I’ve been working on a set of control point entities for Garry’s Mod the last week or two. My goal is to provide a set of reusable entities that mappers and gamemode creators can use. The initial design is based fairly heavily on the Team Fortress 2 control point entities. WiP thread on the FacePunch forums.
Archive for the ‘Game Design’ Category
I have been thinking about RPG stat and leveling systems recently. It seems that most games use a few basic systems: Point Buy, Fixed Stats, and Random Stats. I will focus mostly on computer games, but this should apply to other games as well.
Point Buy is probably what most people are familiar with for computer RPG games. I am generalizing this a bit here though. The standard point buy system from Dungeons and Dragons is explained here.
Many computer games use a modified point buy system. If we generalize, there are two main parts to the point buy system:
- The player has a pool of points to draw from
- The may purchase stat points for his character using points from this pool
A fixed stats system is one that provides predetermined stat scores for characters. Many games start all characters out with 100 hit points, for example, or if the game has multiple classes, each class may start out with predetermined stats.
A random stats system is one in which the stat points are determined by some random factor. Dice may be rolled, or the computer may use a random number generator in some fashion. Often, limits or options are presented, such as being able to choose the higher of multiple numbers.
In The Game
Most computer games use a combination of these systems. A standard mixture is point buy on top of a fixed stat base. These can also be used during the game for character advancement as well. Not only can stats be improved, but skills and abilities can be selected as well. Other stat bonuses from equipment or skills are often included in the system as well.
These examples are just games that I am familiar with at the moment.
- World of Warcraft — Uses a fixed stat system for characters (each class has set starting stats) with an emphasis on increasing stats with equipment and talents. Stats increase by a fixed amount when the character increases in level. Talents are selected using a point buy system. The character receives 1 talent point every level after 9 and talents cost 1 point to improve.
- Diablo 2 — Uses a fixed stat base (each class has set starting stats) with a point buy system on top. Each character receives 5 stat points and 1 skill point per level. Stats and skill cost 1 point each to improve. Some quests may grant stat or skill points as a reward.
- On The Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness (Penny Arcade Game) — Uses fixed stats throughout the game. Stats increase by a fixed amount when the character increases level. The player has almost no control over character stats. Some quests in the game will increase certain stats, however, but these values are fixed as well.
For me, it is interesting to look at these games and examine how the leveling systems affect my play. I enjoyed playing all of these quite a lot. If I rank these games based on amount of character customization, I find that the games with more customization options are games that I want to replay. I have almost no desire to play the Penny Arcade game again because I have already done almost everything. I do want to play more World of Warcraft, partially because there is a lot that I haven’t done (the game world is very large) but also because there are many ways that I can customize my character. Diablo 2, in contrast to WoW, has a much smaller game world, and I have explored almost all of it, but it also has a very high replay value because of amount of character customization that can be done.
Many games employ a level of abstraction between the player and the character in the game. This often involves some kind of point assignment scheme. These points represent core statistics such as strength or agility, abilities such as “Sword Proficiency” or “Dwarven Language Skill” or meta-scores such as hitpoints or armor. Even games that have a high level of user interaction such as first person shooter games almost always employ something like a hitpoint score.
These numbers are useful because:
- They provide a quantification of concepts that would be difficult to work with otherwise. This makes things easier on both the programmer/game and player. The game must represent the concepts as numbers in some way, and the player easily recognizes that a score of 2 in “Sword Proficiency” is greater (and more powerful) than a score of 1.
- They provide a way to map user interaction onto a game character
- They provide a mechanism for creating boundaries and barriers. Perhaps a character must have a score of 5 in Sword Proficiency before he can wield the Vorpal Blade or Important Plot NPC #28 will not talk to the character until they have more experience (level 3). Perhaps the character cannot even understand the NPC until he becomes more fluent in a certain language.
Lately I’ve been mulling over the idea that games contain hidden transactions. No, not monetary transactions, but the idea that games contain lots of miniature contracts between the game (or designer) and the player.
From a player’s perspective:
- If I open this treasure chest, I will receive an item.
- Killing enemies or monsters should reward me or otherwise help me to achieve a goal.
- Rewards should be comparable to the effort I put in.
- If there is a puzzle or goal, then there should be a way for me to legally complete it.
- If I press a button or toggle a switch, something should happen.
Those are some fairly common high-level design expectations that players have. (There are obviously many others, and more-specific ones as well) If the player finds that their expectations are not met (the contract is broken) they may feel frustrated, angry, or even betrayed. If the player consistently opens treasure chests and receives no items or kills monsters and receives no experience, then the game designer has obviously not kept up his end of the bargain!
I think that game designers have a certain degree of responsibility to uphold these expectations, or if they do not, to provide obvious alternate contracts.
There are two general guidelines for cut scenes that every game designer should abide by:
- Allow the player to skip every cut scene. (Exceptions could perhaps be made for the very first time a player views the cut scene.) Having to sit through a two minute cut scene every time you die to a boss is frustrating and easily avoidable.
- Save or check points do not belong immediately before a cut scene. When I load up a saved game, I want to start playing, not start watching a cut scene. If I am fighting a boss, I don’t want to watch the same cut scene over and over when I inevitably die.
I also have some other suggestions (“Hire translators who speak both Japanese and English,” or “Cut scenes should stay consistent with the game world.”) but following these two general rules would make cut scenes immensely better.
Additionally, there should be a way to go back and view cut scenes that have already been seen in the game. This is not really a gameplay issue though.