RPG Report & Planescape: Torment

On Apr 20, 8:51 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <a20f8422-7f02-4dcf-abca-32fd3dcbafe1
> @d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, wolfi....TakeThisOut@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:07 am, "boolWorm" <none> wrote:
> > > "Gerry Quinn" <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > > What I proposed was that it be easy to be a reasonably good swordsman /
> > > > mage / whatever. In other words, almost any player with average
> > > > reflexes could take on a fairly challenging task quite well, especially
> > > > with help from the other characters. However, uber skills would require
> > > > mastering more complicated moves - basically so people can easily be
> > > > jacks of all trades, but not masters.
>
> > > That leaves out single player RPGs entirely. How do you propose players
> > > defeat the uber-bad-guy with "reasonable" skills?
>
> > > As for multi-player RPGs, it relegates them to social gatherings (see:
> > > second life) for the less-twitchily-endowed while the twitch masters play
> > > king of the hill.
>
> > > My dichotomy holds.
>
> > > Too boring to respond further. Maybe next week.
>
> > Hmm... my 2 cents just for the sake of it:
> > Twitch in RPGs is bad hmmmkey
>
> What's "twitch"? Some sort of natural talent that allows good players
> to press the correct button every two seconds or so?
>
> - Gerry Quinn

yep. twitch as in something that allows your 3 dexterity character to
act as if he had cat's reflexes. I don't mind non-turn based combat,
as long as the outcome (and even possibility of) actions depends
entirely on the character's stats. Perfect example: City of Heroes
(PC MMORPG)
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Apr 20, 8:39 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <0261c281-9a5c-4f23-a9cd-54cd4b5fb5b7
> @m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, allan_c_cybuls....TakeThisOut@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Apr 18, 6:58 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....TakeThisOut@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > If I can run a less-than-optimized build for my character and still be
> > mostly effective, then I can make my choices based on "what would my
> > character want to do?" instead of "what do I need to do to play the
> > game?". Adding player skill in no way addresses this; it simply adds
> > one more limitation to the character I want to create in that if I --
> > based on my own abilites -- could not play that class to the level
> > that I WANT to play that class to then I cannot build such an uber
> > character with that class. With skills and abilities, I can optimize,
> > say, swordsmanship by pumping all my skill points and ability gains
> > INTO that ... or I can build a more balanced character by, say, adding
> > some magic to it as well. With your method, I cannot be uber unless
> > _I_ can play the character uber, and that limits the characters I can
> > create. Which limits roleplaying.
>
> In the first place, you are now identifying roleplaying completely with
> combat or other skills. Is that where you want to go?
>
> And why is it bad that most characters won't be uber? As I stated, most
> people will have the ability to get very good at swordsmanship. That's
> no different from most games now.
>
> Sure the system could be augmented with various stats and tracking
> parameters - you could do a few extra percent damage depending on how
> often you have swung a sword, for example, or you could occasionally
> distribute training points.
>
> You could in that fashion generate a continuum from my game to a pure
> stats based game. Do you see any attraction in games focused towards my
> end of it?
>
> > Not that MMORPGs are actually GOOD at roleplaying, mind you [grin].
>
> Well no, not if they are about putting selecting combat-related stats...
>
> > > The player is in the picture when he tactically selects equipment, the
> > > best combat skills, a balanced party, etc. What are you going to do to
> > > eliminate this?
>
> > Why should I? Are you telling me that a character in an MMORPG
> > wouldn't want to make some of those choices?
>
> > Take CoX. If I play a "plant" controller, and refuse to group with
> > anyone who uses fire because fire hurts plants, how is that NOT the
> > same type of choice you're talking about and yet not a roleplaying or
> > character choice instead of a player one?
>
> > The choices you want us to make are choices because the player has a
> > certain trait; the choices I'm pushing for are because the CHARACTER
> > has certain traits.
>
> I think both kinds of game allow for that equally well, except that
> insofar as combat is important and based on allocation of balanced sets
> of stat points, role-playing will be more difficult because the role-
> players will be gimped.
>
>
>
> > > > > What I proposed was that it be easy to be a reasonably good swordsman /
> > > > > mage / whatever. In other words, almost any player with average
> > > > > reflexes could take on a fairly challenging task quite well, especially
> > > > > with help from the other characters. However, uber skills would require
> > > > > mastering more complicated moves - basically so people can easily be
> > > > > jacks of all trades, but not masters.
>
> > > > Which means that a player with average reflexes CANNOT play as a
> > > > master swordsman in that game. And you don't think that that limits
> > > > roleplaying?
>
> > > He can. The whole point is that someone with average reflexes CAN
> > > become a master swordsman. He won't be the very best swordsman in the
> > > game, but he will be a very good one.
>
> > You flat-out said above that people can easily be jacks of all trades
> > but not masters, implying that people with average reflexes would not
> > apply.
>
> What I meant was that people with average reflexes would be able to be
