RPG’s and the Need for Evolution

For a while now (ok, a couple days) I’ve been trying to bang out my thoughts on the future of RPG’s. Anyone who knows me will tell you that RPG’s and me go together like oil and water. I’m going to come right out and say it: they’re boring. As far as I’m concerned, they are the antithesis of gaming. It’s not that I don’t enjoy the whole adventure stylie, more so that I think they’re taking a game dynamic created well before computers went mainstream (pen’n'paper & dice) and doing their best to directly transpose it - not translate - onto a digital format.

Here’s the thing: rolling the dice is key. Ever played a whole bunch of Monopoly on your computer? Me neither, and here’s the reason: sitting around the board, rolling dice and interacting with one another is more important where Monopoly is concerned than who owns Trafalgar Square, and it’s the same for role-playing. Sitting around around the table and rolling the dice is part of the core dynamic that is lost when it arrives on the computer.

I know the hardcore RPG players amongst us sit for hours re-rolling (read “re-clicking) to get better stats - how is this interesting people? More importantly, how does giving your character 12 dexterity instead of 11 directly affect the game play? In theory he can fire an arrow more accurately, but in practice your body count does not improve substantially enough to notice the difference. So you’re left with a minority who revel in the ability to click as many times as they please, rather than fielding the toss that the game gives them, and the rest of the players are hit with a bunch of numbers that means absolutely nothing to them, and as it would turn out, the game world itself.

The questions I pose to the hardcore among you is why is the RPG, its developers and indeed its players so un-willing to evolve and leave the tabletop dynamic behind? Surely Diablo and Dungeon Siege aren’t the standard setters for games that try to streamline the character creation process. Look at Project Ego: it is taking the essential element of the RPG - having an adventure and tossing out everything else that was not designed with this digital interactive medium in mind. Surely more developers can take a cue from this example.

It’s time for the RPG to grow up and evolve into something more befitting a video game. Nothing could possibly match the exact feeling that people who immersed themselves in table-top role-playing had, so instead of trying to emulate it, let’s create a new standard, one that’s worthy of this medium, one that will grow this genre and industry, and one where the action takes place on screen and not on the page.

posted by splash · at 3:57 am · filed under Editorials

 

26 Comments (RSS)

Hmmm, this post seems more about dissing a genre than a really useful attempt to generate debate about the future of RPGs. Keep in mind that all games are subjective. One persons idea of fun is another persons idea of a complete waste of time.

Let’s face it, any game can be deconstructed into a relatively futile series of button pressing. This becomes even more appearent once you become involved in game development.

But hey, gaming is about fun. If someone has fun trying to roll up an uber character in Baldur’s Gate then who am I to say any different.

I’m also disappointed in the sweeping generalisations in this post. There has been some absolutely awesome roleplaying experiences on the PC and consoles over the years. I can look at just one example such as Fallout which had a great character development system, a great world and more.

Sorry dude, I know what your trying to say, but I think you missed the mark on this one.

Must be time for splash’s quarterly spanking. :)

However, while I think there have been several fantastic RPG experiences in computer/video gaming (Fallout, Planescape, Gold Box DnD), what splash says is true, from a certain point of view.

Monty and I were having a discussion about this very thing prior to the anouncement of Project-Ego. We dreamt of a system where the focus was back on the world, the cosmology, the story, and your role in it; rather than the math powering the game.

Sure it all boils down to math in the end, but do I need to know about it? I don’t really care what my dexterity is, I simply want to participate in the world and see where it takes me.

Project-Ego certainly is striving for this style of play and Dungeon Seige’s skill based system (though still reduced to numbers) is a step in the right direction. The palyer isn’t forced into artificial decisions on “class” and improvements in skill and magically attained each time an abitrary “level” is reached.

An RPG is about story and your characters place in a world. Who has the most uber glass sword of destruction should be of secondary concern, though if done correctly, even the most avid “power gamer” would still recognise their avatar’s dizzying heights of power.

Sure I know we’re you’re coming from. Looking at different ways to represent statistics and abilities without using numbers is something I’ve been stuggling with myself for quite a while and I believe it’s possible. But we’re talking about one of the oldest genres in computer games and change will take time. Project-ego is definitely a a step in the right direction.

But as someone told me once, during my many discussions on this topic, people will always want to know how powerful their new sword is or how much damage they can inflict now that they are level 8. Unfortunately right now numbers are the fastest and easiest ways to demonstrate this information.

But hey, wouldn’t it be nice to have a debate about this topic with someone who passinately plays RPGs rather than the odd foray into RPG-Lite games such as Diablo or Dungeon Siege? What do you think Splash:)

Having a bit of experience in pen and paper RPG’s (the number of years since I first picked up a d12 is just plain scary) I thought I’d throw my two copper pieces into the kitty.

What’s the definition of an RPG? Okay, it’s a game and you play a role in it. Pretty broad and sweeping, sure, and by that definition Half-Life was a roleplaying game (in fact I believe Half-Life is more of a roleplaying game than Diablo and its ilk). But, traditionally, we identify an RPG (especially a CRPG) pretty much as splash described: dice, stats, bonuses, skills and levelling up are the mechanics; more powerful items, core character impovement and possibly quests are the goals.

But let’s focus on pen and paper gaming for a tic …

Again, splash rightly points out that interaction is the biggie when it comes to tabletop gaming. And sure, the dice are part of it — those wacky players share a love/hate relationship with those little polyhedrons that’s sometimes terrifying to behold. But they’re just little chunks of plastic with numbers on ‘em (the dice, not the players). Heck, I’ve played diceless pen and paper games (”Just don’t ADD!” Hahahahaa! Ahem … sorry). Dice are just the tools that help determine consequences from the players choices. They aid in moving the story along with that little twist of Fate.

