Re: [Adonthell-general] Rules Comments

[Kai Sterker]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:58:03 +0100 address@hidden wrote:

> Finally I have net access again!
> 
> Well first of all thanks for all the comments and ideas (and thanks
> that you seem to like Žmost of the ideas I had)!
> 
> I had a look at all your e-mails and here is my response. One thing I
> see is that for you as well as for me actual roleplaying seems to be
> quiete important (I always thought lack of actual roleplaying was the
> weak spot of the snes RPGs(too combat heavy)).

The next demo will probably involve a lot of combat, but the final game
should be pretty balanced. I would like to see most quests solvable in
different ways, involving more or less combat. Of course there could
also be quests that are heavy on combat and others that involve no
combat at all - as long as the overal balance is good!


> LEVEL LIMIT:
>
> To be honest, the way levels are handled was the last thing I added,
> and I was not totally happy with it myself (in fact I expected you to
> wish for more than 10 levels). I mostly added it to present a full set
> of rules, as a basis for more disscussion. Therefor I have no problem
> with changing that. I would however suggest that it should stay
> transparent and easy!

Using a formula to calculate the levels seems easiest and most
transparent way to me. We can also add a table with the first dozend
levels or so to the documentation, for those people that really want to
know about that sort of thing.


> MAGICS:
>
> The reason why I came up with the three spell types was tactics. The
> way I described them a charactewr can specialize in a type of magic,
> which would also determine the way he fights (eg. more offensive or
> defensive). But I think using the 4 elements instead is a great idea,
> too. It would be very important that the 4 elements have very
> different spells, so that the tactical element I mentioned earlier is
> not lost.

That can be easily arranged, I think. Maybe we shouldn't go with a
offensive/defensive/other scheme though. I could imagine something like
this:

Fire - destruction
Water - alteration
Earth - creation
Air - control

That way, fire spells would be mainly useful in combat, but it wouldn't
be the only offensive spells. Also, there might be use for destructive
spells outside combat.


> SKILLS:
>
> the main reson, why I decided to differentiate between skills and
> abilities was that I wanted to seperate Combat and roleplaying a
> little bit. The one think I did not want was the kind of mindless
> killing/casting machine, a character who can slay eveything but misses
> most of the fun, because he can not use any skills that let him
> interact with his environment in a non violent way (which actually
> makes up the difference between an RPG and a simple action game).

I see. But it also means that characters will reach a certain skill in
combat, whether I want or not. I agree that there is a certain danger of
players becoming a killing machine if we allow players to distribute
points as they wish. However, if we integrate that part into the
gameplay as well, this will become harder. As I have suggested numerous
times: to actually improve some skill, you'll have to visit a 'teacher'.
Say the local smith could show you the basics of smithing for a small
fee. Some guard or trainer could do the same for the combat skills. etc.
So while the first (and second) level of a skill are fairly easy to
learn (and cheap as well), higher levels wouldn't be too easy to reach.
Some players might even be unable to reach all possible levels of a
skill, because they are not to the teacher's liking, or simply miss the
right opportunity. 

Improving your skills to a high rank should become a challenge on it's
own. That's what I'd call a proper RPG :).


> COMBAT ABILITIES:

Could write a mail about that alone, and maybe I'll do so later on.
Basically, Alex had an idea similar to your special moves. We discussed
that already, and we came up with something that still involved a fair
deal of calculations behind the scenes. I'm not sure we ever came to a
conclusion though ;).



One topic you completely forgot about is the 'alignment' thing. Like
what factors will determine NPC's behaviour during conversations and all
that. We already discussed that we don't want to have a black/white
scheme. More something based on the individual NPC. So that'd be rather 
an attribute of NPCs, how much they like the player.

As we're talking about dialogues: some sort of conversational skill
might be nice too. So that a player with a high rank at that will be
presented better answers or questions in special situations than the
average player. 'charm' doesn't do the trick, as that's more for
influencing how people like the player (and for deceiving them).


Okay, that's all for now. What do you think?

Kai