Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
[DISCUSS] CHARACTER DIFFERENTIATION
Posts
Pages:
1
kentona
View playlists
CloseCharacter Differentiation
One problem that can crop up without proper design of skill systems is the tendency for all the avatar's in a player's party to develop an overly homogeneous set of skills. If all the character's in a game are unrestricted in the number of skills they can learn and are equally capable of learning all skills, the tendency on the player's part is to act like a concerned parent. They want to see their alter egos optimally prepared for all possible scenarios and as a result try to max out all possible skills. In the gaming world, this results in an environment full of generic characters who skillwise have nothing to distinguish themselves from any other characters. This problem is known as the character differentiation dilemma.
The following is a short list outlining some implemented solutions to this dilemma:
1. Class system
Avatars are given a class, or the player chooses the class for an avatar. This class has access to a certain library of skills and abilities while restricting access to others. Upon leveling up (or achieving some other milestone), attributes are improved and new skills are leaned according to what class is selected. The skills may be awarded on a set path based on leveling up, or based on distributing points on a skilltree.
Most games opt for this style of character differentiation, including many Dragon Quest and earlier Final Fantasy games, as well as the Diablo series.
2. Skills Limiting System
Avatars are given a limited number of skill slots that can be filled with any collection of skills the player so chooses. The availibility of skills are acquired through various means, but generally, all skills are potentially available to all avatars.
Games like Guild Wars and Final Fantasy V and VII follow this path. By one means or another, the skills a certain avatar has is limited by what they have equipped or selected, but the system remains flexible enough to swap out certain skills for other reserve skills. In FFV each avatar could select a single job, while FFVII uses materia to hold skills.
3. Skills Capping System
In a skills capping methodology, the more skills the avatar possesses, the maximum compentency that an avatar can achieve in any one of the them is limited. Capping is often achieved by either placing a fixed cap on the maximum level that an avatar can achieve in a skill, or by limiting the total number of skill points to distribute.
A prime example of this system can be found in Ultima Online. In UO, if a player doesn't use certain skills for a while, their level of compentency degrades, forcing the player to make a decision about what skills they wish to keep and what skills they wish they'll let lapse into obscurity.
In Diablo II, even though it uses a Class system, the way skill points are distributed is reminiscent of a skills capping system. Due to the limited number of skill points that can be acquired in the game, a player must make a decision to either distribute his points among all his available skills, or focus on a select few skills and max them out.
I haven't played enough RPGs of late to really know other implemented solutions to the differentiation problem, but when I play RPGs, I often fall into the trap. I always try to make my characters awesome at everything, and it can land me in trouble later in the game when I turn out to be too weak in some area because I spread myself out to thin.
How can we design around this tendency? What have other games done?
I'd like some ideas.
...erm...so....Discuss!
Skie Fortress
2394
Well there was this one RMXP game I played where each character had their own unique skill tree filled with all the skills they can possess. You just spend your points to strengthen skills and learn new ones. There were also skill level requirements and stuff like that.
Respec-ing is a great way of getting out of terrible builds. When the player realizes that his build is a pile of ass he can respec and try to make his build better without having to replay through the game again.
(Diablo 2 seriously needed this. I don't know how often I cheated to get a skill point back because I put it into a skill that sucked/didn't know how to use properly)
(Diablo 2 seriously needed this. I don't know how often I cheated to get a skill point back because I put it into a skill that sucked/didn't know how to use properly)
myersguy
292
Hahaha, fuck I hated diablo 2 for that!
I like the ideas of skill trees, they seem to work quite well, however, it does need a way to be reversed sometimes.
I also like bioshock's system :). You can learn quite a few skills, upgrade them all, but only carry so many from each class of skill with you at a time. This way, you have to decide what is vital at that moment, and choose to use it.
I like the ideas of skill trees, they seem to work quite well, however, it does need a way to be reversed sometimes.
I also like bioshock's system :). You can learn quite a few skills, upgrade them all, but only carry so many from each class of skill with you at a time. This way, you have to decide what is vital at that moment, and choose to use it.
Shinan
4314
I think one of the best ways to get differentiation is really to make more skills useful. I think a major part of homogenous characters is the fact that certain skills are just better than others so you pick those. If you have a party then I think skill-capping is one that should be tried more often. So that you could get multiple characters where each is specialized without the arbitary restriction of class.
However mostly I've seen skill-capping in games where you play a lone character. Which of course is also nice since it forces you to pick a certain kind of character. But people usually complain that they've built a "broken character" that just can't win. I'd say that's also a design flaw, even though I think 90% of the time people complaining just suck.
I think also in cases of set characters. (i.e. characters you find rather than create) they can have a certain skill path going for them from the beginning. You find a mechanic in a bar. He'll be good at mechanical skills from the get go. Then I guess you'll be able to choose what he'll get when he levels up but the incentive is there to build on what you've got and not make him a medic or a computer hacker. (and if you do it's your own fault)
A version of skill limiting system is also one where you pick skills depending on a profession or class. But once those are picked you are still able to learn skills outside it just at a higher cost. Which means that theoretically anyone can learn anything but certain skills are easier to level up. The option to have non-class skills can be good in case there's no one in the party with a certain skill of if the person in question goes and dies you can still have a back-up guy who sucks at it but can at least do it.
I think characters should die more to give more of this kind of dilemma 8^)
However mostly I've seen skill-capping in games where you play a lone character. Which of course is also nice since it forces you to pick a certain kind of character. But people usually complain that they've built a "broken character" that just can't win. I'd say that's also a design flaw, even though I think 90% of the time people complaining just suck.
I think also in cases of set characters. (i.e. characters you find rather than create) they can have a certain skill path going for them from the beginning. You find a mechanic in a bar. He'll be good at mechanical skills from the get go. Then I guess you'll be able to choose what he'll get when he levels up but the incentive is there to build on what you've got and not make him a medic or a computer hacker. (and if you do it's your own fault)
A version of skill limiting system is also one where you pick skills depending on a profession or class. But once those are picked you are still able to learn skills outside it just at a higher cost. Which means that theoretically anyone can learn anything but certain skills are easier to level up. The option to have non-class skills can be good in case there's no one in the party with a certain skill of if the person in question goes and dies you can still have a back-up guy who sucks at it but can at least do it.
I think characters should die more to give more of this kind of dilemma 8^)
S. F. LaValle
1069
Here is what I decided to do.
Each character has three talent specs: one based on magic, one based on weapon usage, and one based a special skillset unique to that character. Technically, all three are unique to each character, because all characters use different weapons, and they all (with some exceptions) use a different primary element of magic. These trees are "specced" into by a sort of points system (that will probably be determined by equipment). They are completely refundable, and you can save a spec to allow you to quickly switch back to it. The reason for this is because each spec allows for different utility; all characters have one or two damage-dealing specs, but they may be more useful with a utility spec; such as tanking, healing, or buffs/debuffs. Some characters can heal using their magic element, and some using their unique skillset, etc. My theory behind this is that you can find the utility you need for any fight in any combination of characters, yet still provide character differentiation.
Each character has three talent specs: one based on magic, one based on weapon usage, and one based a special skillset unique to that character. Technically, all three are unique to each character, because all characters use different weapons, and they all (with some exceptions) use a different primary element of magic. These trees are "specced" into by a sort of points system (that will probably be determined by equipment). They are completely refundable, and you can save a spec to allow you to quickly switch back to it. The reason for this is because each spec allows for different utility; all characters have one or two damage-dealing specs, but they may be more useful with a utility spec; such as tanking, healing, or buffs/debuffs. Some characters can heal using their magic element, and some using their unique skillset, etc. My theory behind this is that you can find the utility you need for any fight in any combination of characters, yet still provide character differentiation.
bobthebobish
690
I think one of the big problems is that of having a party that is *too* well balanced. for instance the tank - mage - healer combo where everyone just spams their most powerful attack or defensive measure. This makes a party go on auto pilot so I like to spice up the characters and give them some kind of gap to work with.
for instance if you want to make the player work for it get a bunch of spell casters and status effects together but no healing! Or give the party all the skills they want but split the roles into a fighter/party buffer or a healer/enemy debuffer forcing them to prioritize what they really need to do this round in order to survive to the next.
I consider it a "fun" party as long as you don't just spam the same attacks/spells every round and have to actually think your way through a battle due to having less generic party members.
for instance if you want to make the player work for it get a bunch of spell casters and status effects together but no healing! Or give the party all the skills they want but split the roles into a fighter/party buffer or a healer/enemy debuffer forcing them to prioritize what they really need to do this round in order to survive to the next.
I consider it a "fun" party as long as you don't just spam the same attacks/spells every round and have to actually think your way through a battle due to having less generic party members.
Shadowtext
120
Usually I would be excited about a topic like this, but the problem with this one is that it stems from a deep flaw in design.
The reason the player should feel the need to branch out in terms of skills / classes / builds / whatever is because there are two assumptions that should be basically a given in a game that has any basis on strategy: characters who don't specialize are noticeably penalized (not by some sort of explicit penalty, but because they just don't compete as well as specialized characters), and each area of specialization should be necessary to survive.
The old healer/tank/nuke trio is the easiest example: characters who only dabble in healing aren't going to keep up with the HP amounts (or whatever) that the other units are going to be losing. Characters who only dabble in tanking are going to survive a bit longer against the tough-hitting enemies, but they definitely couldn't survive using techniques to draw most attacks to themselves. Nuking is less necessary in general--it speeds up battles, but it's not necessarily required to survive (unless your tank's or healer's resources run out before the battle has ended)....an exception exists for enemies with high damage absorption: if only attacks that deal greater than X damage are effective against the thing, not having a nuke is suicide. That's where a nuke dabbler really shows how useless he is.
Obviously, if every character has the option of taking any skill they want and having access to all of them in battle (which seems like a bad idea in the first place), enough grinding is going to make them game breakers even if the system isn't inherently unbalanced (unless there's some sort of guard against that in-game), but you can't prevent munchkins from munchkinning. The main thing you have to focus on is to get as much playtesting as possible to try to make sure game breakers aren't built in that will make players flock to particular, generic builds.
The reason the player should feel the need to branch out in terms of skills / classes / builds / whatever is because there are two assumptions that should be basically a given in a game that has any basis on strategy: characters who don't specialize are noticeably penalized (not by some sort of explicit penalty, but because they just don't compete as well as specialized characters), and each area of specialization should be necessary to survive.
The old healer/tank/nuke trio is the easiest example: characters who only dabble in healing aren't going to keep up with the HP amounts (or whatever) that the other units are going to be losing. Characters who only dabble in tanking are going to survive a bit longer against the tough-hitting enemies, but they definitely couldn't survive using techniques to draw most attacks to themselves. Nuking is less necessary in general--it speeds up battles, but it's not necessarily required to survive (unless your tank's or healer's resources run out before the battle has ended)....an exception exists for enemies with high damage absorption: if only attacks that deal greater than X damage are effective against the thing, not having a nuke is suicide. That's where a nuke dabbler really shows how useless he is.
Obviously, if every character has the option of taking any skill they want and having access to all of them in battle (which seems like a bad idea in the first place), enough grinding is going to make them game breakers even if the system isn't inherently unbalanced (unless there's some sort of guard against that in-game), but you can't prevent munchkins from munchkinning. The main thing you have to focus on is to get as much playtesting as possible to try to make sure game breakers aren't built in that will make players flock to particular, generic builds.
I like the Etrian Odyssey way of doing things: skill-picking within classes. The Dark Hunter class can spec either whips (stopping enemy skills) or swords (absorbing HP). The Alchemist class can poison enemies, or deal fire/ice/volt damage (usually two elements or an element + poison is best). The fighter-type warrior class can follow up alchemical attacks with combo moves, or it can destroy enemies with an axe and status effects. Medics can spec to be front-line war clerics or back-row heal spammers. Troubadors can buff the party or poop on enemy resistances. nasvlnsavl
Basically, each class has two or three paths to take, but they are (somewhat) clearly defined, usually by element or weapon. Most skills have a prerequisite of points put into a dmg+ pool anyway, so that right there determines your powers.
Basically, each class has two or three paths to take, but they are (somewhat) clearly defined, usually by element or weapon. Most skills have a prerequisite of points put into a dmg+ pool anyway, so that right there determines your powers.
Pages:
1