> jacks of all trades, or masters of few. Everyone could quickly learn
> the basics of swordplay, but would not be very good at it. (Admittedly
> there would be some players who could learn a lot of things different
> fast.)
>
>
>
> > > > Imagine that, in general, my intelligence is really high and my
> > > > dexterity is pretty low. If I was really in that world, I'd be
> > > > limited to mage classes. If the game tries to limit player skills
> > > > mattering, I could play an uber fighter OR an uber mage OR an uber
> > > > anything. If it doesn't, then I can't be an uber fighter, because my
> > > > own personal skills aren't good enough to allow that to occur. But I
> > > > play an RPG to -- at least potentially -- be something that I'm not
> > > > and never could be; your solution starts to limit that.
>
> > > I really don't follow that argument. Your intelligence in the real
> > > world has nothing to do with the INT statistic on a character that
> > > determines the amount of 'mana' he carries, and your dexterity has
> > > nothing to do with the DEX statistic that determines the chance that
> > > when you press the appropriate button, his sword will hit a monster that
> > > is in front of him.
>
> > Yes, absolutely, and this is why stat based systems work better. It's
> > YOUR proposal to REMOVE that that starts to bring in my personal
> > traits mattering.
>
> They still matter - you need skills to play any game, and these skills
> are not intrinsically different for a warrior and a mage - both amount
> to pushing the correct button at the correct time. So why build in a
> whole panoply of statistics to support your choice of whether to be a
> warrior or a mage?
>
> > > Your real world intelligence is used whether you play a mage or a
> > > swordsman, when you decide what to attack and how, select good weapons
> > > or enchants, etc. Your real world dexterity has very limited
> > > application in typical MMORPGs - the best players actually eliminate its
> > > effects by binding actions to keys instead of using the mouse. The
> > > games have a very slow 'tick rate' with at least a second between
> > > actions other than movement. Dexterity is not needed.
>
> > But in your proposal it is. And that "second tick tick" is not always
> > enough; for example, I personally have great difficulty chaining
> > attacks in DAoC because my reaction time for a dodge isn't fast enough
> > for me to take the next attack. And key presses may not work well for
> > me (I'm terrible using key controls). At any rate, it becomes a
> > limitation even if you don't think it is one for you.
>
> And as I said... it's a limitation in *every* game! I'm not talking
> about making a 'twitch' game - don't mistake boolworm's gibbering for
> anything I've said!
>
>
>
> > > Um... isn't "the chosen abilities and how they are employed" pretty much
> > > a description of what I am proposing? Except that I focus on how they
> > > are employed, not in grinding out levels of or bonuses to each skill, as
> > > in CoX. You want to be a swordsman? Then grab a sword and master the
> > > moves and strategies involved. It will be easy enough that anyone can
> > > learn to do it well, hard enough that the best will have an edge. But
> > > you have no way of knowing whether you'd be better at playing a
> > > swordsman or a mage depending on your real life intelligence or
> > > dexterity. Both involve pushing buttons and moving the mouse and paying
> > > attention to what's happening.
>
> > Yes, but mage in most worlds is far less dexterity dependent than a
> > fighter, because their role relies on knowing lots and lots of things
> > and spells and then casting the right spell with uber force to kill
> > things. Fighters tend to go for faster attacks. Depends on the class
> > and the design, of course, but if we eliminate stats from the
> > characters then it seems that playstyle should still conform to those
> > stereotypes -- or else, the playstyle is nothing like what the
> > character should be, which is bad -- and that means that what I said
> > would likely happen.
>
> Have you tried World of Warcraft? It's not like that at all. All the
> classes have pretty much equally complex skill sets and options. The
> mage is actually one of the simpler ones. If there's a speed difference
> between classes, it's very small - at most the difference between a 1.0s
> tick and a 1.5s tick.
>
> > Now, your proposal may start out less modest, but I don't see why that
> > would be good in the first place. Take KOTOR, for example: my Jedi
> > goes through a lot of sword techniques that I could never master. In
> > that game, they're (mainly; Flurry is a big exception) cosmetic, but
> > in my RPGs I'd rather hit a button and have the character do the
> > attack chain than be forced to do it myself. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Well, to use the basic attacks you'd just be hitting a button. To use
> more complex attacks, you might have to press two buttons, or watch a
> timer, or press a button when the monster has just blocked, or... Heck,
> I'm open to suggestions. if you feel the more cerebral player is hard-
> done by, maybe have a puzzle mini-game in which you guess the anatomy of
> a space monster, so that your next strike will go right through his
> heart! (Just so long as it doesn't delay your party.)
>
> Consider Puzzle Pirates, in which sword-fighting is implemented by way
> of a Tetris-like game. You can get different swords, but there are no
> stats.
>
> How about if swords were like Tetris, but maces were like an FPS? If
> you wanted to play a warrior, you could choose weapons to suit your
> skills. Or perhaps you could even decide which way you wanted to
> implement combat on any weapon. You could reserve the Tetris for your
> favourite weapon, and put FPS on a weapon you didn't care to use much.
> PvP would be tricky to implement, though...
>
> Well, there's my game-design idea of the day! I'd certainly try a game
> like that
>
> - Gerry Quinn

