Enough with character building!
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/29/2010 (2:45 pm) · 6 replies
--NOTE: I started these as a serie of blogs, but that wasn't the proper place so i'm copying them here--
What is the common point to pretty much every online/offline/massively multi-player role playing games? The answer is simple: They all carry some form of character construction system.
Aaaaand... well it basically sucks, it's artificial, it breaks immersion and most of all, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
And now you are probably asking me, "But why? It is one of the core element of role playing game to build and make your character evolve! It's even the main driving force in most RPGs!"
Well, yes and... no. Character evolution? Yes. Character building? No.
Now let me ask this simple question, what is the connection between, lets say, killing 30 rats in some murky sewers and spending skill points in lock picking? The answer is simple, NONE.
Most RPGs and other games that feature some way to improve your character are plagued by this system where there are no connections between the Character's actions in the game and the improvement of it's abilities/stats.
We, as game designers really need to look back at those base systems and come up with something better, this is the kind of stuffs that detach the player from his character, that's the sort of stuffs that make the player's character look like a vulgar spreadsheet. At no point should the player "disconnect" from his character and think which way he would like to make it evolve.
I am not against giving choices to the player, but the choices should happen during the game, seamlessly, a character should be built from it's player's actions and not from choices that are completely unrelated to the action at hand.
We are trying to tell a story, to transport the player and entertain him, he shouldn't have to think about how he will spend his next skill points!
What is the common point to pretty much every online/offline/massively multi-player role playing games? The answer is simple: They all carry some form of character construction system.
Aaaaand... well it basically sucks, it's artificial, it breaks immersion and most of all, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
And now you are probably asking me, "But why? It is one of the core element of role playing game to build and make your character evolve! It's even the main driving force in most RPGs!"
Well, yes and... no. Character evolution? Yes. Character building? No.
Now let me ask this simple question, what is the connection between, lets say, killing 30 rats in some murky sewers and spending skill points in lock picking? The answer is simple, NONE.
Most RPGs and other games that feature some way to improve your character are plagued by this system where there are no connections between the Character's actions in the game and the improvement of it's abilities/stats.
We, as game designers really need to look back at those base systems and come up with something better, this is the kind of stuffs that detach the player from his character, that's the sort of stuffs that make the player's character look like a vulgar spreadsheet. At no point should the player "disconnect" from his character and think which way he would like to make it evolve.
I am not against giving choices to the player, but the choices should happen during the game, seamlessly, a character should be built from it's player's actions and not from choices that are completely unrelated to the action at hand.
We are trying to tell a story, to transport the player and entertain him, he shouldn't have to think about how he will spend his next skill points!
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
Most people I know hate the grind, but not because it is a 'grind', but because that is the only way to do it. I hate the way the goal oriented levelling was implemented in DDO because a failure meant no experience.
I think the best system would include multiple paths to attain skills and 'play' the game. Examples would be online/offline trainers where your character takes a certain amount of realtime to study up on a skill; or perhaps a small incermental increase in skills for use and a larger reward for goals attained. That way persons would be able to play the way they want to play instead of being forced. I usually play my games in a very non-linear fashion and appreciate open ended play options such as large environments to explore if I wish.
I would say that the main part of any multiplayer RPG is character customization, followed closely by chat options and emotes.
Many 'rewards' can be tailored to customization options rather than gameplay changing effects. Obviously this helps avoid the arms race you find in many games where the higher level players get too powerful by emphasizing your characters evolution rather than how many 'purples' they have. but people still want something to show off to their friends.. hence the multiplayer part of an MMO.
Sorry for going off on a tangent a bit but this is something I have spent some time examining. The key here is that Character customization is in fact something that players buy the game for; and something that keeps players happy at the end-game levels.
03/30/2010 (6:54 am)
I have enjoyed many classless games. I like the idea of how a character should level up their skills by actually using those skills.Most people I know hate the grind, but not because it is a 'grind', but because that is the only way to do it. I hate the way the goal oriented levelling was implemented in DDO because a failure meant no experience.
I think the best system would include multiple paths to attain skills and 'play' the game. Examples would be online/offline trainers where your character takes a certain amount of realtime to study up on a skill; or perhaps a small incermental increase in skills for use and a larger reward for goals attained. That way persons would be able to play the way they want to play instead of being forced. I usually play my games in a very non-linear fashion and appreciate open ended play options such as large environments to explore if I wish.
I would say that the main part of any multiplayer RPG is character customization, followed closely by chat options and emotes.
Many 'rewards' can be tailored to customization options rather than gameplay changing effects. Obviously this helps avoid the arms race you find in many games where the higher level players get too powerful by emphasizing your characters evolution rather than how many 'purples' they have. but people still want something to show off to their friends.. hence the multiplayer part of an MMO.
Sorry for going off on a tangent a bit but this is something I have spent some time examining. The key here is that Character customization is in fact something that players buy the game for; and something that keeps players happy at the end-game levels.
#3
So I prefer a hybrid skill-based system, where most skill experience is gained via use, but a percentage is allocated to a general pool, from which the player can increase any skill of his choice. It's more flexible, and I think more fun -- it certainly makes the game feel less grindy -- the player isn't forced to cast fire balls all day long to increase his magic skill. And I think it simulates the day-to-day "sub-learning" that we do in real life -- we're always learning little things, even when we're not directly focused on them.
I also agree that there needs to be a good amount of character customization. Maybe that's "building" to you, but I think generally, for a RPG to be fun, the player needs to feel like he's got a good amount of control over who his character is, what they look like, and what they can do. I know some who have been turned off by certain RPGs because they felt like they were not given enough control over their character design.
03/31/2010 (11:40 am)
IMO, skill-based systems are a lot more fun than level-based. Skill-based just allows for so much more. I agree that skill experience should primarily involve interacting with the world, whether through actual use/practice, watching others, or via teachers/trainers/books. But there are often holes there -- skills that are useful or necessary, but the world does not provide enough opportunities to use or practice them. For example, in Ultima Online, Spirit Speak was extremely handy for understanding ghosts (like your friend that just got ganked), but unless you spent all your time looking for ghosts (rare, in spite of all the ganking), there was no way to increase the skill.So I prefer a hybrid skill-based system, where most skill experience is gained via use, but a percentage is allocated to a general pool, from which the player can increase any skill of his choice. It's more flexible, and I think more fun -- it certainly makes the game feel less grindy -- the player isn't forced to cast fire balls all day long to increase his magic skill. And I think it simulates the day-to-day "sub-learning" that we do in real life -- we're always learning little things, even when we're not directly focused on them.
I also agree that there needs to be a good amount of character customization. Maybe that's "building" to you, but I think generally, for a RPG to be fun, the player needs to feel like he's got a good amount of control over who his character is, what they look like, and what they can do. I know some who have been turned off by certain RPGs because they felt like they were not given enough control over their character design.
#4
Explicit characterization or Implicit characterization.
Explicit being clear cut, immersion breaking descriptions that can't be misinterpreted, and Implicit being the more vague, behind the scenes, or inferred descriptions.
You can't use too much of any one. In games, you can't have veiled and behind-the-scenes mechanics constantly deciding how your character evolves. This doesn't give the player a way to play the game in a way that matches up with their expectations.
For example - "I really wanted (X) skill, but I didn't perform enough (Q) action to get it... instead I learned (Z) skill, which isn't as much fun."
or
"I wanted to get (X) skill, but I didn't know how much (Q) action it takes to get it. I don't want to stop trying to get (Z) skill, because it might take a long time to get (X), and I don't know how close I am to getting (Z)."
So essentially, You can't have everything behind the scenes or else it can become upsetting. I agree that having every number thrown at you and all of your skills mapped out ahead of time can be overwhelming and break immersion, but there's a medium there. The reality is, nothing is truly analog in computers, and everything is measured in some kind of binary. Players will always strive to find those exact values.
I don't think making every single action count towards my final characters stats is a great idea. Sometimes I want a clear cut way to get the kind of character I want. What's the point of character customization if I can't make decisions? Do I just play the game and hope the designer gathered crystal-clear metrics on my play-style and gives me skills he knows I'd want to use? It's too big of a risk, and I don't trust ANY designer to know exactly what I want or what I find fun.
04/09/2010 (2:17 pm)
This is a problem many writers face too, and here's what it comes down to:Explicit characterization or Implicit characterization.
Explicit being clear cut, immersion breaking descriptions that can't be misinterpreted, and Implicit being the more vague, behind the scenes, or inferred descriptions.
You can't use too much of any one. In games, you can't have veiled and behind-the-scenes mechanics constantly deciding how your character evolves. This doesn't give the player a way to play the game in a way that matches up with their expectations.
For example - "I really wanted (X) skill, but I didn't perform enough (Q) action to get it... instead I learned (Z) skill, which isn't as much fun."
or
"I wanted to get (X) skill, but I didn't know how much (Q) action it takes to get it. I don't want to stop trying to get (Z) skill, because it might take a long time to get (X), and I don't know how close I am to getting (Z)."
So essentially, You can't have everything behind the scenes or else it can become upsetting. I agree that having every number thrown at you and all of your skills mapped out ahead of time can be overwhelming and break immersion, but there's a medium there. The reality is, nothing is truly analog in computers, and everything is measured in some kind of binary. Players will always strive to find those exact values.
I don't think making every single action count towards my final characters stats is a great idea. Sometimes I want a clear cut way to get the kind of character I want. What's the point of character customization if I can't make decisions? Do I just play the game and hope the designer gathered crystal-clear metrics on my play-style and gives me skills he knows I'd want to use? It's too big of a risk, and I don't trust ANY designer to know exactly what I want or what I find fun.
#5
Something what I am missing in RPG is interaction with NPC's. I want to make them react as a cause of your behaviour in the game. Think about a player that steal everything he want in stead of paying for it, that is approaching a merchant. Then the reaction of that merchant should be different than when a "trustworthy" player gets to him. During gameplay you can become the good, the bad or the ugly and change to whatever you like. I don't know just yet how to do it, reputation alone is not enough to describe it in my opinion and before you know it you have a dozen of variables you have to check to determine the reaction of NPC's.
04/23/2010 (4:46 am)
I like the idea of character evolution during a game, either by education or practice. I am trying to implement such evolution in my game, where I am thinking about that a player can visit a school or a guild and spend some time there to learn a skill or something like that, but that he is also able to practice it, even if he doesn't have the ability on first hand. Then he (or she) gain experience in that ability even if he fails. At that point a failure should or could have side-effects such as being arrested, but then the player can improve other skills (in practice). In case of an arrest you can think about escaping, fighting or so, which then influence your reputation. Now I am getting to my second point:Something what I am missing in RPG is interaction with NPC's. I want to make them react as a cause of your behaviour in the game. Think about a player that steal everything he want in stead of paying for it, that is approaching a merchant. Then the reaction of that merchant should be different than when a "trustworthy" player gets to him. During gameplay you can become the good, the bad or the ugly and change to whatever you like. I don't know just yet how to do it, reputation alone is not enough to describe it in my opinion and before you know it you have a dozen of variables you have to check to determine the reaction of NPC's.
#6
There are two types of narrative in the world: the Luke Skywalker story, of going from unskilled to skilled, and the Han Solo story, of going from unrich to rich. Modern European stories tend to be the former type, but medieval and especially East Asian fiction tends to be the latter.
If you want to do a Luke Skywalker-structured game with less of a grind element, look at the approach _World of Warcraft_ takes. Players will do what gets them the most XP, so if you make going on large, story-connected group expeditions sufficiently more rewarding than grinding that even the hassle of organizing the group pays off...
Or alternatively, try the Han Solo-structured story. Rather than going from zero to 100, have the character start at 50 and stay at 50 -- but, over the course of the story, going from a wandering soldier-of-fortune to the governor of a province.
Notwithstanding the name I used for this design type, traditional China during an interdynastic period is the most natural setting. (I could have called these two plots the Werther-type and the Sun Jian type, but I decided to stick to more familiar references.) If this kind of story sounds appealing, I recommend reading Pearl Buck's _Sons_ to see how it might play out...
04/24/2010 (7:32 am)
Assuming it's not too late to comment on this...There are two types of narrative in the world: the Luke Skywalker story, of going from unskilled to skilled, and the Han Solo story, of going from unrich to rich. Modern European stories tend to be the former type, but medieval and especially East Asian fiction tends to be the latter.
If you want to do a Luke Skywalker-structured game with less of a grind element, look at the approach _World of Warcraft_ takes. Players will do what gets them the most XP, so if you make going on large, story-connected group expeditions sufficiently more rewarding than grinding that even the hassle of organizing the group pays off...
Or alternatively, try the Han Solo-structured story. Rather than going from zero to 100, have the character start at 50 and stay at 50 -- but, over the course of the story, going from a wandering soldier-of-fortune to the governor of a province.
Notwithstanding the name I used for this design type, traditional China during an interdynastic period is the most natural setting. (I could have called these two plots the Werther-type and the Sun Jian type, but I decided to stick to more familiar references.) If this kind of story sounds appealing, I recommend reading Pearl Buck's _Sons_ to see how it might play out...
Associate Scott Burns
GG Alumni