Saving Thorws part II

Hello friends.

After much discussion with James Shewey, I feel that I need to do another post on game mechanics. Specifically "ability checks." The biggest challenge of this project is for me to really learn how to communicate, so I really value all the feedback I get from programmer types. There are few things that should bedisccued first. Here's the goes.

First terminology: what I am describing is no longer called an "ability check." Ability check will get to confusing. This will hence forth called "saving throws." This is because (as will become clear later) what the throw is against will be more important than what ability is used.

Secondly, all the saving throws are character versus character, rather than character versus environment. In this blog I am dealing with "saving throw to catch stealth" "saving throw to resist fear" "saving throw to escape entanglement" etc.

Third, there are goals. These are guidelines, for expected gameplay, that any way of setting up saving throws should conform to:
Guideline 1: If character is making a saving throw against an ability of another character of equivalent level and equivalent relevant attribute (str, prc, etc) than the chance of success should be about 8-10%. This is for sake of player enjoyment, and a sense of action in battle. Players will become frustrated if their abilities work only 50% of the time, or even fail 25% of the time. In sum: success of saving throws should be fairly rare among even matched characters.

Guideline 2: If the defender's level > attacker's level that should increase the chance of a successful saving throw. The inverse is also true.

Guideline 3: If the defender's ability > attacker's ability that should increase the chance of a successful saving throw. The inverse is also true.

Guideline 4: Unequal levels and unequal abilities will affect probability of a save, as above, but it should be very difficult for the probability to ever reach 1 or fall to 0. For instance a defending player is only two lower, and his ability is two lower, than he should still have a chance to save (though it will be lower than 10%). This is because of a bit challenge in game play: it should be hard to have your spells never fail or your defending player always resist.

Guideline 5: Items, buffs, may increase the chance of the saving throw, but not the ability that the saving throw uses.

Okay, so hopefully that should serve as a guide. Keep in mind, gameplay and good gameplay is the goal of all the game mechanics.

The basic function (object? class? I don't speak programmer) is a very simple formula:

Probability to save = (a_d-p+b)/a_d
a_d = relevant ability of defending player.
p = the penalty. This must always be greater than 0.
b = the bonus to saving throw. This comes from equipment or spell buffs. The details of those things are for another blog.

The variable "a" will be whatever relevant ability is used in the saving throw. "p" is where all the work is done. How "p" is calculated will depend on the type of saving throw.

So the function for saving throw is (a_d-p+b)/a_d. What kind kind of saving throw determines both a and p.

So if the saving throw is "catch stealth" then:

p=s_a+(a_a-a_d)+(l_a-l_d)
a = defender or attackers ability
l = defender or attacker level
s_a = stealth rating of attacker. How this will be calculated will be subject of another blog.

If the saving throw is "resist fear" then:

p=m_a+(a_a-a_d)+(l_a-l_d)
a = defender or attackers ability
l = defender or attacker level
m_a = power of fear spell. Like stealth, how it is calculated will be for another blog.

Now right here, I think I need to slow down. I am not a programmer, and I need to explain my ideas to programmers.

So, am I on the right track? Is this way of handling saving throws making sense in programmer mindset?

Ability Checks... you know like a saving throw.

I've been lax in posting updates recently. I have been doing a lot of thinking. So much that's keeping me excited. There's been some things that I have had people help me work through. The question of abilities, I think is settled for now after much discussion with James and Stu. Here are the "fab five" attributes that all spells, hit points, mana points, and abilities will be based on:
Strength (Str)
Dexterity (Dex)
Perception (Prc)
Will Power (Wil)
Intelligence (Int)

Players rating can expect to vary between five to twenty.

The first thing I propose needs discussion is the ability checks. [i]Ability checks[/i], as the name implies an ability check is the chance to perform an ability. These might be spotting a thief, resisting a spell, climbing a wall, etc. All ability checks depend on one of the fab five attributes.

Rather than following the D&D d20 checkes, ability checks will be based on this formula:


This very easily turns into a percentage. The numbers on the top -numerators for those of you remember math- is were all the work will be done. "a" will always be the player's attribute that is used for the check. The penalty, which will have to be at least '1' is the difficulty of the check. The higher the number, the greater the difficulty. The bonus, which will normally be zero, is something spell or item that gives the greater chance of sucess at this ability check ("break door") without affect the attribute that affects the particular check ("Str")

Example Galstaff, Sorcerer-of-Light, is trudging through a dungeon. He has a Perception (Prc) of 12 and is about to walk near a trap. Galstaff has no special equipment to catch traps. The trap is well hidden, so the penalty is 10. Galstaff's check to spot the trap is calculated like this:


Galstaff then has a 16.7 percent chance of spotting the trap. *Roll 2d10* Galstaff fails the check, springs the trap, and half a dozen scorpions fall comically on Galstaff, Sorcerer-of-Light's head.

The next Galstaff returns to the dungeon after learning a new spell called "foresight." Foresight gives Galstaff a +3 bonus to detect traps and stealth. Galstaff agains nears an undetected trap. This time his ability check looks like this.



Galstaff now has a 41.7 percent chance to detect the trap. *roll dice* Galstaff fails to detect the trap. He slips into pit trap, hurts his foot, and curses his crappy, public-school, magical education.

This is fairly simple check. This is a great way for an ability check is a character versus environment check. But in order to cover character versus character interaction, more things are needed. If defending player is attempting to resist or counter the ability of an opposing character, the difference between those two characters' level should be taken into account. Hence this formula:



Now obviously, when you calculate level-of-defender minus level-of-attacker you can get a negative number. The result then would be just further penalty.

Example He-man, a level 10 warrior, has Will Power of (Will) of 13. Skeletor, a level 8 Warlock, is attempting to cast "fear" on He-man. Skeletor is a half-wit wizard, so the penalty is only 5. The calculation is done this way:


He-man has a 76% chance of success. *roll dice* he does. Skeltor casts Fear on Cringer to feel better about himself.

A second character vs. character comparison is a comparison of the attributes of each character. The defending character is always the one who will make the check, but the following formula takes the difference between the defenders attribute and the attacker's attribute:

ExampleCheney, the hunter, has a Perception of 14 and is checking to catch a stealthed Rogue with a Dexterity of 17. (Since a rogue's stealth is depended on dexterity, that is that attribute compared) The penalty is 8. The forumla then looks like this:


Cheney has a 21.4 percent chance to notice the Rouge. *roll dice* fail. Cheney shoots a deer instead.

That then, is my introduction to Ability checks.

Concerns? Questions? Please, anyone who is confused, please let me know.

UML - yay or nay

Recently, when discussing this project with a friend, I was given a UML book to take a gander at.

Here's the thing. My role in this project is a designer and producer. My job is to to explain -clearly and as unambiguously as possible- to programmers what the program is supposed to do. I must also give clear definitions of the various parts of the program and how they will fit together.

I must do this all without actually knowing how to program.

UML seems to be where this comes in. While I have only been able to take a brief look at it, the various notations, boxes, and objects in order to create an algorithm. For a programmer to follow. This of assumes the programmer(s) also understand UML.

Now, of course, as someone who does not know how to program I don't want to issue instructions to those who do. What I want to do is draw up the UML, hand it to the programmer and ask them to change anything that needs changing. I figure that programmers know best how to program.

Learning UML, will be a task in itself. Before I invest in such a book, can any you programmers tell me if it is worth the investment, or should I invest in something else?

The Inklings of a Campaign World

This post is protected, but if you're reading this I have course given you permission to read it.

What follows is quick brainstorm of nations in a campaign world. This is incredibly rough sketch, that is not intended to even go in to serious detail. Remember though that the starting classes and races that are available to a player will depend on which nation they choose to start in. Unlocking other classes/races will involve grinding/questing.

Also, technology levels will be different depending on the nations. Though I am not sure whether some places will be full on steam-punk while others will be dark ages yet.

Here they area.

Large Nation States
The Elvish Areas The Elves in this campaign world will be in a kind of political crisis. A progressive group of Elves are favoring arcane magic and a highly structured, unified, and hierarchical society. It aims at a "Lawful Good" or "Lawful Neutral" society. Their buildings are made of stone, and not wood. Another group of elves is of an older order. They are the semi-nomadic Druidic culture that is prefers to stay in the time when Elves where more genuine, isolated, and went with the flow of nature. These Elves are true neutral in their ethos and accuse the progressives of creating evil by creating good, creating thieves by creating possessions, and creating crime by creating governments.

Dwarf Feudal Kingdom I have always found it odd that Dwarves live underground, but somehow manage to feed their populations without above ground farms. The Feudal Kingdom will be a mixture of cave dwelling dwarves who handle industry and surface dwelling dwarves who handle agriculture. Their government is build on feudal baronies. Peasants are still tied to the land. There is very little social mobility. I have considered making the Feudal Kingdom totally human, but I think a Dwarf feudal kingdom might be more original.

The Stagnant Empire Formally the southern half of a human Empire, is now a shadow of its former glory since invasions of barbarian races cut the Empire down the middle. It remains relatively isolated from the rest of the world, but still maintains much art, culture, and even magic.

The Human Republics This collection of city states split off from the Stagnant Empire centuries ago during the invasions. During that time, they ceased to acknowledge the authorities of appointed governors and magistrates and began experimenting with independent constitutional governments. Local hereditary barons still hold official power over the cities (with elected parliaments), but the entire confederation is governed by a senate and appointed sovereign.

The Island States These recently settled islands are a mercantile trade hub with all other areas. The islands are officially governed by a Lord and an elected council, but the real power of this islands is within three aristocratic families who control the trade routes, lend money, and construct ships. Each family has their own history and interests. All races are represented here. They are allied with no nation, but maintain close relations with the Human Republics.

Smaller Areas

How about a small, theocratic, city state?

How To Divide up the Primary Stats?

Of all the pieces that make up an RPG, how one divides up stats, is probably the most fundamental. They affect everything from the power of abilities, to chances to hit, to whether or not the character gets some.

Character stats are also fundamental because from the most basics, (Strength, Dexeterity etc) one can automatically derive the other more secondary stats (Hit points, "saving throws," speed).

The challenge is to do the following things: 1)Divide the stats in a believable way because this contributes to immersion 2) Make the stats simple enough that they can be easily understood and adjusted because players want good gameplay 3) Bear in mind how the stats will affect spells and abilities in context of combat.

I submit here, for judgment of all of you, two paradigms of stats. The first is the familiar AD&D 2.0 that all of you are all probably familiar with:
Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

This paradigm is familiar to all who have ever played an RPG. It is easy to adjust, to manage, and everyone will automatically assume which classes need what. There is no need to re-invent the wheel if the wheel is rolling just fine. There are however, two problems I see.

The first, is that there is no character stat for visual perception. If a hunter fires a bow, a thief spots a trap, or someone finds a secret door which stat best provides the bonus? Dexterity might work for the fist example, but what do you use for the other two? Wisdom maybe?

Secondly in covering "Wisdom" I have always thought that it covers to much. If I say, use wisdom to cover visual perception, it seems strange that I also use it to cover the resistance to a charm spell, the cleverness of a problem solving, or a the sheer will power to haggle for the right price. I have always thought that wisdom was a "catch all" for mental powers not included in intelligence.

There then, are two problems I see with the AD&D paradigm.

The second Paradigm comes from the game Arcanum. Arcanum has eight stats instead of six. There are four "physical stats" and four corresponding "mental stats." Here they are:
Physical Stats / Mental stats
Strength / Intelligence
Constitution / Will Power
Dexterity / Perception
Beauty / Charisma

I'm sure you can see some of the advantages to this paradigm. First, there is a visual perception stat. Secondly, even Beauty and Charisma are rightly divided. How often did you play a table top RPG and wonder if your character was attractive instead of just charismatic? If I were to ever table-top RPG again, I would want to play in a system that used these stats rather than AD&D stats.

There is perhaps a not so obvious down turn. Arcanum was a radically open world design. It was so "open" that there were not even character class. Your avatar became what you allotted the skill points to. This was great for creating original, unique, characters in a solo-RPG -and it would be a nightmare for PVP balance. Also, I can imagine how Charimsa might affect abilities (Paladin auras, for instance) but I see no place at all for physical beauty.

There are other paradigms out there. World of Warcraft, has its own workable paradigm. As do many other games. What must be decided here is what kind of paradigm would be best used in this game. Keep in mind that if this picked well, than all other stats can be derived from whatever primary stats are chosen.

That will keep it simple for players, as well as provide believable immersion.

The General game concept.

One of the designers interviewed in Game Development Essentials mentioned that even genre need not be decided before game mechanics are put together. This is wise advice, as the heart of any game enjoyment eventually becomes game play. Nonetheless, some idea of the trajectory and purpose needs to be decided and discussed first. Everything here, is of course brainstorming and subject to change.

I have in mind a type of browser MMORPG. If you are familiar with Castle Age (the facebook game) then you have an idea of how they work. The main difference envisioned is that characters would get a starting character and class. It is not enough to stick with a single avater. Eventually, players would control and develop several characters in combat at the same time. Think of Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect, and similiar RPGs. You might have one "central" character, but also handled the inventories, experience points, spells etc for two to four other characters.

The campaign world will have at least four distinct "nations" in which the players choose their starting races/classes. What classes will be available to them might depend on which nation they start it. For instance, in one nation the players can choose between the standard fighter, mage, theif, cleric but could not choose paladins. In another nation they could choose paladins, but not mages -and so on. Some other classes might be equally obscured and involve challenges to unlock. Players then, will be given a feeling of accomplishment when they are able to access all classes.

Now this sounds simple enough, but obviously it is not. Making a game like this involves a campaign world, class balance, level schemes, items, allocations of character stats, and dozens of other things branching of the bubble map. All of this is rather intimidating. It is. However, when broken up into piece, by piece, and by piece, everything can come together easily into a cohesive whole.

This is probably the most macro blog that I will mention for a long, long time. The next blog will involve open thoughts on combat. For now, everything is very open for comments on any subject of a browser-style MMO that any of you might wish mention.

Please give your thoughts.

How does one speak to programmers?

No the title of the thread is not meant to be a cheap shot at the stereo-type of a programmers personality.

This is something that I am really thinking about.

I know lots of programmers. They're smart people. They usually keep to themselves and quietly and steadily get a task completed with the dedication of tortoise. They consider their tasks a veritable work of art and craftsmanship and usually take pride in it.

I believe, likely part of the problem, with large projects is that producers, designers, and artists do not really know how to communicate their goals in the kind of language the programmers understand. Non-programmers do not understand programmers well enough to set their goals, expectations, and hopes for a program in ways that make sense.

If you are a programmer, what was one of the biggest miscommuncations that you got from management? What were the consequences? What could the management have done to communicate more effectively?