).
Emphasis has moved because you have taken something away. This is a dangerous strategy. It''s like saying "my child will enjoy this wooden rocking horse more if I remove all his Pokémon". It''s true: the player will shift their emphasis, but you''ve not made the game more enjoyable. At worst, you''ve just forced them to concentrate on the less enjoyable elements in order to play. At best, you''ve removed one of the features and made the game have less depth.
Sure. But I have no doubt that Tom meant to design the rest of the game to give the player something fun to do. In MY opinion, he''s trying to find a way to guide his players towards another possibility of gameplay entertainment. Too many current MMORPG players don''t take the time to even TRY anything else besides powergaming. It''d hate to be the one to design a game that has tons of fun gameplay elements, just to see most players purely go for the number crunching element. I think allowing players to raise their skills is not a bad thing at all. I enjoy it myself. But I think the shape and form it comes in could/should change to perhaps shift the focus of players towards other directions.
''Cool, I just bought this great new MMORPG. Let''s see, I''ll just start raising my skills first... hey, no numbers? This game sucks! I just wasted $50 on a game that doesn''t give me any numbers! That sucks! Well... let''s see what else I can do... HEY, this is pretty cool. Wow, this is really great. Man, this is much more fun than just raising skills. Hey wait a minute, I''m noticing after a few hours of play that I AM getting better at certain skills. This game has got it all.''
Very optimistic, but I think we need some optimistic views to change the rather bleek situation current MMORPGs are in (in my opinion).
--Then maybe we can thin out the market of achievers that''s plaguing the genre by converting them to explorers.--
They''re not plaguing the genre. It''s a bit arrogant to say that. They just happen to be more suited to the genre than you, because they are playing the genre as it is , as opposed to those who wish it to be something else. I think what you really mean, is to create a new genre that more closely fits what you consider ''roleplaying'' to be about.
I agree. Number crunchers are not plaguing the genre. The designs themselves are the real plague. There''s simply not much else to do in current MMORPGs than to crunch the numbers. With all my good intentions, I found that Everquest simply didn''t give me any other real alternatives. Once I realized that, I tried the number crunching for a while myself, but found it to be completely different from my needs. I quit. Others find it to fit their needs. They like it, they keep playing.
NB: The original Dungeons and Dragons was described as a ''roleplaying'' game, but it was almost entirely based on statistics, not acting, not story. The ''meaning'' of the word has changed, partly based on overly-literal interpretations.
I''ve always thought of roleplaying guides like D&D as... guides. I''ve always thought of them as telling me ''role playing is the element that will make this form of entertainment fun for you. Here are some ideas that might help you to create a consistent world, a consistent combat experience.'' They are rules that can be used. Role playing in the D&D (and all other real role playing games) still is all about creating a fantasy world. You don''t need graphical displays, you can make your own rules. But somehow, you have to at least define those rules somewhat, otherwise you end up with the way little kids play cowboy and indian, cop and robber. ''Poof, I shot you. You''re dead.'' ''NO WAY, you didn''t even hit me.'' ''Did too, you''re dead.'' ''No, I''m not.'' ''Yes, you are...''
The statistics are used to create a consistency in the rules. The LARGE number of statistics are used to make it easier for the DM to design a campaign. A good DM will not use a dice to determine how many monsters, treasure, traps etc a random room should contain.
Hiding the numbers and replacing them with words or with testing through actions is just a matter of esthetics.
True, it is just a matter of aesthetics... and if I compare the two (number/no-number) I think the design that can function without the visual display of numbers is the better one.
You still won''t get rid of the achievers, and the first thing they''ll do is learn the testing process by heart and then play to raise stats just like they did before.
True, you still won''t get rid of the achievers, but I''m betting that the number of achievers will be far less if they don''t have numbers to compare themselves with one another.
Right now, two players walk up to eachother and start boasting about their stats (stats really do seem to be the major issue in most MMORPGs that I read about). ''My Archery is 100, yours is only 50. I rule. Look at that target, if we both shoot at it with our just-click-on-target-and-character-will-auto-aim skill, I''ll hit twice as much as you will.''
Now using a system without numbers... the boasting can only take place AFTER the fact. ''Hey, you say you''re a good archer? Well I happen to think that I''m a good archer as well. Want to test our skill on that target over there? Our aim-at-target-in-arcade-mode combined with our secretly-hidden-skillnumber will determine how many times we hit.'' Not just a high character skill will determine the outcome, but also to a degree the player skill.
The first thing I''d do before starting a new RPG is dump the large skill increases completely (with the few exceptions that make sense of course). Away with the human tanks! Instead I''d focus the character building on things like NPCs you befriend, money you have, etc.
Myself, in current rpg ideas I almost purely focus on the combat element. Simply because I think it''s easier to design a good combat system (true, rpg is not really that much about combat, so it wouldn''t really be an rpg) than to design a good ''roleplaying'' game, where you can ''befriend NPCS'', influence the virtual world, become a part of its society etc.
I think that games should be what they are and not try to appear to be anything they''re not. Don''t do many things so-so, rather do one thing and do it good (this is NOT directed towards you Diodor!).
Sarazen
[i\I think that RPG could still stand for computer games, but instead of Role Playing it should be Roll Playing. Ultimately, it doesn''t matter how much you change the number system, you''ll always have power gamers in pc rpgs. It is too hard to ROLE Play in a computer game because the focus is always about building your character.[i/]
Couldn''t agree more with you. There''s no room for role playing yet in the computer industry. The only role playing I''ve done in the last two years was NOT in the game Everquest, but through a PBeM RPG campaign. Roll-playing indeed!
So you''re a Neophyte powergamer? Simple .. go and kill shitloads of things until you''re no longer a Neophyte.
That''s about the typical computer rpg
Design an online RPG that is overseen by a ''GM''. Like many good MUSHs have, include a nomination system for the players to use to nominate others for various achievements - Best Character Interaction, Best Thief, Best Villain, Best Samaritan etc. - and, at the end of a month the ''GM'' (who only has to be present occasionaly) will announce the winners of each ''award'' category, and then will subsequently give to those characters a certain amount of ''points'' to invest in skills.
Feedback is a feature that has been sorely UNDERused in online computer games. I think feedback is one of the strongest tools to create any hint of role playing in a computer game.
When I did play Everquest, I started out with role play inspirations... and ended up with roll play actions. I role played but there simply was no response, no feedback whatsoever. If I encountered 100 characters, maybe one of them would interact in a role play fashion... and usually just because they needed something from me. Every one was in a rush to kill another creature, gain more experience, get to next level... I guess they must''ve thought that once they reached the top level they''d get a prize reward or something.
Anyway, the PBeM I play in has a DM. He distributes experience points MOSTLY on non-combat actions. If you write good, role play your character well, you get added points (not a whole bunch. Don''t think that role playing well for a week will gain you two levels. I''ve only gained one single level -now level 2- in a full year of playing). This really gives posters a boost to be just a tad more descriptive, create just a little bit more atmosphere.
For online games, the current trend seems to be to draw in as many subscribers as possible. I''m not sure what system would ever work to get those players to role play instead of roll play, but I''m certain that ANY system can create an improvement, however small that improvement might be.
I''m not even sure if the players need a reward in the form of point to be distributed to skills (might get people to just role play so that they can improve their roll playing, which partly achieves what you want -people will role play- but will still leave the core of the game unchanged -people role play to roll play-). I think that the true role players will take pleasure with a title. Or other rewards that do not have any effect on the roll playing aspect of the game (medals of honor or something of that fashion).
