17 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
I suppose I can see where you are coming from. An example: I keep wanting to give Godwars II an honest try, but I can't seem to get into it. It seems like a very well designed system but at times I feel like I can't be bothered to figure it out. Yeah, I retract my argument.


Yep, that's another good example. Godwars is really a niche game designed for a group of players who I would consider a niche market compared to everything else. I could never personally get into Godwars simply because of the system design. It was something different and I didn't like the difference in what I was traditionally use too with the PKILL MUDs that I played. Thus, my transition to that style of game went very bad and even today, I still consider the PKILL MUD that I originally played in the 90's the best PKILL MUD ever designed. In order to secure my dedication, you would have to design a game based on what I like to play. This is similar to the whole World of Warcraft debate on why they chose the design direction they did, which is keeping a lot of things in tradition with very small innovations implemented to make the wheel slightly better than before.
17 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
Just for reference: making systems more complex doesn't make them any better. It can actually do more harm than good because you do lose all familiarity to the system or game when you start hitting those stages to the end user (player). It's very similar to the argument on why most games don't stop copying the wheel model instead of doing something different. The answer lies in what the end users accept and don't accept because in the end, if players are not familiar with a certain way of doing things then they are highly likely to be turned off from the game.

I agree to a point, but there's a fine balance between "familiar" and "innovative". The majority of muds fall clearly into the "familiar" category, although in most cases I suspect it's not a conscious decision. And while too much innovation can discourage many players, too little may result in your game being ignored entirely. The most popular muds seem to be those that polish the tried-and-true approaches.

I've also noticed that the impact of innovation varies tremendously depending on the feature. My stat system is very different to any other mud I've encountered, but nobody seems to have any problem with it. Conversely my movement system is the main deal-breaker for most newbies, despite my best attempts to make it feel as similar as possible to other muds. My combat system is also thoroughly different, and I always expected it to be the main hurdle, but even the people who hate my mud and write crappy reviews about it usually start out with comments like "The combat is great, but…"

So as far as the stat system is concerned, I'd say it's one of those areas you can feel free to innovate on without too much risk of alienating potential players.

Of course it's also something of a double-edged sword. If you can pull in completely new players who have no prior expectations, then your mud will become the "familiar" standard by which they judge other muds. And if nobody else offers a game like yours, you'll find the players are less likely to jump ship after the honeymoon phase.

Chris Bailey said:
I suppose I can see where you are coming from. An example: I keep wanting to give Godwars II an honest try, but I can't seem to get into it. It seems like a very well designed system but at times I feel like I can't be bothered to figure it out. Yeah, I retract my argument.

Let me guess…the movement system feels too weird?
17 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I agree to a point, but there's a fine balance between "familiar" and "innovative". The majority of muds fall clearly into the "familiar" category, although in most cases I suspect it's not a conscious decision. And while too much innovation can discourage many players, too little may result in your game being ignored entirely. The most popular muds seem to be those that polish the tried-and-true approaches.


(Assuming you mean ignored because the game offers nothing new.)

Well, MUDs do have the benefit of trying innovative things at a very cheap to zero cost compared to most game development. Thus, the possibilities are really endless when it comes to MUD development and trying something new. However, it's important to understand that innovation is not a requirement for game diversity (or product diversity). Simple arrangement of features, systems and etc can make your game (or product) seem entirely different and sometimes new to the player where it's not ignored.

That's another good example for World of Warcraft. When launched, the game itself didn't hold much innovation if not anything at all. It was more about the collation of features, systems and etc that made the game so popular. Like taking the best of many games and mashing it into one product with additional tweaks to make what was familiar or majority accepted – better. Over time, they were able to take many of the features and try new innovative approaches in order to push their game to a higher standard as well setting the standard for a entire genre. Therefore, what was offered was not something you could consider innovative nor something you could consider ignored completely in result of little innovation.

In summary, some say the mob is easily entertained by shiny stuff regardless if it's innovative or not! :biggrin:

…Course that can all change during the honeymoon phase after the see the shiny stuff wasn't as shiny as they thought…
17 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
(Assuming you mean ignored because the game offers nothing new.)

Yes…I mean when you've hundreds of identical games, there's no real incentive for people to try them all, which is why most muds strive to stand out from the competition.

Littlehorn said:
Well, MUDs do have the benefit of trying innovative things at a very cheap to zero cost compared to most game development.

It's hard to generalise. When it comes to game content such as new monsters and equipment, then sure, it's much faster to write a description than produce a load of 3D graphics. But when you're talking about intricate game mechanics, the effort isn't going to be any less - and hobby muds tend to have fewer staff than commercial games, too, with the staff working in their free time as opposed to full-time. How many fully playable muds do think there'd be today if everyone had to start from scratch each time?

I think a more important distinction is that a hobby mud can afford to take greater risks. Creating a mud, for me, is fun - it's entertainment. It's not my livelihood. It doesn't pay my bills, or feed my family, or secure my future. If people don't like it, well that's a bit of a shame, but it doesn't have any real implications for me.

Littlehorn said:
Thus, the possibilities are really endless when it comes to MUD development and trying something new. However, it's important to understand that innovation is not a requirement for game diversity (or product diversity). Simple arrangement of features, systems and etc can make your game (or product) seem entirely different and sometimes new to the player where it's not ignored.

I would argue that that is also a form of "innovation".
17 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
I had a image but I guess it's not that relevant when looking at it more. But, I can agree that the arrangement can be looked at innovative as it would for authors who use words to write good original stories.
18 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
I had a image but I guess it's not that relevant when looking at it more.

How about this one?



Most muds strive to stand out from the competition, but some fall into the trap of thinking that "unique" and "innovative" are synonymous with "better", adding new features for the sole purpose of being different, rather than asking themselves "Does this make the game more fun?" and "Is this worth the loss of familiarily?"
18 Jun, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
Doesn't matter what you replace them with, it's the core RPG system for your game. You can replace them with all new statistics, equations and etc, it's still your RPG system; traditional to D&D or not. The point was how you classify the system for easier understanding rather than saying all statistics in your MUD refers to the same system because not all statistics belong to the same system. :wink:

I've read that over a couple of times, but the only way I can interpret it basically comes down to "no matter what your game mechanics are, they're still game mechanics". While that's certainly true, it doesn't seem an especially useful observation(!) so I have to assume that's not what you meant - but your true meaning eludes me.

Littlehorn said:
Just for reference: making systems more complex doesn't make them any better.

It doesn't automatically make them better, but it is frequently a necessary means to an end.

In this case I have a number of objections to a traditional D&D-like system. One I already mentioned is that some D&D stats are too poorly defined, or too vague - thematically speaking, it makes no sense to me to have the same score determine both one's ability to dodge incoming melee attacks, and also one's ability to pick locks. More fundamentally, I think many MUDs haven't really answered the question "what is the stat system supposed to do, that is not adequately covered by other systems?" Indeed, I suspect that a number of MUDs only have a stat system at all either because it's a built-in feature of the code-base, or because the MUD's creators are so accustomed to RPGs having a stat system that it becomes an unconscious assumption that there must be one present, and no one ever stops to ask what it's supposed to achieve.

I agree that straying too far from what players are accustomed to may be problematic; but I think most players can deal with the notion that "there are several different kinds of scores associated with your character that do different things"; the question therefore comes back to "what is the stat system supposed to do that cannot be handled by other systems?" Too often stats do things which (IMO) overlap too much with skills, and there's no point in having two separate systems if they do essentially the same thing.

My own preference (as already stated) is that stats should be essentially static, and act as a soft-class system - which, needless to say, requires the abolition of formal hard-classes in order to be useful or interesting! An area I'm quite interested in is finding the sweet-spot between the traditional "class-based" and "skill-based" polar extremes. Stats which are configurable at character creation but static thereafter, and which control skill-acquisition potential, seem like a potentially fruitful approach.
18 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
In this case I have a number of objections to a traditional D&D-like system. One I already mentioned is that some D&D stats are too poorly defined, or too vague - thematically speaking, it makes no sense to me to have the same score determine both one's ability to dodge incoming melee attacks, and also one's ability to pick locks. More fundamentally, I think many MUDs haven't really answered the question "what is the stat system supposed to do, that is not adequately covered by other systems?" Indeed, I suspect that a number of MUDs only have a stat system at all either because it's a built-in feature of the code-base, or because the MUD's creators are so accustomed to RPGs having a stat system that it becomes an unconscious assumption that there must be one present, and no one ever stops to ask what it's supposed to achieve.


I think you misunderstand me. I'll clarify some more.

Firstly, you're trying to make a point that traditional D&D statistic systems are poorly defined. Yet, you are poorly defining how the system itself works with traditional D&D rulesets and how you're new system will entail. For example, you're automatically assuming that this so called stat system refers to all game statistics in a game, when in fact they are not all part of the same system, but really apart of their own sub-systems branched like a tree from a root-system (like an RPG system). The point of these sub-systems and the way they are branched from the root-system tree is to correctly define their placement and relationship between all systems in the game.

Secondly, this so called stat system is not a good description to what you're trying to communicate. Games can have hundreds of statistics that can have different purposes from defining a characters strength to defining how many players logged off for the night. All of these game statistics do not all belong to what you would consider a "stat system".

Lastly, you're confusing yourself by assuming that RPG System means that you have to use the same poorly define game statistics that you hate in these traditional D&D games. You can make them whatever you like, but the point was to give you a better classification on WHAT TYPE of game statistic and what you should classify those game statistics as in your own game to help you better define your overall system.

For example, you may very well define all of your character statistics as one big system and refer to this system as your "stat system". However, to help your better define this so called stat system, I was suggesting that you further split them up into sub-systems under a root system simple called as your "RPG System" or "Character Statistic System" for your game. That way, you can correctly divide your character statistics into groups that can be controlled together without affecting the entire system as one big jammed up cluster of statistics that may not even have direct or indirect relations.


RPG System or Character Statistic System (Master)

  • Core Character Statistics (Slave)

  • Offensive Character Statistics (Slave)

  • Defensive Character Statistics (Slave)

  • Utility Character Statistics (Slave)


  • (Note: RPG Systems can vary outside of just character statistics making the game systems more in-depth with their system trees or system branches.)

    My point is that you should stick to what is correctly or even traditionally referred to as the correct definition of the system rather than trying to say it's the stat system. You can define whatever stats and what they do in your RPG System or Character Statistic (STAT) for whatever fit your design the best. Further noting, that can also be a bad idea (as mentioned in other replies) when you break from the mold on what's familiar to the end user you're game is trying to target (market).
    20 Jun, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 29th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Littlehorn said:
    Secondly, this so called stat system is not a good description to what you're trying to communicate. Games can have hundreds of statistics that can have different purposes from defining a characters strength to defining how many players logged off for the night. All of these game statistics do not all belong to what you would consider a "stat system".

    So you're just quibbling with my having interpreted the phrase "stat system" as referring to the traditional six D&D "character stats" (strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, consitution and charisma) and with my using the phrase to mean that?

    Well, one could use an alternative phrase if you prefer; but I think that's the sense in which Tonitrus (the OP) first used the word "stats", so that's the system I went on to discuss: why I don't like it, and what I think it could be replaced with. His question was essentially "if we have D&D-like character stats in a MUD, what could they usefully do?" I was suggesting one possible option.
    20 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 30th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Our gaming group created a system that we jokingly refer to as "Labyrinthes & Lapdances" or "StatMaster". I posted my spin-off mini game "Flatfeet & Bootleggers" a few years back on TMC. Anyway we went in the complete opposite direction Tonitrus wants to go. We made our primary character stats finer grained and made each skill dependent on the sum of three of the stats. The game systems are based in d10 and d100 ranges and rolls.

    Physical Stats

    Physical stats define the characters innate abilities of their body.

  • 1. Strength - Ability to Lift, Carry, Cause Damage, etc. Also affects movement speed.

  • 2. Endurance - Helps determine Hit Points, Disease Resistance, Poison Resistance, exhaustion, etc.

  • 3. Agility - Gracefulness, nimbleness, fluid bodily movement.

  • 4. Dexterity - Ability to work in detail with the hands & fingers. Affects Lockpicking, Pickpocket, Sleight of Hand, etc. (An attribute probably most related to thief-type characters.) Also mechanic and repair skills, surgery, etc.

  • 5. Reflexes - The character's reaction speed. Their ability to react to a situation quickly. Affects Initiative, Surprise, Defensive Skills, etc. Movement speed?


  • Mental Stats

    Mental stats define the character's innate abilities of their mind.

  • 1. Willpower - Mental Fortitude, Mental Toughness. Ability to withstand high pressure, high fear, totally gross situations, etc. Probably also affects magic resistance, spell-casting ability, etc.

  • 2. Intellect - Using known facts to come to a conclusion about a given problem, aka reasoning, IQ, intelligence, logical process.

  • 3. Memory - Retention of what one has learned at a specified time. Influences learning, recall and lore.

  • 4. Intuition - Using hunches, gut feelings, etc, in decision-making.

  • 5. Awareness - A character's sense of their surroundings is measured by their awareness stat. An individual with a high awareness is more likely to notice hidden items, less likely to be suprised, and be more aware of changing tactical conditions.



  • Karmic Stats

    Karmic stats define the characters innate abilities to interact and relate to forces outside of themselves and define aspects of their soul.

  • 1. Fellowship - How a character interacts with others especially ones own kind, but not limited to that. It defines the natural ability for positive interaction and influence. Influences morale of others, initial reactions, and leadership.

  • 2. Harmony - The is one's innate ability to both manipulate and understand natural forces and beasts. A good stat for outdoorsy types like rangers, hunters, barbarians as well as druids, animal trainers (I am the Bastmaster!), etc.

  • 3. Aura - This is one's innate ability to manipulate magical forces. A good stat for mages, wizards and alchemists or anyone who needs to tap into mana, magic, etc.

  • 4. Spirit - This is a level of one's innate ability to manipulate supernatural forces and/or establish a connection with divine forces. Good stat for clerics, mystics, or any involved with the dead, occult or demonology.

  • 5. Beauty - Physical appearance, attractiveness. A 10 is hot and a 1 is not.



  • Some skill examples:

    Swordplay STR/STR/AGI
    Quickdraw REF/REF/DEX
    Quarterstaff STR/STR/AGI
    Axe STR/STR/AGI
    Bow STR/DEX/DEX
    Lasso/lariat AGI/DEX/DEX
    Dodge REF/AGI/AGI
    Shield Block REF/AGI/STR
    Tracking AWA/LOG/INT
    Hunting/Fishing LOG/DEX/AWA
    Foraging LOG/DEX/MEM
    Orienteering/Direction Sense INT/LOG/MEM
    Ride Animal AGI/HAR/HAR
    Dance ATT/AGI/AGI
    Haggle FEL/INT/MEM

  • LOG above is Intellect.

  • The way it works is the the base chance to determine if one succeeds at a skill is determined by the following:

    target = 50% - skill bonus + difficulty + situation modifiers
    If one rolls equal to or better than the target number on an open-ended roll than the target number one succceeds at the skill.
    The skill bonus is calculated by adding the stats that affect the skill together with 3 times the skill rank.

    Example:
    Bubba has a booger picking skill rank of 7. Booger picking is influenced by DEX/DEX/AWA. Bubbas dexterity is 4, awareness 1. Bubbas booger picking skill number is (4+4+1) + (7*3) or 30. Therefore assuming normal difficulty and normal conditions Bubba can pick a booger, assuming one is available of course, by rolling a 20 or greater.

    Enjoy. ;-)
    20 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 31st comment:
    Votes: 0
    I like the idea, but hate the over complexity of the system. That doesn't mean I think it's bad, just hate having to think about all the things that will have to factor in just to hit someone with a sword. It's the same issues I deal with when playing EVE! They even have more modifiers and statistics to factor in just to shoot a gun.
    20 Jun, 2010, Tonitrus wrote in the 32nd comment:
    Votes: 0
    Tyche said:
    Anyway we went in the complete opposite direction Tonitrus wants to go.

    Actually, I don't have too much of a preference here, which is why I haven't commented much on this thread. I think shasarak voiced one of my major issues with most stat systems, namely that the stats are a bit vague. The stats you proposed are much more interesting to me.

    I think I've ditched the idea of using stats as point pools for modifying skills, and gone with skills having the possibility of having 'parent' skills (or maybe stats) that affect their values. I'm still wholly on the fence about stats themselves. The three stats per skill idea is interesting as well, I'd have to give that more thought. It seems like it'd round out skill levels a bit better than one stat modifier per skill.

    I'm curious as to how you arrived at that final system, though. Presumably it reached its current form to solve various problems with earlier designs, would you mind sharing what those problems were, and how this system solves them?
    29 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 33rd comment:
    Votes: 0
    Tonitrus said:
    I'm curious as to how you arrived at that final system, though. Presumably it reached its current form to solve various problems with earlier designs, would you mind sharing what those problems were, and how this system solves them?


    1. Games we played were either too complex or too simple.
    2. The division of abstract stats into more granular stats, solved the problem of odd skill dependencies. Take dexterity for example. Are surgeons automatically good dancers? Are acrobats good lock pickers? Dividing dexterity into agility and [manual] dexterity fixes this.
    3. We wanted a classless system. A character that starts out as a "fighter-type" might at some point desire a change in career or life path, becoming a merchant or a thief. We created character template packages for players that didn't want to go through lengthy character creation, that is you can spend points and get the basic stats and skill package of a fighter or thief, then add or subtract from that. Cost is the same, but it saves time getting into the game.
    4. We wanted a level-less system. Character development is through stats (difficult) or skills (easy). Level-less in that action resolution is based solely on skill levels, not some abstract experience point level. We liked contested action systems as we found them more enjoyable.
    5. We have an advantage/disadvantage system. These are physical, mental, and social talents or flaws. We include background culture and races here.
    20.0/33