As for stats, skills and the like, whatever the representation (numbers, colours, adjectives, pineapples, etc) these help skew the acts of Fate (see above) but, more importantly, they help create the skeleton for the player to build his/her would-be role around. While rolling dice is fun, fleshing out a character is even funner … umm, more fun. Almost as much fun as seeing how that character affects, and in turn is affected by, the story.

Needless to say, in our gaming group the focus is on the story. Or to be more precise, the telling of the story. The players feel that their characters are part of an exciting tale and that, through their actions (in part initiated and determined by the game mechanics), the story shifts, evolves and ultimately reaches a climax (hopefully involving lots of decapitated humanoids).

Personally I feel that the true magic of RPG’s occurs through interaction with, and guidance from, the GM. Proper GM’ing really brings a strength to what RPG’s are about — roleplaying (and fun, of course).

So, do the players care about a +2 sword or that 5000gp gem they found in the cavity of the dragon’s tooth or levelling up so they can finally get that Feat they’ve always wanted? Hell, yes. Though not the main reward it sure is sweet when you know you can parry a mad goblin’s battleaxe, buy that war-pig you’ve always wanted or bust down that portcullis without breaking a sweat. But ultimately it is the adventure (to use splash’s word) that everyone remembers.

Now CRPG’s …

Without the opporunity for interaction from player to player and player to GM we’re pretty-much stripped of the ability to play a role. We’re basically left with a number churning machine (and by number I don’t necessarily mean 14 Constitution — I’m talking about the representation. Maybe as I get stronger my little avatar physically broadens at the shoulders or starts adding flashy twirls to his swordplay as he gets more skillful — um, I think I just quoted the blurb for Dungeon Seige). Unless the plot, and it’s delivery, is very good gameplay becomes nothing more than a quest to satisfy our greed for bigger stat bonuses, more gold and greater slaying potential.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m currently playing Diablo II at the moment and having a good time. But last night, as I battled through the depths of Hell, I found myself yearning for something, anything, to break the monotony of the click-fest. Icewind Dale, though a dungeon-crawl (and no-one was pretending it was anything else), had the advantage of more strategic combat and better story-telling. But it was still a quest to get you’re characters up as high a level as possible so you could see how many nefarious races you could introduce genocide to. Fun but not really roleplaying.

Where the hell am I getting to with all this drivel?

Ok, I believe that Neverwinter Nights to be more of a growth spurt in the right direction (that’s a terrible metaphor, I know). “Having an adventure and tossing out everything else that was not designed with this digital interactive medium in mind” is good as well. In fact LucasArts did that with the Monkey Island series. Or I could mention Half-Life again. But I’m a puritan (and I’m guessing splash wasn’t referring to those genres) so I’ll keep it on the RPG plane.

There will always be room for a (hopefully) fine product like Dungeon Seige due to an interface that frees it from the curse of statistics, allowing a wider range of people to enjoy it. But it’s not role-playing.

MMORPG’s seem to get closer to the mark but as we all know the majority of the time playing an MMORG is just like playing Diablo but with more people shouting “Rez plz! kekekekek!”.

Back to NWN. It’s not perfect and I believe we’re a long way off from matching a good social activity like pen and paper gaming but Neverwinter Nights seems to herald something new on the horizon (and, yes, I know Vampire: The Masquerade allowed DM’ing in a sense). Neverwinter Nights finally allows (if I’m to believe what I’ve read) easy, intuitive and powerful tools to allow players and DM to communicate. To build a story, become part of it and to tell it together. And that’s roleplaying.

OK, this has ended up being more of a gripe about what passes for an RPG in the digital world. Not my intention but well, maybe someone will get something out of it :)

So, to address the orginal question in a desperate attempt to save face. Maybe we (ie all us RPG-fans) are afraid to lose the stats and dice and levels and stuff because they are the only things left that remind us that we’re meant to playing a “roleplaying” game. Take those away and will RPG-fans be afraid they’re just playing Diablo without access to the Character screen or a fantasy version of Leisure Suit Larry?

Hmmm … now that’s not a bad idea …

Damn! Hit the character limit! Sorry about that … here’s the rest …

… nefarious races you could introduce genocide to. Fun but not really roleplaying.

Where the hell am I getting to with all this drivel?

Ok, I believe that Neverwinter Nights to be more of a growth spurt in the right direction (that’s a terrible metaphor, I know). “Having an adventure and tossing out everything else that was not designed with this digital interactive medium in mind” is good as well. In fact LucasArts did that with the Monkey Island series. Or I could mention Half-Life again. But I’m a puritan (and I’m guessing splash wasn’t referring to those genres) so I’ll keep it on the RPG plane.

There will always be room for a (hopefully) fine product like Dungeon Seige due to an interface that frees it from the curse of statistics, allowing a wider range of people to enjoy it. But it’s not role-playing.

MMORPG’s seem to get closer to the mark but as we all know the majority of the time playing an MMORG is just like playing Diablo but with more people shouting “Rez plz! kekekekek!”.

Back to NWN. It’s not perfect and I believe we’re a long way off from matching a good social activity like pen and paper gaming but Neverwinter Nights seems to herald something new on the horizon (and, yes, I know Vampire: The Masquerade allowed DM’ing in a sense). Neverwinter Nights finally allows (if I’m to believe what I’ve read) easy, intuitive and powerful tools to allow players and DM to communicate. To build a story, become part of it and to tell it together. And that’s roleplaying.

OK, this has ended up being more of a gripe about what passes for an RPG in the digital world. Not my intention but well, maybe someone will get something out of it :)

So, to address the orginal question in a desperate attempt to save face. Maybe we (ie all us RPG-fans) are afraid to lose the stats and dice and levels and stuff because they are the only things left that remind us that we’re meant to playing a “roleplaying” game. Take those away and will RPG-fans be afraid they’re just playing Diablo without access to the Character screen or a fantasy version of Leisure Suit Larry?

Hmmm … now that’s not a bad idea …

I don’t really think that anyone out there is actually kidding themselves that CRPGs provide the same experience as pen and paper RPGs. But for their limitations, there are some fantastic CRPGs out there.

There are games that profess to be RPGs, like Diablo II for example, that are obviously nowhere near the sort of experience one has with pen and paper, but some CRPGs aren’t too shabby. The Fallout and Baldur’s Gate series for a start. Of course CRPGs will never take the place of real RPGs, and they can never offer the same character interaction, but RPG still remains my favourite computer game genre.

Sure, create new games with different ways of representing a character’s stats or whatever, innovation is great. But I think there will always be a place for ‘traditional’ CRPGs with all their numbers and dice-rolling. Well, I don’t know if anyone else will buy them, but I’m sure I will.

Hey I played Baldur’s Gate 2….for a little while ;) It would be nice to see someone who loves RPG’s pushing for some evolution, but I think most people who love their CRPG’s probably can’t see anything wrong with them. Am I right or am I right? (present company excluded of course)

I guess what we’re really talking about though is making games for a mass-market audience, not the niche market that is gamers (and the niche market within gaming that is RPG’s). I think there’s a bit of resistance to this because gamers, as a whole, like to keep this “club” fairly exclusive, you only have to delve into the hardcore/casual gamer debate to see that.

What I’d like to see is not something, I think, that RPG-lovers would detest. I too want to immerse myself in a rich fantasy world and live out whatever Tolkien-esque fantasy that comes my way. What I don’t want to do is have to choose from a bunch of numbers in an attempt to define my place in the world.

A guy we both love, Warren Spector, talks a lot about immersing players in a world, making it more real and so forth. If a certain amount of reality is what we’re after to deliver the immersion, that being a word that reacts to us in a realistic manner, regardless of whether it’s a game world governed by magic, religion or science, then starting it off by number crunching makes no sense. We don’t get up in the morning, roll a couple of dice and say “Oh boy! Today I have 15 strength!” before trundling off to our desk jobs.

What I’m really after is smarter design. I don’t think anybody is going to disagree that finding a way to replace the numbers with something more appealing to a wider audience is a difficult task, but to blow this industry open, both creatively and financially, we’ve got to find ways. I’m sure there’ll always be a market for people who enjoy the AD&D dynamic, but I also think that most RPG developers have blinkers on and confine themselves to representing their world in a similar way, rather than looking beyond for something better.

I’m reading a fantastic book at the moment by William Goldman who is a Hollywood screenwriter, and he’s talking about the process of adapting Absolute Power from a novel to the film (starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, etc.). He wa sstumped for ages because he was trying to be so faithful to the book that he couldn’t see how to make it into a decent film. One day a friend suggested losing one of the main characters, keeping Eastwood’s character alive until the end of the film (he dies halfway through in the book) and a bunch of other stuff which Goldman had never even thought of because he was too close to the source material

…I hope everyone sees what I’m getting at.

Another rule of screenwriting is “Be prepared to kill your favourites.” I don’t think I need to explain any of the ways that this could apply to game design…

Oh, and how dare you insinuate that I played Diablo! I’ve never been so insulted! =P

Man I think you pretty much hit it right on the head. You’ve obviously spent a lot more time with RPG’s than I, and it shows. It’s not that I don’t like the idea of the RPG (acting is my #1 passion in life), I just feel that it could be better represented on the computer instead of what we currently call the RPG. What I want to see is something that emulates the feeling, rather than the dynamic of the table-top experience. I don’t think any RPG fan would think that a bad idea.

When NWN hits the shelves, hook me up in a world you’re running, I think we’re both after the same thing.

…If you’ll have me of course ;)

I couldn’t agree more, splash. I knew where you were coming from … it just took me a whole page of waffle to say it (as opposed to your succinct paragraph)!

And when I manage to customise NWN to my liking you’ll be more than welcome.

I’m going to come right out and say it: they’re boring. As far as I’m concerned, they are the antithesis of gaming.

…but for those who play them, they obviously aren’t. Calling for a change in something because you don’t like it and don’t play it is…, well, yes, you deserve another spanking. I would have thought you had learned after the Wizardy 8 episode ;)

I could say the same thing about RTS’s which I never play because I find them dull, tedious, and painful. But that’s the genre, and millions of people love it. Dissing it publicly would be pretty silly as a result.

Noone’s saying CPRGs can’t get better - those of us who play them have been saying and dreaming it all along - but in a sense you’re talking about a different type of game altogether. Many people enjoy the very things you want to remove. So I think I speak for most RPGers when I say if you don’t like it, move along, there’s nothing to see here. Or in MMORPG speak: stfu, thx :)

Hey Splash, for some of us hardcore RPGers creating a character and building it up through a game is half the game itself. Stats and how to obtain and distribute them is bread and butter for any true RPG game. Wizardry is a good example. Sir Tech made money and a reputation from these games (but let’s not get into the facts about their demise). Of course not everybody likes hardcore RPGs, but they do make games to satisfy those people who sit on the fence, eg. Diablo. But even this game had a measure of stats distribution attached to it. Building a character made it as fun as hacking and slashing.

But, I say let them try and blend RPG with other genres and mediums. Some of it will work and some of it won’t. But I bought Wizardry 8 and although it was dressed up in much eye candy I still get a buzz trying to build that ultimate team of adventurers that I so painstakingly and lovingly generated.

What about designing the “building” into the game though?

I’d like to see my character evolve through his/her/it’s choices rather than through my arbitrary decision to increase “magic” after spending four hours clubbing goblins to death.

I like the “DnD” number crunching style (mainly because I like the world and the rich and varied history it has), but it’s growing old rapidly. Just like it did after the Gold Boz games.

It’s time to evolve the genre. Not dumb it down (ala Diablo), but evolve it.

If my characters’ growth can be meaningfully depicted without numbers then I don’t want to see the numbers. The difficulty lies in crafting this new dynamic in a way that is meanful and clear to the palyer.

I agree with booker that there are now better ways we can do things (as he and I have been discussing for over a year now). There are certainly more elegant ideas for expressing character growth than stat/skill increases - subtle visual feedback for instance (if a player gets stronger, it gets more muscled; if it gets better with a weapon, the fight animation gets more fluid).

I’m looking forward to the time when RPGs get beyond the systems they are now (as fun as that has been), and leaps into the epic adventure/stories the original systems were just created to allow. I’m not sure making them easier a la Diablo is the answer to that either, because in doing so you generally lose depth.

But how’s this - different ways of progressing through a world and it’s story other than killing everything(???) IMHO that’s the worst, most artifiicial and limiting aspect of current RPGs. Even Lord of the Rings (which inspired the original roleplaying systems) has relatively few actual melee situations. Surely there’s a richer base for roleplaying games than fighting simulation.

OK you’ll have to excuse me - I’ve only quickly read the editorial and then skim-read the replies. If I cover points that have been made already, that’s the reason. Here’s my take on the situation:

“RPGs” have more inherent potential than any other game genre that I can think of. In fact, I think the biggest problem with RPGs is that people are trying to place them into a category of their own. For example - three of my absolute favourite RPGs are Fallout, System Shock 2 and Diablo II. These could just as easily be categorised as a Turn-Based RPG, a FPS and an action/adventure title and their styles of play differ greatly.

What makes an RPG is its essence - the feeling of being involved or immersed in a story, a world, a character, an era. An RPG is an ideal - it should not be constrained to a game genre or a particular design ethos. The levels of immersion that I experienced the first time I played WarCraft II and Monkey Island were so powerful that they were worthy of RPG status, even though they are technically classified as an RTS and a Graphical Adventure game. By evoking these kinds of feelings in a player, a game designer can enrich any style of game. Imagine a game that has the richness and depth of Ultima or Wizardry, the immediacy and urgency of Diablo or System Shock 2, and that “special extra something” of a game like Fallout. A game that is designed for the purpose of immersion, entertainment, and playability – not designed because someone said “Hey, let’s make an RPG/RTS/FPS!” It seems so simple to conceive of such an ubergame, doesn’t it?

But here’s where it all starts to fall down. People want things to be pigeonholed. They want them classified. They want them orderly and pre-packaged. More than anything, a game has to be “marketable”, which is just another way of saying that it has to conform to a particular set of criteria. “What, you control a bunch of little guys at the same time?” BAM – It’s an RTS game. “What, it’s first person perspective?” BAM – It’s an FPS game. And here’s the killer – “What, the player character has a bunch of statistics?” BAM – It’s an RPG.

You see, RPGs are all about statistics – whether it’s tabletop RPGs or cRPGs. That is how they function. If you want to use the old cliché about computers – it all boils down to 1’s and 0’s. Q: How do you determine how much damage your character can take before death? A: Mathematics. Q: How do you determine whether a character’s attack is successful? A: Mathematics. The fundamental mechanics of games require there to be a whole range of numbers and calculations that determine outcomes of the player’s actions. However, where things have been going astray (and the aspect that I feel splash is taking issue with) is that these numbers and statistics are, and always have been, in the foreground of the gaming experience. RPGs have up-front numerical representation. Unfortunately, this accessibility of numbers and statistics is having a profound effect on the way in which people play these games. Ask yourself these questions: When you create a character in Baldur’s Gate, are you more concerned with what their Constitution score is going to be, or do you spend your time deciding what the character’s personality is going to be, and how their personality will affect the way in which you interact with NPCs in the game? If you happen across a quest in the game that goes against the ideals of your character (basically something that doesn’t suit your alignment), but the reward just happens to be an awesomely cool Long Sword of Game Imbalance +5, do you decide to role-play and turn down the quest, or do you go for the item that will jack all your skills up through the stratosphere?

RPGs are slowly being bogged down because the games’ designs are entirely focussed around numbers. Who has the highest Strength? Who’s got the Godly Plate of the Whale? Look Jim, my character does 450HP of damage with his UberMace™ Now, I don’t have a problem with the occasional game that focuses on rampant powermongering – like I said earlier, I love Diablo II, and still play it religiously. The thing that distinguishes Diablo II is that from a design perspective, it never pretends to be anything other than an adrenaline-charged treasure hunt. And it’s slick…it’s very, very slick. Unfortunately, many hardcore RPGers were up in arms saying that it wasn’t an RPG, it was “just a clickfest” – to which my response has always been “What, just like Quake?”

OK, so I’ll set Diablo II aside – it was never intended to be a “real” RPG, it’s far too action oriented for the puritans. But for so many other RPGs (Black Isle and Bioware) there is still too much focus on numbers and not characters. Some games are less numerically oriented than others. Planescape : Torment was focussed intensely around a single character, and although he still had stats and such, the interest in who this character was and where he had come from far outweighed whether he was bigger, faster and stronger than everyone else. So, the developers had craftily succeeded in averting the “my character could beat up you character” syndrome that so many players seem prone to these days. However, for the Baldur’s Gate series there was much more room for people to “max-out” their characters, whether it was to sit for hours clicking the re-roll button (been there, done that) or to just take and use absolutely any and every item that will beef up your party members.

