smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/04/90)
This is being cross-listed to rec.games.misc. Let's try to keep this discussion on the *design* of a game, *not* the system which it runs on, OK? Patrick Jost <jost@coyote.trw.com> says: >Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions >for what I'd consider better games: >1) Having to go through a tedious process of gaining "experience" before >being able to use certain spells and so on. As an alternative, I'd >recommend immediate access to just about everything, but making part of >the game sorting out what to do with them. For instance, if there are >several "attack" spells, which ones work best on which foes? Sure, you'd >be able to cast anything, but you'd better cast the RIGHT thing. Good observation, but I think magic is just too plentiful in RPG's as it is. There was a good review of the new Lord of the Rings RPG in a recent gaming magazine which pointed this out. In this new RPG magic users are not that powerful, and magic is hard to come by. This keeps the fighters from becoming mere baggage carriers after a certain level since most high level magic users in most games can wipe out half an army with a single spell. The article pointed out that in this new RPG the higher level MU's could be blown away by a mediocre MU from some other average RPG. I agree with you about the dumb idea of gaining levels to be able to do things. To me this is just a way of making the game last longer (which is unfortunately the intention of the programmers). Good grief, some games are long or too long already. Don't get me wrong--I love epic adventures and I almost always never give up on one I've started, but there are too many *bad* ways to make games last longer! (Like the blind mapping in Bard's Tale II.) But back to the original subject... I think I would rather see the player get *excited* when he/she is able to use a magic spell. Therefore I would like part of the game to be searching for magic items or spells AND finding out how to use them once found, as you mention above. Most games just allow you to use a spell once you get to that certain level, and what's so exciting about that? "Ho hum...another spell...guess I'll add it to the other fifty I have that I never use..." How many people out there have played any of the TSR games (Pool, Curse, Krynn, Blades, etc.)? Now be honest; what percentage of the available spells did you even use? How many times did you opt for the easy fireball routine instead of using the magic arrow? Too many spells either become obsolete or are never even used. Take Bard's Tale for instance--talk about tons of spells you never use! There were so MANY of them, and the ones that you did use were used so frequently there was nothing *special* about them, at least anything special to be excited about. And (to lengthen this tirade a little farther) I agree with you about searching for info on a magic item. In Might and Magic II (probably my favorite RPG) all the spells are listed for you right in the book. There's no chance for discovering a new one on your own, except in the sense of trying to find where some are located in the game. But you already know they are there somewhere. I would like to see a game designed where you have to be really sharp to find any magic items and have nothing mentioned in the book about them. You would be forced to learn about the history of the place, or talk to the right people, or maybe even experiment with the object before you learned its secrets. So I guess I'm generally agreeing with you, but stating that magic has become much too commonplace. Let's make it something *special*. >2) Running out of food, torches and so on. I think this reduces many >aspects of gameplay to tedium. Sure, you'd have to have these things >in real life, but I don't see that this adds anything to a game. True. There is a tension in RPG's and adventure games between what is realistic (in terms of correspondence between the gaming world and the real world) and what is practical and fun. We are forever wanting the gaming world to be more realistic, but if in fact something is *boring* we don't include it in the game, even if it would make the gaming world more realistic. There is nothing really too bad about this, after all it is a game and should be fun (yeah, for you die-hard RPG fans that statement nearly makes me cringe too :-). But of course when you're gaming system is not internally coherent, or if you're gaming system includes really dumb ways of doing things because "that's how it's always done" then the system should be revised. More on this below under #4. >3) Having a "quest" be an integral part of a game. Once the "quest" has >been accomplished, the game is more or less over. I'd like to see a game >where you just explore a large world-in fact, you could have the program >create an endless series of "random" worlds (along with different spell >characteristics and so on). I agree. There was some good discussion on this at the last Game Developer's Conference. It seems that the game designers are seeing this shortcoming too, and are now trying to develop a rich gaming world with an environment which would provide a "mood", and *then* drop a character into the middle of it so he/she can experience that world personally by interacting with it. This means either more miniquests or *only* miniquests; i.e., no ultimate objective. I too don't like the idea of being herded down a one way path in order to solve an ultimate goal in the way that the programmer wants it to be solved. This in my opinion is the big drawback about most of Sierra's games; they mostly consist of linear paths, and the only way to solve them is to do things in the "proper" order. Knights of Legend is one of the few games that doesn't have the "ultimate quest" syndrome. Check it out. >4) Lack of originality is chronic! Every game seems to have a few attack >spells, a few heal spells, transport spells and so on. For characters, >you get fighters, wizards and clerics; sometimes you get thieves, ninjas >and the like. Once again, I'd like to see more effort put into creating >a real "world" with characteristics to be learned as the game goes on. I agree! Here's another one for all you gamers out there: What about the whole concept of *hit points*? Now just think about that for a second. "Hit points"? We're so used to thinking in those terms we can't see how absurd this idea is. When you're dealing with computers of course one must reduce everything about a character to bits and bytes, but why be so bloody obvious about it? Or *at least* have the character be *wounded* if he's lost a few "hit points"! Your character could have 100 HP and be down to his very last HP (1 HP) and still be fighting like nothing is wrong. Stupid. >One of the best games I've had was Might and Magic. You've got good taste. :-) >Patrick Jost >jost@coyote.trw.com S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong) (11/04/90)
Interplay's Dragon Wars sets a good example to follow in the future. Dragon Wars utilizes a skill-based system. Granted, one needs to gain levels to get "skill points," but it is possible to have a character with just a few very high skills instead of a multi-skilled, well-rounded character. Magic spells must be found, and there are lots of surprises which are not level-dependent. Magic is relatively weak and fighters are NEVER useless. Origin's Ultima series also de-emphasizes magic. In Ultima V, there are certain spells not described in the rulebook which must be discovered by the player. Ultima VI players must buy the spells they want to use, so if it isn't useful, the player doesn't have to get it. I believe that inventory management - food, torches, and the like - is necessary in a truly excellent RPG. Well-implemented, it becomes part of the game world, enhancing rather than detracting from the gaming experience. Once again, look at Ultima VI. Here, players may fish for food, buy meat, or even buy flour and take it to a bakery and have it made into bread. This helps bring the world to life. Having unlimited resources is good in a dungeon hack 'n slash game, but not in a game where discovery is important. Anybody agree?
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/04/90)
Here's an additional thought of a practical nature. All of you know
how tedious it is to keep notes while you play an RPG. Even if you
have auto-mapping you still have 10-100 pages of notes. At least
I do! Why hasn't somebody programmed a game to use the printer for
note taking? Say for example someone you meet in the game says
something important and you need to write it down. Instead of turning
to the old pencil and paper you just press a key on the keyboard (such
as the PrtSc button or the "p" key) and the time, place, and content
of the conversation is printed out on the printer of your system. This
should be really easy to do since the whole thing could be kept in
ASCII characters. The game designer could even include a dozen or so
colored printer sheets with notebook holes on the side so you can file
them in a neatly organized notebook of some type, and if you wanted
more sheets just send the company a request with the appropriate $$$.
There's all kinds of variations on this, including printing to the
hard drive and allowing the player to view these messages at any time
in the game and to allow the players to organize them in any way they
like via a very simple word processor built into the game. If you're
playing off floppies there might be an "adventurer's journal" disk
where all these messages are kept. You could do the same thing with
maps, etc., etc.....
S. "Stevie" Smith \ + /
<smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
edu> \ + /
BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARCjost@alice.coyote.trw.com (Patrick Jost) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: > >I agree with you about the dumb idea of gaining levels to be able to do >things. To me this is just a way of making the game last longer (which >is unfortunately the intention of the programmers). Good grief, some >games are long or too long already. Don't get me wrong--I love epic >adventures and I almost always never give up on one I've started, but >there are too many *bad* ways to make games last longer! (Like the >blind mapping in Bard's Tale II.) But back to the original subject... >I think I would rather see the player get *excited* when he/she is >able to use a magic spell. Therefore I would like part of the game >to be searching for magic items or spells AND finding out how to use >them once found, as you mention above. >So I guess I'm generally agreeing with you, but stating that magic >has become much too commonplace. Let's make it something *special*. Sure! I'd be all for that! Certain objects would be required to cast certain spells (make some of them BLOODY hard to get); some spells only work in certain places (inside, outside, near water, away from water); certain spells can only be cast by certain types of characters (e.g. women, elves, monsters). I didn't mean to suggest that all spells would be available at all times...but just accumulating "points" is foolish! PJ -- | Patrick Jost (PJester) | "The thief of Baghdad hides in Islington now" | jost@coyote.trw.com | -Marillion (Fish)
conty@cbnewsl.att.com (enrique.conty) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: > This is being cross-listed to rec.games.misc. Let's try to keep > this discussion on the *design* of a game, *not* the system which > it runs on, OK? Fine. > Patrick Jost <jost@coyote.trw.com> says: >>Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions >>for what I'd consider better games: > > >1) [Why do we need to gain experience before getting the spells]? > > Good observation, but I think magic is just too plentiful in RPG's as > it is. [stuff deleted] Good point. Those Bard's Tale II spells that cause up to 800 HP damage per monster (or some such figure) sound too much like power gaming for my taste. How about this: have a very limited set of spells (less than 10). As experience increases, more powerful versions of the same spells can be used. > I agree with you about the dumb idea of gaining levels to be able to do > things. To me this is just a way of making the game last longer (which > is unfortunately the intention of the programmers). [stuff deleted] I don't quite agree. I like watching my cast of characters grow from a bunch of pathetic weaklings to a well-organized group of heroic adventurers. > [stuff deleted] I would like to see a game > designed where you have to be really sharp to find any magic items > and have nothing mentioned in the book about them. You would be > forced to learn about the history of the place, or talk to the right > people, or maybe even experiment with the object before you learned > its secrets. Like Ultima IV, where you had to find reagents and combine them in the correct proportions to create spells. What I liked about this system is that for some of the spells you had to experiment by yourself (given that you're familiar with the effects of various reagents) to get the right combination! > >2) Running out of food, torches and so on. I think this reduces many > >aspects of gameplay to tedium. Sure, you'd have to have these things > >in real life, but I don't see that this adds anything to a game. I prefer to think of it as non-combat planning strategy. From M&M II (now playing): "Let's see, should I spend 20 gold on a lantern, given that I have two characters which can cast light spells, or use the money to buy that nifty ring mail?" As it turned out, I ended up with an extinguished light in a non-magic zone shortly thereafter. I don't have a problem with having to do this sort of planning (unless taken to an extreme). > >3) Having a "quest" be an integral part of a game. Once the "quest" has > >been accomplished, the game is more or less over. [stuff deleted] I agree, but if we remove this, what is the purpose of the game? We could make it an "exploration" game, but without the "goal" incentive most kids might not be too interested in it, and the game wouldn't sell as well. About the need of alternate ways to solve an adventure (or a specific puzzle): you're right on target!! > >4) Lack of originality is chronic! Every game seems to have a few attack > >spells, a few heal spells, transport spells and so on. For characters, > >you get fighters, wizards and clerics; sometimes you get thieves, ninjas > >and the like. Once again, I'd like to see more effort put into creating > >a real "world" with characteristics to be learned as the game goes on. > > I agree! Here's another one for all you gamers out there: > What about the whole concept of *hit points*? Now just think about > that for a second. "Hit points"? We're so used to thinking in > those terms we can't see how absurd this idea is. When you're > dealing with computers of course one must reduce everything about > a character to bits and bytes, but why be so bloody obvious about > it? Or *at least* have the character be *wounded* if he's lost a > few "hit points"! Your character could have 100 HP and be down to > his very last HP (1 HP) and still be fighting like nothing is wrong. > Stupid. Excellent point. All these concepts (character classes, hardwired moral alignments, hit/magic points, etc.) are leftovers from AD&D, which have since been superseded (sp?) by better game mechanics. One of the things I liked the most from Interplay's Wasteland is that you could create any kind of character if you gave him/her the right set of skills (no character classes here). I think that the computer should be used to REMOVE the number-crunching drudgery from the game. As the character advances in experience (note that I haven't made any mention of levels) she would realize that she can strike harder / last more in combat / cast more powerful spells than before. While we're at it, what's with the f*@&!#% obsession with Sword-and-Sorcery scenarios in CRPGs? What's wrong with roleplaying in other historical/fantasy scenarios (Cyberpunk, feudal Japan, traditional SF)? Me, I'd love to see a CRPG based on turn-of-the-century science and adventure fiction (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc). I haven't played the Space 1889 RPG, but it sounds similar. > >One of the best games I've had was Might and Magic. > > You've got good taste. :-) Personally, I prefer the Ultima series. Also, note that all of the faults described above can be found in Might & Magic. Waiting for a computer equivalent of GURPS, -- E n r i q u e C o n t y jester@ihlpl.att.com
sandy@snoopy.cs.umass.edu (& Wise) (11/06/90)
> Me, I'd love to see a CRPG based on turn-of-the-century science and > adventure fiction (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, > etc). I haven't played the Space 1889 RPG, but it sounds similar. I recently saw a review of a CRPG based on the GDW's _Traveller_ mechanics, and world (the game occurs just before the Fifth Frontier War, for those knowledgable about Imperium history). Apparently, the same company has a _Space 1889_ game... I think the article was in "Computer Gaming" magazine... /s -- Alexander Erskine Wise /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Software Development Laboratory /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ WISE@CS.UMASS.EDU /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\ This situation calls for large amounts of unadulterated CHOCOLATE! /\/\/\
bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes:
)This is being cross-listed to rec.games.misc. Let's try to keep
)this discussion on the *design* of a game, *not* the system which
)it runs on, OK?
)
)Patrick Jost <jost@coyote.trw.com> says:
)
)>Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions
)>for what I'd consider better games:
)I agree! Here's another one for all you gamers out there:
)What about the whole concept of *hit points*? Now just think about
)that for a second. "Hit points"? We're so used to thinking in
)those terms we can't see how absurd this idea is. When you're
)dealing with computers of course one must reduce everything about
)a character to bits and bytes, but why be so bloody obvious about
)it? Or *at least* have the character be *wounded* if he's lost a
)few "hit points"! Your character could have 100 HP and be down to
)his very last HP (1 HP) and still be fighting like nothing is wrong.
)Stupid.
)
Runequest (a non-computer FRP game) has a very good fixed hitpoint system
which avoids this problem. The only drawback is that even a very experienced
character can be killed in one blow by a lucky shot. This is probably
realistic, but it's not very dramatic.
Hit points were fixed from the start, based mostly on constitution and
size, and were subdivided into specific locations. The system would cover
incapacitated and totally severed limbs. A severed result for a vital
area like the head would mean instant death.
The original Runequest had a pretty good magic system which was not
excessively powerful (at least the battle-magic spells were not - the rune
magic spells might be a little on the strong side). I'm not sure what these
are callled in the new Avalon Hill version, which has everything under the
sun as far as magic goes - but a typical spell would be bladesharp, which
would give edged weapons an extra hit probability and damage, or a
protection spell which would add a small amount of extra armor protection.
Direct damage spells were rare - though there was a befuddle (confusion), a
'hold person' equivalent (harmonize - by its nature only usable on one person
unlike the DD variety), and a 'disrupt' - one target SMALL direct damage.
Runequest also had a skill based system, and one didn't pick and
choose what skills one got better in, but improved them through direct
practice (with possible assist through expensive training - but training
would require improvement through direct personal experience after a point).
Its a very nice system - the only drawback to it is that the
characters generated are more or less human, not demi-gods.
[This may be an advantage - but I think that the demi-god
nature of many of the popular game system meets some
dramatic and psych needs].draphsor@elaine0.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) (11/08/90)
It looks like what you guys are looking for is not so much a computer role-playing game of the sort that have come out (basically hack-n-slash, with some puzzle solving but to an extent isolated from the role-playing experience), but rather an implementation of a role-playing system on the computer. That is, getting the computer to represent your characters and the world they interact with in its terms, and to take care of all the mechanical stuff of how they interact, how combat works, etc. A couple of points. 1) This is a *very* ambitious project. From what I've seen, most computer games implement a fairly detailed combat system, a detailed but simplistic magic system (mainly useful in combat), and then a very simplistic set of rules about movement and character interaction. The character interaction stuff especially is very weak. Now, if you're going to make a really general game system, you're going to have to throw away all assumptions about what kind of characters are going to be coming along, what kind of goals they're going to have, etc. The programmer will have to come up with a completely *general* way for non-player characters to react to the players. This is a daunting task to say the least. Even the less demanding (theoretically - as, to truly implement general NPC reaction, you need sophisticated AI) task of setting up rules for most of the normal actions characters wish to take is pretty tough. To get an idea of the number of rules needed, take a look at a Role-Playing Game - say, GURPS. The Basic rulebook is about 300 pages. Granted, not all of this is mechanistic rules by any means. But still, there's a lot of information in there. Coding this in a general way would be real tough. But, let's grant that we are able to do this - code a general system. We now have to create a world. On the character-creation side, this isn't too tough. We just give the players certain limited options depending on how the world is set up. But when it comes time to start detailing the world - well, here you're in trouble. As soon as you throw away the 'quest' and 'one true path' ideas, you have to attempt to account for *everything* your characters might do. In a RPG with a game master, the game master can make the decisions about how hard this wall is to climb and such. A computer isn't quite so smart - it needs to know. You'd need a very sophisticated world-builder with a large set of objects in order to come up with anything vaguely believable. Not to say that it couldn't be done. But it would be tough. In conclusion, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the games that most people here seem to want (and I must admit, I'm one of them in spades!) are out of the realm of true 'games' and much more into 'simulations'. When you're trying to simulate the complexities of 'real' life (albeit with fantastic elements), the programming gets incredibly complex. (This is speaking as a purely amateur pseudo-programmer; I've done some very limited actual programming. But I think I have a good enough understanding to be at least semi-aware of the difficulties involved. At the very least, I don't think I'm over-stating the difficulty...) 2) There is no 2. I said everything I wanted to say in 1. :) -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu
draphsor@elaine0.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) (11/08/90)
lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong) writes: >I believe that inventory management - food, torches, and the like - is >necessary in a truly excellent RPG. Well-implemented, it becomes part of the >game world, enhancing rather than detracting from the gaming experience. Once >again, look at Ultima VI. Here, players may fish for food, buy meat, or even >buy flour and take it to a bakery and have it made into bread. This helps >bring the world to life. Having unlimited resources is good in a dungeon >hack 'n slash game, but not in a game where discovery is important. Well, it depends on what the object of the game is. If the game is basically just combat and exploration - how far can I get on how much money, etc - then inventory management becomes an element of strategy. If your game focuses more on role-playing and doing things in different places (exploration, but of a less war-game orientation), then it becomes annoying. After all, you'd think that characters who lived in those times would have developed certain 'standard' procedures to deal with things like getting food. Options: Make the player do everything. Grittily realistic (assuming realistic rules - not a given by *any* means), but can become tedious as you prepare for your tenth overland journey and have to go to the same five shops to get the provisions you need. Let the player create 'standard operating procedures'. Go through the gritty realism once, then save that as a macro (basically) and reimpliment it whenever the same situation comes up. This can be more or less automatic. Forget about all this boring stuff, and get to the excitement. Makes the game play more like a 'high fantasy' novel, where the mundane concerns of when to go to the bathroom and where to get food never seem to bother the characters, except when it adds to dramatic tension. Runs the risk of losing suspension of disbelief, though. For instance, if there is no way for the player to make an intelligent choice and avoid (near- this is heroic, remember) starvation in the desert, the player is going to get frustrated by the lack of control. Well, that's enough for this posting. Comments? >Anybody agree? -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu