RPG's---How much is TOO much?
by Kevin James · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 08/16/2006 (6:38 pm) · 30 replies
I've played many RPGs in my lifetime and found them all to have different levels of detail. Some required eating for the sake of not starving while in some games eating restored health which is less realistic but not so annoying. This is one example of how something might be realistic enough for one person but just be ridiculous to another.
And as far as skills. I noticed that in Oblivian, they really cut down on the number of skills. Long and Short blade became Blade, axe and blunt became blunt, ect. Do you prefer really speciallized skills or more general ones?
I think the best solution is to offer every level of realism that you can. Give the player a choice between worring about hunger or not and the many other levels of realism that could be delved into.
That's enough from me. . . what do you think?
And as far as skills. I noticed that in Oblivian, they really cut down on the number of skills. Long and Short blade became Blade, axe and blunt became blunt, ect. Do you prefer really speciallized skills or more general ones?
I think the best solution is to offer every level of realism that you can. Give the player a choice between worring about hunger or not and the many other levels of realism that could be delved into.
That's enough from me. . . what do you think?
About the author
Computer security, digital forensics, and platform jumper enthusiast. shells.myw3b.net/~syreal/
#2
Generally, games that require you to eat or starve do so as part of a resource management scheme. In addition to managing your gold and watching your hitpoints, you need to find food or pay the consequences. Forgot to bring lunch when you entered the Endless Pit of Agramozz, did you? Well, you've got a new challenge to deal with! There's plenty of mushrooms down there, though, and if you're lucky you won't pick one of the poisonous ones...
If the complexity is too disruptive for some players, you could offer them the option to have certain tasks automatically taken care of -- automatically consuming food from your stores when hungry, for instance -- without detracting from the challenge of resource management.
As for specialized skills, I like them because they help to individualize your character. When everybody has the same skills, the game becomes homogenized and boring, and has little replay value. Ideally, every character should have unique skills, strengths and weaknesses: when those are determined by the choices you've made, it makes the game all the more interesting. "Damn! Why did I put all those points into Knitting? Sure, it let me crochet this awesome Cardigan of Might, but I wish I'd put a few more points into Survival. I wonder if these mushrooms are safe to eat?"
Again, you can offer players the options of choosing from a simple, automated system vs. an advanced DIY menu: "I want to be a Fighter and let the game pick my skills" vs. "I want to be a one-handed short-swordsman with the Shield skill and a minor skill of Archery".
And I agree with David: any game that leads you to jump around like Tigger on crack to boost your skills has blown any sense of immersion in the game.
08/17/2006 (6:24 am)
Aside from being a pain in the butt to code, offering the player a "level of realism" setting would upset the balance of a game. Why would players choose to be bound by restrictions (e.g., starvation) that other players don't have to worry about?Generally, games that require you to eat or starve do so as part of a resource management scheme. In addition to managing your gold and watching your hitpoints, you need to find food or pay the consequences. Forgot to bring lunch when you entered the Endless Pit of Agramozz, did you? Well, you've got a new challenge to deal with! There's plenty of mushrooms down there, though, and if you're lucky you won't pick one of the poisonous ones...
If the complexity is too disruptive for some players, you could offer them the option to have certain tasks automatically taken care of -- automatically consuming food from your stores when hungry, for instance -- without detracting from the challenge of resource management.
As for specialized skills, I like them because they help to individualize your character. When everybody has the same skills, the game becomes homogenized and boring, and has little replay value. Ideally, every character should have unique skills, strengths and weaknesses: when those are determined by the choices you've made, it makes the game all the more interesting. "Damn! Why did I put all those points into Knitting? Sure, it let me crochet this awesome Cardigan of Might, but I wish I'd put a few more points into Survival. I wonder if these mushrooms are safe to eat?"
Again, you can offer players the options of choosing from a simple, automated system vs. an advanced DIY menu: "I want to be a Fighter and let the game pick my skills" vs. "I want to be a one-handed short-swordsman with the Shield skill and a minor skill of Archery".