It might be a good game, just don't call it RPG.
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Apr 21, 12:49 pm, Gerry Quinn <ger... DeleteThis @indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <82a359d8-415b-4440-8e18-9337d2dbf1c9
> @p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, wolfi... DeleteThis @gmail.com says...
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:51 am, Gerry Quinn <ger... DeleteThis @indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > In article <a20f8422-7f02-4dcf-abca-32fd3dcbafe1
> > > @d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, wolfi... DeleteThis @gmail.com says...
> > > > Hmm... my 2 cents just for the sake of it:
> > > > Twitch in RPGs is bad hmmmkey
>
> > > What's "twitch"?  Some sort of natural talent that allows good players
> > > to press the correct button every two seconds or so?
>
> > yep. twitch as in something that allows your 3 dexterity character to
> > act as if he had cat's reflexes.  I don't mind non-turn based combat,
> > as long as the outcome (and even possibility of) actions depends
> > entirely on the character's stats.  Perfect example: City of Heroes
> > (PC MMORPG)
>
> What if you have to kill a guard while dodging his blows?  Every in-game
> action depends in the characte's stats, sure, but you have to personally
> coordinate the button pushing required to initiate the actions.  That is
> dependent on your RL skills.
>
> - Gerry Quinn

and that is bad imho. Your character's stats should define if the
character dodges or not. Your frantic shaking of the mouse left and
right shouldn't have anything to do (again, in a pure RPG game, not in
the so called 'action-RPGs'
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Apr 21, 2:23 pm, Zaghadka <zagha... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> The reason developers didn't add action elements in the early days of CRPG was
> because the processor couldn't handle anything more than calculating stats
> models.

Well, it's probably one reason. I think a bigger reason is
because the market back then really wanted a computerized
version of a pen-and-paper game.

--
Darin Johnson
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

In article <9c18244b-eac3-457f-9c10-cc48bb9948d5
@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, wolfing1.RemoveThis@gmail.com says...
> On Apr 20, 8:39 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....RemoveThis@indigo.ie> wrote:

> > Consider Puzzle Pirates, in which sword-fighting is implemented by way
> > of a Tetris-like game. You can get different swords, but there are no
> > stats.
> >
> > How about if swords were like Tetris, but maces were like an FPS? If
> > you wanted to play a warrior, you could choose weapons to suit your
> > skills. Or perhaps you could even decide which way you wanted to
> > implement combat on any weapon. You could reserve the Tetris for your
> > favourite weapon, and put FPS on a weapon you didn't care to use much.
> > PvP would be tricky to implement, though...
> >
> > Well, there's my game-design idea of the day! I'd certainly try a game
> > like that
>
> It might be a good game, just don't call it RPG.

Hmmm... why not, exactly? You're not doing real swordfighting in any
RPG, so why does it matter what mini-game you're actually playing? what
about lock-picking mini-games - do they make something more or less of
an RPG?

Okay, standard combat models *are* a bit closer to real combat in terms
of graphic representation, I suppose...

- Gerry Quinn
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

In article <82a359d8-415b-4440-8e18-9337d2dbf1c9
@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, wolfing1 RemoveThis @gmail.com says...
> On Apr 20, 8:51 am, Gerry Quinn <ger... RemoveThis @indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <a20f8422-7f02-4dcf-abca-32fd3dcbafe1
> > @d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, wolfi... RemoveThis @gmail.com says...

> > > Hmm... my 2 cents just for the sake of it:
> > > Twitch in RPGs is bad hmmmkey
> >
> > What's "twitch"? Some sort of natural talent that allows good players
> > to press the correct button every two seconds or so?
>
> yep. twitch as in something that allows your 3 dexterity character to
> act as if he had cat's reflexes. I don't mind non-turn based combat,
> as long as the outcome (and even possibility of) actions depends
> entirely on the character's stats. Perfect example: City of Heroes
> (PC MMORPG)

What if you have to kill a guard while dodging his blows? Every in-game
action depends in the characte's stats, sure, but you have to personally
coordinate the button pushing required to initiate the actions. That is
dependent on your RL skills.

- Gerry Quinn
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:23:36 GMT, Zaghadka <zaghadka.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
blabbed:

>But the real bitter pill for the old-school is that the tactical RPGs don't
>sell well, and the twitchier one's do.


I don't think that's exactly how it plays out. There's
something to be said for aiming for a niche market. When you go for
the lowest common denominator, try to please everyone, make your
twitch rpg clone - I think you have *greater* odds of failing. Much
greater. Its easy to think of all the successes in that field, but
think of all the clones that failed miserable, think of how much
competition there is. Every success is vastly outnumbered by failures.
The successes win big, but most attempts fail, or only barely manage
to keep their head above water. Few manage to do anything remotely as
well as the game they are cloning, no matter how big of a budget they
have. In fact, having to have such big budgets means they have to
make all the more money before they even break even.

When you aim for a niche market, you have almost no
competition, except for a handful of low budget indy games. Your game
is held to lower standards, the fans of the niche market are starved
for product, they'd buy a decent budget game in their area of interest
in spite of its flaws, rather than demand *the perfect magic formula*
which is needed for the next big hit when it comes to MMO's, action
rgp's, FPS's, etc... Of course, you can go too far, even the niche
crowd will dislike an unfinished pile of garbage, no matter how
starved they are, e.g. moo3.

Look at stardock's galciv series outselling so many mainstream
games. Even sins, an rts, but a very different kind of one,
definitely less twich (much slower pace) outselling so many mainstream
warcraft clones. Look at all the tactical rpg's (not meant in your
way, more like TBS strategy games, but they market them as 'tactical
rgp's) on consoles, fans can't get enough of 'em, though for some
reason you don't see any, not one, ported to the pc, so who knows how
they'd do.

Keep in mind, how much money you make also depends on what
your budget was in the first place. If you're the only game in town
for some sort of genre, you don't need a world of warcraft size budget
to get people to like your game, so you start making money after far
fewer sales.

And the problem isn't the twitch, except for those that have
problems physically handling the twitch of course,the problem is when
the twitch is the focus of the game. Like when its not an rpg w/FPS
elements, but when its an FPS w/RPG elements instead (but calling
itself an rpg of course).

Look at the witcher, it has twitch, has real time combat, but
that's not what makes the game so popular, plenty of unpopular games
have that too. And even though the combat is real time, its barely
twitch at all, its just click anywhere on the enemy, then sit back and
wait till the icon changes and click again. And usually 2 clicks does
the trick. And its less demanding on the timing of the clicks, than
fishing is in wow. I'd still call it twich, what tactical decisions
there are to make are all timed for sure, and boss battles are
definitely really twitchy, but more of your time is spent running
around putting together story elements to solve quests, your focus
most of the time isn't on the combat, at least not so much as your
average aciton rpg. And this game didnt' flop. I think people liked
this game for its differences from the mainstream, not the ways in
which it was the same.

