Japanese-style computer-rpg mechanics? [ot?]

[afray]

In any case, you mention stuff that is both complex and intuitive. Why would you assume that more complexity would have to be less intuitive if that's what you want? You seem to assume that any complexity we can add would automatically become unplayable.

You got me, I am being a bit cynical.  :-)
My point isn't that complexity is bad, it's that needless complexity is bad.  Each layer has to complement each other, but still function independantly, and *each layer* has to be intuitive to grasp.  There has to be a learning curve for the user to grasp these mechanics, and above all, they have to be fun. ;-)  A big pot of great ideas doesn't always make a great game.

We're actually quite a lot better at design than you seem to think.

I didn't mean to slight you or the others here.  In fact, one of the reasons I posted here was to tap the wealth of experience that's obvious even to an outsider like me.

For example, to add to Contracycle's comment about leveling, what about detailed damage? One thing that's always boggled me is why damage is always doled out as Hit Points making it a very simple resource management part of gameplay. Why not include hit locations and various effects of damage to different locations? My god, how well would a game sell if your character might suddenly have a limp?

<snip other valid points>

Mike

Location damage, limps, etc., are all good ideas, and would add to a game experience if done well.  As far as more intuitive than plain ol' hp goes, I'm not so sure.  Hp may not be realistic, but it sets out an obvious constraint.  The user can work out immediately how much more damage needs to be done to kill a monster, etc.  If the monster has two damaged arms but a perfect torso, how close are they to death?  Even if you add hp to each limb, how do they total?  And you have to take account of all of this every turn and the monster's natural resistence to elemental spells, armour type, his buddies, middle name...

Plus there's probably other cultural reasons why crpgs are still quite similar to ttrpgs.  Historically, they were just computer simulations of ttrpgs.  It's only recently that they've had the computer power to branch out in scale compared to TTs, and yet there's already a "tradition" now of doing crpgs in a certain way.  Also, crpgs don't make a lot of money (except in Japan) which can stifle innovation.  

In addition, you guys have been designing RPGs for years and years.  CRPGs to many people mean great storys and characters, with added character development.  Producing an original and interesting crpg isn't about creating new mechanics, but about producing a fine story.  Your rulesets are so well balanced that we can just grab them off the shelf and spend resources from design on story creation.  So we've seen a lot of critically acclaimed and satisfying games that just use D&D rules -- but they're fun because they're so well told.  Never as much as a good dm, granted, but still excellent.

And, like I've said and given examples of, there is *plenty* of innovation in crpgs, from full real-time systems and strategy-rpgs to geo-panels and item worlds.

Answering contra's point, I'm using leveling because the point of my game is to take a lowly team of characters and work them up the ranks to the top.  Levels provide an obvious way to show the user this progress, and compare players.  I know what you mean about challenging tradition, but it's a tradition for a reason -- it's a great system. :-)

Cheers guys, and thanks again for your help.  I don't want any of you to think I was trying to "use" you, I just wanted a few pointers.  With your help in this thread I should be able to get some prototypes running, and I hope you'll have a gander at them then and let me know your opinions.

Andy.

[Mike Holmes]

I know what you mean about challenging tradition, but it's a tradition for a reason -- it's a great system. :-)

I can't help myself. Levels a "great system"? Oh man.

Levels were invented in 1973 (earlier, really), and became obsolete in 1976. Yes, loads of people play D&D still. But they play D&D despite many, many, many, many ways that have been introduced that are, at least, intended to be improvements. Sure there will be some people who prefer levels to this day - just as there are people who still think that listening to albums on vinyl is superior.

When it comes down to it, it mostly has to do with people not wanting to get out of their comfort zone. So, if you want to make just another game, go ahead, assume things like leveling is the only way to make a player feel a sense of progress. Despite the fact that even Final Fantasy doesn't really use leveling anymore (when you get a level every fight, and possibly several it's something else entirely). There are so many other ways to do this that I wouldn't even know how to get started telling you about them. It's like you're speaking a whole different language.

The problem with getting advice here on what you want to do is not so much that we're TT gamers, but that we're indie gamers, and can't stand the mediocrity of the standard game. So we're not going to be agreeing with you any time soon that it's a good idea to make a game with levels just because everyone else does.

Just for some context, check out these: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/

Have you ever played the CRPG Darklands? Ultima Underworld?

Mike

[Callan S.]

Back to Adam's needs - if I read you correctly, your goals are to have a system with the "natural" ratings which produces characters that, when within three levels of each other, can compete. I assume you want a curve? Something like the following odds for the weaker character to win:

Same level = 40% to 50% chance to win
1 Level lower = 30% to 40% chance to win
2 Levels lower = 15% to 30% chance to win
3 Levels lower = 2% to 15% chance to win
4 or more Levels lower = Less than 2% chance to win

Mmm, probably off topic, but although I've begun to think that when you work out things this way its supporting simulationism rather than gamism. To look at it in a gamist light:
Same level = Small amount of resource management to win
1 Level lower = Medium amount of resource management to win
2 Levels lower = Quite a lot of management to win
3 Levels lower = Tons of management to win
4 or more Levels lower = Shit loads of management to win

When you work in percentages of who's going to win, you start making a game that tells you how the world works. And the gamist says 'so what?'.

Is this hard to understand or counterintuitive? Hardly. Instead of saying "1237 Points of Damage!" wouldn't it be more intuitive to have the display show that the character's arm is broken? Imagine how much more interesting the game-play of healing becomes if you have to decide which wound to heal up. Instead of just taking a potion and getting back a lump sum of HP.

Because most programmers don't know when to stop, and code in a death spiral. Ohh, so fun.

Personally I'd toyed with the idea of a one step death spiral. So you can have a broken arm, or broken leg or a spraned ankle...but only EVER one at a time. No stacking, no matter how the lure of realism gets to you. Once you have one of these wounds, you just can't pick up another until this one is healed/gone. This way you have some resource issue to deal with, which can change (heal your ankle (yay, I can run now!) and damn, get a big black eye from another fight...can't rely on sniping so much for awhile). Descrete wounding adding challenge to gamism.

[Mike Holmes]

Not sure what you're getting at. I'm not proposing that the players would know these odds. Just that this is, given the same tactics by both sides, and all else being equal, what the odds shifts might be vis a vis two characters of differing levels. The system wouldn't work out a percentage like this, and then roll to see who wins. You'd do round after round, etc, etc, playing out combats until, on average about 35% of characters one level lower won against those one level higher. That is, the percentages I gave would be design goals, not part of some mechanic.

And I can't tell from your post if you're pro or con death spiral. In either case, detailed wounding only seems to imply a death spiral - it doesn't have to end up being one. In any case, I think discrete wounding and being able to work around it in terms of fighting well or knowing how to deal with it in other ways would add all sorts of gamism.

In addition to all of this, I think that the way that many people play such games is purely explorative. That is, they're not playing to do well, they're playing just to get to the next cut scene. Watching my wife play FFX for example, convinced me that this is the case. Takes her about twice as long to get from scene to scene as me. The only incentive she has to do better is not based on a personal desire to display how well she can do vs the engine, but instead just to get to the next cut scene more quickly.

The real player rewards in this case are purely participationism exploration. So the assumption of gamism is, I think, at least not what all CRPG designers are really looking for.

Mike