And I agree with David: any game that leads you to jump around like Tigger on crack to boost your skills has blown any sense of immersion in the game.
#3
I think specialized skills are a bad idea. Skills are useless unless you can use them for something.
08/17/2006 (7:51 am)
I like having to eat to survive, and it would seem almost "new" because it isn't done much any more. I don't see how it could be an option. You either have to put it into the game or not. You could have an option that would specify whether the characters eat their food automatically when hungry, but the player would still have to find sufficient food to eat either way.I think specialized skills are a bad idea. Skills are useless unless you can use them for something.
#4
Why would a useful, specialized skill be a bad idea?
I like the idea of a skill -- limited to a specific group of players -- that gives an edge in a particular situation. Maybe they barter more effectively with merchants. Maybe they excel at killing critters with thrown weapons. Maybe they can produce more nourishing foods from foraged items.
Special skills bring variety to the game, just as they do in real life.
08/17/2006 (8:36 am)
Quote:I think specialized skills are a bad idea. Skills are useless unless you can use them for something.
Why would a useful, specialized skill be a bad idea?
I like the idea of a skill -- limited to a specific group of players -- that gives an edge in a particular situation. Maybe they barter more effectively with merchants. Maybe they excel at killing critters with thrown weapons. Maybe they can produce more nourishing foods from foraged items.
Special skills bring variety to the game, just as they do in real life.
#5
Lol! I remember jumping off the cantons in Vivec to improve my Acrobatics quickly in a little game called Morrowind! You're completely right, I felt like I was cheating when I did that because who in real life would improve their jumping ability by breaking their legs, or hopping like a bunny for 3 miles.
@John
You're right. I didn't really think about the actual making of the game, I was just thinkng about the concept. That must be the best route, making something automated for those who don't want to bother, but having the ability to manually control every aspect of your character. I like your examples. . .lol.
@Steven
I was thinking of Long Blade and Short Blade vs. Blade or Foraging and Alchemy as opposed to just Alchemy.
Thanks to everyone for their input and I hope to hear more!
08/17/2006 (8:40 am)
@DavidLol! I remember jumping off the cantons in Vivec to improve my Acrobatics quickly in a little game called Morrowind! You're completely right, I felt like I was cheating when I did that because who in real life would improve their jumping ability by breaking their legs, or hopping like a bunny for 3 miles.
@John
You're right. I didn't really think about the actual making of the game, I was just thinkng about the concept. That must be the best route, making something automated for those who don't want to bother, but having the ability to manually control every aspect of your character. I like your examples. . .lol.
@Steven
I was thinking of Long Blade and Short Blade vs. Blade or Foraging and Alchemy as opposed to just Alchemy.
Thanks to everyone for their input and I hope to hear more!
#6
But it is also context-relative. In most RPG's, combat specializations do not do very much until they reach a certain threshold. Such as Monks in Bard's Tale. They were horribly weak and died a lot early on because they wore no armor and had no weapons. They were relatively useless until they reached level 10. Then they were doing more damage and dodging more blows than knights ten levels higher. It was a balancing act which is often done very badly. But I can see how working on a "cooking" skill could help make more nourishing meals or an alchemy skill to make more potent potions. But these seem more like skills than specializations (cooking could be broken down into meats and vegetables which could then be broken down to poultty, beef, mutton, etc... and at some point the specialization gets so specific that it becomes somewhat useless--what if you are in an area without cows to kill or beef to buy?).
I would much prefer an interactive world such as Ultima VII (where you could make and bake bread) than a specialized skill in making and baking bread. The Arena worlds are huge and have a lot of crap in them, but they're not very interactive unless you use skills (and even then they are only mildly interactive). It is more interesting to talk to people and read books because otherwise your world interactivity is pretty much limited to opening chests and doors. Telekinesis was a good idea that really didn't matter much except in stealing things.