KYLOTAN:
I agree that defining ''role playing'' is not like defining black and white. There''s a huge grey area in the middle. But I think that the true definition of ''role playing'' is a lot more aimed towards what the ''Roleplaying Purists'' claim it is, than what current ''rpg'' computer games claim it is.
To ME, role playing means that YOU as the player try to put yourself in the MIND of your character and control the actions of that character, trying to NOT use any of the knowledge that you as the player posses, but instead ONLY act and react on what you think the character knows/sees/hears.
You can still act out the character like YOU want it.
The hard part about current computer rpgs is that the players know way too much about the ongoings of the game itself. They know exactly what to do, where to go, even though their character should have no such knowledge. The best role playing in MMORPGs is usually done by complete newbies. It''s not about how they talk, what they do, it''s all about the PLAYER NOT KNOWING anything about the game. They have to ask questions, questions that their newly created character might ask as well. ''How do I get to location X?'' ''What are the dangerous monsters around here?'' ''What do I do with this item?''
Once the player knows the answers to most of his questions, that''s when the role playing suddenly ends and the roll playing begins. The player finds online sites that describe in detail the entire path of their character. Where to go, what to kill, what to wear, whom to talk to. There simply are no secrets for the player. And since most players don''t keep character knowledge and player knowledge separated... there are also no secrets for the characters anymore. Role playing has just died.
One way to fix this, would be to keep things more secretive from the players. If the player doesn''t know something, he won''t be able to tell his character. How to go about this? I have no idea... yet.
If you can keep the player guessing, you can keep the character guessing. If you can keep the character guessing, you can keep the character role playing (well, to a higher degree at least).
Emphasis has moved because you have taken something away. This is a dangerous strategy. It''s like saying "my child will enjoy this wooden rocking horse more if I remove all his Pokémon". It''s true: the player will shift their emphasis, but you''ve not made the game more enjoyable. At worst, you''ve just forced them to concentrate on the less enjoyable elements in order to play. At best, you''ve removed one of the features and made the game have less depth.
Sure. But I have no doubt that Tom meant to design the rest of the game to give the player something fun to do. In MY opinion, he''s trying to find a way to guide his players towards another possibility of gameplay entertainment. Too many current MMORPG players don''t take the time to even TRY anything else besides powergaming. It''d hate to be the one to design a game that has tons of fun gameplay elements, just to see most players purely go for the number crunching element. I think allowing players to raise their skills is not a bad thing at all. I enjoy it myself. But I think the shape and form it comes in could/should change to perhaps shift the focus of players towards other directions.
''Cool, I just bought this great new MMORPG. Let''s see, I''ll just start raising my skills first... hey, no numbers? This game sucks! I just wasted $50 on a game that doesn''t give me any numbers! That sucks! Well... let''s see what else I can do... HEY, this is pretty cool. Wow, this is really great. Man, this is much more fun than just raising skills. Hey wait a minute, I''m noticing after a few hours of play that I AM getting better at certain skills. This game has got it all.''
Very optimistic, but I think we need some optimistic views to change the rather bleek situation current MMORPGs are in (in my opinion).
--Then maybe we can thin out the market of achievers that''s plaguing the genre by converting them to explorers.--
They''re not plaguing the genre. It''s a bit arrogant to say that. They just happen to be more suited to the genre than you, because they are playing the genre as it is , as opposed to those who wish it to be something else. I think what you really mean, is to create a new genre that more closely fits what you consider ''roleplaying'' to be about.
I agree. Number crunchers are not plaguing the genre. The designs themselves are the real plague. There''s simply not much else to do in current MMORPGs than to crunch the numbers. With all my good intentions, I found that Everquest simply didn''t give me any other real alternatives. Once I realized that, I tried the number crunching for a while myself, but found it to be completely different from my needs. I quit. Others find it to fit their needs. They like it, they keep playing.
NB: The original Dungeons and Dragons was described as a ''roleplaying'' game, but it was almost entirely based on statistics, not acting, not story. The ''meaning'' of the word has changed, partly based on overly-literal interpretations.
I''ve always thought of roleplaying guides like D&D as... guides. I''ve always thought of them as telling me ''role playing is the element that will make this form of entertainment fun for you. Here are some ideas that might help you to create a consistent world, a consistent combat experience.'' They are rules that can be used. Role playing in the D&D (and all other real role playing games) still is all about creating a fantasy world. You don''t need graphical displays, you can make your own rules. But somehow, you have to at least define those rules somewhat, otherwise you end up with the way little kids play cowboy and indian, cop and robber. ''Poof, I shot you. You''re dead.'' ''NO WAY, you didn''t even hit me.'' ''Did too, you''re dead.'' ''No, I''m not.'' ''Yes, you are...''
The statistics are used to create a consistency in the rules. The LARGE number of statistics are used to make it easier for the DM to design a campaign. A good DM will not use a dice to determine how many monsters, treasure, traps etc a random room should contain.
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
August 26, 2001 12:16 PM
quote: Original post by Silvermyst
KYLOTAN:
I agree that defining ''role playing'' is not like defining black and white. There''s a huge grey area in the middle. But I think that the true definition of ''role playing'' is a lot more aimed towards what the ''Roleplaying Purists'' claim it is, than what current ''rpg'' computer games claim it is.
''True definition''? There is no true definition. You only get true definitions in extremely scientific or academic environments. This is neither. ''Role playing'' is just a label attached to certain behaviour. It''s up to the people who use it to decide what behaviour to attach it to. You can argue that they''re ''wrong'', but when it comes down to it, that means nothing.
quote: Sure. But I have no doubt that Tom meant to design the rest of the game to give the player something fun to do.
Yes, and he said as much. However, this post was all about removing a feature that many find fun, without explaining what he would add in its place.
quote: In MY opinion, he''s trying to find a way to guide his players towards another possibility of gameplay entertainment. Too many current MMORPG players don''t take the time to even TRY anything else besides powergaming. It''d hate to be the one to design a game that has tons of fun gameplay elements, just to see most players purely go for the number crunching element.
This just sounds like a designer who''s bitter because people don''t play the game the way you want them to.
They pay their money to get the right to play how they like, within the bounds of your Terms of Service. If you have loads of ''fun'' gameplay elements and they go for the number crunching, then maybe your ''fun'' elements just aren''t as fun as you thought they were?
It looks like you''re looking down on people who like ''number-crunching'' as being somewhat inferior players. And that you think they play the game the ''wrong'' way and should be guided to play it the ''right'' way. I don''t think this is fair.
These are games, not punishments. Use a carrot to influence their behaviour, not a stick. If they''re not doing what you want them to do, then what you want them to do isn''t fun enough. Don''t take away what they do find fun until you''ve answered this question.
quote: ''Cool, I just bought this great new MMORPG. Let''s see, I''ll just start raising my skills first... hey, no numbers? This game sucks! I just wasted $50 on a game that doesn''t give me any numbers! That sucks! Well... let''s see what else I can do... HEY, this is pretty cool. Wow, this is really great. Man, this is much more fun than just raising skills. Hey wait a minute, I''m noticing after a few hours of play that I AM getting better at certain skills. This game has got it all.''
So your business model is based on (a) fooling people into buying your game on the false assumption that is has stats, and (b) somehow converting them to ''your'' way of playing. Sounds a bit unethical.
quote: Very optimistic, but I think we need some optimistic views to change the rather bleek situation current MMORPGs are in (in my opinion).
Again, bleak is your opinion. It''s not bleak for most of the players, because they are getting exactly what they want. It''s not bleak for the developers or publishers because they''re raking in the cash. It''s only bleak for the minority of RP purists.
quote: I agree. Number crunchers are not plaguing the genre. The designs themselves are the real plague. There''s simply not much else to do in current MMORPGs than to crunch the numbers. With all my good intentions, I found that Everquest simply didn''t give me any other real alternatives. Once I realized that, I tried the number crunching for a while myself, but found it to be completely different from my needs. I quit. Others find it to fit their needs. They like it, they keep playing.
That''s right. They''re just playing the game the way it was made. Make a game like a cross between Diablo and Quake, and you''re gonna get a load of players who play it as if it was Diablo or Quake.
It would be great if someone could make a game that appealed to a different crowd. I am doing so myself, but it will be text-based, not graphical. Graphical games are not nearly so suitable for what you want. ''Numerical content'' is trivial to produce: invoke whatever monster in whatever quantity at whatever level, along with whatever item at whatever power level, etc. As long as you''re playing the numbers game, it''s trivial to add content. But if you want something deeper, that''s next to impossible. It''s no good arguing that you wish it existed: we simply don''t have the answers to that sort of thing yet. But there needs to be a way to automatically generate ''deep'' content. No human quest-masters or administrators can possibly generate enough content by hand for a ''massive'' online game.
quote: I''ve always thought of roleplaying guides like D&D as... guides. I''ve always thought of them as telling me ''role playing is the element that will make this form of entertainment fun for you. Here are some ideas that might help you to create a consistent world, a consistent combat experience.''
On the other hand, those books define a complete game. Why is your view any more valid than theirs?
quote: They are rules that can be used. Role playing in the D&D (and all other real role playing games) still is all about creating a fantasy world. You don''t need graphical displays, you can make your own rules.
You can do that on any game. I could play Ultima VII purely to see how many monsters I could kill. Or play Doom 2 to see if I can make it through a level without killing anything at all. But that is deviating from what is provided.
Neither way is ''right'' or ''wrong''. But majority of people are going to go with the common ground, which is the printed material. ''Roleplaying games'', to most people, is Dungeons and Dragons. This means the common ground of characters classified by class, race, and level, resolving disputes with mathematical formulae, and existing in a Tolkienesque world. Now, all these factors can be changed, and I''m very glad that they often are, but you can''t argue that the common definition is wrong. Going round telling all these people that they''re "not really roleplaying" doesn''t prove anything.
quote: A good DM will not use a dice to determine how many monsters, treasure, traps etc a random room should contain.
This is just based on your interpretation of what is ''good''.
113
August 26, 2001 02:46 PM
KYLOTAN:
--Sure. But I have no doubt that Tom meant to design the rest of the game to give the player something fun to do.--
Yes, and he said as much. However, this post was all about removing a feature that many find fun, without explaining what he would add in its place.
True. And looking back at the original post, Tom mentions that players "need a reason to explore". I agree that simply removing the element that previously took up most of their time will not necessarily make them want to explore. It''d probably make them explore other games.
This just sounds like a designer who''s bitter because people don''t play the game the way you want them to.
Myself, I don''t even understand a ''bitter designer''. You can be bitter because your game doesn''t sell, and bitter because you couldn''t even finish your product... but you can''t be bitter because of the way that people play your game. You programmed it. You created it. You gave the players the tools to use. You can''t be bitter about the way they use it (although I can imagine designers being bitter when they find players discovering holes in their design and abusing those weak spots -cheats if you will-... but again, that''s a design issue).
The way players play your game is the way you designed it. If you don''t want them to play a certain way, you have to design your game better.
It looks like you''re looking down on people who like ''number-crunching'' as being somewhat inferior players. And that you think they play the game the ''wrong'' way and should be guided to play it the ''right'' way. I don''t think this is fair.
No, I don''t look down on them. It''s just that it''s not my thing. And it''s just that every new game I see and get excited about... usually turns out to cater to number crunchers. Thus, not to me.
I also don''t think they play the game the wrong way... I just think the game is wrong for me. A game like Everquest is entirely based on the number-crunching aspect. I thought it was more than that. I bought it, played it for a while, saw it for what it was, and quit. Not bitter. I''m just a little sad that there doesn''t seem to be anything out there that really caters to my needs. Maybe I am bitter because of that.
These are games, not punishments. Use a carrot to influence their behaviour, not a stick. If they''re not doing what you want them to do, then what you want them to do isn''t fun enough. Don''t take away what they do find fun until you''ve answered this question.
I don''t even think you should have to use ANYthing to influence their behaviour, neither carrot nor stick. I think you should be able to predict their behaviour. You as the designer, should be able to predict it, and then base your design upon it. If you can''t, your product won''t be as good as it could''ve been.
So your business model is based on (a) fooling people into buying your game on the false assumption that is has stats, and (b) somehow converting them to ''your'' way of playing. Sounds a bit unethical.
No. I wouldn''t fool them into thinking that the game uses stats (well, it will use stats, but hidden from player).
All I''d do is label the game the same way current games are labeled: I''d just put a big ol'' RPG sticker on it.
I think that if your game is good, word of mouth will spread. You don''t have to fool people if your game is good.
Again, bleak is your opinion. It''s not bleak for most of the players, because they are getting exactly what they want. It''s not bleak for the developers or publishers because they''re raking in the cash. It''s only bleak for the minority of RP purists.
I don''t think most players are getting exactly what they want. I''ve been a heavy poster on an Everquest message board, and the general feeling seems to be: it''s not perfect in any way, but it''s worth the money... plus it''s still the best thing out there.
It''s not so much that they are getting exactly what they want as much as they that know they are getting what they can.
I''m not at all sure how big of a number of current MMORPG players think this way though, but as far as I can tell, the number is pretty big.
Developers/publishers: they''re raking in the cash yes. No bleakness here
RP purists: I''m not even a real role play purist. I have pretty much abandoned hopes of true role playing in computer games for the next decade or so. But I still think that the number crunch stalemate is too limited. I think it''ll grow old soon. And I don''t think there''s a real alternative waiting around the corner, because the industry is probably just trying to mimic the ''bestsellers'', which means we''ll just see more, bigger, bolder number crunching games. Perfect for those that like it, not perfect for those that don''t. And even for those that like it... doesn''t it eventually get old?
As long as you''re playing the numbers game, it''s trivial to add content. But if you want something deeper, that''s next to impossible. It''s no good arguing that you wish it existed: we simply don''t have the answers to that sort of thing yet. But there needs to be a way to automatically generate ''deep'' content. No human quest-masters or administrators can possibly generate enough content by hand for a ''massive'' online game.
Exactly my thoughts. It''s just not going to happen soon. We don''t have the capabilities yet. Step by step, newer games will evolve into that dream goal... but it''ll go very slow.
Text-based games truly are the answer. I know all about that (you can''t imagine how much fun I have playing a puppeteer in a regular AD&D PBeM role playing game... I can''t even remember the last time I had to deal with numbers).
--I''ve always thought of roleplaying guides like D&D as... guides. I''ve always thought of them as telling me ''role playing is the element that will make this form of entertainment fun for you. Here are some ideas that might help you to create a consistent world, a consistent combat experience.''--
On the other hand, those books define a complete game. Why is your view any more valid than theirs?
Correct me if I''m wrong, but I think the prologue in the AD&D manuals even state that the books themselves should be used as an aid. That you can create your own rules at any time to fit your needs. I could be completely wrong about that though, as my memory is really lacking lately... lately?
--A good DM will not use a dice to determine how many monsters, treasure, traps etc a random room should contain.--
This is just based on your interpretation of what is ''good''.
Yup. It''s all based on what I think is good. But I think that when you design your game, you have to somehow define what you think is ''good''. You have to be able to determine what you think will eventually give a certain group of players the best form of entertainment imaginable. That''s how you''ll get them to play your game.
If you think it''s good for your game to have randomly created environments (somewhat like Diablo has), go with that. If you think that that''s how your game should be, if that''s what your players will want.
If you think the complete opposite should be achieved for your game (non-random), then go for that.
If you think it should be anywhere in between, find that spot, and use it.
--Sure. But I have no doubt that Tom meant to design the rest of the game to give the player something fun to do.--
Yes, and he said as much. However, this post was all about removing a feature that many find fun, without explaining what he would add in its place.
True. And looking back at the original post, Tom mentions that players "need a reason to explore". I agree that simply removing the element that previously took up most of their time will not necessarily make them want to explore. It''d probably make them explore other games.
This just sounds like a designer who''s bitter because people don''t play the game the way you want them to.
Myself, I don''t even understand a ''bitter designer''. You can be bitter because your game doesn''t sell, and bitter because you couldn''t even finish your product... but you can''t be bitter because of the way that people play your game. You programmed it. You created it. You gave the players the tools to use. You can''t be bitter about the way they use it (although I can imagine designers being bitter when they find players discovering holes in their design and abusing those weak spots -cheats if you will-... but again, that''s a design issue).
The way players play your game is the way you designed it. If you don''t want them to play a certain way, you have to design your game better.
It looks like you''re looking down on people who like ''number-crunching'' as being somewhat inferior players. And that you think they play the game the ''wrong'' way and should be guided to play it the ''right'' way. I don''t think this is fair.
No, I don''t look down on them. It''s just that it''s not my thing. And it''s just that every new game I see and get excited about... usually turns out to cater to number crunchers. Thus, not to me.
I also don''t think they play the game the wrong way... I just think the game is wrong for me. A game like Everquest is entirely based on the number-crunching aspect. I thought it was more than that. I bought it, played it for a while, saw it for what it was, and quit. Not bitter. I''m just a little sad that there doesn''t seem to be anything out there that really caters to my needs. Maybe I am bitter because of that.
These are games, not punishments. Use a carrot to influence their behaviour, not a stick. If they''re not doing what you want them to do, then what you want them to do isn''t fun enough. Don''t take away what they do find fun until you''ve answered this question.
I don''t even think you should have to use ANYthing to influence their behaviour, neither carrot nor stick. I think you should be able to predict their behaviour. You as the designer, should be able to predict it, and then base your design upon it. If you can''t, your product won''t be as good as it could''ve been.
So your business model is based on (a) fooling people into buying your game on the false assumption that is has stats, and (b) somehow converting them to ''your'' way of playing. Sounds a bit unethical.
No. I wouldn''t fool them into thinking that the game uses stats (well, it will use stats, but hidden from player).
All I''d do is label the game the same way current games are labeled: I''d just put a big ol'' RPG sticker on it.
I think that if your game is good, word of mouth will spread. You don''t have to fool people if your game is good.
Again, bleak is your opinion. It''s not bleak for most of the players, because they are getting exactly what they want. It''s not bleak for the developers or publishers because they''re raking in the cash. It''s only bleak for the minority of RP purists.
I don''t think most players are getting exactly what they want. I''ve been a heavy poster on an Everquest message board, and the general feeling seems to be: it''s not perfect in any way, but it''s worth the money... plus it''s still the best thing out there.
It''s not so much that they are getting exactly what they want as much as they that know they are getting what they can.
I''m not at all sure how big of a number of current MMORPG players think this way though, but as far as I can tell, the number is pretty big.
Developers/publishers: they''re raking in the cash yes. No bleakness here
RP purists: I''m not even a real role play purist. I have pretty much abandoned hopes of true role playing in computer games for the next decade or so. But I still think that the number crunch stalemate is too limited. I think it''ll grow old soon. And I don''t think there''s a real alternative waiting around the corner, because the industry is probably just trying to mimic the ''bestsellers'', which means we''ll just see more, bigger, bolder number crunching games. Perfect for those that like it, not perfect for those that don''t. And even for those that like it... doesn''t it eventually get old?
As long as you''re playing the numbers game, it''s trivial to add content. But if you want something deeper, that''s next to impossible. It''s no good arguing that you wish it existed: we simply don''t have the answers to that sort of thing yet. But there needs to be a way to automatically generate ''deep'' content. No human quest-masters or administrators can possibly generate enough content by hand for a ''massive'' online game.
Exactly my thoughts. It''s just not going to happen soon. We don''t have the capabilities yet. Step by step, newer games will evolve into that dream goal... but it''ll go very slow.
Text-based games truly are the answer. I know all about that (you can''t imagine how much fun I have playing a puppeteer in a regular AD&D PBeM role playing game... I can''t even remember the last time I had to deal with numbers).
--I''ve always thought of roleplaying guides like D&D as... guides. I''ve always thought of them as telling me ''role playing is the element that will make this form of entertainment fun for you. Here are some ideas that might help you to create a consistent world, a consistent combat experience.''--
On the other hand, those books define a complete game. Why is your view any more valid than theirs?
Correct me if I''m wrong, but I think the prologue in the AD&D manuals even state that the books themselves should be used as an aid. That you can create your own rules at any time to fit your needs. I could be completely wrong about that though, as my memory is really lacking lately... lately?
--A good DM will not use a dice to determine how many monsters, treasure, traps etc a random room should contain.--
This is just based on your interpretation of what is ''good''.
Yup. It''s all based on what I think is good. But I think that when you design your game, you have to somehow define what you think is ''good''. You have to be able to determine what you think will eventually give a certain group of players the best form of entertainment imaginable. That''s how you''ll get them to play your game.
If you think it''s good for your game to have randomly created environments (somewhat like Diablo has), go with that. If you think that that''s how your game should be, if that''s what your players will want.
If you think the complete opposite should be achieved for your game (non-random), then go for that.
If you think it should be anywhere in between, find that spot, and use it.
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
100
August 26, 2001 03:04 PM
RPG''s are electronicl board games. If ou want to make a game where you can''t see your statistics, you would have to have it multiplayer to be social. You would need to make a game where there was a battle arena where you could challenge someone and take them there to fight. You would also need a begginner programmer, because without stats the game is nothing. AI is always based on the stats of the player. If your player has an X and Y position he has stats. If he can attack, he has to have a damage stat. You can make it so noone can tell they have stats, thats not much a problem, but then yu have to try extra hard to show thier improvemts graphcaly. Why would you want to see your guy swing a sword 700 times a second? Then human eye couldnt send the image to the brain. And as for an archer, he''s a bad eexample because the only skill needed to use a bow is accuracy. You can add poison to the tip and kill anyone you hit. With a sword, the more strength you have themore damage you do, fine, but what about speed? So you have 300 speed and your enemy level one goblin has 30. Every time he hits you once you hit him 30 times? I dont think that seems so good. Looking at your statisitcs are just reasuring.
Table top games are ten times better than RPG''s anyway. ^^
Even in super mario brothers you see stats. You see your coins, your score, and your time. If your time is 1 minute as aposed to the average 2.5, you know your good. All games are about stats, a ame without them doesnt get very far. If there were no stats, making games would be simple.
"I''''ve sparred with creatures from the nine hells themselves... I barely plan on breaking a sweat here, today."~Drizzt Do''''Urden
Table top games are ten times better than RPG''s anyway. ^^
Even in super mario brothers you see stats. You see your coins, your score, and your time. If your time is 1 minute as aposed to the average 2.5, you know your good. All games are about stats, a ame without them doesnt get very far. If there were no stats, making games would be simple.
