Say, for instance, that your character wants to learn a new chemical formula from a textbook he has received. What does the character do? He picks up the textbook and starts reading, and after a couple hours starts an experiment to prove the results, and once the indicated process happens correctly, he's learned how to make that chemical.
The problem? Where does the player come into this? Surely the player can't be expected to know the chemical ingredients for every single chemical recipe in his/her character's mind, and the exact processes needed to produce that chemical reliably -- after all, it's not a chemical-making game, it's a roleplaying game. But because it takes time to read and prove results, the player is left staring at the computer screen while his/her character is on a voyage of intellectual discovery.
Puzzle Pirates has a good solution; passive occupations, like repairing your ship or pumping out water that has swamped the boat, are done through unique never-ending puzzles which the player does in real time. The better the puzzles are performed, the faster the work is done. Even with terrible work a little work is done, so no matter what, at least you're giving an effort to involve yourself.
But if you have a roleplaying game, obviously puzzles aren't an ideal solution... any ideas on how to involve the player in the process of learning (or in any other passive tasks -- this is just for sake of example) without actually needing to learn the actual methods him/herself?
ID:153238
 Aug 30 2004, 10:45 am
|
|
|
Aug 30 2004, 10:50 am
|
|
Hell Ramen
 |
The people at the top look like Legoes.
|
I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for, but you could have minigames for it. For example, the player picks a chemical compound to try to make, and they play a minigame to create it. In the minigame, they are at the bottom of the screen and can only move left/right, and elements (a colored ball with the element's symbol on it would work) fall down. The player has to catch the elements they need while dodging the ones they don't.
Of course, that's a bit of work for you to do, and it would be a long process for the player (depending on how many compounds need to be made), especially if that isn't the focus of the game. | |
Well, two ideas spring to mind.
The first is to have the characters icon go through suotably busy animations while the character researches. The player then has to get a soda or something. Not a very good solution. The second operates on the assumption that character in games generally *do* things when the player is at the helm and take care of boring stuff when the player is not. Under this model, you would select activities such as research, repair, and other ho-hum tasks when you log off. Then, when the log back on, the game tells them how well they did, how much they learned, etc. Of course you could gove the player the option of #1 also, but I don't see anyone picking it.... | |
I'm all in favor of the simple approach. 1) Pick up the book. 2) "read" it. 3) Poof, you've learned something. I don't know why it needs to be any more complicated than that. If I wanted to put a lot of time and effort into learning something, I'd learn it in real life, and not waste my time on the game.
And puzzle pirates just gave me a headache. The repetative tasks where, in my opinion, the worst part of the game. | |
And puzzle pirates just gave me a headache. The repetative tasks where, in my opinion, the worst part of the game. Funny thing is that overly repetative and extended tasks are what keep players busy in an MMORPG long enough to make a company a good amount of money. Considering how many there are I'm guessing it's successful :P. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
But if you have a roleplaying game, obviously puzzles aren't an ideal solution... I'm sorry, I don't see the obvious. What does it matter what kind of game it is, a puzzle is always a good idea, and may be (especially in RPGs) a welcome change of pace. I think the player would get more annoyed at having to idle and have no interaction with the game for several moments (they probably won't wait for minutes and hours are right out), than to have to complete some small puzzle. At least with the puzzle you're satisfying the gamer, not the game. So what if it's illogical or seems out of place, if it's fun to accomplish, that's really all that matters, right? Or did I mis-interpret your use of the word "game"? ~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see the obvious. What does it matter what kind of game it is, a puzzle is always a good idea, and may be (especially in RPGs) a welcome change of pace. It matters what kind of game it is because that kind of puzzle does not fit into an RPG, at least not a serious one. I think the player would get more annoyed at having to idle and have no interaction with the game for several moments (they probably won't wait for minutes and hours are right out), than to have to complete some small puzzle. Agreed, so the game creator should not do either. That is what this thread is about - he said he doesn't want the player to sit for long periods of time. At least with the puzzle you're satisfying the gamer, not the game. So what if it's illogical or seems out of place, if it's fun to accomplish, that's really all that matters, right? Or did I mis-interpret your use of the word "game"? Serious role playing games are all about the logic (fantasy logic, anyway), and breaking that makes the game worse. I would find a role playing game to be much less interesting if it interupted the role playing with a puzzle minigame. I think the way to go is to have the action be almost immediate, but don't have it all learned at once. If you level up in the game, make the player read through alchemy books after each level, taking only a moment of the player's time; then have some alchemy concoction pop into the character's head after enough levels. That does not detract from gametime, and it stays serious since reading up on the subject between adventures is a realistic action. | |
Well if you've ever played a tale in the desert, a RPG totally based around crafting and developing towns rather then any fighting at all...
The way they do it is basically you have the freedom to create anything so players normally would create everyhting they need in an area, go out and "farm" everything they possibly can, then do several tasks at once. This way you're not waiting for one thing to get done and you can do many multiples of tasks. Another thing they did is to have a lot of the resource gathering places "auto mine" for you, then you just go to collect the resources, keeping players able to do many different things and mult-task making things interesting. Then if you add a skill climbing system that gradually increases (fast enough people don't get bored) you shouldn't have too many worries. Basically keep the system rewarding, rewarding is the key to just about anything in a game. For instance - at low level alchemy skill you can only make yellow potions, and poor yellow potions at that. As you get better you make less then adequate yellow potions, medium potions, good potions, and extremely well done potions. With this kind of system, and each potion having more affects due to the actual potency of the crafter can keep the crafter interested and excited about whether he's going to randomly make a really good potion or a crappy one, and also keep him interested because he's seeing resaults from doing all the item crafting. Then if you allow player run vendors, the game will basically take off by itself. The idea is pretty simple, people don't always mind mindless things (take mmorpg's for example) as long as they have some kind of reward or pay outcome. Think of life, you wouldn't clean your house if it didn't make you feel good after doing it and it didn't serve some kind of purpose. Of course you want something more interesting then cleaning your house. The concept is simple still - basically you don't want the system too fast they reach the end game really quick and they're making the best potions possible, but if they do you want to add things like rare items (potion ingredients that give stats for instance) that are hard to find so that there are things to do when you do reach that high of level. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
It matters what kind of game it is because that kind of puzzle does not fit into an RPG, at least not a serious one. I'm sorry, I have yet to see a serious RPG. Even if I did see one, I would probably not play it. I was under the impression that games were ment to be fun. If it's seriousness you want, read a reference book or watch the news. And who is this RPG god dictating how people create an RPG? Who are they to tell anyone how to go about doing anything? I mean, c'mon. It's not like we're building rockets here. It's a game, meant for fun and entertainment. If the puzzle is fun, it should be appropriate for any game genre. This segregation of the genres is just plain pretentiousness. If you're going to take such a thing so seriously that you're not even willing to consider the pros and cons of a munging certain genres, I don't want to play you're game. You obviously have no sense of what fun is if you think the only way to have it is serious realistic emulation. If I wanted realism and seriousness, I'd go to work. Serious role playing games are all about the logic (fantasy logic, anyway), and breaking that makes the game worse. I would find a role playing game to be much less interesting if it interupted the role playing with a puzzle minigame. I thought role playing was all about imagination and acting out a role. I don't know where you're getting this "logic" from. And "fantasy logic" is an oxymoron. The whole idea of an RPG is illogical. It uses heavy symbolism and etherical concepts that have no serious basis is reality. How far a stretch is it to go from rolling a die to represent a complex action to completing a small puzzle to represent another complex action? I think the way to go is to have the action be almost immediate, but don't have it all learned at once. If you level up in the game, make the player read through alchemy books after each level, taking only a moment of the player's time; then have some alchemy concoction pop into the character's head after enough levels. That does not detract from gametime, and it stays serious since reading up on the subject between adventures is a realistic action. I think the best way to go about it is having the player participate in the learning through some sort of challenge or puzzle. But, I'm repeating myself here. What would detract more from the game would be having to take seriously the simple act of learning a skill through repetative and boring commands. "Oh, look, I macroed teh read-book command, and now im 1337 chemist!" ~X | |
People play D&D because they enjoy it, but its serious roleplaying. I've never heard of game interruptions where you need to solve a rubik's cube before you can continue.
| |
Really? Well, why not? I think that would be a very interesting use of props. Perhaps most GMs just aren't creative and resourceful enough to really capture people's imaginations....
Anyways, the puzzle doesn't have to be overly complex, just engaging. A simple game of re-arranging symbols on a black board could suffice. ~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
I'm sorry, I have yet to see a serious RPG. Even if I did see one, I would probably not play it. I was under the impression that games were ment to be fun. If it's seriousness you want, read a reference book or watch the news. Hedgerow Hall, and it was fun. And who is this RPG god dictating how people create an RPG? Who are they to tell anyone how to go about doing anything? I mean, c'mon. It's not like we're building rockets here. It's a game, meant for fun and entertainment. If the puzzle is fun, it should be appropriate for any game genre. There is no higher authority dictating how they should be. We, as the players, are the ones who do that. Yes, a game is for fun and entertainment. A puzzle is fun, and playing out the role of a battle-hardened warrior on a quest to slay the evil lich tyrant is also fun. Having that quest interupted with a game of Tetris to see if you can figure out that new sword technique is not fun. This segregation of the genres is just plain pretentiousness. If you're going to take such a thing so seriously that you're not even willing to consider the pros and cons of a munging certain genres, I don't want to play you're game. You obviously have no sense of what fun is if you think the only way to have it is serious realistic emulation. If I wanted realism and seriousness, I'd go to work. It is not that we want game genres to be seperate. It is that the serious role playing game does that itself by its very definition, as I stated above with the warrior/Tetris example. I thought role playing was all about imagination and acting out a role. I don't know where you're getting this "logic" from. And "fantasy logic" is an oxymoron. The whole idea of an RPG is illogical. It uses heavy symbolism and etherical concepts that have no serious basis is reality. How far a stretch is it to go from rolling a die to represent a complex action to completing a small puzzle to represent another complex action? It is about imagination and acting out a role, and that is why a puzzle ruins it - it gets in the way of that imagination and role acting. The idea of an RPG is not illogical, though its components are not real; because the idea of an RPG is to imagine ourselves in a setting that we cannot be in where reality is concerned. If I am imagining myself in Avernus, the first level of Baator, camping out the night before we strike the dragon queen Tiamat; then the DM opens a puzzle box and dumps puzzle pieces on the floor saying "You gained enough experience to level up. Put this together to see if you do it fast enough to learn your next skill." the game is entirely interrupted, my train of thought and imagination is gone, and the mood is ruined. Going from rolling a die to completing a small puzzle is a large stretch. One reason is what I stated above about ruining the mood. Another reason is that the dice make it random, wheras doing a puzzle would make your character benefit more if you were better at puzzles than the other players. Having your character benefit from non-game happenings ruins the fun, as it reduces it to the level of other games which are not really role playing games in the technical sense, such as Diablo. I think the best way to go about it is having the player participate in the learning through some sort of challenge or puzzle. But, I'm repeating myself here. What would detract more from the game would be having to take seriously the simple act of learning a skill through repetative and boring commands. "Oh, look, I macroed teh read-book command, and now im 1337 chemist!" Repetative and boring commands are the very thing this thread is discussing in order to avoid. That is why I suggested having it be an assumed action every level and have the ability simply pop into the character's head after a while - no repetative or boring commands, no waiting and doing nothing (instead of waiting, you are playing the main game, not even a minigame), and no sitting around doing nothing to get better (neither just standing for time-based increases nor macroing for DBZ-style increases.) | |
Loduwijk wrote:
Hedgerow Hall, and it was fun. Yes, HRH was fun, but we never took it seriously enough to say we couldn't have our own brand of fun. Burrowing itself was a minigame. Your reward was a nice burrow, the challenge was it's construction. It was illogical and totally out of the bounds of realism, but we didn't care becuase we liked playing with it. I spent a great amount of time playing with my burrows' layouts and desings, trying different arrangements and structures, and it never detracted from the game, but in fact, added another aspect that most stodgy RPGs would have left out. Yes, a game is for fun and entertainment. A puzzle is fun, and playing out the role of a battle-hardened warrior on a quest to slay the evil lich tyrant is also fun. Having that quest interupted with a game of Tetris to see if you can figure out that new sword technique is not fun. That's taking what I said way out of bounds and making it sound absurd. The puzzle has to fit the part. Tetris has no relation to swordplay. It's absurd to even consider it. It is not that we want game genres to be seperate. It is that the serious role playing game does that itself by its very definition, as I stated above with the warrior/Tetris example. No, the RPG does what it's creator tells it to. If the GM wants you to solve the rubik's cube to unlock the maiden's chastity belt, then it's part of the role you play as dictated by the GM. I would enjoy that more than rolling some die for success, which is repetitious and boring. It is about imagination and acting out a role, and that is why a puzzle ruins it - it gets in the way of that imagination and role acting. It only gets in the way and detracts from the experience if the puzzle has no relation to the task at hand. Of course Tetris would detract from the task of learning swordplay, becuase it has absolutly nothing to do with the skill. The idea of an RPG is not illogical, though its components are not real; because the idea of an RPG is to imagine ourselves in a setting that we cannot be in where reality is concerned. If I am imagining myself in Avernus, the first level of Baator, camping out the night before we strike the dragon queen Tiamat; then the DM opens a puzzle box and dumps puzzle pieces on the floor saying "You gained enough experience to level up. Put this together to see if you do it fast enough to learn your next skill." the game is entirely interrupted, my train of thought and imagination is gone, and the mood is ruined. Again, the puzzle has to fit the task at hand. The GM would be poor if he made you put together a puzzle to level a skill that has nothing to do with the puzzle. Going from rolling a die to completing a small puzzle is a large stretch. One reason is what I stated above about ruining the mood. It only ruins the mood if it's out of the bounds of reasonable association. RPGers claim vast amounts of imagination, so why can't you imagine the puzzle as part of the game? Why can't the designer create a fun puzzle that plays on the task? The only reason dice are accepted is becuase it's the best way of representing a complex task in a very short amount of time and effort. You'd swear they detract from the game if you had to play a round of Yahtzee in order to decide the outcome becuase it has nothing to do withthe task at hand, and really, neither do dice rolls. It's your imagination that makes the association. Another reason is that the dice make it random, wheras doing a puzzle would make your character benefit more if you were better at puzzles than the other players. Having your character benefit from non-game happenings ruins the fun, as it reduces it to the level of other games which are not really role playing games in the technical sense, such as Diablo. This is probably the only valid point you've made for not having puzzles in an RPG. And it's not even a strong point. Some people are better at rolling dice than others, so they naturally have an advantage. It's slight, for sure, but it exists. And personally, I'd rather have that control over my charcter's fate than leave it up to some random chance of a die roll. Repetative and boring commands are the very thing this thread is discussing in order to avoid. That is why I suggested having it be an assumed action every level and have the ability simply pop into the character's head after a while - no repetative or boring commands, no waiting and doing nothing (instead of waiting, you are playing the main game, not even a minigame), and no sitting around doing nothing to get better (neither just standing for time-based increases nor macroing for DBZ-style increases.) Well, we have our own opinions on what fun is, then I guess. I don't want everything handed to me on a silver platter. It's more rewarding, I believe, if you have to earn it. ~X [this is starting to go off-topic. We should probably start a new thread f we wish to continue this discussion. I think I've stated all I need to, though, so we can end it as well if you wish.] | |
Roleplaying games draw in all kinds of genres as an inherent part of the game. As Xooxer notes, in HRH burrow-building is a different "minigame" or genre, or challenge. To say that most serious roleplaying games don't have puzzles is completely erronous: What about riddles that you have to answer to proceed past a certain point (Perhaps to gain access to a guild or area of the game), battles fought entirely with strategy (Go for the dragons heart)? I remember a HUGE part of D&D, Paranoia or whatever tabletop RPG I played as puzzle solving. Maybe im misunderstanding, though.
Now, so I don't just contribute to the de-railing of the thread... I think that involving the player in menial tasks such as studying lore and such is a good idea in some cases. Reading is just reading in my eyes, and as far as studying lore in understandable languages I don't think you should draw any sort of puzzles or time sinks into that. However, deciphering languages you don't know, rowing a boat across a lake, fashioning a crafted item from materials are all (imo) good subjects for more interaction. Interestingly, a similar thread started on MUDConnector not too long ago, with a slightly different topic. Someone was asking why on earth you didn't draw the simple mechanics of typical MUD combat into other areas of the game that are extremely simplistic in nature? Picking a lock could take on a whole new meaning, if you had to "battle" the lock, by correctly picking it. Check it out, its very interesting and sparks some neat ideas... Modeling combat on non-combat activities | |
yeah it completely depends on the environment of the game.
if it's cartoonish and funny like that pirates game, then you can pull off having mini games. However if it's a game that has an atmosphere that of a real life setting or a fantasy setting like shadowbane or lineage 2 then it becomes increasingly hard to pull off, but not impossible. For some ideas on things to do look at wizardry 8's lockpicking... or like I mentioned in an earlier thread, A Tale in the desert. Basically you have to find the right sequence of say 3 bars do you pull the first one down first then the 3rd then the 2nd? Or the 2nd one first then the first? You can always lead up to these puzzles by hints within the room or whatever. | |
First of all, I don't see how this thread is going off topic. We are discussing the very things Spuzzum wanted.
Secondly, there are puzzles of all sorts in RPGs that fit. If it goes with the game, then that is fine... nessessary, actually. Puzzles that are litterally part of the game are not minigames, they are just another part of playing the role. I am talking about sidetracking the players by adding in silly minigames, which subtract from the game even if they have to do with the action being taken. Puzzles are good when they are part of the game, as in the actual role playing. If the cieling in the room was coming down and a magic rubik's cube sat on a pillar in the center that needed to be finished to stop the cieling, and the DM handed you a real one and said "Get going, you have two minutes." that is one thing, part of roleplaying (and even that should be influenced slightly, such as putting a multiplier on the time it took you if your character had an extremely high or low intelligence); but telling the player to try and throw a heavy rock 15 feet to see if he gets an advanced thrown weapons skill is not right, even though it has something to do with what is going on. If you want to have minigames like throwing that rock, that's fine - if you think it's fun then it will add to the game; but in general it does not fit. Burrowing in Hedgerow Hall was not a puzzle or minigame. It was part of the role playing, you want a shelter so you build one. Although I never built one in the game myself, I can imagine it would have been fun and added more to the game; so it added to the fun factor as well which made it all the better. If it were not at all fun, and were in fact detracting from the game, then it should have been left out of course - I am not saying something should be added simply for realism. For the serious role players, things are fun when they seem realistic and yet allow us to do fun things - it is one that helps boost the other. What should be done depends on what everyone finds fun. If you are going for a serious RPG, most people will not want minigames even if they have to do with the task at hand and would rather the puzzles be part of the role playing. If you are going for a laid back, casual game that is not truely an RPG yet fits into the genre of games named RPG; then your target audience probably would welcome puzzles that are more minigames than they are role playing aids. About the dice and minigames, the whole idea of using dice is to take the control away from the player. The player should not have control over certain things, such as whether their character is intelligent enough to learn a certain spell; but the player should have complete control over what the character does, and thus use his own wit to figure out a riddle (Rolling dice to solve a straightforward riddle would be rediculous). Concerning some people being better at rolling dice, if a player tries to alter the outcome of the roll then the player is cheating. The object of the die roll is not to try and get a good roll, it is to find the result of a probability factor. However, with computer games like we are discussing here, the outcome of the dice cannot be changed by the player (unless the player is an elite hacker, but that is cheating and I won't go into that). About my point concerning keeping player ability non interfering with character ability, it is not my only valid point. You took my Tetris example a bit too literally. My Tetris example was slightly sarcastic and exaggerated. It is a very strong point as well, as any serious role playing gamer can tell you. People who let their knowledge and ability as a player get in the way of their role playing of their character are ridiculed and cast out of serious role playing games. Playing an orc barbarian with an intelligence score of 3 then solving the arcane riddle because you, as a player, have vast intellect is a good example, if a hardcore one. As I said before, leaving things up to minigames and/or not enforcing IC/OOC restrictions is fine for the casual game which is not really an RPG, but in serious role playing you would not be allowed such since it would be rediculous in that sort of gaming. You have near complete control over your character's fate, you just do not decide the outcome of actions yourself - which is the way it should be to avoid that annoying power play style "role playing" you see in chatrooms all the time. It's fine if that's what you consider fun, but being the determining factor for everything is just as bad as not being a determinging factor at all (as in many board games where you don't get any decisions and have no say in what happens). A balance somewhere in the middle is best. I will have to agree that we have differing oppinions. That is a fine thing, I just like a different style of gaming than you do. However, my style does not hand everything to me on a silver platter, rather it avoids that better than most other styles do. In serious role playing, you have to earn everything yourself; and it often takes a long time, and even never comes on occasion if your character happens to die and cannot be raised. I am assuming Spuzzum has serious role playing in mind, since he seems to like that style from what I can tell and he was looking for a way other than the minigame; and that is why I am putting forth these ideals. I like the casual RPG just as much as the next person, though I like the serious ones even more. If he is going for a casual Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior/Shining Force style RPG then minigames might well be the answer. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
First of all, I don't see how this thread is going off topic. We are discussing the very things Spuzzum wanted. I think we've covered this particular method well enough. He's most likely already made a decision on whether or not to go with it. Further debate seems moot, to me. Secondly, there are puzzles of all sorts in RPGs that fit. Uh, so what did you mean by: It matters what kind of game it is because that kind of puzzle does not fit into an RPG, at least not a serious one. I never mentioned a kind of puzzle, I just mentioned puzzles in general. And if you believed this, why not say so from the begining? If it goes with the game, then that is fine... nessessary, actually. Puzzles that are litterally part of the game are not minigames, they are just another part of playing the role. So, you're just agreeing with what I've been saying all along? I'm confused. What happened to: It is about imagination and acting out a role, and that is why a puzzle ruins it - it gets in the way of that imagination and role acting. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, contradictions. What do you mean, exactly? Are you now for puzzles in RPGs? I am talking about sidetracking the players by adding in silly minigames, which subtract from the game even if they have to do with the action being taken. I never mentioned minigames until you mentioned how serious HRH was. I wasn't talking about arcade-like minigames, but you seemed focused on that word. I said puzzles, and a puzzle can be anything from putting the pieces back together, to an ageless riddle. The puzzles themselves would be left up to the designer to build. Puzzles are good when they are part of the game, as in the actual role playing. If the cieling in the room was coming down and a magic rubik's cube sat on a pillar in the center that needed to be finished to stop the cieling, and the DM handed you a real one and said "Get going, you have two minutes." that is one thing, part of roleplaying (and even that should be influenced slightly, such as putting a multiplier on the time it took you if your character had an extremely high or low intelligence); but telling the player to try and throw a heavy rock 15 feet to see if he gets an advanced thrown weapons skill is not right, even though it has something to do with what is going on. If you want to have minigames like throwing that rock, that's fine - if you think it's fun then it will add to the game; but in general it does not fit. Ok, right, so you agree with me, but disagree with me and yourself in the same paragraph? My mind is twisted, ow. Burrowing in Hedgerow Hall was not a puzzle or minigame. Not a minigame? It's basicly the friggin equivelent of the entire engine of 1/5 of the games on BYOND! Icon Chatters anyone? It was part of the role playing, you want a shelter so you build one. Although I never built one in the game myself, I can imagine it would have been fun and added more to the game; so it added to the fun factor as well which made it all the better. Which is what I said: At least with the puzzle you're satisfying the gamer, not the game. So what if it's illogical or seems out of place, if it's fun to accomplish, that's really all that matters, right? And by illogical or out of place, let's use the HRH example and burrows. Squirrels don't live in burrows, that's illogical and out of place. Animals harboring and catering to others in thier burrows despite species is also illogical, but we all did it becuase the whole burrowing thing was fun and entertaining, and that's really all that matters. What should be done depends on what everyone finds fun. Which is precisly why I replied to his post in the first place. It seemed to me he was putting off the idea of using puzzles altogether, and I find them fun, so I said as much. My opinion of what is fun as a gamer is as valid as the next's. But to say a puzzle isn't allowed in an RPG, or any game, for that matter, is just not right. Concerning some people being better at rolling dice, if a player tries to alter the outcome of the roll then the player is cheating. The object of the die roll is not to try and get a good roll, it is to find the result of a probability factor. However, with computer games like we are discussing here, the outcome of the dice cannot be changed by the player (unless the player is an elite hacker, but that is cheating and I won't go into that). I never said they tried to be better at rolling dice, some people just are. Alot has to do with timing and feeling of the moment. It's the zone alot of atheletes speak of. The place where you can do no wrong. It's some freaky zen mindset, for sure, but some people can work it, often times without even being aware of it. We call it luck. I never considered being lucky cheating. People who let their knowledge and ability as a player get in the way of their role playing of their character are ridiculed and cast out of serious role playing games. Playing an orc barbarian with an intelligence score of 3 then solving the arcane riddle because you, as a player, have vast intellect is a good example, if a hardcore one. As I said before, leaving things up to minigames and/or not enforcing IC/OOC restrictions is fine for the casual game which is not really an RPG, but in serious role playing you would not be allowed such since it would be rediculous in that sort of gaming. This whole thing right here is why I wanted to wrap up the discussion. You're going into moderation issues and the OOC channel, which is completly irrelevant. And again, I never mention these minigames you refer to. Puzzles, dern it all to heck and so forth.... You have near complete control over your character's fate, you just do not decide the outcome of actions yourself - which is the way it should be to avoid that annoying power play style "role playing" you see in chatrooms all the time. It's fine if that's what you consider fun, but being the determining factor for everything is just as bad as not being a determinging factor at all (as in many board games where you don't get any decisions and have no say in what happens). A balance somewhere in the middle is best. How did we go from talking about puzzles as a method of player involvment, to this? O.o You're just saying what everyone already knows about gameplay balancing. That wasn't even the topic of discussion. I will have to agree that we have differing oppinions. That is a fine thing, I just like a different style of gaming than you do. I don't know. From what you said here, it sounds to me like you like pretty much what I like. I am assuming Spuzzum has serious role playing in mind, since he seems to like that style from what I can tell and he was looking for a way other than the minigame; and that is why I am putting forth these ideals. I assumed Spuzzum wanted ideas, whatever they may be. He mentioned puzzles and how he thought it might not be so kosher, I thought otherwise and said so. You thought they shouldn't even be part of the equation, and said so yourself. Fine, becuase you later turned around and not only added to my argument, but basicly contradicted just about everything you originaly stated. I think I'm done with this thread, or was a post ago, anyways. I don't feel we can make any more constructive posts without it getting somewhat messy. ;) ~X | |
I will have to agree that we have differing oppinions. That is a fine thing, I just like a different style of gaming than you do. However, my style does not hand everything to me on a silver platter, rather it avoids that better than most other styles do. In serious role playing, you have to earn everything yourself; and it often takes a long time, and even never comes on occasion if your character happens to die and cannot be raised. Yep, serious roleplaying is definitely my intent. I'm of the firm mindset that a player should never be the character, and vice versa. The player simply tells the character what to do, and the character acts upon those wishes as if he or she was a real person. Obviously, of course, the player also has to give the character a real personality, and control almost all of the character's movements, but the case in point is that the player isn't the one who learns the skills, the character is. Forcing the player to do a puzzle/minigame in order to produce a chair is just as bad as forcing the player to wait for five hours of game time while the character builds the chair on autopilot. With construction of objects, it's easy to get the player involved, by simply requiring the player to control his character and go through all the motions of construction. For instance, if you want to forge a sword, you pick up the sword blank, bring it to the crucible, heat it, bring it back to the anvil with tongs, pound on it with your hammer until it's too cool to shape, then douse it in a vat of oil to temper the steel. Each strike with the hammer causes the weapon's quality to change, depending on the success of your weaponsmithing roll. If you like the new quality, you're pretty much finished -- if you don't like the new quality, you bring it back to the crucible and heat it up, and repeat the process until you're satisfied. This is work, but it's also involving (and hopefully entertaining), because you have the ultimate say in how the weapon is built even if it is restricted based on your character's skill... it's not just a "bang, you made a crappy sword" or "bang, you made a superb sword" kind of thing. But with passive tasks like studying a text or meditating, there needs to be some sort of fashion of getting the player involved without resorting to cheesy out-of-character solutions and basing the character's success on the player's intelligence. The player isn't the character, so the player should have no appreciable influence on how well the character performs. | |
Yep, serious roleplaying is definitely my intent. I'm of the firm mindset that a player should never be the character, and vice versa. The player simply tells the character what to do, and the character acts upon those wishes as if he or she was a real person. Of course what the character can do is severly limited by the game engine which can never accomplish what a human DM can. I doubt any CRPG will ever be able to come even close to being able to emulate a real roleplaying session since most of the enjoyment comes from the fact that you can use your surrounding environment and skills you have in any way you can imagine not just what the programmer planned. For me this is what kills any possibility of having a serious computer roleplaying game since the characters are largely crippled by the engine and are forced to play by the stiff rules of the engine. This largely comes into play when dealing with NPCs since you can't even come close to making the interaction lifelike which kills just about any interesting scenarios the players can be placed in without prescripting the whole thing which defeats the point of roleplaying in the first place. Obviously, of course, the player also has to give the character a real personality, and control almost all of the character's movements, but the case in point is that the player isn't the one who learns the skills, the character is. Forcing the player to do a puzzle/minigame in order to produce a chair is just as bad as forcing the player to wait for five hours of game time while the character builds the chair on autopilot. Heh that's another plus about real roleplaying :). There is no timing issue or any issues about needing th player to understand the proccess behind the actions his character are making. This is work, but it's also involving (and hopefully entertaining), because you have the ultimate say in how the weapon is built even if it is restricted based on your character's skill... it's not just a "bang, you made a crappy sword" or "bang, you made a superb sword" kind of thing. Well it's more like repeat until you randomly get the quality you want which may or may not take long and can get tedious and frusterating if you don't accomplish it after the first few tries. Might be good if you raise the minimum quality bound by a certain amount each time you try until it hits the maximum bound or some other point. This way you atleast garuntee decent(or up to the player's skill) quality of an item. But with passive tasks like studying a text or meditating, there needs to be some sort of fashion of getting the player involved without resorting to cheesy out-of-character solutions and basing the character's success on the player's intelligence. The player isn't the character, so the player should have no appreciable influence on how well the character performs. Yep and there is no way to really get around it since there is no simple process behind these skills :P. So I doubt you're going to be able to accomplish this unless you plan on bending your restrictions. Regardless the player is generally always going to know more about the world than the character is. A good roleplayer won't act on knowlege the character won't have. So you could have some sort of stuff the players has to do and any good roleplayer will limit themselves to what they think their character can acheive. But I seriously doubt you'll get many people like this playing your game. Roleplaying is meant to be done with a human DM and no fancy graphics(or other flavors of multi-media) or a strict engine just imagination. Any serious roleplayer should know this :P. | |