08/17/2006 (9:01 am)
I think that specialization in computer RPG's is linked to the desire to make a computerized pen and paper experience. The problem with this, as has been talked to death over the last couple of decades, is that the vast majority of computer RPG's do not give the interpretive and imaginative leeway necessary to make a "true conversion" possible. Computers are necessarily unyielding in terms of "keeping player interest and the story and characters moving with the game and the group". Most RPG's do not benefit from specialization simply because the specifics of the specialization are either so specific so as to not be useful in terms of the game's linear nature (and more RPG's are linear to a fault even if they are based on "random dungeons", the paths and links from floor to floor and any semblance of narrative structure (such as Evolution's "you made it deeper" story-structure) are linear in nature though the pathway may be a new series of line-points each time the game is played. MMORPG's and games such as the Arena titles have the most potential for specialization, though it is really annoying if the main quest is determined by a specific skill that may not have been important (such as jumping in Daggerfall, which led to jackrabbiting around near the end of the game so that you could leap across certain areas). The randomly pre-generated dungeons which comprised most of Daggerfall rarely made jumping necessary, but some of the actual designed dungeons did.But it is also context-relative. In most RPG's, combat specializations do not do very much until they reach a certain threshold. Such as Monks in Bard's Tale. They were horribly weak and died a lot early on because they wore no armor and had no weapons. They were relatively useless until they reached level 10. Then they were doing more damage and dodging more blows than knights ten levels higher. It was a balancing act which is often done very badly. But I can see how working on a "cooking" skill could help make more nourishing meals or an alchemy skill to make more potent potions. But these seem more like skills than specializations (cooking could be broken down into meats and vegetables which could then be broken down to poultty, beef, mutton, etc... and at some point the specialization gets so specific that it becomes somewhat useless--what if you are in an area without cows to kill or beef to buy?).
I would much prefer an interactive world such as Ultima VII (where you could make and bake bread) than a specialized skill in making and baking bread. The Arena worlds are huge and have a lot of crap in them, but they're not very interactive unless you use skills (and even then they are only mildly interactive). It is more interesting to talk to people and read books because otherwise your world interactivity is pretty much limited to opening chests and doors. Telekinesis was a good idea that really didn't matter much except in stealing things.
#7
For example, if in your RPG the player is stuck in a remote wilderness and survival is a key theme in the game, then it makes more sense to need to eat and drink to survive. Skills like foraging and cooking and the like can add flavour. However, in an epic high fantasy world where the emphasis is on shining heroes clashing with diabolical villains, worrying about whether you packed enough bread is kind of a downer.
08/17/2006 (10:08 am)
"Too Much" is when the details get in the way of the fun. How you choose that depends a lot on the specific game design.For example, if in your RPG the player is stuck in a remote wilderness and survival is a key theme in the game, then it makes more sense to need to eat and drink to survive. Skills like foraging and cooking and the like can add flavour. However, in an epic high fantasy world where the emphasis is on shining heroes clashing with diabolical villains, worrying about whether you packed enough bread is kind of a downer.
#8
The new UFO games (Aftershock, etc) have had that same problem. Too many weapon choices that aren't interesting or unique, most of which you'd only use briefly because you soon get better stuff and then the other guns are just waste of space.
08/17/2006 (10:11 am)
I think another thing is that the details need to add some sort of significant effect. In some RPGs they have a staggering number of weapons that are all the same. Fallout 2 had too many types of guns that weren't significantly different than other ones. How many different handguns do you really need?The new UFO games (Aftershock, etc) have had that same problem. Too many weapon choices that aren't interesting or unique, most of which you'd only use briefly because you soon get better stuff and then the other guns are just waste of space.
#9
EDIT:
Usually such items are only useful in the extremely early stages of such games and often not even then, whereas most status items are often useful).
08/17/2006 (10:23 am)
Yes. I get annoyed with weapons that give me a +1 to something when I would need at least +10 to have anything significant happen. Several console RPG's have this problem with special items. I would rather be risistant to poison than get a +1 to accuracy when I'm already killing things with one hit in the area or completely miss because I wandered somewhere I shouldn't be yet. But two levels and 10 points in accuracy and suddleny it makes a difference. But that damn item still doesn't.EDIT:
Usually such items are only useful in the extremely early stages of such games and often not even then, whereas most status items are often useful).