"I''''ve sparred with creatures from the nine hells themselves... I barely plan on breaking a sweat here, today."~Drizzt Do''''Urden
------------------------------Put THAT in your smoke and pipe it
113
August 26, 2001 04:32 PM
DRIZZT
Why would you want to see your guy swing a sword 700 times a second? Then human eye couldnt send the image to the brain.
Don''t design a game where a guy can swing a sword 700 times a second.
And as for an archer, he''s a bad eexample because the only skill needed to use a bow is accuracy.
Actually, archery is more complicated than just accuracy.
There''s the speed of the draw, the sight of the archer, the strength of the arm of the archer. There''s enough factors that can be added.
Why would you want to see your guy swing a sword 700 times a second? Then human eye couldnt send the image to the brain.
Don''t design a game where a guy can swing a sword 700 times a second.
And as for an archer, he''s a bad eexample because the only skill needed to use a bow is accuracy.
Actually, archery is more complicated than just accuracy.
There''s the speed of the draw, the sight of the archer, the strength of the arm of the archer. There''s enough factors that can be added.
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
113
August 26, 2001 08:15 PM
TOM:
Okay, let's do one thing at a time.
SAY we do get rid of the numeric definition of rpg characters...
SAY we do find other fun things for the characters to do...
How DO we show the virtual differences between different characters? If we take the numbers away, we almost HAVE to come up with brilliant ways of visualizing the character's many traits and skills. The numbers have always been used to give the characters some shape and form, to quantify their virtual personalities.
Some skills/traits are easily solved.
Take running speed. Right now, usually players know just how good they are at running, because they have a number that will tell them. 'You're really good at running, your skill is 100.'
Running speed is possibly the easiest skill to move away from the number system. Even if you don't know just how good you are on a scale from 1-1000, you can test yourself against others. You can test how long it takes your character to get from location X to Y. You can figure it out yourself.
I think that this might just be what we should strive for. Have the players figure the numbers out themselves. If they want to know how they rate as an archer, have them participate in a tournament and match their skills against others. They won't know 'my accuracy skill is 100' but they will know that 'I'm better than characters 1, 2 and 3, but characters 4, 5 and 6 are better than me.'
The physical limitations such as strength can be found out. If you can lift that 100 pound rock, your strength could be put into a number. Strength=can lift 100 pound. If you can't lift that 100 pound rock... Strength != can lift 100 pound.
Statistics like health are harder to define by the players themselves... which is good. Do YOU know how many wounds you could take before collapsing? Probably not. Do you know how much you can lift? Well, if you don't, you CAN find out. You can find out how fast you can run, how high you can jump, how fast you can swim, how deep you can dive, how 'good' you can shoot. Certain things you can find out in very precise numbers, certain things will forever be vague.
Fast runners will outrun slow runners, strong bodies will outlift weak bodies, good archers will out shoot bad archers, good thieves will live, bad thieves will die, good casters will gain power, bad wizards will die...
The actual representation of each little nuance that you want to include in the game (just take your favorite rpg game of the moment and think of every skill/ability that the game uses, and try to imagine a way to represent it without numbers) is a tough nut to crack. Lots of creative thinking and good programming will be needed if you want to move away from a number system but keep each character unique in a big online virtual world.
Too far away into the future for me to think of, but I think it's definitely possible.
Edited by - Silvermyst on August 26, 2001 9:25:11 PM
quote: The point is this: qualification creates immersion by removing the numeric definition of RPG characters, which in my opinion is what makes them so abstract and unimmersive in the first place. If you emphasize other factors (talking to people, visiting mystical new places, discovering new things, learning more about the world instead of yourself), you can create a true role-playing game as it is meant to be. Then maybe we can thin out the market of achievers that's plaguing the genre by converting them to explorers. They just need a reason to explore.
Okay, let's do one thing at a time.
SAY we do get rid of the numeric definition of rpg characters...
SAY we do find other fun things for the characters to do...
How DO we show the virtual differences between different characters? If we take the numbers away, we almost HAVE to come up with brilliant ways of visualizing the character's many traits and skills. The numbers have always been used to give the characters some shape and form, to quantify their virtual personalities.
Some skills/traits are easily solved.
Take running speed. Right now, usually players know just how good they are at running, because they have a number that will tell them. 'You're really good at running, your skill is 100.'
Running speed is possibly the easiest skill to move away from the number system. Even if you don't know just how good you are on a scale from 1-1000, you can test yourself against others. You can test how long it takes your character to get from location X to Y. You can figure it out yourself.
I think that this might just be what we should strive for. Have the players figure the numbers out themselves. If they want to know how they rate as an archer, have them participate in a tournament and match their skills against others. They won't know 'my accuracy skill is 100' but they will know that 'I'm better than characters 1, 2 and 3, but characters 4, 5 and 6 are better than me.'
The physical limitations such as strength can be found out. If you can lift that 100 pound rock, your strength could be put into a number. Strength=can lift 100 pound. If you can't lift that 100 pound rock... Strength != can lift 100 pound.
Statistics like health are harder to define by the players themselves... which is good. Do YOU know how many wounds you could take before collapsing? Probably not. Do you know how much you can lift? Well, if you don't, you CAN find out. You can find out how fast you can run, how high you can jump, how fast you can swim, how deep you can dive, how 'good' you can shoot. Certain things you can find out in very precise numbers, certain things will forever be vague.
Fast runners will outrun slow runners, strong bodies will outlift weak bodies, good archers will out shoot bad archers, good thieves will live, bad thieves will die, good casters will gain power, bad wizards will die...
The actual representation of each little nuance that you want to include in the game (just take your favorite rpg game of the moment and think of every skill/ability that the game uses, and try to imagine a way to represent it without numbers) is a tough nut to crack. Lots of creative thinking and good programming will be needed if you want to move away from a number system but keep each character unique in a big online virtual world.
Too far away into the future for me to think of, but I think it's definitely possible.
Edited by - Silvermyst on August 26, 2001 9:25:11 PM
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
August 26, 2001 09:08 PM
quote: Original post by Silvermyst
This just sounds like a designer who's bitter because people don't play the game the way you want them to.
Myself, I don't even understand a 'bitter designer'. You can be bitter because your game doesn't sell, and bitter because you couldn't even finish your product... but you can't be bitter because of the way that people play your game./quote]
Well, you did say, "I'd hate to be the one to design a game that has tons of fun gameplay elements, just to see most players purely go for the number crunching element" . Maybe I shouldn't have said you're bitter now, but it sounded very much like bitterness-in-waitingAs if you expected to go to a hell of a lot of work to make your game interesting, just to have those dumb number-crunching 'achiever' players ignore the stuff you loved!
You're right, it's the 'fault' of whoever made the game that way. I agree with making games the way you want to play them and letting the people come. Earlier posts in this thread tended more towards saying "make the game, and condemn those who don't play it the way the designer would prefer".A game like Everquest is entirely based on the number-crunching aspect. I thought it was more than that. I bought it, played it for a while, saw it for what it was, and quit.
Everquest is Sojourn Mud with polygons
quote: Not bitter. I'm just a little sad that there doesn't seem to be anything out there that really caters to my needs. Maybe I am bitter because of that.
Ok, so perhaps saying you were bitter was an overstatement, but a lot of the things you said hint at you being unhappy that people actually like the games that already exist in such numbers, making it harder for you to find a decent game.
quote: I don't even think you should have to use ANYthing to influence their behaviour, neither carrot nor stick.
So what do you do when someone logs on intent to cause trouble? And believe me, they do. I've had people log on my game with a name like F*ckyou, and the first thing they say is "I've pissed off 12 muds today". Yes, these people exist. My point is: you need to control behaviour to an extent. The quality of these games, especially in the type of game you would enjoy, comes down largely to the community that is fostered there. I know this isn't entirely what you meant and that you were referring more to game mechanics, but these things go hand in hand. Sometimes 'controlling people' is as simple as filtering the kinds of people that play your game. The trick is to do it openly so no-one can really claim to have been manipulated.
quote: I don't think most players are getting exactly what they want. I've been a heavy poster on an Everquest message board, and the general feeling seems to be: it's not perfect in any way, but it's worth the money… plus it's still the best thing out there.
How can they be? There are, what, 300,000 EQ subscribers. There's no way everyone can get a perfect game. I can't even think of 1 game that I find perfect, so the chances of 300k people all finding the same game are minimal.
But as you probably know, what most EQ players are complaining about is not lack of RP. It's having their classes 'nerfed' or other classes 'buffed', or equipment changing, or whatever. Mainly 'achiever' concerns. Sometimes it's about pkill too, but those kinds of problems have died down with the more recent segregation.
I could expand on how I think you would go about making a perfect achiever game sometime, but this is not the thread for it. Suffice it to say that Everquest was designed by ex mud programmers who worked on the DIKU engine, and DIKU mud has been around since the early 90s and is far from state-of-the-art, even in the text game world. It carries with it a lot of baggage and poor design decisions which were carried forward into Everquest. In their defence, they plead that they couldn't know how it would work until it was tried. However, there is a lot of evidence that a lot of the things they were gonna try were futile: they just didn't do their research beforehand.
quote: But I still think that the number crunch stalemate is too limited. I think it'll grow old soon.
I don't. I think it'll continue forever. It won't grow old, because it's already old and people love it. Think about sports. Most of them are about accumulating more points than someone else, or reaching a certain position or quantity before someone else. Competition measured by quantitative means goes back for centuries, so don't expect people to tire of it on computer games for a few hundred years yet
quote: And I don't think there's a real alternative waiting around the corner, because the industry is probably just trying to mimic the 'bestsellers', which means we'll just see more, bigger, bolder number crunching games. Perfect for those that like it, not perfect for those that don't.
The industry is now dominated by short-sighted businessmen who can't see past the end of the next financial quarter. This means they are all vying for a slice of the biggest pie, even if it means that most of their projects fail, in the hope that if they do well enough, they'll rake in loads of cash. This approach is oblivious to the fact that there is a saturation point, and that even the most devoted fan will not buy infinite numbers of FPS / RPG / RTS / MMORPG / OTHERGENREABBREVIATION games just becuase they exist. Maybe it'll take something akin to an industry revolution before they start moving back into the niche markets again.
quote: Text-based games truly are the answer.
Right now, I think so, but there are limited ways of producing graphical content too, which should be explored. For example: procedural map generation based on a 'seed' number. Given a single seed, it can deterministically generate a whole world, providing you have an interesting enough algorithm. Similarly, you can generate an infinite number of reasonably interesting NPCs this way, if you use an attribute system much like I detailed in another thread (ie. not Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence attributes, but personality traits such as Bravery, Aggression, Piousness, etc). You could come up with basic plot lines by using a random number indexed into any number of story classification systems (Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations or The Big List of RPG Plots, for example). And you can hope that your players, if selected well enough, will create an interesting game atmosphere of their own as well. It's certainly possible, given the right people.
It's perhaps possible to get the computer to do most of the grunt work and have some dedicated human gamemasters or administrators coordinate it into something that looks like it was all done by a human.
It's also perhaps possible to encourage the players to coax and encourage each other to do most of this work for you. Give them the tools to build a world, and many of them will.
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the prologue in the AD&D manuals even state that the books themselves should be used as an aid. That you can create your own rules at any time to fit your needs.
No, you're right, but the fact is, the rules are there. You can deviate from them if you need: but most people don't. The common ground is still the published rules. All I'm saying is that arguing the meaning of the term 'roleplaying' in a gaming context is pointless because, as with most terms, it's a term ascribed to an activity by the people who perform that activity. You may participate in a similar yet distinct activity that you also give the same term. This is unfortunate; but neither of you is wrong.
Edited by - Kylotan on August 26, 2001 10:35:49 PM
113
August 27, 2001 08:45 AM
KYLOTAN
Yes, I am unhappy about the fact that the games that I get excited about, usually turn out to be a disappointment. I recently sat down and looked at which of my games I''d be willing to sell (when I looked on Ebay what used games go for... I''m considering it not even worth the effort) and the only games that I''d keep were my two Warhammer games (Shadow of Horned Rat and Dark Omen) and Shogun (because I''ll need it to get ideas for my RTS design). Tons of others, including Diablo II, quickly made it to the big pile of ''to sell'', simply because all of them didn''t have what it takes to really make me happy.
I really do think that the design system should take care of this. In games like Everquest, where most of the servers don''t even allow players to attack one another, there''s really nothing a player can do when another player harasses him/her. All you can do is /tell a GM and hope that they catch the perpetrator ''in the act'' (when it''s verbal harassment, you can actually forward the written text to the GM, making it a lot easier for the GM to determine if the harassing player should be scolded/banned/etc)
Personally, I favour a permanent death system for my rpg designs. That usually works pretty good with the ''I''m gonna f'' up your game'' type of players. I just consider them the ''bad element'' in the game world. They might cause some chaos, but the ''good'' players will eventually be able to bring him down. And if you have a rpg with permanent death that allows players to gain power while they play, the ''I''ll f'' you up'' gamer will quickly find it hard to cause any damage, simply because his targets will mostly be more powerful than himself.
True, but I still feel the sentiment of ''there''s just nothing better out there'' very strongly in the messageboard community. The game works, because there''s a large audience of ''achievers'' out there (nothing wrong with that word, just trying to define the type of player) and because it takes a lot of time to achieve the ultimate goal in EQ (which would be, the highest level, all skills maxed out, best equipment, killed a God, or whatever demands the players put on themselves).
Yes, it always seemed like the biggest complaints (largest group or just loudest yellers?) came with patches that ''nerfed'' classes or equipment. I agree that those are mainly ''achiever'' concerns. It''s somewhat sad though to see that one of the biggest MMORPG games out there pretty much comes down to a huge audience of ''achievers''. I guess my bitterness comes from the fact that I feel it COULD be so much more. But perhaps that''s just wishful thinking.
I think that the computer industry works a little different though. People are getting more demanding (not just because of the computer industry, but because of the entire ''we can give you everything you want'' society we live in). I really think that the player community will always be looking for something new and fresh. I think that at the same time producers of games will be looking to create games similar to popular existing games. Myself, I think that''s silly. If an online game is popular, you have to either be 100% better to draw players from that other game to yours, or you have to be completely fresh. I''ve seen a share of MMORPG designs come by claiming to be everything that EQ is/was and then some... but they never quite hit it off (how''s Anarchy Online doing? Still buggy? The EQ messageboard community seemed to like it but seemed to agree that it was just too buggy in most cases).
I think that what it takes is a few VERY creative VERY fresh games really hitting it off. We need a few really original game ideas that become a huge success (like the Sims, even though I haven''t tried it, and even though their plans to create an online Sim game seem... well, again it just doesn''t seem to fill my niche) for the big bosses to realize that perhaps they shouldn''t put all their money on ''yet another typical rpg/rts/fps/etc''.
Yes. Text based games really rely on the players themselves to create the kazaam. Graphic based games usually try to let the graphics take care of the kazaam, which just doesn''t work for me.
I somehow think that players who choose text over graphics are already likely to be able to provide that atmosphere you mentioned.
I''ll try to check out the links you provided to get some more insight into the text based game genre.
Yes, I am unhappy about the fact that the games that I get excited about, usually turn out to be a disappointment. I recently sat down and looked at which of my games I''d be willing to sell (when I looked on Ebay what used games go for... I''m considering it not even worth the effort) and the only games that I''d keep were my two Warhammer games (Shadow of Horned Rat and Dark Omen) and Shogun (because I''ll need it to get ideas for my RTS design). Tons of others, including Diablo II, quickly made it to the big pile of ''to sell'', simply because all of them didn''t have what it takes to really make me happy.
quote: So what do you do when someone logs on intent to cause trouble? And believe me, they do. I''ve had people log on my game with a name like F*ckyou, and the first thing they say is "I''ve pissed off 12 muds today". Yes, these people exist. My point is: you need to control behaviour to an extent. The quality of these games, especially in the type of game you would enjoy, comes down largely to the community that is fostered there. I know this isn''t entirely what you meant and that you were referring more to game mechanics, but these things go hand in hand. Sometimes ''controlling people'' is as simple as filtering the kinds of people that play your game. The trick is to do it openly so no-one can really claim to have been manipulated.
I really do think that the design system should take care of this. In games like Everquest, where most of the servers don''t even allow players to attack one another, there''s really nothing a player can do when another player harasses him/her. All you can do is /tell a GM and hope that they catch the perpetrator ''in the act'' (when it''s verbal harassment, you can actually forward the written text to the GM, making it a lot easier for the GM to determine if the harassing player should be scolded/banned/etc)
Personally, I favour a permanent death system for my rpg designs. That usually works pretty good with the ''I''m gonna f'' up your game'' type of players. I just consider them the ''bad element'' in the game world. They might cause some chaos, but the ''good'' players will eventually be able to bring him down. And if you have a rpg with permanent death that allows players to gain power while they play, the ''I''ll f'' you up'' gamer will quickly find it hard to cause any damage, simply because his targets will mostly be more powerful than himself.
quote: There are, what, 300,000 EQ subscribers. There''s no way everyone can get a perfect game. I can''t even think of 1 game that I find perfect, so the chances of 300k people all finding the same game are minimal.
True, but I still feel the sentiment of ''there''s just nothing better out there'' very strongly in the messageboard community. The game works, because there''s a large audience of ''achievers'' out there (nothing wrong with that word, just trying to define the type of player) and because it takes a lot of time to achieve the ultimate goal in EQ (which would be, the highest level, all skills maxed out, best equipment, killed a God, or whatever demands the players put on themselves).
quote: But as you probably know, what most EQ players are complaining about is not lack of RP. It''s having their classes ''nerfed'' or other classes ''buffed'', or equipment changing, or whatever. Mainly ''achiever'' concerns. Sometimes it''s about pkill too, but those kinds of problems have died down with the more recent segregation.
Yes, it always seemed like the biggest complaints (largest group or just loudest yellers?) came with patches that ''nerfed'' classes or equipment. I agree that those are mainly ''achiever'' concerns. It''s somewhat sad though to see that one of the biggest MMORPG games out there pretty much comes down to a huge audience of ''achievers''. I guess my bitterness comes from the fact that I feel it COULD be so much more. But perhaps that''s just wishful thinking.
quote: --But I still think that the number crunch stalemate is too limited. I think it''ll grow old soon.--
I don''t. I think it''ll continue forever. It won''t grow old, because it''s already old and people love it. Think about sports. Most of them are about accumulating more points than someone else, or reaching a certain position or quantity before someone else. Competition measured by quantitative means goes back for centuries, so don''t expect people to tire of it on computer games for a few hundred years yet.
I think that the computer industry works a little different though. People are getting more demanding (not just because of the computer industry, but because of the entire ''we can give you everything you want'' society we live in). I really think that the player community will always be looking for something new and fresh. I think that at the same time producers of games will be looking to create games similar to popular existing games. Myself, I think that''s silly. If an online game is popular, you have to either be 100% better to draw players from that other game to yours, or you have to be completely fresh. I''ve seen a share of MMORPG designs come by claiming to be everything that EQ is/was and then some... but they never quite hit it off (how''s Anarchy Online doing? Still buggy? The EQ messageboard community seemed to like it but seemed to agree that it was just too buggy in most cases).
quote: Maybe it''ll take something akin to an industry revolution before they start moving back into the niche markets again.
I think that what it takes is a few VERY creative VERY fresh games really hitting it off. We need a few really original game ideas that become a huge success (like the Sims, even though I haven''t tried it, and even though their plans to create an online Sim game seem... well, again it just doesn''t seem to fill my niche) for the big bosses to realize that perhaps they shouldn''t put all their money on ''yet another typical rpg/rts/fps/etc''.
quote: And you can hope that your players, if selected well enough, will create an interesting game atmosphere of their own as well. It''s certainly possible, given the right people.
Yes. Text based games really rely on the players themselves to create the kazaam. Graphic based games usually try to let the graphics take care of the kazaam, which just doesn''t work for me.
I somehow think that players who choose text over graphics are already likely to be able to provide that atmosphere you mentioned.
I''ll try to check out the links you provided to get some more insight into the text based game genre.
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
August 27, 2001 10:08 AM
Lot of posts. Not particularly relevant to anything I mentioned other than my thoughtless spiel about the state of CRPG''s, but it''s good to see people tossing their complaints around like pennies. I''m just happy everyone kept it polite.
Let me sidestep these arguments and get back to the point. Everyone but Silvermyst seems to have conveniently overlooked the line in which I said, "Naturally, this means the game needs something else to offer." You all have also ignored the paragraph after that, in which I explain why immersion is unusual in CRPG''s. I have a really big peeve about immersion. To me, it''s the most important factor of an RPG. If you have no immersion, the only people you''ll attract are achievers.
The whole point of this post is to determine what a game can provide to emphasize exploratory interaction over power-gaming. Not everyone likes to explore, so this genre would not cater to killers and achievers. That''s not my problem. And although we can assume the same solutions can be applied to MMORPG''s and single-player RPG''s alike, my focus is on single-player RPG''s. In retrospect, my implications were otherwise.
I guess my hypothesis is this: IF the game emphasizes immersion over abstraction (i.e., number crunching), WILL it attract more explorers and socializers? And if so, HOW do we make the game more immersive? Hell, I''ve been working on this problem for ages, and I could probably write a book on it. But I''d much rather hear what everyone else has to say.
First and foremost, first-person 3D equals immersion. While the control interface has a very big impact on this (I always say controls will make or break the game), visualizing everything in three dimensions as the character would see it is integral in creating a truly immersive environment. Thus we have problem #1: my game is isometric.
Second, controls must be intuitive to the game''s presentation. People now understand that first-person means the mouse will look around, and the arrow keys will move your character. It''s funny when you realize that this convention originated in the first-person shooter market, but it''s so elegant that it can seemlessly carry into any genre. Even third-person games like MDK and Giants use this style of interface.
Let''s explore this second "rule" a bit more, especially since my game is isometric. The question becomes, what is the most intuitive control interface for an isometric game? Well, there isn''t one. There are too many variations on genre and presentation to pin one down and call it the best. However, we can thin out our options. I find old school RPG''s to be more immersive than modern ones because they used gamepads almost exclusively. To me, gamepads are more intuitive than clicking where you want your character to go (especially in regards to Ultima Online; my GOD that game''s control was wretched).
Gamepads have the interesting psychological effect of functioning almost like an extension of your body. They fit comfortably into your hands, and they possess only enough buttons to get the job finished (except N64 gamepads, which I never liked). You don''t need to reach across a keyboard to execute commands, and you don''t need to drag a mouse around (possibly even lifting it several times), yanking on the cord for more slack. To me, gamepads are the perfect control interface for 2D games.
Here''s where the problem arises: are gamepads right for the theme? Because in my experience, control is just as relevant to the theme as ambient sounds. When people pick up a gamepad, they associate it with arcade action, because that''s how most old school games were designed. The same is true for me; I grab my gamepad whenever I expect to play Flashback or Devil Crash. I grab my mouse when I expect to play Fallout. Why don''t you guys give me some personal examples so I know what feels right for you?
Third, graphical immersion is all about textures and lighting! Every (non-fraudulent) graphic artist in the world will tell you this. Lighting is actually more important than texturing, but in modern graphics you need both to make a believable immersive setting. If you want a good example of how lighting can be used to immerse the player, check out the real-time shadows in Diablo II.
Fourth, aural immersion is all about ambient sounds. I don''t think anyone can disagree with this point, and I''m pleased to see more games using ambient sound effects to good measure. High-quality sounds are also important. The day of 16-meg machines is long gone. We can start using 44KHz 16-bit Mono voices now. This will only help the game in the long run.
Fifth, (I like to call this the Vulcan rule,) infinite diversity in infinite combinations. While I don''t literally mean "infinite" combinations, I expect any truly-immersive game to allow players to do just about anything they can imagine. We should be able to pick up and play with any moveable object in the game world. This doesn''t mean they have to react completely realistically (e.g., glass should break, but papers don''t necessarily have to flitter to the ground). It just means there should be an incredibly wide variety of things we can manipulate and apply to good use.
There was a game in development by Cerebrum Software a while back (before they went insane and dumped it for some kiddie crap) that proposed a world where virtually anything could be combined or used as a weapon. Chairs and pottery were viable weapons. Hot chocolate was created by mixing hot water with chocolate mix. In fact, all foods were created in this manner, by using a sort of "food alchemy" based on a massive database of combinations. There were a lot of patrons to Cerebrum''s message board, until they scrapped the whole thing out of the blue.
This opens up a lot of possibilities. Building items is one of those things many people really enjoy doing, if only to say "I made this." Merchandising them in a virtual economy is even better. Ultima Online supposedly accomplished this to good effect (after the bugs were weeded out). I think having the option to construct a great deal of your equipment would inspire a lot of ownership in the world, and ownership is just one more way to create a sense of immersion (see The Laws of Online World Design).
Damn, that''s a lot of writing. I''ll take a break for now.
Let me sidestep these arguments and get back to the point. Everyone but Silvermyst seems to have conveniently overlooked the line in which I said, "Naturally, this means the game needs something else to offer." You all have also ignored the paragraph after that, in which I explain why immersion is unusual in CRPG''s. I have a really big peeve about immersion. To me, it''s the most important factor of an RPG. If you have no immersion, the only people you''ll attract are achievers.
The whole point of this post is to determine what a game can provide to emphasize exploratory interaction over power-gaming. Not everyone likes to explore, so this genre would not cater to killers and achievers. That''s not my problem. And although we can assume the same solutions can be applied to MMORPG''s and single-player RPG''s alike, my focus is on single-player RPG''s. In retrospect, my implications were otherwise.
I guess my hypothesis is this: IF the game emphasizes immersion over abstraction (i.e., number crunching), WILL it attract more explorers and socializers? And if so, HOW do we make the game more immersive? Hell, I''ve been working on this problem for ages, and I could probably write a book on it. But I''d much rather hear what everyone else has to say.
First and foremost, first-person 3D equals immersion. While the control interface has a very big impact on this (I always say controls will make or break the game), visualizing everything in three dimensions as the character would see it is integral in creating a truly immersive environment. Thus we have problem #1: my game is isometric.
Second, controls must be intuitive to the game''s presentation. People now understand that first-person means the mouse will look around, and the arrow keys will move your character. It''s funny when you realize that this convention originated in the first-person shooter market, but it''s so elegant that it can seemlessly carry into any genre. Even third-person games like MDK and Giants use this style of interface.
Let''s explore this second "rule" a bit more, especially since my game is isometric. The question becomes, what is the most intuitive control interface for an isometric game? Well, there isn''t one. There are too many variations on genre and presentation to pin one down and call it the best. However, we can thin out our options. I find old school RPG''s to be more immersive than modern ones because they used gamepads almost exclusively. To me, gamepads are more intuitive than clicking where you want your character to go (especially in regards to Ultima Online; my GOD that game''s control was wretched).
Gamepads have the interesting psychological effect of functioning almost like an extension of your body. They fit comfortably into your hands, and they possess only enough buttons to get the job finished (except N64 gamepads, which I never liked). You don''t need to reach across a keyboard to execute commands, and you don''t need to drag a mouse around (possibly even lifting it several times), yanking on the cord for more slack. To me, gamepads are the perfect control interface for 2D games.
Here''s where the problem arises: are gamepads right for the theme? Because in my experience, control is just as relevant to the theme as ambient sounds. When people pick up a gamepad, they associate it with arcade action, because that''s how most old school games were designed. The same is true for me; I grab my gamepad whenever I expect to play Flashback or Devil Crash. I grab my mouse when I expect to play Fallout. Why don''t you guys give me some personal examples so I know what feels right for you?
Third, graphical immersion is all about textures and lighting! Every (non-fraudulent) graphic artist in the world will tell you this. Lighting is actually more important than texturing, but in modern graphics you need both to make a believable immersive setting. If you want a good example of how lighting can be used to immerse the player, check out the real-time shadows in Diablo II.
Fourth, aural immersion is all about ambient sounds. I don''t think anyone can disagree with this point, and I''m pleased to see more games using ambient sound effects to good measure. High-quality sounds are also important. The day of 16-meg machines is long gone. We can start using 44KHz 16-bit Mono voices now. This will only help the game in the long run.
Fifth, (I like to call this the Vulcan rule,) infinite diversity in infinite combinations. While I don''t literally mean "infinite" combinations, I expect any truly-immersive game to allow players to do just about anything they can imagine. We should be able to pick up and play with any moveable object in the game world. This doesn''t mean they have to react completely realistically (e.g., glass should break, but papers don''t necessarily have to flitter to the ground). It just means there should be an incredibly wide variety of things we can manipulate and apply to good use.
There was a game in development by Cerebrum Software a while back (before they went insane and dumped it for some kiddie crap) that proposed a world where virtually anything could be combined or used as a weapon. Chairs and pottery were viable weapons. Hot chocolate was created by mixing hot water with chocolate mix. In fact, all foods were created in this manner, by using a sort of "food alchemy" based on a massive database of combinations. There were a lot of patrons to Cerebrum''s message board, until they scrapped the whole thing out of the blue.
This opens up a lot of possibilities. Building items is one of those things many people really enjoy doing, if only to say "I made this." Merchandising them in a virtual economy is even better. Ultima Online supposedly accomplished this to good effect (after the bugs were weeded out). I think having the option to construct a great deal of your equipment would inspire a lot of ownership in the world, and ownership is just one more way to create a sense of immersion (see The Laws of Online World Design).
Damn, that''s a lot of writing. I''ll take a break for now.
GDNet+. It's only $5 a month. You know you want it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement