🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Control vs skill in RPGs
Author
RPGs are, as the name says, about assuming a role of a character in the game environment. The character has skill and "character" independent of the player. But how independent? In eg. Deus Ex (which I consider an action RPG), how much does the player''s skill influence the shooting accuracy of the character? Shouldn''t a master marksman hit every time regardless of player skill? No, (s)he shouldn''t, because the player must have some kind of control for the RPG to earn the "game" in its name.
But how much control? It seems that the more control the player is given, the less meaning skills of the character have. In an ideal game, the player should never be allowed to perform better than the character could. In case of shooting, this is quite simple: the bullet doesn''t go where the player aims, but there is a separate "skill roll", and the worse the outcome, the farther the bullet goes from the intended target. In conversation, this could be handled by the player selecting topics of discussion, but the character''s skill dictating the actual words used. But what about eg. driving a car, or casting a spell? Should the player control the car directly, like in a driving game, our simply select a destination? It''s really lame to cast spells by simply clicking an icon, but does Black & White -style casting give the player too much control over the success of the spell in an RPG?
What are your thoughts, how much skill influence can we sacrifice for player control while the game could still be considered an RPG?
-Jussi
Well, let''s see...
It''d be a bitch to code in all 3 billion different things a
player could be able to do(drive a car, shoot, jump, hack a PC,
etc...). So, of course you have to have a few skills at least
that just automatically function.
Kinda hard here, what to decide, really.
If you want that true "player interaction" that a lot of people
seem to have been craving, then I suggest adding penalties to the
ability to do some of these things. For instance, if a character
has, say, -4 to driving(meaning bad), maybe you could make things
like turning hard to do, or some sort of on-screen "force
feedback."
On the other hand, some people are inheritantly bad drivers, and
while even if their characters'' driving skills are perfect, they
themselves may suck at it. That''s where it''d be nice for them to
automatically have it done.
On yet another hand(who knows where from this time?), say the
character''s skills are bad, and the player is bad, then what?
Could it make sense for the player to randomly smack a wall every
once in awhile.
I guess it all stems down to if you want a player to play the
character AS the character, or the player to choose an archetype
and play as themselves.
You could always have options to turn these things on or off.
My 1 cent.
-Hyatus(Random caffeine addict)
It''d be a bitch to code in all 3 billion different things a
player could be able to do(drive a car, shoot, jump, hack a PC,
etc...). So, of course you have to have a few skills at least
that just automatically function.
Kinda hard here, what to decide, really.
If you want that true "player interaction" that a lot of people
seem to have been craving, then I suggest adding penalties to the
ability to do some of these things. For instance, if a character
has, say, -4 to driving(meaning bad), maybe you could make things
like turning hard to do, or some sort of on-screen "force
feedback."
On the other hand, some people are inheritantly bad drivers, and
while even if their characters'' driving skills are perfect, they
themselves may suck at it. That''s where it''d be nice for them to
automatically have it done.
On yet another hand(who knows where from this time?), say the
character''s skills are bad, and the player is bad, then what?
Could it make sense for the player to randomly smack a wall every
once in awhile.
I guess it all stems down to if you want a player to play the
character AS the character, or the player to choose an archetype
and play as themselves.
You could always have options to turn these things on or off.
My 1 cent.
-Hyatus(Random caffeine addict)
Ooh. I think penalizing the player is a BAD thing.
If I''ve got great eye-hand coordination and the game is designed that I use crosshairs and a quick mouse finger, then I am going to be very frustrated if the game ''cheats'' and reduces my accuracy.
On the flip side, it would be reasonable to make it easier to hit if the character had a higher skill, to help out those who had fat fingers (like me). Larger crosshairs, or an additional targetting circle or what not.
It would be acceptable to make the game easier, not acceptable to make the game harder. But in general I suspect that depending on player reflexes is somewhat at cross purposes to using a stat.
See the game Outcast for some ideas.
If I''ve got great eye-hand coordination and the game is designed that I use crosshairs and a quick mouse finger, then I am going to be very frustrated if the game ''cheats'' and reduces my accuracy.
On the flip side, it would be reasonable to make it easier to hit if the character had a higher skill, to help out those who had fat fingers (like me). Larger crosshairs, or an additional targetting circle or what not.
It would be acceptable to make the game easier, not acceptable to make the game harder. But in general I suspect that depending on player reflexes is somewhat at cross purposes to using a stat.
See the game Outcast for some ideas.
Just think of the player as being a voice in the characters head (looking out of his eyes in Deus Ex), telling him where to go and look, what to do and when to do it.
But...
...if that person is scared, the crosshair might tremble.
...if he''s weak, he might stumble.
...if he is poisoned, he might behave random and mess things up.
You can try to force him into something, like attacking a sleeping dragon, but might reconsider because the dude gets hysteric when approaching the beast...
But...
...if that person is scared, the crosshair might tremble.
...if he''s weak, he might stumble.
...if he is poisoned, he might behave random and mess things up.
You can try to force him into something, like attacking a sleeping dragon, but might reconsider because the dude gets hysteric when approaching the beast...
Author
quote: Original post by JSwing
If I''ve got great eye-hand coordination and the game is designed that I use crosshairs and a quick mouse finger, then I am going to be very frustrated if the game ''cheats'' and reduces my accuracy.
Have you played Rogue Spear, SWAT3 or Deus Ex? Though the first two are not RPGs, all of them had an accuracy penalty when you fired long bursts or moved. The games are not fragfests, they intend to be more tactical, and reduced accuracy when running or firing a burst adds tactics to the game. In Deus Ex, the accuracy penalty was also affected by the skill of the character, with the highest skill level having no penalty. The gameplay would have been drastically different if the aim had been perfect.
-Jussi
You''re not penalizing the player, you''re...staying real to the
character
. I mean seriously. Did anyone mind having their
sniper shots move around a bit in Metal Gear: Solid?
I know I didn''t. I thought it added to the "realism" of the
setting.
Technically, that''s a penalty. To me, a damned good one. It
allows for dead-on shots, but you have to get the timing just
right. Say, the more the player''s character''s skill increases,
the less "moving around" it does. I think that''s how Deus Ex did
it.
-Hyatus(Random babbler)
character
. I mean seriously. Did anyone mind having theirsniper shots move around a bit in Metal Gear: Solid?
I know I didn''t. I thought it added to the "realism" of the
setting.
Technically, that''s a penalty. To me, a damned good one. It
allows for dead-on shots, but you have to get the timing just
right. Say, the more the player''s character''s skill increases,
the less "moving around" it does. I think that''s how Deus Ex did
it.
-Hyatus(Random babbler)
Author
quote: Original post by Hyatus
Technically, that''s a penalty. To me, a damned good one. It
allows for dead-on shots, but you have to get the timing just
right. Say, the more the player''s character''s skill increases,
the less "moving around" it does. I think that''s how Deus Ex did
it.
Yes, in sniper mode it was like that, but in "normal" mode, it was a random offset like in Rogue Spear and SWAT3.
There was a discussion about swordfighting "recently", but I don''t remember the name of the thread. In melee combat, perhaps the attacks should be faster and easier to do when the skill is high.
In general, if the player has "total control" over some skill, the skill value of the character should affect how easy or hard it is to control the character.
-Jussi
Well I guess I have to go get Deus Ex now to try it out.. 
If I told the character to shoot at X, and the character misses, then that''s ok. But in that case I don''t expect to have to do more than click on the target person - no crosshairs required. I''m perfectly content to let the computer control the details.
If the game is setup where the crosshairs correspond to my mouse, and the target (enemy) moves around, then that''s ok too. I would expect a real person to move around instead of remaining perfectly still.
But if the target is still, and my mouse is still, and the crosshairs wander around the screen, then that''s annoying. If the crosshairs are jittery because the player character is poisoned or drunk or whatnot, then that''s tolerable provided that it''s rare.
And if I perfectly pinpoint my crosshairs on the enemy''s right eyeball, then it should darn well shoot him in the eye. No mysterious crosswinds from nowhere. If my eye-hand coordination is superrb, then let me benefit from it, don''t nerf my skills.
Hmm. The only way around it that I see would be to start a low skill character with a large target cursor and the caveat that the weapon would hit somewhere in that area. As the character increased skills, then circle shrinks in size to represent more accurate targetting. That way as a player I know at all times what a reasonable sized target is for my current skill level.
But even that still feels a bit cheesy to me.
If I told the character to shoot at X, and the character misses, then that''s ok. But in that case I don''t expect to have to do more than click on the target person - no crosshairs required. I''m perfectly content to let the computer control the details.
If the game is setup where the crosshairs correspond to my mouse, and the target (enemy) moves around, then that''s ok too. I would expect a real person to move around instead of remaining perfectly still.
But if the target is still, and my mouse is still, and the crosshairs wander around the screen, then that''s annoying. If the crosshairs are jittery because the player character is poisoned or drunk or whatnot, then that''s tolerable provided that it''s rare.
And if I perfectly pinpoint my crosshairs on the enemy''s right eyeball, then it should darn well shoot him in the eye. No mysterious crosswinds from nowhere. If my eye-hand coordination is superrb, then let me benefit from it, don''t nerf my skills.
Hmm. The only way around it that I see would be to start a low skill character with a large target cursor and the caveat that the weapon would hit somewhere in that area. As the character increased skills, then circle shrinks in size to represent more accurate targetting. That way as a player I know at all times what a reasonable sized target is for my current skill level.
But even that still feels a bit cheesy to me.
Author
quote: Original post by JSwing
Hmm. The only way around it that I see would be to start a low skill character with a large target cursor and the caveat that the weapon would hit somewhere in that area. As the character increased skills, then circle shrinks in size to represent more accurate targetting. That way as a player I know at all times what a reasonable sized target is for my current skill level.
But even that still feels a bit cheesy to me.
It works exactly like that in Rogue Spear and Deus Ex. The larger the crosshair, the worse the aim. SWAT3 has a static "crosshair" which resembles the outline of the gun viewed from behind, and somehow I like that more than a "dynamic" cursor. But then again, SWAT3 isn''t so much about shooting, maybe that wouldn''t work in Deus Ex.
You must try Rogue Spear or Deus Ex before bashing the system.
Some "realistic" FPS mods have this system also, but I don''t know which because I haven''t tried any.-Jussi
Here's my opinion, in the context of the discussion on shooting:
You either have a shooting skill in your game, or you don't.
If you have a shooting skill, mechanics dictate that this skill indicates how good you are at shooting stuff. It will fudge your shots, it will fumble your reloads, it will unsteady your hand. If it's a first-person game, your "crosshair" is your mouse pointer. Your "clicking on the target" is exactly that. You shoot, you might hit or miss, regardless of WHERE you clicked on the target. As long as the system can discern which target you clicked, this works perfectly. It will simply make a judgment based on your skill level, to decide if you hit the target or not.
Now, if you don't have a shooting skill in the game, where you click will matter a lot. The game is relying on the player's skill as a mouse jockey/marksman. You click on the eye? You'll hit your opponent in the eye. You click one pixel to the left of his ear? You've just chipped the wall and alerted the whole gang to your presence.
But you can't go both ways.
"Hey, I'll have this skill help me, but I won't let it penalise me!"
That's not a skill, that's a bonus.
There is one other possibility:
Having skill being the result of your actions, instead of it causing the result of the actions.
For instance, if you happen to be a damn good shot, your "shooting skill" will be a reflection of how well you are doing. It doesn't influence your shooting, it just shows you how good you are.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.
Edited by - MadKeithV on December 8, 2000 10:14:00 AM
You either have a shooting skill in your game, or you don't.
If you have a shooting skill, mechanics dictate that this skill indicates how good you are at shooting stuff. It will fudge your shots, it will fumble your reloads, it will unsteady your hand. If it's a first-person game, your "crosshair" is your mouse pointer. Your "clicking on the target" is exactly that. You shoot, you might hit or miss, regardless of WHERE you clicked on the target. As long as the system can discern which target you clicked, this works perfectly. It will simply make a judgment based on your skill level, to decide if you hit the target or not.
Now, if you don't have a shooting skill in the game, where you click will matter a lot. The game is relying on the player's skill as a mouse jockey/marksman. You click on the eye? You'll hit your opponent in the eye. You click one pixel to the left of his ear? You've just chipped the wall and alerted the whole gang to your presence.
But you can't go both ways.
"Hey, I'll have this skill help me, but I won't let it penalise me!"
That's not a skill, that's a bonus.
There is one other possibility:
Having skill being the result of your actions, instead of it causing the result of the actions.
For instance, if you happen to be a damn good shot, your "shooting skill" will be a reflection of how well you are doing. It doesn't influence your shooting, it just shows you how good you are.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.
Edited by - MadKeithV on December 8, 2000 10:14:00 AM
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