#10
08/17/2006 (3:55 pm)
Another detail that I have been thinking about is inventory. Some games use spaces as the determining factor for how much you can hold. i.e. Diablo or Dungeon Siege. While others such as Morrowind and Oblivian base it solely on the item's weight and how much you can carry. Thinking realisticly, I have no idea where my characters put all their stuff in both scenarios. I don't carry a pack, and I really don't think that claymore is going to fit in my pockets along with the 50 potions, 23 scrolls, a bow, and various quest items. If you wanted to have a completely realistic inventory system you would have to account for both space and weight. Maybe you could have 10 potions or other small items on your belt along with perhaps a scabbard. Then you could have a slot for a item strapped on your back, whether it be a bow, claymore, or backpack. Such a system would be realistic but perhaps too realistic for some. Going with what John said, you could have a spot that a certain item would automatically be equiped to, eliminating the worry for those who don't really care.
#11
08/19/2006 (11:56 am)
Neverwinter Nights accounts for both space and weight, though it isn't even remotely realistic. You can't stick a halberd in any backpack except in the wondwerful world of NwN.
#12
08/19/2006 (3:20 pm)
Indeed. Not to mention you get six tabs of about the size of Diabo's inventory each, and as many containers that your heart may desire. Lol
#13
08/19/2006 (6:15 pm)
Excessive realism can be the death of a game! Fun gameplay is far more important than a realistic representation of a backpack, in my view. If it furthers the game, let 'em stuff a whole suit of armor in it! =)
#14
In NWN it's expected that you'll be hauling back loads of loot to sell, that's just the vibe it was aiming for. If you created a low fantasy game where where you aren't lugging around thousands of gold (and how much would THAT weight?!?) to buy the latest greatest gear upgrade then I think it would make sense to limit how much a player can carry. But in a high fantasy loot-fest you'd just be creating annoyances for the player.
08/19/2006 (8:10 pm)
I think as soon as you add magic and dragons to a game you have to go a little lighter on the reality. :)In NWN it's expected that you'll be hauling back loads of loot to sell, that's just the vibe it was aiming for. If you created a low fantasy game where where you aren't lugging around thousands of gold (and how much would THAT weight?!?) to buy the latest greatest gear upgrade then I think it would make sense to limit how much a player can carry. But in a high fantasy loot-fest you'd just be creating annoyances for the player.
#15
Or 11. . . .;D
08/20/2006 (2:40 pm)
Quote:If it furthers the game, let 'em stuff a whole suit of armor in it! =)
Or 11. . . .;D
#16
As for realism, it's a game ...
If it's a single player RPG, I prefer to stick more toward the 'hack n slash' concept that Dungeon Siege and Diablo go with, even if it's a "small party" ORPG like Diablo and Dungeon Siege allow for.
In the event of NWN, specialized skills are useful to some degree, some of the skills are useless for overall adventuring and play more of a role in socialism -- in my time with RPG's, I've run into players who;
1) Prefer Hack 'n' Slash over 'Role Play'
2) Prefer 'Role Play' over Hack 'n' Slash
3) Enjoy the adventuring, but like to keep 'Role Play' a factor
4) Would rather go from Level 1 to Level 60 in a week or not play the game at all
5) Use the game as more of a 'Chat' program then a Game, enjoying the occassional 'Adventure' with friends from time to time.
You have a lot of choices to pick from when you decide how you want to satisfy your player base.
Games like World of Warcraft and other larger MMORPG's try to satisfy the entire realm of possible players, making it easy to go from Level 1 to 60 in a short time, but at the same time allowing for 'Role Play' as well as specialized skills. In my opinion, this destroys the overall grasp of the game for me and I prefer to stay away from them.
Then again, I've been known to spend 6-12 months sitting in front a telnet client MUD'ing myself away to nothingness ...
My honest opinion is that, if you are not being backed by a major player such as Atari (as BioWare was) or Blizzard (World of Warcraft), or Microsoft (Dungeon Siege) then you should really decide on what type of player base you would like to have. The only thing I think that would make an Indie RPG 'great' is the player base and general 'word of mouth' advertising to get the game 'off the ground'.