That being said, the industry can be gun shy. A type of game
has a period where none of its releases sell well, even if its just
because the only releases were bug-fests, and the industry gets scared
to death of that type of game. Whereas wow makes unprecenteded
amounts of money, even right now today despite its age, so we should
make something like that as we know for a fact there's a market for it
because its making money *right now*, we won't fail miserably like
everyone else though, because we have MBA's, so we know the real
reason why wow is so successfull, we won't make the same mistake as
the other guys trying to clone wow.

Also, I think its much easier to design a game that's all
about action. Plop hordes of similar enemies in front of the player,
put some bosses in there, but some cookie cutter quests in there (if
any at all), and the rest of your effort can be put on the engine and
graphics, which you can then license out for even more money simply
because of how cool looking it is, for people to make their clones
with.

People are much better at trying to emulate other people's
successes than they are at coming up w/their own path to their own
success. Look at how many people followed gold rushes to no avail,
rather trying to strike out somewhere no one had tried yet. Look how
many people spend their lives going to 'get rich quick' seminars,
rather than trying to come up w/their own thing. It seems to be human
nature, even among MBA's. So I don't think anyone's going to be able
to change fact that there will be a lot of WoW clones, warcraft
clones, FPS clones, etc.. But we should be careful not to go around
saying there's no money to be made when breaking the mold, because
that's not true. Or even staying in the mold, but in a niche market
that's seen no love for a while (Master of Magic anyone?) People have
enough discouragement from doing so w/out us, their prospective
customers, telling them there's no hope in trying.

Personally, if I were a game maker, I'd concentrate on niche
markets exclusively, I think the odds of success are much *greater*
there (less competition), standards lower (you don't have to have the
end all be all system stressing graphics engine), and the risk of loss
much *less* (smaller budgets to lose when a game does fail).

Leo
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

Zaghadka <president.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>Honestly, I think the only reason we see those games overseas is because they
>get developed for the Japanese audience, which still enjoys a cerebral game. As
>I understand it, we don't see half the stuff they get in Japan. Just the cream
>of the crop. Is that correct?

In terms of console RPGs, I think almost most all Japanese games do
in fact make it over to North America. The ones that don't tend to be
remakes, or obscure even in Japan. It's a bit different for handhelds
RPGs, though, they're less likely to make it over.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge.TakeThisOut@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:27:57 +1000, Nostromo <nostromo DeleteThis @nospam.org> wrote:

>Ditto. So long as I can upload my own Jenna Jameson avatars >8^D
>(ok, I lie - I don't really go for blondes at all <G>)

Jenna and Darth - both more machine now than human.

/shudders
--
Michael Cecil
Now filtering Google Groups, OE and Idiots
http://macecil.googlepages.com/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Apr 20, 8:39 am, Gerry Quinn <ger... RemoveThis @indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <0261c281-9a5c-4f23-a9cd-54cd4b5fb5b7
> @m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, allan_c_cybuls... RemoveThis @yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Apr 18, 6:58 am, Gerry Quinn <ger... RemoveThis @indigo.ie> wrote:
> > If I can run a less-than-optimized build for my character and still be
> > mostly effective, then I can make my choices based on "what would my
> > character want to do?" instead of "what do I need to do to play the
> > game?". Adding player skill in no way addresses this; it simply adds
> > one more limitation to the character I want to create in that if I --
> > based on my own abilites -- could not play that class to the level
> > that I WANT to play that class to then I cannot build such an uber
> > character with that class. With skills and abilities, I can optimize,
> > say, swordsmanship by pumping all my skill points and ability gains
> > INTO that ... or I can build a more balanced character by, say, adding
> > some magic to it as well. With your method, I cannot be uber unless
> > _I_ can play the character uber, and that limits the characters I can
> > create. Which limits roleplaying.
>
> In the first place, you are now identifying roleplaying completely with
> combat or other skills. Is that where you want to go?

