Anyway, Doom provides a 3d representation of a world which is not specified completely in 3 dimensions. By this logic, Doom would fall around 2.5d which is far closer to the truth in my opinion.

Doom levels *are* specified in 3 dimensions: sectors are specified using vertices that inhabit a 2D coordinate system. The ability to set the floor and ceiling levels of a sector (AND of game elements within it such as flying monsters) adds the 3rd dimension.

All game events (such as collision detection, movement, flying, falling) occur in a 3 dimensional world.

The fact that the 3rd dimension of a room happens to be specified implicitly (by floor/ceiling heights) rather than explicitly (this corner of the room is at coordinates x,y,z) doesn't change the truth of its 3D-ness. It is just specified in an unconventional and rather inflexible way.

After all, if you have a 2d game with parallax scrolling, is that 3d? By your logic, it has vertical and horizontal scrolling, and the parallax offers a depth effect (in the way Doom offers a height effect) your 'world' appears in 3 dimensions. Yay! Predator on the BBC was 3d...

However, I understand your point of view to be that a game must be specified in 3 dimensions, and operate in 3 dimensions on an internal level.

As I have argued above, Doom fulfills both of these requirements. On reflection Wolf3D does not, instead conforming the less strict definition of merely appearing to be 3D.

Or is something wrong with my browser ? Or am I just getting completely confuzzled ? Wouldn't be the first time...

There are several issues which you raise here -

1. Who is the character ?
2. What is the character like (personality) ?
3. What are the character's skills ?

I don't believe that "You are X caught up in civil war Y" is meaningless characterisation at all - in fact, it sets the plot for the game and the goal of the game.

Point 2 is more complex (is the character good or evil ? Is he nice/nasty/manic depressive/psychopathic etc). If you were to allow the player to roleplay the character however he/she likes, you have to script for every possible eventuality, and this interferes with the plot. For example, if the character has to rescue a princess from an evil wizard, and the character is evil, why would he do it ? For a cash reward etc maybe, but the player can still choose not to carry out the quest. And if the player does, then that's not truly roleplaying, it's just doing what the gamewriter wants the player to do.

A more rigid approach, which is what I have adopted, which is to define the character's personality. Therefore, the player's actions will tend to fit in with the plot. Some people don't like this approach, but I personally do since it gives a much deeper interaction with the world (that is to say, the character's actions mean something to the NPCs rather than just being generic "Oh thank you for rescuing me". It is possible to achieve this level of interaction with more open character development, but requires a LOT of additional scripting and writing.

As for skills development...the system I am using is based on the systems used in FF3 and Chrono Trigger, as examples. Fighting monsters gives its own reward in terms of experience, increased hit points, mana points but not statistics, such as Strength. These are only increased permanently through items. They can be increased temporarily by use of a magical sword for example, but only while the character uses that sword. As far as the game system is concerned, this *is* the normal way to increase stats.

I believe in surprise rewards for quests. That way you do the quest for the sake of the quest not the sake of the item at the end.

The stat increasing items don't just lie on the ground waiting to be picked up. They are hidden, have to be found or won from monsters. You can't just walk into a shop and buy one. Finding or acquiring one is a big reward. As for use of items to give skills like using two weapons - it does make sense, in the framework of the game's system. RPGs don't make "realworld" logical sense in general (which is why they have magic!), but within their own contexts, they do make sense.

It's all about different styles of RPGs. I don't like open ended RPGs with generic storylines, where most of the quests are bland and characterless, and don't take into account the character's previous actions. I've yet to see a truly well done open RPG where I can really be who or what I like (I want to play a surly warrior-mage for example, and I want NPCs to react to him like that).

I'm not including an open skills based system in this game because I personally don't like that kind of character development system. I tend to concentrate on personality rather than skills when I play RPGs (I believe that the former defines the latter, not the other way around).

Wait and see if it works You might get a pleasant surprise, and I've not discounted the possibility of writing a different style of RPG for the future. I'm not knocking your ideas by any means, it's just that they aren't the kind of style I tend to enjoy playing.

Doom levels *are* specified in 3 dimensions: sectors are specified using vertices that inhabit a 2D coordinate system. The ability to set the floor and ceiling levels of a sector (AND of game elements within it such as flying monsters) adds the 3rd dimension.

All game events (such as collision detection, movement, flying, falling) occur in a 3 dimensional world.

Oh dear.
*Readies flamethrower*

Have you ever tried walking under or over a monster in Doom? It's impossible. Therefore, no 3D collision checking for players/monsters, so it isn't a 3D world.

*Burns anyone who attempts to prove him wrong*

Have you ever tried walking under or over a monster in Doom? It's impossible. Therefore, no 3D collision checking for players/monsters, so it isn't a 3D world.

Have you never fought a Cacodemon hovering high in the sky, and it shoots fireballs diagonally down at you?

You run forward, and the fireball misses and flies over your head.

Game set and match.

Have you never fought a Cacodemon hovering high in the sky, and it shoots fireballs diagonally down at you?

You run forward, and the fireball misses and flies over your head.

But you can't actually walk underneath the cacodemon, can you? It's a big 2D box! Sure it's got a vertical position in space, but that doesn't effect it's size if you try and walk under it.

*Empties entire fuel tank on Chris*

I don't believe that "You are X caught up in civil war Y" is meaningless characterisation at all - in fact, it sets the plot for the game and the goal of the game.

It may be important for the game in general, but as far as implementing a character development scheme, which is what we're talking about, it _is_ meaningless characterisation. To say that one character is a mage from the town of p who worked as a law enforcer, while another character is a fighter from z city who spent the last few years in prison, does _not_ tell you which one would run into a burning building to save an unknown person.
You must include writing that points to character if you do indeed want to tell the player exactly who he's role-playing as.

For example, if the character has to rescue a princess from an evil wizard, and the character is evil, why would he do it ? For a cash reward etc maybe, but the player can still choose not to carry out the quest.

Indeed - cf. Baldurs Gate II.

And if the player does, then that's not truly roleplaying, it's just doing what the gamewriter wants the player to do.

Unless you actually give the player an evil reason to save the princess. (kidnap her yourself and extort money). Like I said, it's simply harder to provide for all the possibilities, so there's nothing wrong with a rigid approach that does indeed define the character.

As for skills development...the system I am using is based on the systems used in FF3 and Chrono Trigger, as examples. Fighting monsters gives its own reward in terms of experience, increased hit points, mana points but not statistics, such as Strength. These are only increased permanently through items.
...I believe in surprise rewards for quests. That way you do the quest for the sake of the quest not the sake of the item at the end.

That's good then, my comment or not having a surprise was only related to the situation where the surprise does something normally done another way. If the only way to increase strength is with an item, the player is happy with a surprise strength increaser.

As for use of items to give skills like using two weapons - it does make sense, in the framework of the game's system.

I still have a problem with this idea though. You're devaluing the effort a player who plays as a fighter puts in, and robbing him of a potentially brilliant reward. A fighter will want the two weapon skill as a reward for his brilliance at fighting. To know that some stupid mage could pick up the same item (even if you've restricted the usage to just fighters) spoils it.
I'm not saying it won't be cool to pick up a two swords skill item, I'm just saying it would be much _better_ if the player earned it by fighting with one sword.
As far as I'm concered, you need to take advantage of every single 'reward for doing what the player likes doing' opportunity you get. To waste one like this on a skill item would be lowest order.

I've yet to see a truly well done open RPG where I can really be who or what I like (I want to play a surly warrior-mage for example, and I want NPCs to react to him like that).

I found that Baulders Gate II came reasonably close, but not quite close enough. So please, give us a tightly scripted if more 'closed' rpg.

I'm not including an open skills based system in this game because I personally don't like that kind of character development system. I tend to concentrate on personality rather than skills when I play RPGs (I believe that the former defines the latter, not the other way around).

Yes, but having the sort of personality that leads the player to be good and choose subtelty of approach rather than brute force for instance will make the player want to learn relevent skills. You can use this to give the player something to look forward to, something to play the game for - in full role-playing mode the player knows he must get quicker and sneakier to survive. If 'quick and sneaky' skill is parcelled out to him as a surprise item, it's completely meaningless. Because he didn't know he could get quicker and sneakier, he didn't think about it while role-playing, didn't plan for it, and won't know what to do with it when he gets it. It'll be like 'big deal, now what?'.
Provide an open skills system and the player can plan on who he wants to be and why (or work out how best to be the character you've told him he's supposed to be role-playing).
You only need to provide two opposing options for each skill (eg. strength vs. sneaky), tell the player his character is a 4stone weakling but who once managed escape the great beast of littletown by using fleet of foot, and trust the player chooses to place points into the sneaky skill.
You don't, if you like, even have to do much work making sure that players choosing strength skills anyway can still play through the game - you can just punish the player quickly and repetivively untill he realises he must be sneaky instead.
That whole learning process will _really_ add to the role playing bit, _forcing_ the player to be your defined character. (This will actually be an enjoyable thing for the player)

Again, no time for my implemenation ideas... I'll say something relevent to Andrews game eventually!

If a 2D plane has a normal line coming out of it, the union of the two is a 3D object. It's not totally defined in 3 dimensions, yet it holds properties in each. Hence Doom is 3D. It isn't totally defined in 3 dimensions, but there are some elements orthogonal to the x-y plane, hence it is 3D.

And writing games is about the games players isn't it ?

tada!

But you can't actually walk underneath the cacodemon, can you? It's a big 2D box! Sure it's got a vertical position in space, but that doesn't effect it's size if you try and walk under it.

Matters not. If you have anything defined in >2 dimensions, the whole Vector Subspace becomes defined in 3 dimensions. Simply because a large portion of the game has infinite vectors in the 3rd dimension is not enough to justify a 2d nature, if something has a 3rd dimension, hence adding just one point outside the normal x-y plane, the whole system must gain the 3rd dimension and hence the game is 3d. OK, it's not realistic, but debate levels of realism, not dimensionality.

The Cacodemon is a 3D box, finite in 2 dimensions, and infinite in the 3rd, however, the fireball is finite in 3 dimensions hence the game has at least 1 element in 3 dimensions hence the spanning vectors of the game exist in 3 dimensions hence the game is 3d. You can have 2D objects in a 3D world, but the existence of a 3D object makes the world 3D.