quote: Original post by Dynamite
yeah i''m w/ u Naz, i was just curious 2 ur meaning. people r treated differently depending on how they r perceived by others. maybe reputation could lead to easier/more opportunities to acheive a goal, not so much as more exp or direct benefits, but the opening up of more possibilities.

Yes, reputation was what I was thinking as well. I just wanted to make the point that using a reputation system combined w/ this one would make some pretty deep characters







"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

quote: Original post by Nazrix
Yes, reputation was what I was thinking as well. I just wanted to make the point that using a reputation system combined w/ this one would make some pretty deep characters

another thing about perception. a businessman might have a drug ring running thru his basement, but the public wouldn''t know. but that migh get complicated and OT, so nevermind.


--I don''t judge, I just observe
Stuck in the Bush''s, Florida

AP: Sorry if my last post came over a bit rude, but I think that by selecting details like UI and viewpoint too early you are restricting yourself to think in terms of what already exists. By forgetting about these details at this stage, you can concentrate on the actual gameplay mechanics, and then you pick the interface that best fits the design. Do it the other way around and you end up designing the game around the interface, which will either limit the features that you include in the game, or result in a terrible interface because you bolt on features after the interface has been designed.

Back on topic:

OK lets take a bit of a step back. I think that we should distinguish between the players goal (the ends) and the method of acheiving that goal (the means). By progressing towards his goal, the player earns xp regardless of the methods he employs to do so. The methods that he uses to achieve these ends are used to determine what kind of skills the player can buy with his xp.

As to how NPC's react, that might depend on a number of factors. Does the NPC know the players ultimate goal? Is that goal compatible with the NPC's goal, is it irrelevant, or does the player stand for everything the NPC is against? What about the players immediate actions? Do they effect the NPC's goal? Do the ends justify the means? A city guard might look the other way when a character commits murder, if the character's ultimate goal would save many more people.

Lets take the Robin hood character as an example. Rich nobles (motivated by greed) would dislike him intensely - his actions directly act against their goals (they tend to become poorer whenever he is around). Peasants on the other hand (motivated by simply earning a living) find their goals easier as a result of his actions and would therefore welcome him.

This interaction kind of lead me to another idea, which might be a bit wild and different but is certainly interesting (mainly for single player or multiplayer with small numbers). What if, each character had a kind of non-corporeal 'Nemesis' NPC whose goals were the exact opposite of his own. This nemesis would not actually exist in the game world - rather it has certain special abilities that would enable it to further its own goals. For example, if the player was playing a priest whose goal was to spread peace across the land, his nemesis would be trying to spread war. It could do this by spawning (or otherwise changing existing NPC's in some way) special NPC's to combat the player's actions. The PC earns experience according to how well he is doing against this NPC. In short, the nemesis would be like a virtual DM making the PC's life a little less easy (and therefore a bit more interesting)

Oh, I love these brainstorming threads

Edited by - Sandman on January 29, 2001 5:48:48 PM

Sandman, thanks for the step back. I was having trouble seperating the means and ends in following this discussion.

As to means: We''ll fail if we try to detect secondary world conditions like in the bridge example (hacks aside). So what if we''re a bit more literal about it?

We want to WEIGHT actions. WEIGHTING actions gives us a sense of role-play: e.g, a person of a certain type favors some actions over others. They''ll always take some actions, and never take others.

So why not be direct about it? For instance, why not say that there''s a chance to perform an action, which is seperate from the chance to succeed at the action. To tie in what ddn was mentioning, this would translate directly to the mouse clicks (I agree it''s too early to formalize UI, but I''m using this to illustrate a direct link).

In game terms, a noncombatant would find it difficult to murder. A pious character would find it difficult to gamble. Etc. We could also tie this to movement: Pious men avoid brothels, archaeologists crave ruins.. etc.

This would make possible complex characters that have the skill to do certain things, but not the will or motivation. For example, you could have the ex-gunfighter turned priest (the movie Pale Rider) who has unparalleled gunfighting skills that he can''t / won''t use.

You would help encourage character by naturally making it easier to succeed at in-character actions.


Then, we deal with ends seperately: Ends are closer to the difficult secondary conditions, and that''s why I think they should be object based as has been mentioned in different posts here. This is where going to temple helps the spiritual seeker, or killing off poachers helps the ranger, or creating new gadgets helps the inventor.

You could then use plot events / state triggers to change this action weighting matrix. The priest witnesses a brutal murder, and that opens up his gunfighting skills. For non-linear approaches you could tie this directly in to game world factors: War, for instance, or extreme paranoia, or famine would make killing and looting easier for your average citizen.

Advancement: Ability to do and skill are independent, but they could advance the same way: Practice. It''s (chillingly) said that the first murder is always the hardest one, for example. So the gentle priest could become a murderer, except that his chance to commit the first act would be extremely small.

I vote for making it a chance to be able to perform an action, btw, rather than a hard coded limit, because this could allow for changing motivations. For example, if you succeed at murder, the game could alter your ability to do some things and while diminishing others. Going from saint to monster would increase your chances to tell lies, steal, spread mayhem, etc.

This is more simple (I think) and the simpler it is, the easier it is to bulletproof.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Sandman,

I like that "virtual DM" idea... I get an image of the Spectre of Death playing chess If it could be implemented well, there would be a LOT of potential. A custom created experience for every player. Perhaps, if it were to operate at a sort of strategic level/object manager level... I would love to see us be able to get to that point one day.

Wavinator,

Thats an interesting take on this idea. I like the sort of downward spiral effect Perhaps opposing motivations would work out of a common pool. As you become more able to be charitable, you would find it harder to be greedy, or vice-versa. As you become a cold-blooded killer, the spiritual life escapes you, etc.

And tangibles are where I was thinking that this could succeed. If we can link motivations to objects and places, and perhaps ignore more complicated cause/effect chains then this could work. I think the key would be getting it "good enough", to get the point across to the player.

I think that no matter what the implementation, there will have to be an allowance for noise, as we''re trying to track a "fuzzy" concept. Perhaps a time based filtering/accumulation system - the score towards a motivation would build up over a certain period of time, if it reaches a certain point, it is added to the overall tally for the character and the clock is reset, but if it doesn''t within the time period, then it is thrown away as noise. If it is close to retention point, the system could add a little more time then either throw it away or keep it (no third chance). Major events would pretty much automatically be added to the tally, but small, guessy sort of events would be put through the filter.

-pwd

Wav: I like the end result, but I am not sure I like the idea of having 'a percentage chance to perform an action' - it seems a little artificial to use random number generators to influence the player's choices like that. I dont think it is fair to try and force a player to play in character - then the game becomes almost linear - rather you want to set up the game mechanics in such a way as to reward good play, and punish (or at least, not reward) bad play. Lets say you are playing the gentle priest for a while - if you suddenly go on a mass murdering spree, how does this effect your character? I would prefer that the character gains nothing from the experience, and perhaps finds it harder to earn XP by following his usual motivation as a result. His other choice might be to descend further into 'evil' - and maybe the game could pick up on his new motivation as a fallen angel and adjust accordingly.

The virtual DM is by no means my own idea, but it seemed to be a natural extension of the PC/NPC interaction - by determining the reaction of an NPC with goals opposite the players goals, you could judge how well the player was acheiving his own goals.

I think it might be important to identify a set of possible motivations that can be identified by the game (certain motivations such as revenge against a particular character might be very difficult to recognise unless your world is VERY detailed). Each motivation might have an opposite, and possibly an antogonistic motivation. There is a reason why I am differentiating between opposite and antagonistic motivations.

Take greed for example. The opposite of greed would probably be generosity. But a greedy character would probably get along very well with a generous character, since the generous character would be very willing to part with his money. An antagonistic character would be another greedy character - they both want each others money - so sparks may well fly.

Another idea I had, was that every character would have one of these virtual DM's representing each possible motivation. These VDMS get more powerful the more the PC resists them, and the PC earns XP for resisting. It is of course completely impossible to resist all of them, since some of them are mutually exclusive (you cant be motivated by a desire for war and peace at the same time, it doesnt make sense) The ones that the player supports, become weaker and fade away, leaving the antagonistic & opposite motivations, which the player is actively resisting. This means that you can simulate some fairly complex motivations by combining several simple ones. Even if the set of motivations you cater for is quite small (10 or so) you have the potential for a lot of depth....

If the player suddenly changes character, then he is no longer resisting his strongest VDMS and so he earns very little experience. His weaker VDMS (the ones he was previously supporting) will become stronger as a result however, and eventually he will start earning XP for following his new motivations.

Shit that was a long post. Sorry if it was a bit of a ramble, I have had a few beers

Edited by - Sandman on January 30, 2001 7:38:56 PM

Hmmm... One possible way of implementing Wavinators idea, would be instead of making the player completely incapable of performing the action, make them hesitate. Thus, in the ex-gunfighter turned priest example, if the character came into a situation where he would have to kill, he could possibly freeze up (moralizing/hesitating) for a short period of time. If this were a tense situation where time was of the essence, perhaps the intended target would have the time to get away, or disarm the character... In a less tense situation, perhaps it would merely give the player a visual cue that doing such a thing is against their character (but they would still do it). The cold blooded character would just do it, without a chance for hesitation.

In other situations, perhaps this could be used for NPC interaction. If the greedy player were trying to pretend to be charitable to improve their reputation, NPCs seeing the player hesitate would perhaps have a chance to put two and two together (an extra check of the perceptive skill perhaps) and not give the player a reputation bonus, or even a penalty...

I see this sort of thing all the time in the "suspense" movies my wife likes to watch...

Wouldn''t force the players hand, but would give them something to think about. If they really did want to change, as their motivation shifted, this hesitation possibility would go away (and be moved to the opposing motivation). Perhaps there would be a period of "inner turmoil" where the player would have the hesitation factor working in both directions for a certain motivation.

Sandman,

Chemically enhanced design

The antagonistic/opposing motivations would work great for NPC interactions. Some sort of motivational matrix, which could be applied either to the players real motivations, or the players reputation to get the NPCs opinion of the player. Although a greedy player may still not want to team up with a generous character... There could be tension when the generous player is giving large amounts of money to the poor (which the greedy player would rather have to himself...)

hmmm, maybe call it a Virtual Motivation Manipulator What if we took it from a slightly different angle. Perhaps the Motivation Manipulators could also push for events to be in alignment with the players motivations as well, rather than just making life difficult for the player... Then the more the player either opposed or went along with the mechinations of the VMM, the stronger it would get, and the more the player ignored it, the weaker it would get. They would never disappear completely, so if the player started activating its mechinations again, it could come back...

Just brainstorming here. You could almost base a "magic" system off of that - the players actions would affect the potency of their spells (which would work through the VMM). For example, a healing spell would work through, say, the "Generosity/Charity" VMM. If the VMM were hostile, you would probably just irritate it more, and it could cause some entirely different effect, if it were amicable, it might try to bring the effect around for you, and if it were weak, the effect would be feeble.

I will have to think about these VMMs some more...

-pwd