Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draco18s]

This is more of a discussion than a suggestion, but it came up last night when talking to a friend of mine about various RPG systems.

The basis of the thought was that systems have a range of values for attributes (D&D is 3-18, ShadowRun is 1-6, etc.) but what would a change in that range mean?  I.e. a higher or lower potential maximum?  What if your D&D character could only ever achieve 14 strength?  Or what if he could get up to 20? (Natural inherent attribute)  As written D&D has no potentials, just what you "are" and where you can get more bonuses (or not) with the gold you have.

Anyway, what it came down to was that we can't measure skill potential in real life, but that having a measurable value for it in a game does have meaning; "I guess I'm just good," "Even on an off day he's still better," or "It just comes naturally to me."

For RPGs I brought up the point that (for instance) the "smart kid" playing sports because he enjoys it and while good has little room for improvement over someone who's just as good, but has more potential.  would you ever play that "smart kid"?

And then there's "natural talent."  It's possible to be as good as you'll ever be at something even though you've never had training (just picked up a paint brush and did amazing artwork, but you can never improve).

However in a game like Dwarf Fortress each dwarf/character CAN HAVE these attributes, they can be "measured" and can have an influence on those dwarves.  Immigrants with skills would likely already be skilled where their potential and natural talent lies, though peasants would be unskilled, but have unknown (to the player) potentials and natural talent (I think it's been discussed before in another thread).

This might have positive game play effects, such as finding a dwarf who is just terrible at carpentry because his potential is low and "forcing" him to make beds (see "the smart kid" above).

So the things to be discussed are:
Should there be potential variance and natural talent (would players like it)?  What does it look like (how does the player know)?  And anything else you have to say on the matter.

[Neonivek]

Here is what I think should happen

Adventurers have more potential then normal people anyhow and can always reach the Species barrier (basically become a Paragon).

After that they need other methods to get even more powerful, however they reach the point where it is no longer natural. So they need magical methods to do so.

[Granite26]

Dracos,

Isn't a lot of that covered in the personality?  What a dwarf likes to do will determine how much he practices which is a big part of how good he is (plus showing up for work of a Monday is a plus)

Would adding another variable add any new content?

As far as AD&D, it was kinda broken in favor of a human norm.  The stats broke down extremely quick past 6 points away from 11.  Basically, +1 at 20 strength meant a LOT more than +1 at 10.  (which is ok for a logarithmic scale but isn't much good when you want to use addition of real numbers. for modifiers.  There were no belts of +20% strength, just hard set it to 18/50 or whatever)

[Draco18s]

Isn't a lot of that covered in the personality?  What a dwarf likes to do will determine how much he practices which is a big part of how good he is (plus showing up for work of a Monday is a plus)

To an extent.  When talking with my friend we were looking at World of Darkness and ShadowRun (attributes rang from 1 to 10 or so for un-augmented playable races, each race has a range of 6 from min to max) and the concept of having more potential than average.  ShadowRun has this (exceptional attribute quality), but WoD doesn't (what does it mean in Mage: The Awakening for a character to have a higher potential for willpower?  Or a natural talent for physical activity?)

So yes, while partially covered by personality traits currently, I'm not sure how much is covered.

Would adding another variable add any new content?

Like I said, a discussion.

As far as AD&D, it was kinda broken in favor of a human norm.  The stats broke down extremely quick past 6 points away from 11.  Basically, +1 at 20 strength meant a LOT more than +1 at 10.  (which is ok for a logarithmic scale but isn't much good when you want to use addition of real numbers. for modifiers.  There were no belts of +20% strength, just hard set it to 18/50 or whatever)

Quite.  It's something I've noticed.  Game I'm in on Sunday has a barbarian who when raging can lift 19,000 pounds (mmm...I can taste the realism).  My character can lift a tenth that (at only 26 strength).  Hence why most of the talk last night revolved around more linear attribute systems, though D&D was used as an example of a system with a set range with no variable potential (you are what you are, there is no cap).

[Granite26]

7th sea has a buy-at-character-creation extra point based on nationality (race) used to encourage national differences without making any of the nationalities skewed, and still leaving good room for the non-heroes to all be the same average.

I wouldn't want to add arbitrary at-birth caps on the adventure races (what fun would that be?  Oh man, I can't get any stronger and I'm playing a swordsman!).  That puts the limitations into the personality range (or other added when you get made as an NPC trait)

[Draco18s]

I wouldn't want to add arbitrary at-birth caps on the adventure races (what fun would that be?  Oh man, I can't get any stronger and I'm playing a swordsman!).  That puts the limitations into the personality range (or other added when you get made as an NPC trait)

Oh, I agree.  I wouldn't want arbitrary caps on adventurers either, but I was mostly thinking Dwarf Mode and NPCs in adventure mode/history gen.

But on the other hand, as an adventurer you'd enjoy being able to be abnormally strong for your race (that is, above the general race cap).

[Tormy]

Draco, you are talking about "natural talents" for example. Anything like this could only work, if the various attributes couldn't be maxed by each and every dwarf. Correct?
Basically I find this attrib potential idea good enough, since it would make the gameplay even more diverse, plus more realistic also.

[Neonivek]

Draco, you are talking about "natural talents" for example. Anything like this could only work, if the various attributes couldn't be maxed by each and every dwarf. Correct?
Basically I find this idea attrib potential idea good enough, since it would make the gameplay even more diverse, plus more realistic also.

It would also be an interesting way to weaken Champions

[Silverionmox]

ADOM, the roguelike, had a "potential" mirror stat for each attribute. Ordinary training could still (slowly) lift the potential treshold if it was maxed out though, so it wasn't completely consistent.

[Granite26]

ADOM, the roguelike, had a "potential" mirror stat for each attribute. Ordinary training could still (slowly) lift the potential treshold if it was maxed out though, so it wasn't completely consistent.

Actually, I like this better.  Everybody has a different level they can get to easily, but you never hit a hard limit.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but where is the Demon bargaining, Faithquests, and dangerous magical experiements?

[Tormy]

ADOM, the roguelike, had a "potential" mirror stat for each attribute. Ordinary training could still (slowly) lift the potential treshold if it was maxed out though, so it wasn't completely consistent.

Actually, I like this better.  Everybody has a different level they can get to easily, but you never hit a hard limit.

I don't know...its absolutely not realistic if all creatures can max out everything. Everyone has their limits. 

[Draco18s]

Draco, you are talking about "natural talents" for example. Anything like this could only work, if the various attributes couldn't be maxed by each and every dwarf. Correct?

While not explicitly stated, that would most likely happen (given the Skill Rust).  If you "max out" one stat and start working on another, you'd acquire rust on it.  Eventually you'd not be able to maintain all of the max/near max skills that you have, but the idea is that one dwarf's maximum toughness (for example) isn't the same as another dwarf.  Both might be "tougher than average" (have a higher max than Urist and be at it) but one guy will give into pain before the other.

Edit, skills too.  For example, maybe McCarpenter has a lower potential for carpentry than average, and while good, can never be "the best" (in this respect, I'd place Legendary +5 as the highest possible potential, personally I think the lower bound would be around "professional" with your average at Grand Master; reasoning: legendaries are f-ing legendary, these are the guys who's potential is higher than the norm, your generic dude shouldn't rise above Grand Master because he just isn't Legendary, while someone who works at it, but has a low potential can still be a "professional" at the job--they'll produce fine to superior furniture on average, where as your generic average dwarf makes Exceptional pieces*).

*This sounds high to me, i.e. the average should be professional, everyone is a "white collar worker" with your above norms getting up to Grand Master, and only the super-dwarves (artifact makers) achieve legendary status, which modifies their potential to a new bell curve from Legendary +0 to Legendary +5 with the average around +2.5: a McDwarfy who had a potential of Grand Master could then achieve up to Legendary +5, while your Professionals would get +2 to +3.  Unfortunately the lower bound on this would end up being around "competent."  Actually, no, I think that works: your dwarves who "just suck" at some skill can still be competent at it with experience, and those who have normal/average potential can be professionals at their peak, while the select few achieve master or grand master.  This makes linguistic sense, cuts down on the "champion spam" and "everyone's legendary!" problems, as well as reduces the need for recruiting peasants to make your furniture: you find a farm boy and apprentice him, but he proves to be lackluster, but he can knock out cheap furniture for the masses.