A good friend of mine was rather annoyed at Baldur’s Gate when he attempted to play a character of dwarven extraction. He wished for his character to be similar to the trollslayers of Warhammer, and as such had decided that his dwarf was not going to wear any kind of armour, would refuse to take healing during a battle, would only use axes as weaponry, and would charge into any battle regardless of the odds. A rather eclectic combination, but it does indeed constitute role-playing, yes? It was impossible. The reason? Because he wasn’t focussing on statistics and maxing out the character. Surely it should be possible for a player to advance through a game and meet challenges of progressive difficulty that they are able to overcome through their wits and their own personal experiences as a gameplayer, rather than just because their character’s AC is now –16 instead of 2, and their THAC0 is 4 instead of 12?

So, it appears that from a design perspective, the problems that I have with RPGs are twofold. Firstly, players are able to focus too much on the nuts and bolts of the game, as evidenced through statistics and values. Secondly, the success curve of many of these games is crafted around the assumption that gameplayers will play in a particular manner, which is to say they will beef their characters up with the biggest and best spells and armour and weapons that they can. I don’t like where this is going. But I do have some suggestions to make.

Players are given too much information about the game mechanics. It is my solemn belief that players should be given information – just not such an incredible amount of it, and not in the form of numbers and statistics. You want to know if that new sword is better than your old one? Try using it! If those kobolds start exploding into gibs rather than taking three hits to die, I think it’s pretty clear which weapon is better. All the stats are still there, but they’re masked from the player. Instead of them going “Wow, a Long Sword +3!”, how about we give them a chance to say “Wow, this sword makes Kobolds explode!” and then give them an opportunity to give their sword a name. A small thing, but you’d be surprised at the difference it makes. Is the brand new set of armour that you found after slaying that pesky wizard going to be cooler than the one you’re wearing already? Put it on! No longer do you look like a filthy leather-ridden beggar, now you look like a knight of the round table. And all of a sudden, you’re not getting hit so much. The proof is in the pudding, you don’t need numbers to tell someone which item is better than what. Let them discover for themselves, it’s all part of the fun! It’s all feedback to the player that is done visually and through gameplay. Heck, everyone’s got a 3D card – flashy graphics are all the rage. Why not elevate the art above just being functional and pretty – why not allow the graphics to communicate information to the player about what’s happening with your character. If he’s been swinging that massive Lochaber Axe around for the last three hours of gameplay, then he gets buffed out. If she’s been sneaking around in the shadows and climbing up walls a lot, she gets lithe and sneaky. If he’s been casting spells and staying away from the fray, then he gets thin and lanky. Want to know if your character’s about to die? You won’t need to check and see that his HP are down to 5/134 if you can just see the character hacked up and bleeding profusely on your screen. Representation of game mechanics through graphics, sound, music, gameplay – anything but just frikkin’ numbers…that’s my first suggestion.

Secondly, stop giving the player “points” to allocate and distribute amongst their various skills and categories. This only further encourages the player to abandon roleplaying all together. Looking at the skills and stats and saying “Hey wow, I want to use this shield and wear this armour and have this skill and cast this spell and then I’ll be really powerful!” means that the player then focuses on doing things solely to reach this arbitrary goal, which has no connection to character development whatsoever. I would much rather play a game in which you increase your skills and your abilities by actually using those skills and using those abilities. If your character has high stamina and endurance, it’s because he’s been running through the forests hunting orcs for many hours. If your character is particularly good at casting illusion spells, it’s because he spent days using this skill to avoid being captured by that small army of gnolls that were wandering around in that swamp that he got stuck in. This second example of a character might also have high stamina and endurance, which came from all those times when his illusions weren’t good enough, and he had to run away…often. And perhaps he might also have an exceptional hiding skill, because he had to find cover for all those times when he ran out of illusions and stamina. This method is so much more honest that a skill-attribution system, because if people want to do a particular thing really well, or have a particular set of talents or spells, then it means they have to do these very things in order to accomplish their goals. One of the awesome things about RPGs is that it allows you to set your own goals for a character. So why the hell are these goals accomplished by killing a billion sewer rats, waiting to “level up” and then clicking the + button next to your strength skill. Madness!! No levels, no experience, no skills, none of this baggage. Remove the quantisation of everything and just play – have a steady and constant accruement of abilities that comes from each and every second that the player spends in the game. Have the outcome of their character be a direct reflection of all the time and energy that they have invested into the gaming experience.

The third and final element is far more contentious, and likely to upset people, because it deals with design philosophy. I know that people who visit this website are rather big on MMORPGs. Some of you know me, and may have already heard my opinions on this matter, but I’m going to sketch them out again anyway. I still believe that MMORPGs are one great big enormous red herring. It’s not that I don’t think the ideal of the MMORPG is without merit, or that they are stupid, but I really feel that they have been warped and distorted from what they were intended to be. I have read monty’s EQ Chronicles, and recently he has illustrated how the publisher/moneymen side of MMORPGs can ruin things, so I’ll leave that element alone, it’s been covered already. My problems start with the false assumption that “bigger is better” – a fallacy that has been exposed so many times that I wonder why it still catches people out. Just because your world is “Massive” doesn’t mean it’s good, and the fact that it’s “Massive” and “Multiplayer” at the same time makes me shudder. The “MM” in “MMORPG” only says one thing to me – it’s going to be full of idiots whose vocabulary includes, and is quite possibly limited to, “U SUCK!!1”, “CAN U HACK?!” and “I AM L337 N1NJ/\_69 AND I RULZ J00!!” No thanks, fellas. Give me a multiplayer game where I can minimise exposure to these morons and play with people I know and trust (if NWN sucks then I am going to cry). A world that is Massive and Multiplayer has the potential to become a wondrous place, but this will be because of the people who populate the world – the players. And unfortunately, I have found the majority of people online to be morons. I will not play MMORPGs until StarWars Galaxies and/or WOW are released, and I’m only playing them because they already have a history and a tangible real-ness of their own. But if they’re stocked with morons (as I am fearing) then I will be very disheartened, because it will prove something to me. It will prove that my enjoyment of MMORPGs relies solely on the players, and not on the designers, and that is just…not…right. So, I would like to see RPGs that allow multiplayer games to occur without having to tolerate the masses of people who are, basically, powermongering hack n’ slashers - the very people who are being fed and encouraged by RPG’s focus on numbers and stats. Give me a multiplayer game where the fact that there are other people playing actually enriches the experience, rather than lessens it, or crushes it completely. Less “Massive”, more “Multiplayer”, please.

OK, I’ll stop the rant there, for the time being, and just recap for those of you who are still awake.

Stop the design focus on numbers and statistics. Give feedback to the player through other mechanisms, thus reducing the focus on maxing out your character so that perhaps people will begin to actually roleplay.

Stop quantising the skills and abilities. Have the development of a character’s skills and abilities be a direct and accurate indication of how the character has been played – this way the player can experience a much more honest and satisfying form of roleplaying, because they are allowed to enact the attributes that they desire in their character in order to better these very same attributes.

Stop designing MMORPGs and start making MORPGs, with less “Massive” and more “Multiplayer”. Having an online world that’s twice the size of Canada with 250,000 end-users (sorry, I mean players) will never be any substitute for a tightly focussed, polished and well-executed adventure that allows people to share and enrich their online experiences with one another.

And for a final anecdote before I stop, here’s my own personal method by which I roleplayed my BG1 character. He was an Evocation mage called Yatak, and had a Chaotic Neutral alignment (which basically means he was an insane nutcase) and liked fire…a lot. During any particular conversation, with any NPC or any other person playing with me, I would roll a d6. If the number was even, I would be nice, if the number was odd I would be nasty. I would roll for every dialog option, or every minute or so, if I was just wandering around. Too much nasty and I would attack. My apologies still go out to my trollslayer/dwarf-playing friend, who endured much fire and pain and death because of my insane Mage. But two good things came of the whole experiment – I finished the entire game that way…and I never had so much fun…;-)

Replies welcome…

Yatak.

RPGs are slowly being bogged down because the games’ designs are entirely focussed around numbers. Who has the highest Strength? Who’s got the Godly Plate of the Whale? Look Jim, my character does 450HP of damage with his UberMace™ Now, I don’t have a problem with the occasional game that focuses on rampant powermongering – like I said earlier, I love Diablo II, and still play it religiously. The thing that distinguishes Diablo II is that from a design perspective, it never pretends to be anything other than an adrenaline-charged treasure hunt. And it’s slick…it’s very, very slick. Unfortunately, many hardcore RPGers were up in arms saying that it wasn’t an RPG, it was “just a clickfest” – to which my response has always been “What, just like Quake?”

OK, so I’ll set Diablo II aside – it was never intended to be a “real” RPG, it’s far too action oriented for the puritans. But for so many other RPGs (Black Isle and Bioware) there is still too much focus on numbers and not characters. Some games are less numerically oriented than others. Planescape : Torment was focussed intensely around a single character, and although he still had stats and such, the interest in who this character was and where he had come from far outweighed whether he was bigger, faster and stronger than everyone else. So, the developers had craftily succeeded in averting the “my character could beat up you character” syndrome that so many players seem prone to these days. However, for the Baldur’s Gate series there was much more room for people to “max-out” their characters, whether it was to sit for hours clicking the re-roll button (been there, done that) or to just take and use absolutely any and every item that will beef up your party members.

A good friend of mine was rather annoyed at Baldur’s Gate when he attempted to play a character of dwarven extraction. He wished for his character to be similar to the trollslayers of Warhammer, and as such had decided that his dwarf was not going to wear any kind of armour, would refuse to take healing during a battle, would only use axes as weaponry, and would charge into any battle regardless of the odds. A rather eclectic combination, but it does indeed constitute role-playing, yes? It was impossible. The reason? Because he wasn’t focussing on statistics and maxing out the character. Surely it should be possible for a player to advance through a game and meet challenges of progressive difficulty that they are able to overcome through their wits and their own personal experiences as a gameplayer, rather than just because their character’s AC is now –16 instead of 2, and their THAC0 is 4 instead of 12?

So, it appears that from a design perspective, the problems that I have with RPGs are twofold. Firstly, players are able to focus too much on the nuts and bolts of the game, as evidenced through statistics and values. Secondly, the success curve of many of these games is crafted around the assumption that gameplayers will play in a particular manner, which is to say they will beef their characters up with the biggest and best spells and armour and weapons that they can. I don’t like where this is going. But I do have some suggestions to make.

(cont…)

Players are given too much information about the game mechanics. It is my solemn belief that players should be given information – just not such an incredible amount of it, and not in the form of numbers and statistics. You want to know if that new sword is better than your old one? Try using it! If those kobolds start exploding into gibs rather than taking three hits to die, I think it’s pretty clear which weapon is better. All the stats are still there, but they’re masked from the player. Instead of them going “Wow, a Long Sword +3!”, how about we give them a chance to say “Wow, this sword makes Kobolds explode!” and then give them an opportunity to give their sword a name. A small thing, but you’d be surprised at the difference it makes. Is the brand new set of armour that you found after slaying that pesky wizard going to be cooler than the one you’re wearing already? Put it on! No longer do you look like a filthy leather-ridden beggar, now you look like a knight of the round table. And all of a sudden, you’re not getting hit so much. The proof is in the pudding, you don’t need numbers to tell someone which item is better than what. Let them discover for themselves, it’s all part of the fun! It’s all feedback to the player that is done visually and through gameplay. Heck, everyone’s got a 3D card – flashy graphics are all the rage. Why not elevate the art above just being functional and pretty – why not allow the graphics to communicate information to the player about what’s happening with your character. If he’s been swinging that massive Lochaber Axe around for the last three hours of gameplay, then he gets buffed out. If she’s been sneaking around in the shadows and climbing up walls a lot, she gets lithe and sneaky. If he’s been casting spells and staying away from the fray, then he gets thin and lanky. Want to know if your character’s about to die? You won’t need to check and see that his HP are down to 5/134 if you can just see the character hacked up and bleeding profusely on your screen. Representation of game mechanics through graphics, sound, music, gameplay – anything but just frikkin’ numbers…that’s my first suggestion.

Secondly, stop giving the player “points” to allocate and distribute amongst their various skills and categories. This only further encourages the player to abandon roleplaying all together. Looking at the skills and stats and saying “Hey wow, I want to use this shield and wear this armour and have this skill and cast this spell and then I’ll be really powerful!” means that the player then focuses on doing things solely to reach this arbitrary goal, which has no connection to character development whatsoever. I would much rather play a game in which you increase your skills and your abilities by actually using those skills and using those abilities. If your character has high stamina and endurance, it’s because he’s been running through the forests hunting orcs for many hours. If your character is particularly good at casting illusion spells, it’s because he spent days using this skill to avoid being captured by that small army of gnolls that were wandering around in that swamp that he got stuck in. This second example of a character might also have high stamina and endurance, which came from all those times when his illusions weren’t good enough, and he had to run away…often. And perhaps he might also have an exceptional hiding skill, because he had to find cover for all those times when he ran out of illusions and stamina. This method is so much more honest that a skill-attribution system, because if people want to do a particular thing really well, or have a particular set of talents or spells, then it means they have to do these very things in order to accomplish their goals. One of the awesome things about RPGs is that it allows you to set your own goals for a character. So why the hell are these goals accomplished by killing a billion sewer rats, waiting to “level up” and then clicking the + button next to your strength skill. Madness!! No levels, no experience, no skills, none of this baggage. Remove the quantisation of everything and just play – have a steady and constant accruement of abilities that comes from each and every second that the player spends in the game. Have the outcome of their character be a direct reflection of all the time and energy that they have invested into the gaming experience.

(cont…)

One of the awesome things about RPGs is that it allows you to set your own goals for a character. So why the hell are these goals accomplished by killing a billion sewer rats, waiting to “level up” and then clicking the + button next to your strength skill. Madness!! No levels, no experience, no skills, none of this baggage. Remove the quantisation of everything and just play – have a steady and constant accruement of abilities that comes from each and every second that the player spends in the game. Have the outcome of their character be a direct reflection of all the time and energy that they have invested into the gaming experience.

The third and final element is far more contentious, and likely to upset people, because it deals with design philosophy. I know that people who visit this website are rather big on MMORPGs. Some of you know me, and may have already heard my opinions on this matter, but I’m going to sketch them out again anyway. I still believe that MMORPGs are one great big enormous red herring. It’s not that I don’t think the ideal of the MMORPG is without merit, or that they are stupid, but I really feel that they have been warped and distorted from what they were intended to be. I have read monty’s EQ Chronicles, and recently he has illustrated how the publisher/moneymen side of MMORPGs can ruin things, so I’ll leave that element alone, it’s been covered already. My problems start with the false assumption that “bigger is better” – a fallacy that has been exposed so many times that I wonder why it still catches people out. Just because your world is “Massive” doesn’t mean it’s good, and the fact that it’s “Massive” and “Multiplayer” at the same time makes me shudder. The “MM” in “MMORPG” only says one thing to me – it’s going to be full of idiots whose vocabulary includes, and is quite possibly limited to, “U SUCK!!1”, “CAN U HACK?!” and “I AM L337 N1NJ/\_69 AND I RULZ J00!!” No thanks, fellas. Give me a multiplayer game where I can minimise exposure to these morons and play with people I know and trust (if NWN sucks then I am going to cry). A world that is Massive and Multiplayer has the potential to become a wondrous place, but this will be because of the people who populate the world – the players. And unfortunately, I have found the majority of people online to be morons. I will not play MMORPGs until StarWars Galaxies and/or WOW are released, and I’m only playing them because they already have a history and a tangible real-ness of their own. But if they’re stocked with morons (as I am fearing) then I will be very disheartened, because it will prove something to me. It will prove that my enjoyment of MMORPGs relies solely on the players, and not on the designers, and that is just…not…right. So, I would like to see RPGs that allow multiplayer games to occur without having to tolerate the masses of people who are, basically, powermongering hack n’ slashers - the very people who are being fed and encouraged by RPG’s focus on numbers and stats. Give me a multiplayer game where the fact that there are other people playing actually enriches the experience, rather than lessens it, or crushes it completely. Less “Massive”, more “Multiplayer”, please.

(cont…)

OK, I’ll stop the rant there, for the time being, and just recap for those of you who are still awake.

Stop the design focus on numbers and statistics. Give feedback to the player through other mechanisms, thus reducing the focus on maxing out your character so that perhaps people will begin to actually roleplay.

Stop quantising the skills and abilities. Have the development of a character’s skills and abilities be a direct and accurate indication of how the character has been played – this way the player can experience a much more honest and satisfying form of roleplaying, because they are allowed to enact the attributes that they desire in their character in order to better these very same attributes.

Stop designing MMORPGs and start making MORPGs, with less “Massive” and more “Multiplayer”. Having an online world that’s twice the size of Canada with 250,000 end-users (sorry, I mean players) will never be any substitute for a tightly focussed, polished and well-executed adventure that allows people to share and enrich their online experiences with one another.

And for a final anecdote before I stop, here’s my own personal method by which I roleplayed my BG1 character. He was an Evocation mage called Yatak, and had a Chaotic Neutral alignment (which basically means he was an insane nutcase) and liked fire…a lot. During any particular conversation, with any NPC or any other person playing with me, I would roll a d6. If the number was even, I would be nice, if the number was odd I would be nasty. I would roll for every dialog option, or every minute or so, if I was just wandering around. Too much nasty and I would attack. My apologies still go out to my trollslayer/dwarf-playing friend, who endured much fire and pain and death because of my insane Mage. But two good things came of the whole experiment – I finished the entire game that way…and I never had so much fun…;-)

Replies welcome…

Yatak.

(Yes, I’m really finished typing now)

I’ve never been a big fan of RPGs, though I did play MUDs for a couple years and more recently I’ve been playing DAOC. I won’t try and surmise what RPGs are, or what they try to be or should be, I think Yatak and a few others have done a good job of that already. I’ve liked some, but hated many. Personally, I ignore genres altogether and look at the game itself. I used to think I liked RTS games, then I realised I only liked some of them. I used to think I liked FPS games, same deal there. Same for space sims, sports games, arcade games, etc.

For the people who won’t touch a Massively Multiplayer game due to their leet-dude phobia, I will say that there’s been very little of it in DAOC, at least on the Guinever server where I’ve been playing the last 3 months. It actually has a healthy dose of role playing in the form of comradary, in that people of the same realm fight for the good of their realm. Be it out in the frontiers against the enemy realms, or inside your homeland’s borders against the beasties that roam there. There are always exceptions to the rule, but it’s easy to ignore and forget them, because they’re out numbered by sensible, mature people. I don’t know how Mythic managed to achieve this, either by luck or possibly by the “RP” attached to this particular server’s name. Anyway, just thought I’d break a bit of the stigmatism there.

Great post.

I’d like to emphasise the point about bigger not being better. One of the things that contributed to my decision to leave EQ was the endless nature of the design. By that I mean (because it is now a money cow) it’s owners are continually introducing extentions to it - whether they add to the game or not. There is now no way to measure your character’s advancement meaningfully because the bar is continually being raised. If you wanted to reach the top end, it used to mean hitting level 50, then 60. Now that milesonte is just the beginning of acquiring Alternate Advancement points (AA), which account for another 300+ levels of play. On top of that Verant just announced another massive expansion. And on and on it goes.

RPG games, like stories, aren’t meant to last forever. Adventures have endings. If they don’t they just degenerate into endless battles and tediom - hang on, I just described a lot of MMORPGs.

I suspect this is more to do with your playnig on a RP server, than something inherent to DAoC. L337 d00d5 don’t last long on RP servers.

Geez Mont, you should know by now I never get tired of a good spanking ;)

The things I’m talking about though don’t just relate to the stats, that was just the best example. Another would be, for instance, certain types of spells or attacks needed in AD&D to kill certain monsters. BG2 did a great job of teaching you in game that you needed to use acid to kill Trolls.

Great! Troll comes along, takes a beating, dies to an acid arrow or spell, no sweat. How great, I thought, that the design has leapt out of the manual and into the game where I didn’t need to consult something outside of the game in order to play it.

Unfortunately this didn’t continue. Suddenly I have monsters that don’t respond to the acid or to magic missile, and there was no teaching you that in game; you had to go looking in the manual if you didn’t already know. I’ve said it before, but if you have to step out of the game in order to understand it or play it, then it’s really a design flaw.

Mind you, I think the same of cut-scenes as well. No doubt I’ll piss more people off later this week when I elaborate on it, but in short I don’t see why taking control out of the player’s hands adds to this medium.

In both these cases I think we’re selling ourselves short. we should be taking advantage of what we’re offered by this medium. I’ve no doubt we’ll rival film and other art forms both in terms of popularity and mainstream critical success and acceptance.

But how soon we do that depends entirely on how openly we embrace what this genre has to offer. That, I think, will only happen when we leave the restrictive conventions of other mediums behind.

If I am to take any of you seriously, then I have to conclude that you are campaigning for a new category for all the rpg’s that are heavily bogged down in statistics - such that the rpg’s remaining will be regarded as the TRUE rpg’s. Well I have never come a across a bigger piece of useless crap in my life.
There are plenty of rpg’s out there that adhere to your own ideals of what a game should be (Exhibit A - Final Fantasy), so unless you are actively seeking the removal of all games that require in-depth use of stats, then I can only conclude that you want these games kicked out of the rpg club. And what would that achieve? Separate shelves at Electronics Boutique? Different sub-categories in search engines? This can’t be what you people really want. So here it is.
You are lame.
Watch a movie if you want to minimize your level of interaction so much. RPG’s have always been about the development of a charater or a set of characters to which a person becomes attached - HENCE THE ROLEPLAYING. The emphasis is NOT ON ADVENTURE. Note that there is already a category for adventure gaming.
Geez what a useless topic. If you are out to convince game developers that they should be modifying rpg’s to your specific tastes, then take your fascism elsewhere please. There are plenty of games for you. Leave some for me.

RPGs ROCK!!!

Please start reading again from the top.

i agree with most of you on different subjects

but the fact is RPG’s do need to evolve
every one plays the same
they can get boring
they are excellent for building char’s
they normaly have really cool story-lines

there are only a small hand full of cool rpg out there
eg. summoner (ps2)

Summoner is the only rpg that i wanted to finish
the best story yet for a RPG

Related Posts

BigKid is now offering user logins for anyone who'd like to post news or make comments. Register & login now!

Feeds: 0.92 · 2.0 · Atom

Levelling