Um, since your method and your examples were ABOUT combat, why is it
that _I_ am identifying roleplaying completely with combat or other
skills simply by discussing the issue in the context you provided?

And in most MMORPGs, there really isn't anything else. Appearance,
for example, is taken care of pretty well in many of them, but there
aren't any real in-game roleplaying opportunities for that.

>
> And why is it bad that most characters won't be uber? As I stated, most
> people will have the ability to get very good at swordsmanship. That's
> no different from most games now.

I never said that it was bad that most characters won't be uber. I
said that it would be bad for a character to not be uber if the PLAYER
wanted to create an uber-swordsman (note the specific case there, BTW;
I meant uber in one ability, not necessarily overall). Ultimately, a
player should not be limited in the character they create by their own
abilities, and if they say "I'd like to be an uber swordsman, but I
don't have the reflexes" that's BAD for roleplaying.

>
> Sure the system could be augmented with various stats and tracking
> parameters - you could do a few extra percent damage depending on how
> often you have swung a sword, for example, or you could occasionally
> distribute training points.
>
> You could in that fashion generate a continuum from my game to a pure
> stats based game. Do you see any attraction in games focused towards my
> end of it?

I see games focussed towards your end of it as impeding roleplaying.
There may very well be an attraction in it -- for others; I don't care
much for them -- but they aren't improving roleplaying.

>
> > Not that MMORPGs are actually GOOD at roleplaying, mind you [grin].
>
> Well no, not if they are about putting selecting combat-related stats...

It isn't about that, but about what they let you do and how the world
is designed. Most MMORPGs are strictly about combat, and it doesn't
really change depending on what type of character you create. Thus,
bad roleplaying.

>
> > > The player is in the picture when he tactically selects equipment, the
> > > best combat skills, a balanced party, etc. What are you going to do to
> > > eliminate this?
>
> > Why should I? Are you telling me that a character in an MMORPG
> > wouldn't want to make some of those choices?
>
> > Take CoX. If I play a "plant" controller, and refuse to group with
> > anyone who uses fire because fire hurts plants, how is that NOT the
> > same type of choice you're talking about and yet not a roleplaying or
> > character choice instead of a player one?
>
> > The choices you want us to make are choices because the player has a
> > certain trait; the choices I'm pushing for are because the CHARACTER
> > has certain traits.
>
> I think both kinds of game allow for that equally well, except that
> insofar as combat is important and based on allocation of balanced sets
> of stat points, role-playing will be more difficult because the role-
> players will be gimped.

The solution to this is to do what CoX did and make different
powersets useful, and provide more viable builds.

> > > He can. The whole point is that someone with average reflexes CAN
> > > become a master swordsman. He won't be the very best swordsman in the
> > > game, but he will be a very good one.
>
> > You flat-out said above that people can easily be jacks of all trades
> > but not masters, implying that people with average reflexes would not
> > apply.
>
> What I meant was that people with average reflexes would be able to be
> jacks of all trades, or masters of few. Everyone could quickly learn
> the basics of swordplay, but would not be very good at it. (Admittedly
> there would be some players who could learn a lot of things different
> fast.)

Which is precisely the problem: if I have average reflexes, I can only
play a jack of all trades character. What if I didn't WANT to play
such a character?

> > > I really don't follow that argument. Your intelligence in the real
> > > world has nothing to do with the INT statistic on a character that
> > > determines the amount of 'mana' he carries, and your dexterity has
> > > nothing to do with the DEX statistic that determines the chance that
> > > when you press the appropriate button, his sword will hit a monster that
> > > is in front of him.
>
> > Yes, absolutely, and this is why stat based systems work better. It's
> > YOUR proposal to REMOVE that that starts to bring in my personal
> > traits mattering.
>
> They still matter - you need skills to play any game, and these skills
> are not intrinsically different for a warrior and a mage - both amount
> to pushing the correct button at the correct time. So why build in a
> whole panoply of statistics to support your choice of whether to be a
> warrior or a mage?

Because those statistics reflect the abilities that are required to BE
a character of that type in the world. The stats mean that your
character can act like a character would in that world without you
having to have those stats yourself.

>
> > > Your real world intelligence is used whether you play a mage or a
> > > swordsman, when you decide what to attack and how, select good weapons
> > > or enchants, etc. Your real world dexterity has very limited
> > > application in typical MMORPGs - the best players actually eliminate its
> > > effects by binding actions to keys instead of using the mouse. The
> > > games have a very slow 'tick rate' with at least a second between
> > > actions other than movement. Dexterity is not needed.
>
> > But in your proposal it is. And that "second tick tick" is not always
> > enough; for example, I personally have great difficulty chaining
> > attacks in DAoC because my reaction time for a dodge isn't fast enough
> > for me to take the next attack. And key presses may not work well for
> > me (I'm terrible using key controls). At any rate, it becomes a
> > limitation even if you don't think it is one for you.
>
> And as I said... it's a limitation in *every* game! I'm not talking
> about making a 'twitch' game - don't mistake boolworm's gibbering for
> anything I've said!

You are making the limitation more meaningful, by relying on it to
separate the best from the average instead of relying on the character
build to do that. You seemed to think that the limitation wasn't that
big a deal but it certainly becomes a bigger deal under your system --
since, by design, it's meaningful -- and it may be a bigger deal for
others than it is for you.

>
>
>
> > > Um... isn't "the chosen abilities and how they are employed" pretty much
> > > a description of what I am proposing? Except that I focus on how they
> > > are employed, not in grinding out levels of or bonuses to each skill, as
> > > in CoX. You want to be a swordsman? Then grab a sword and master the
> > > moves and strategies involved. It will be easy enough that anyone can
> > > learn to do it well, hard enough that the best will have an edge. But
> > > you have no way of knowing whether you'd be better at playing a
> > > swordsman or a mage depending on your real life intelligence or
> > > dexterity. Both involve pushing buttons and moving the mouse and paying
> > > attention to what's happening.
>
> > Yes, but mage in most worlds is far less dexterity dependent than a
> > fighter, because their role relies on knowing lots and lots of things
> > and spells and then casting the right spell with uber force to kill
> > things. Fighters tend to go for faster attacks. Depends on the class
> > and the design, of course, but if we eliminate stats from the
> > characters then it seems that playstyle should still conform to those
> > stereotypes -- or else, the playstyle is nothing like what the
> > character should be, which is bad -- and that means that what I said
> > would likely happen.
>
> Have you tried World of Warcraft? It's not like that at all.

Yes, and that's what I didn't like about it [grin]

All the
> classes have pretty much equally complex skill sets and options. The
> mage is actually one of the simpler ones. If there's a speed difference
> between classes, it's very small - at most the difference between a 1.0s
> tick and a 1.5s tick.

Note that my point was that once you bring player ability into the
picture as a big factor either you have a playstyle unrelated to a
character -- ie mages need player dexterity instead of intelligence,
which they aren't supposed to need in the world -- or you start making
the player requirements for the class match those of the class itself,
making it so that people are choosing classes based on their own
ability.

Neither of those really encourage roleplaying.

>
> > Now, your proposal may start out less modest, but I don't see why that
> > would be good in the first place. Take KOTOR, for example: my Jedi
> > goes through a lot of sword techniques that I could never master. In
> > that game, they're (mainly; Flurry is a big exception) cosmetic, but
> > in my RPGs I'd rather hit a button and have the character do the
> > attack chain than be forced to do it myself. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Well, to use the basic attacks you'd just be hitting a button. To use
> more complex attacks, you might have to press two buttons, or watch a
> timer, or press a button when the monster has just blocked, or... Heck,
> I'm open to suggestions. if you feel the more cerebral player is hard-
> done by, maybe have a puzzle mini-game in which you guess the anatomy of
> a space monster, so that your next strike will go right through his
> heart! (Just so long as it doesn't delay your party.)
>
> Consider Puzzle Pirates, in which sword-fighting is implemented by way
> of a Tetris-like game. You can get different swords, but there are no
> stats.
>
> How about if swords were like Tetris, but maces were like an FPS? If
> you wanted to play a warrior, you could choose weapons to suit your
> skills. Or perhaps you could even decide which way you wanted to
> implement combat on any weapon. You could reserve the Tetris for your
> favourite weapon, and put FPS on a weapon you didn't care to use much.
> PvP would be tricky to implement, though...
>
> Well, there's my game-design idea of the day! I'd certainly try a game
> like that