From my experience, it seems that die-hard Role Players are more willing to try out 'that game that google randomly found' as opposed to the Hack 'n' Slash players who stick to the big-name publishes like Blizzard, Atari and Microsoft.
There is a large number of 'Role Players' out there that are dying, absolutely dying of anticipation for the next great Role Playing game ... many have played Ultima Online and Anarchy Online and other such games that started with a large 'Role Play' community but they have since died and are fairly 'role playless' these days -- not to mention, they've been played to death already (Anarchy Online is the exception, as it's still new ... but Role Play died in this game ages ago).
Just a few thoughts ...
08/20/2006 (8:37 pm)
As far as NWN goes, the weight played a role in how fast you could, an over burdened player who was carrying too much could not walk fast -- so it played into "whats worth taking for loot and whats not worth getting stabbed in the back on the way home".As for realism, it's a game ...
If it's a single player RPG, I prefer to stick more toward the 'hack n slash' concept that Dungeon Siege and Diablo go with, even if it's a "small party" ORPG like Diablo and Dungeon Siege allow for.
In the event of NWN, specialized skills are useful to some degree, some of the skills are useless for overall adventuring and play more of a role in socialism -- in my time with RPG's, I've run into players who;
1) Prefer Hack 'n' Slash over 'Role Play'
2) Prefer 'Role Play' over Hack 'n' Slash
3) Enjoy the adventuring, but like to keep 'Role Play' a factor
4) Would rather go from Level 1 to Level 60 in a week or not play the game at all
5) Use the game as more of a 'Chat' program then a Game, enjoying the occassional 'Adventure' with friends from time to time.
You have a lot of choices to pick from when you decide how you want to satisfy your player base.
Games like World of Warcraft and other larger MMORPG's try to satisfy the entire realm of possible players, making it easy to go from Level 1 to 60 in a short time, but at the same time allowing for 'Role Play' as well as specialized skills. In my opinion, this destroys the overall grasp of the game for me and I prefer to stay away from them.
Then again, I've been known to spend 6-12 months sitting in front a telnet client MUD'ing myself away to nothingness ...
My honest opinion is that, if you are not being backed by a major player such as Atari (as BioWare was) or Blizzard (World of Warcraft), or Microsoft (Dungeon Siege) then you should really decide on what type of player base you would like to have. The only thing I think that would make an Indie RPG 'great' is the player base and general 'word of mouth' advertising to get the game 'off the ground'.
From my experience, it seems that die-hard Role Players are more willing to try out 'that game that google randomly found' as opposed to the Hack 'n' Slash players who stick to the big-name publishes like Blizzard, Atari and Microsoft.
There is a large number of 'Role Players' out there that are dying, absolutely dying of anticipation for the next great Role Playing game ... many have played Ultima Online and Anarchy Online and other such games that started with a large 'Role Play' community but they have since died and are fairly 'role playless' these days -- not to mention, they've been played to death already (Anarchy Online is the exception, as it's still new ... but Role Play died in this game ages ago).
Just a few thoughts ...
#17
If I ever made a RPG game, I would want to have elements of roleplay and hack n slash. I find point and click hack n slash to be rather boring so I'd want my game to have special combat moves that can only be used with the right combo of slash, thrust and chop (those are pretty generic so hopefully I'll come up with something better.)
Ultimately, I'd have something like Morrowind/Diablo/Dungeon Siege/Freelancer/NWN/Street Fighter/NetHack. . . .heh, if only!
08/21/2006 (8:09 am)
I would imagine that it would be hard to keep roleplaying alive in a MMORPG. Considering that at any moment a new player would join that has no idea what roleplaying is, or maybe they like to use all the internet chat lingo they can cram into a sentence or just like to be a jerk and thus refuse to roleplay.If I ever made a RPG game, I would want to have elements of roleplay and hack n slash. I find point and click hack n slash to be rather boring so I'd want my game to have special combat moves that can only be used with the right combo of slash, thrust and chop (those are pretty generic so hopefully I'll come up with something better.)
Ultimately, I'd have something like Morrowind/Diablo/Dungeon Siege/Freelancer/NWN/Street Fighter/NetHack. . . .heh, if only!
#18
Realistic? probably not, but necessary.
A lot comes down to the games economy. Example: in Everquest, coins have weight. That would never work in Neverwinter Nights because there is no bank to store your coin in, so you could never buy anything from a shop that cost more coin than you could carry, and thing got very expensive later on in that game.
Fun >>> Realism. If the players stop having fun, it won't matter how realistic or immersive the game world is, because it will be empty. Realistic and challenging features can be nice, but only if they add to the experience.
12/13/2006 (4:43 am)
In Everquest 2 my barbarian runs around with six strongboxes strapped to her waist.Realistic? probably not, but necessary.
A lot comes down to the games economy. Example: in Everquest, coins have weight. That would never work in Neverwinter Nights because there is no bank to store your coin in, so you could never buy anything from a shop that cost more coin than you could carry, and thing got very expensive later on in that game.
Fun >>> Realism. If the players stop having fun, it won't matter how realistic or immersive the game world is, because it will be empty. Realistic and challenging features can be nice, but only if they add to the experience.
#19
I am a believer in realism with explanation. So what if I can carry 20 swords? They shrink to look like daggers on my belt. However, if I've got to get something out of my backpack, the game should not pause for me. That'll teach me to keep important things close at hand. You want to change into that suit of flame resistant armour in the middle of an ambush of fire breathing rats? I hope you like spending part of the battle with no attacks and no armour while you change your pants. (You might have to clean them too if things really go bad.)
Yes, we should eat, but that should happen automatically when I'm resting, if I haven't done it manually while I was looking through my backpack for that wand on fireballs earlier. And if I run out of food, well yes, please let the mushrooms not be poisonous. Alternatively, I just killed an orc. I wonder if they taste like pork? Damn, does my deity let me eat pork?
Your speed should decrease as your load increases. There should not be some threshold where under it you're fine and over it you can't move. Skills should increase as you use them or when you train in them. They should also decrease if they aren't used (for a really long time). Sure you trained 10 points in pick lock just in case, but it's been 3 years in game time and your skill is down to 4, so you're not getting into that chest! Of course your resistance to poison is up to 18 from all those bad mushrooms!
12/13/2006 (8:19 am)
While we argue about realism vs fun there are still several ways to have both or at least explain both so that players are happy. For example, bags of holding. Several games have them and for RPGs they're a great idea. You can stuff all sorts of things into their extradimensional space and they don't get heavier (or they get only slightly heavier depending on the bag). You just have to be able to afford them. Keep your money in your purse of holding that was given to you by your dad at the beginning of the game. It magically changes 10 silver into 1 gold for you!I am a believer in realism with explanation. So what if I can carry 20 swords? They shrink to look like daggers on my belt. However, if I've got to get something out of my backpack, the game should not pause for me. That'll teach me to keep important things close at hand. You want to change into that suit of flame resistant armour in the middle of an ambush of fire breathing rats? I hope you like spending part of the battle with no attacks and no armour while you change your pants. (You might have to clean them too if things really go bad.)
Yes, we should eat, but that should happen automatically when I'm resting, if I haven't done it manually while I was looking through my backpack for that wand on fireballs earlier. And if I run out of food, well yes, please let the mushrooms not be poisonous. Alternatively, I just killed an orc. I wonder if they taste like pork? Damn, does my deity let me eat pork?
Your speed should decrease as your load increases. There should not be some threshold where under it you're fine and over it you can't move. Skills should increase as you use them or when you train in them. They should also decrease if they aren't used (for a really long time). Sure you trained 10 points in pick lock just in case, but it's been 3 years in game time and your skill is down to 4, so you're not getting into that chest! Of course your resistance to poison is up to 18 from all those bad mushrooms!
#20
12/13/2006 (12:50 pm)
More than you can do. 
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake