Realism in Roguelikes

[guest509]

Not trying to derail, just wanted to comment.

I barely think about realism at all. I like a strong theme. I like a robust modeling of the setting and mechanics, sure, but realism bogs me down man.

[Gr3yling]

Not trying to derail, just wanted to comment.

That's cool, I appreciate your input.

I barely think about realism at all. I like a strong theme. I like a robust modeling of the setting and mechanics, sure, but realism bogs me down man.

Hmm.  "Robust modeling of the mechanics" certainly sounds like realism, or at least something related to it.  What do you mean by that?

[Zireael]

I believe "robust mechanics" are "cohesive mechanics" aka mechanics which fit together.

That's why I'd pick 6-7 attributes - I believe 2-3 is too little and 7+ is needlessly detailed.
Alternately, a system based on the four elements sounds cool, too.

[akeley]

...And Akeley just thinks I'm weird

You`re reading too much into the forum-style syntax, methinks. I mostly just think out loud, not aiming the comment at anyone in particular (unless I do of course . In this case it just seemed strange to me that we should be stuck on "how many attributes on a pin`s head" conundrum when there`s so many other avenues to pursue realism (plus, as you admitted yourself, attributes are not necessarily connected to the issue at hand)

It also seems that  - as it`s often the case with such a broad  term as "realism" - it might mean different things to different people. How would you define realism in a roguelike to start with?

[Gr3yling]

You`re reading too much into the forum-style syntax, methinks.  I mostly just think out loud, not aiming the comment at anyone in particular (unless I do of course .

When will I ever be good enough for you, akeley?  When?!

No, really, I didn’t take what you said seriously at all.  I was just being melodramatic when I said that you thought I was "weird".  Although, if you didn't before, you probably will now.

In this case it just seemed strange to me that we should be stuck on "how many attributes on a pin`s head" conundrum when there`s so many other avenues to pursue realism (plus, as you admitted yourself, attributes are not necessarily connected to the issue at hand)

Well, part of reasons I keep coming back to attributes is because it is so hard to answer basic questions about them.  Why is seven the magic number?  Surely a player can comfortably interpret and manage more than seven numbers. 

Why are we so much more tolerant of large numbers of perks and skills than large numbers of attributes?  Is it because the function of perks and skills is clearer?  That would make sense, but I’m not aware that anyone has mentioned that yet.

As far as my definition of realism: I feel like “realism” means the game is an accurate simulation of reality.  It involves modeling the game world in a way such that outcomes of fictitious events there are the same as the outcome of the corresonding real events in the real world.  We do make exceptions for things like magic, of course, but as people have previously alluded to in this topic, even magic can be made realistic, in a sense.

As a result, I do feel like attributes are connected to the issue at hand.  A realistic set of attributes (one that allows for an accurate simulation) are certainly not all you need for realism, but they are a good start.  The PC can't interact with the game world in a realistic way if they themselves aren't, in some sense, "real".
 

Another question is "what's an attribute?".  Clearly you mean something like "numeric scores representing intrinsic ability to perform various actions", but the function that kind of thing performs can be replaced by other systems (e.g. traits as Vanguard points out) or as often the case in action games, removed entirely.  DDA has less than a handful of attributes (4), but a large number of skills(28), and a huge number of traits(195).

The problem is that proficiencies at different tasks are intimately interrelated.  If the PC has the perk “strong lifter” which allows him to pick up heavier objects than normal, this increase in strength should rationally affect his ability to perform in other circumstances (like combat).

So, it’s tempting to say that all you need are “output” stats, things like to hit, damage, carrying capacity, etc, but because these things all influence each other, it makes more sense to have some sort of more fundamental number that influences all of them.   

Incidentally, that's probably how I would define attributes: as the most fundamental numbers that determine who the player is, the input that influences all other numbers generated about the PC.

I'd be very interested in building a system that has *only* traits, possibly arranged in a hierarchy of prerequisites.  I don't see anything particularly unrealistic about that approach.  Some might be "attribute-like", like "strong", "very strong", etc, but it's not absolutely necessary, for example if you have multiple "trees" of trait dependencies, the lower-level traits can provide all the functions of attributes in other games.  Perhaps you have a tree of strength-based traits, and your effective strength is the sum of traits in that tree, so each time you chose a complimentary trait the related ones become more powerful.

The idea of trait trees/webs sounds good, I would just incorporate attributes into the game also.  If you are going to have a tree of strength-based traits that sum, why not just have, well, strength?  Like, the attribute?  It seems like ultimately, avoiding attributes lead to more complication than just including them.

The answer to "why numbers" is simply "so you can plug them into formulae", and the answer to "why show the player the numbers" is "so they can predict the outcomes of the formulae".  All other purposes can be filled some other way, such as boolean trait checks instead of threshold or RNG based checks, or descriptive labels.

Can you please expand on this idea, Kevin?  What do you mean by Boolean versus threshold checks, and by descriptive labels?

[Vanguard]

Well, part of reasons I keep coming back to attributes is because it is so hard to answer basic questions about them.  Why is seven the magic number?  Surely a player can comfortably interpret and manage more than seven numbers.

It's just tradition.  There's no particular advantage to 6-8 attributes.  You could make fantastic games with dozens of attributes or with zero.

As far as my definition of realism: I feel like “realism” means the game is an accurate simulation of reality.  It involves modeling the game world in a way such that outcomes of fictitious events there are the same as the outcome of the corresonding real events in the real world.  We do make exceptions for things like magic, of course, but as people have previously alluded to in this topic, even magic can be made realistic, in a sense.

This is why words like believable, plausible, and consistent are better here than realistic - they describe more precisely what you're going for and you don't need to post occasional disclaimers on why wizards are still ok.

[Gr3yling]

This is why words like believable, plausible, and consistent are better here than realistic - they describe more precisely what you're going for and you don't need to post occasional disclaimers on why wizards are still ok.

Well before you said that, I was thinking of using this title for my game: "Greyling's Realistic Roguelike (Disclaimer-Wizards are still OK)".  But maybe your way is better.

The elemental attribute idea is interesting, it kind of reminds me of Magic the Gathering.  In a good way, I mean.

One of the interesting consequences of using abstract mana flavors as attributes is that all classes could plausibly be able to use powerful magical abilities, rather than just a few classes being magi.  Characters who specialized in the fire attribute might be mostly melee fighters, but they would be able to enchant their weapons with fire and use other short range fire magic.

I had an idea for this a game that incorporated this idea a while back.  Mana was also called “godspark”.  All living things were animated by this substance, presumably as a result of the creator gods breathing it into their bodies when after they were formed from clay or whatnot.

The different “flavors” of spark corresponded to elements, but also to the different characteristics that the real world ancients saw as desirable as exemplified by legendary figures and gods.

But then there's the problem of figuring out what characteristics should go with what element.  Fire seems like it would correspond with physical strength, right?  But, what about water or wind, which are strong enough to wear down mountains and carve canyons out of rock.  And rockslides are certainly powerfully destructive.  And so is lightning.  And so on. 

I spend most of my time working on game ideas agonizing over this kind of stuff, to be honest.

There’s also the idea that attributes of opposite elements could be antagonistic, so that the PC couldn’t have high levels of fire and water mana at the same time.

[Vanguard]

Well before you said that, I was thinking of using this title for my game: "Greyling's Realistic Roguelike (Disclaimer-Wizards are still OK)".

I'd play it.

[AgingMinotaur]

Well before you said that, I was thinking of using this title for my game: "Greyling's Realistic Roguelike (Disclaimer-Wizards are still OK)".

I'd play it.

Most certainly, a Roguelike entitled GRR is just begging to be played

As always,
Minotauros

[Kevin Granade]

Well, part of reasons I keep coming back to attributes is because it is so hard to answer basic questions about them.  Why is seven the magic number?  Surely a player can comfortably interpret and manage more than seven numbers. 

Why are we so much more tolerant of large numbers of perks and skills than large numbers of attributes?  Is it because the function of perks and skills is clearer?  That would make sense, but I’m not aware that anyone has mentioned that yet.

You have some good points here, there may well be some underlying principle indicating than more than 7 or so attributes becomes problematic, but I'm afraid I have no particular insight into that, so I'm picking at the issues around the edges I feel like I do have a handle on

Another question is "what's an attribute?".  Clearly you mean something like "numeric scores representing intrinsic ability to perform various actions", but the function that kind of thing performs can be replaced by other systems (e.g. traits as Vanguard points out) or as often the case in action games, removed entirely.  DDA has less than a handful of attributes (4), but a large number of skills(28), and a huge number of traits(195).

The problem is that proficiencies at different tasks are intimately interrelated.  If the PC has the perk “strong lifter” which allows him to pick up heavier objects than normal, this increase in strength should rationally affect his ability to perform in other circumstances (like combat).

"lifting based" combat certainly, but... I'm not so sure that's a major combat form
Similarly you could have a "hard puncher" trait that gives bonus damage when punching, but has no effect on carrying capacity.
I think that's specifically one of the attractive things about perk based systems, in that there's little to no expectation that they'll have this bleed over effect like with attributes.

e.g. in DDA we have a disadvantage called "bad back" that indicates you have poor carrying capacity, but has no impact otherwise.
If it says "bad back", or "strong lifter", then you can take it as given that it's all it does.  You do have to be careful to indicate what you mean clearly.  We had a poorly named disadvantage "hardcore", the result of which was extremely low HP*, which has since been changed to "frail", which still isn't perfect, but it's an improvement.  While it was still named "hardcore" there were a constant stream of requests to make it "more hardcore", or rebalance it somehow.  After changing it to "frail", the effect matches the name and description well enough that there's no confusion about it.

*The real goal there was to provide an optional more realistic scale for taking damage, more like being incapacitated with a single serious hit.  Actually making it one hit is extremely unreasonable as there are many sources of minor damage in the game.

So, it’s tempting to say that all you need are “output” stats, things like to hit, damage, carrying capacity, etc, but because these things all influence each other, it makes more sense to have some sort of more fundamental number that influences all of them.   

Incidentally, that's probably how I would define attributes: as the most fundamental numbers that determine who the player is, the input that influences all other numbers generated about the PC.

I'd be very interested in building a system that has *only* traits, possibly arranged in a hierarchy of prerequisites.  I don't see anything particularly unrealistic about that approach.  Some might be "attribute-like", like "strong", "very strong", etc, but it's not absolutely necessary, for example if you have multiple "trees" of trait dependencies, the lower-level traits can provide all the functions of attributes in other games.  Perhaps you have a tree of strength-based traits, and your effective strength is the sum of traits in that tree, so each time you chose a complimentary trait the related ones become more powerful.

The idea of trait trees/webs sounds good, I would just incorporate attributes into the game also.  If you are going to have a tree of strength-based traits that sum, why not just have, well, strength?  Like, the attribute?  It seems like ultimately, avoiding attributes lead to more complication than just including them.

You could tell the player what their effective "strength" score was, but it's a derived stat instead of a source stat in this example, making it not an attribute for the purposes of this discussion.  Arguably it might still count as an attribute, and you might even allow the player to manipulte it, for example with "cheap" and potentially stackable traits that just increase the derived strength stat.  I'm not sure how that's any more or less complicated than the alternative, as you'd likely be choosing the various abilities, skills, perks, etc anyway, so it just eliminates setting attributes.

The answer to "why numbers" is simply "so you can plug them into formulae", and the answer to "why show the player the numbers" is "so they can predict the outcomes of the formulae".  All other purposes can be filled some other way, such as boolean trait checks instead of threshold or RNG based checks, or descriptive labels.

Can you please expand on this idea, Kevin?  What do you mean by Boolean versus threshold checks, and by descriptive labels?

Within the game logic itself, you have your various formulae to determine the outcome of actions.  An example of a threshold check is, "the player can force open a locked door if their strength is 12 or higher", which you could replace with a "door smasher" trait/ability, which would be a boolean check, and also gives you a descriptive label for being able to break doors instead of it being implied by having a certain strength.  The thing that attributes bring to the table is that it exposes a major input of those formula to the player.

Which is superior? I'm not at all sure, I've only dealt with thoroughly hybridized systems

A really major quality of attributes from tabletop gaming is that they can be used for arbitrary checks, the player wants to perform some novel action, and you can use a bare attribute check to determine success.  Obviously this isn't helpful in computer gaming, as novel actions aren't allowed.

[Gr3yling]

"lifting based" combat certainly, but... I'm not so sure that's a major combat form
Similarly you could have a "hard puncher" trait that gives bonus damage when punching, but has no effect on carrying capacity.
I think that's specifically one of the attractive things about perk based systems, in that there's little to no expectation that they'll have this bleed over effect like with attributes.

I realize it is irrational, but for some reason this still bothers me.  Surely having greater lifting strength implies greater strength in general?  I mean, people do *lift* weights to get stronger?  I feel the same way about "hard puncher" honestly.  How can someone's arm muscles generate more force when punching but not in any other situation?

But, like I said, I realize these concerns probably do not have any affect on gameplay.

Here is another question: isn't the "hard puncher" perk pretty much the same thing as adding an extra skill level in a martial arts discipline?  In general, I feel like a lot of perks are just differently packaged skills.  Like, in fallout 3, many perks amounted to just upgrading several skills at once.  I don't feel like this is terrible or anything, it just seems like a decent goal might be to differentiate perks from skills.

One way of looking at it would be that you have three "tiers" of specialization in abilities.  Attributes would be the most generalized, then skills, and then perks would be super specialized.

Have you thought about naming negative traits like "frail" after real world diseases?  Frail could be osteogenesis imperfecta, or something like that.

You could tell the player what their effective "strength" score was, but it's a derived stat instead of a source stat in this example, making it not an attribute for the purposes of this discussion.  Arguably it might still count as an attribute, and you might even allow the player to manipulte it, for example with "cheap" and potentially stackable traits that just increase the derived strength stat.  I'm not sure how that's any more or less complicated than the alternative, as you'd likely be choosing the various abilities, skills, perks, etc anyway, so it just eliminates setting attributes.

I'm afraid I'm having trouble following you here, Kevin.  Can you maybe give another example of what you are talking about?

Within the game logic itself, you have your various formulae to determine the outcome of actions.  An example of a threshold check is, "the player can force open a locked door if their strength is 12 or higher", which you could replace with a "door smasher" trait/ability, which would be a boolean check, and also gives you a descriptive label for being able to break doors instead of it being implied by having a certain strength.  The thing that attributes bring to the table is that it exposes a major input of those formula to the player.

But door smasher would just give a bonus, right?  I mean, you wouldn't set it up so that a player with super high strength couldn't smash a door without it, right?  Or are we not using attributes in the system you are describing here?

On an unrelated note, I think it probably makes sense that you can only select traits at the beginning of the game in DDA, verses how you can choose talents during gameplay in ADOM. 

[Vanguard]

"lifting based" combat certainly, but... I'm not so sure that's a major combat form
Similarly you could have a "hard puncher" trait that gives bonus damage when punching, but has no effect on carrying capacity.
I think that's specifically one of the attractive things about perk based systems, in that there's little to no expectation that they'll have this bleed over effect like with attributes.

Yeah, that's why I like them.  They allow the player specialize their characters in really specific way.  So you can have a wizard who can carry a lot of things, but isn't good at punching monsters or whatever.  In a pure attribute system that could only work if you had a million attributes, which comes with a whole other set of problems.

Attribute systems typically imply that all attributes have roughly equal value.  This is especially true for systems where the player can directly spend resources to improve their attributes - why would you invest in the inferior option?  It can be made to work but it's limiting.  Sometimes the player only needs one of an attribute's functions (eg. carrying capacity from strength), and some functions are inherently less useful than others.  Plenty of RPGs give the player the option to buy and sell at better prices through a charisma stat, but it's basically never as useful as things like attack power and defense.

In a perk system, all of those things are easy to deal with.  You could make one perk that reduces prices and five perks that increase your attack power.  Now maxing out your charisma only costs 1/5 of what maxing your strength does.  It's a more reasonable option.

Building a perk system can be more work than doing an attribute system, but the end result is equal or better in every way.

I realize it is irrational, but for some reason this still bothers me.  Surely having greater lifting strength implies greater strength in general?  I mean, people do *lift* weights to get stronger?  I feel the same way about "hard puncher" honestly.  How can someone's arm muscles generate more force when punching but not in any other situation?

This is so easy to justify.  Maybe the lifter and the puncher are each stronger in different muscle groups.  Maybe the puncher isn't as strong, but achieves more damage through better technique.  Maybe the lifter doesn't like violence and their psychological discomfort makes them less effective in a fight.  You could come up with a million ways to explain this.

But door smasher would just give a bonus, right?  I mean, you wouldn't set it up so that a player with super high strength couldn't smash a door without it, right?  Or are we not using attributes in the system you are describing here?

No, boolean means true or false.  If you've got the door smasher trait, you can smash any door that can be smashed.

Threshold checks are more fluid.  They measure different degrees of ability, like attributes.  Under a threshold system you could have a door that can be smashed by an average person, but not a weak person, and then a more sturdy door that can be smashed by a strong person but not an average person.

[Gr3yling]

I'm not sure I've got much more to say about attributes, honestly.

I would still like to talk some about other elements of realism.  What do you guys think about hunger, thirst, the need to protect the PC from the environment, detailed injury modeling, that sort of thing?

[Quazifuji]

While I realize that you're saying you're done with attributes, one other thing I wanted to throw in:

The current discussion's been focused on getting carried away with excessive attributes to represent different things, either for flavor or gameplay purposes, but if we're trying to split up all the different gameplay mechanics into different attributes to avoid bundling unrelated gameplay concepts together (e.g. it's annoying when your wizard can't carry anything because he has low strength because it doesn't help him survive otherwise), do we need "attributes" in the "strength/dexterity/intelligence/etc" sense at all?  Why not just have stats like "melee damage" or "carry amount"?

Part of this idea is coming from some games in a different genre entirely: League of Legends vs. Dota.  In DotA, you have three attributes - Intelligence, Agility, and Strength.  Strength boosts health and health regeneration, agility boosts attack speed and armor, intelligence boosts mana and mana regeneration, and one of them will also boost your attack damage depending on your character.  You can also get items that directly boost certain stats like damage or attack speed, but many items work in terms of attributes.

In League of Legends, the stats are just named directly after what they do.  There's no strength or dexterity or intelligence.  There's just "attack damage" and "ability power" and "mana" and "health" and so on.

So the question is, from a gameplay standpoint, do we need to name attributes at all?  I think one of the reasons having too many attributes can be a problem is that it can be hard to keep track of what each one does.  If you've got 7 different attributes, you have to know what they're all for in order to decide which ones to raise.  But it's much easier if one of your attributes is just called "attack damage".  There's no question of "wait, what exactly does wisdom do again?  Will that help on this character?"  Just "I need more damage, I'm gonna put this point into that."

You lose flavor in the process, of course, but you get transparency.  Some would accuse LoL's stat system of being overly simple or lacking in any flavor, but one of the things I really like about it is that it's extremely transparent.  The effects of each stat follow very simple, easy-to-understand formulas.  Even armor and magic resist function in such a way that makes it really easy to estimate off the top of your head how much difference they make (physical damage taken is damage/(100 + armor), and same for magic resist and magic damage).

[Gr3yling]

While I realize that you're saying you're done with attributes, one other thing I wanted to throw in:

Oh, whatever you want to talk about is fine.  I appreciate your input.  I just figured everyone else was probably getting sick of me asking attribute related questions. 

And as far as the rest of what you mentioned, yes, I think what you are saying definitely makes sense.  It probably is the most sane way to do things, but for whatever reason, attributes make me feel more like I "am" my character.  I'll have to think more about that and the perks/traits ideas, though.