I won't say that that sort of game is bad. I wouldn't play it, but I
can see why someone might enjoy it. However, this sort of system is
NOT improving roleplaying, and still limits the characters I can
create. If I'm bad at Tetris, I can't use swords. If I'm not good at
FPS, I can't use maces. Or I have to find a combat system that works
for my abilities and assign it to my favorite weapon. And note that
the Tetris "mini-game" is completely unrelated to combat, which breaks
immersion. Wasn't it Morrowind that was criticized for this with its
lock-picking and diplomacy mini-games?
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

On Apr 21, 12:46 pm, Gerry Quinn <ger....DeleteThis@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <9c18244b-eac3-457f-9c10-cc48bb9948d5
> @e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, wolfi....DeleteThis@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 8:39 am, Gerry Quinn <ger....DeleteThis@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > Consider Puzzle Pirates, in which sword-fighting is implemented by way
> > > of a Tetris-like game. You can get different swords, but there are no
> > > stats.
>
> > > How about if swords were like Tetris, but maces were like an FPS? If
> > > you wanted to play a warrior, you could choose weapons to suit your
> > > skills. Or perhaps you could even decide which way you wanted to
> > > implement combat on any weapon. You could reserve the Tetris for your
> > > favourite weapon, and put FPS on a weapon you didn't care to use much.
> > > PvP would be tricky to implement, though...
>
> > > Well, there's my game-design idea of the day! I'd certainly try a game
> > > like that
>
> > It might be a good game, just don't call it RPG.
>
> Hmmm... why not, exactly? You're not doing real swordfighting in any
> RPG, so why does it matter what mini-game you're actually playing? what
> about lock-picking mini-games - do they make something more or less of
> an RPG?
>
> Okay, standard combat models *are* a bit closer to real combat in terms
> of graphic representation, I suppose...

Selecting an ability or action and having the character do it is NOT a
mini-game; it's an interface [grin].
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 

In article <fujubf$h6v$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
Ross Ridge <rridge RemoveThis @caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Zaghadka <president RemoveThis @whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>Honestly, I think the only reason we see those games overseas is because they
>>get developed for the Japanese audience, which still enjoys a cerebral game. As
>>I understand it, we don't see half the stuff they get in Japan. Just the cream
>>of the crop. Is that correct?
>
>In terms of console RPGs, I think almost most all Japanese games do
>in fact make it over to North America. The ones that don't tend to be
>remakes, or obscure even in Japan. It's a bit different for handhelds
>RPGs, though, they're less likely to make it over.

I don't believe this is necessarily the case. The biggest sellers are
certainly localized, thanks in part to years of familiarity. But some of
the most representative games are never brought over, and for a variety of
reasons. Sakura Taisen is a tactical RPG with a relationship subgame, and
it spawned four sequels and ports to three different platforms. Hugely
popular in Japan and recognized for incredible depth, but those who have
attempted to translate it can't get through the language puns and what's
essentially a dating game in the transitions between battles. The other
one that comes to mind is Utawarerumono, which is a grid-based tactical
RPG whose story segments feature nudity and sexuality not easily edited
out of the plot. Not obscure or redundant at all, but also not something
that would easily enter an American market.

Zag's statement about the cream of the crop being localized is fairly
accurate, although in my opinion there's terrific stuff that doesn't make
it to these shores. When publishers are judging game value, they're
looking at potential sales rather than qualities that we would rate highly
as players.

I've always wondered how localization works the other way arround.
Morrowind was moderately popular in Japan, and I remember asking about how
the issue of language formality was addressed as your character grew in
social importance. Judging by the number of Diablo clones that have come
out of Japan in the last five years, I imagine Blizzard's titles are well
represented as well.

-KKC, up too early.
--
-- "Arabs are the new Asians, at least in media. Stereotypes gave way to
deeper roles over 40 years of assimilation into western culture. Bruce Lee
kicks ass, Jackie Chan gets laughs, B.D. Wong is a top. Arabs have | kendrick
had Klinger and Monk. Clearly, they have some catching up to do." | @io.com
 >> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment