I was thinking a bit about rules system for rpg game. If your system is poorly designed, it in no time become uncontrollable and you end up with unbalanced game. When to think of it, all those stats numbers are probably interesting only for economists, but not for gameplay. The truth is that player will not see the difference between attacking monster which is for example 10% stronger than player, from monster,which is 15% stronger..
To see the difference, the difference must be big enough, and if small differences are not useful, the rpg system should not allow them at all. To make such system I have grouped tasks into difficulty levels. I've created a few groups, just easy, normal, hard and difficult.
I run a simple test program to see the outcome of such system, here are the outputs:
Attacking easy enemy- Hit
- Hit
- Miss
- Hit
- Hit
- Hit
- Hit
- Hit
- Hit
- Miss
Attacking normal enemy
- Hit
- Hit
- Miss
- Hit
- Miss
- Miss
- Hit
- Miss
- Miss
- Hit
Attacking hard enemy- Hit
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Hit
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Hit
Attacking difficult enemy- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Hit
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
- Miss
Of course output is randomized, so different runs give different results. What I like about the approach I used is that you can just by looking see clearly the difference in the task difficulty. Now all what game needs to do is to tell which monster belong to which group, taking into account such thing like experience with using weapons(hitting a monster with a bow for an archer is easier task than for a warrior) and other factors.
Posts
8 comments:
I don't like the classic D&D system with hit and miss. It's so far from how a real sword fight works.
You parry and dodge, and feint and so on. And often when you get hit you die.
You can't take 10 hits in the chest (without steel armour). You don't stand still when you fight, those that do, die fast. You don't get more health and strength by doing the last killing bow. You get better by missing (and hitting), alot. Often int the training field. But you cant get better in sword fight by using a bow or a axe. Sure, you could get more bold by killing a monster, but getting better at hitting monsters by doing the killing blow is very illogical. Yes you might see where it's armour is weaker. But why should a hit on the chitin armour of the insect gain no experience, but hitting it in the eye and killing it will (why should it die by losing the sight).
Making something more real, doesn't mean less fantasy, or less rpg. It's just how most people think a RPG system must work. And they think every other system is boring. Why is it more boring to get better at a skill you exercise in, than going through some strange menu with strange number that you add, then magically get better in that strange text (more often than you can't read anyway in a medieval/fantasy world).
And why does everyone think RPG means just experiences and levels. Drakborgen/Dragon Quest, doesn't have any experience system, but I don't think it's less RPG because of that.
RPG is how you can get into someone elses world. How good you can act in some other way you don't usually do. Just read out the words. Roll Playing Game. I recommend reading some fantasy novels. Especially those that are for grown ups (that dosn't remove violence are most real), like Wheel of Time (by Robert Jordan) or Song of Ice and Fire (by George R Martin).
Not having level system is not making it automaticly more complex. But you as the designer have to think more how to do it well.
We can compare these things to a movie. Some director/writers think just because a movie is not of this world, almost evey aspect of the physics can be changes, because it's already unreal. But the more you change (that you don't have to change), the less beleaving is the movie.
Like the Hulk (2003), where the physics changes all the time, sometimes he can carry one ton, and sometimes hundred tons. And those without much intelligence would just say, why do you care, it's already unreal (or those that think they can something would say, it's just because he gets stronger the more angry he is). The physics is changed all the time so the movie is never exciting becuase you know he can take anything (when it fits).
And in fantasy games, everyone thinks holding a 50x30x30cm hammer is coool, or holding a half meter thick and 3 meter long sword is also cool. But they never think about how much it would weight. If they had the strength to lift this 10 ton hammer, why not just toss a stone a few kilometers like a trebuchet. Or just crush anything with there arms.
I agree only in half with you. Yes I know that hit and miss thing is not very realistic (fantasy is my favorite genre after all), and I know the origin of RPG computer games and what this acronym means.
Role Playing Games, were designed to be played at the table, with other people, with game master and so on. And the most stress was placed in them to descriptions. Players were giving elaborate descriptions about what kind of attack they are making and game master decide about the outcome of their actions.
In computer rpg games, you don't use elaborate descriptions, actually you don't even use much imagination because all is displayed in graphics for you. I think that computer RPG is focusing more on fun from gameplay than realism. I mean, how much immerse you can get with top down view at the battle field?
As for hit-miss, I think that game which allows instant death after begin hit by monster will be very frustrating for the player.
@Zuul: The old "final blow" version of experience you cite is a very old one. Most modern RPGs (including D&D) don't require you to be the one delivering the final blow (or even killing the "monster") to get experience. Lots of modules have the big bad guy find a way to escape at the end so they can sell the next module, where you chase them to...
@Kamil: Reality is that even small tweaks (like 5%) can and do make a difference. It may not be immediately perceivable, but like many things in RPG, it's cumulative. Facing one monster at 10% vs 15% makes no noticeable difference. Facing 30 in a row, you'll see a large difference, since on average you'll have a bigger loss because of that extra 5%. It takes months to years of study, analysis, and play testing to make a balanced game system. Even the big RPG systems like D&D have had to tweak their system with errata in every system they've released.
I do agree that the "hit/miss" version of attack is a bad one. Some RPG systems have found ways to fix that using a delta value based on how close you came to the target value. But statistically most games balance it so it comes out the same, and hit/miss systems are easier (math wise) for people to use with pencil and paper, which is how many RPG were traditionally played. Does it make sense to use that system with a computer doing the math? Maybe not, but then if you change that system, you have to deal with finding a balanced way to do it, which is a lot of work.
And if you think it's not hard to balance a game, just look at how many people think SM2 is too hard. Enough that you had to make and easy mode for it...
Well I don't think SM2 is too hard. It's too easy when you know what to do. You can get infinite gold by gambling saving/reloading, or get infinite health with the healing spell, and so on.
Yes some games gives some experience by just hitting an enemy. But I know of no game that gives experience when you miss the target. You get better by missing in real life, learning from your mistakes and by repeating a task to make you faster and less thought is needed.
Also why should not the exploring part in this type of game give some experience? Or by evoiding hits? And so on.
Also I don't know of any game that will degrade any stats with time. In real life you loose muscle strength if you don't continue to build (well until some minimum at least).
Most would say that would make a game boring. But how do they know? Have they tried such game? It could be done in a good way, and I will try to do it in my game.
Back to the topic of the simple hit/miss. I will make a minigame (or two) when you fight. So it can show more than this top down view.
So dodge/fint and such will be used. More skill to the player.
@ Woody
I've made some tests, well you are right, 5% difference is noticeable, but.. only if compare stats for 1000 or more hit and miss runs. For 10 runs it is unnoticeable..
@Zulu: Again, not really true. Even in D&D rev 1 there was a set of instructions on how age affects stat scores. They're in there. If/how they're implemented in a particular game system (or game master) is another story.
And in many human based RPG, game masters give experience for exploring and role playing. Many of the DMG books even have a section on doing so, some with tables for estimated "value" of particular accomplishments.
Admittedly, many RPG programs/systems ignore a lot of this. It's for simplicity sake, since again to implement such things often takes minor re balancing, which most system programmers are loathe to do.
@Kamil: Yes, at 10 it may be unnoticeable. But when it takes 10 hits on average to knock of a rat, and you're in a room with 7 rats, that 5% can be the difference between surviving the fight or not. And I'm better there are enough things in SM2 to require more than 1000 swings to complete it, right? :)
Hope you feel better soon!
Post a Comment