Editorial Gamasutra: Eric Schwarz on the pitfalls of CRPG economies

[Infinitron]

Tags: Eric Schwarz

Codex BRO Eric Schwarz, having recently played Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, was inspired to write an article for Gamasutra about in-game economies. Over the course of the article, Eric identifies and describes the three common problems in such economies - inflation, worthless money, and money sinks. He offers a common sense list of game economy "Dos and Don'ts" to help minimize these problems:

Generally speaking, many of the problems with an in-game economy actually come less from things that developers do wrong outright, and more from additional features that are added which have unintended effects, and which then go unfixed. There are a number of things that developers might implement with the best of intentions, but which ultimately can completely ruin an economy.

• Infinite sources of money. This often seems like a no-brainer, because developers want players to have enough money to get through the game. The problem is that these are often abused, either because they are easy to do or because the rewards are so great that it's worth putting up with some frustration. Mini-games are a very common way of gaining fast cash in games, and most mini-games tend to be fairly easy. Developers aren't likely to pour tons of time and effort making sure a mini-game is expertly balanced, so the result is often a feature which is either worthless (too little reward or too difficult) or far too useful (easy and/or big reward). Without finite resources, the player will never feel pressure to consider their spending options, and as such, money quickly becomes meaningless.
• Giving money for optimal gameplay choices. Some games offer the player bigger monetary rewards for playing the game a certain way. For instance, you might make significantly more money if you pickpocket an enemy before you kill him, because the loot you receive doesn't come from the list he actually carries and drops on death, but is generated the moment you perform the pickpocket action. This sort of mechanic encourages the player to rob everyone in the game environment blind. Although there are some deterrents that can be used, including making those "optimal" tasks very difficult and inconvenient, these are often not foolproof depending on the game. Skyrim, for instance, has generic AI behaviors that make pickpocketing everyone you meet a serious risk (at least until you have leveled up), while Dragon Age has absolutely no repercussions for pickpocketing - the target won't react to a failed attempt, no guards are summoned, etc.

When it comes time to actually balance an economy, there are a few techniques which are helpful when used in conjunction with the above ones.

• Give out monetary rewards that are balanced with game progress. The easiest way to go about this is to simply play through the game as the player might, add up how much money is gained in the process, and then compare it to all the things the player is expected to buy, or can buy, accounting for a deviation of +/-%. This is fairly obvious, but it's quite surprising the number of games I've played where it seems the developers just did not do this.
• Make money a gameplay-critical system. Too many games don't have worthwhile economic systems simply because there is no good reason to participate in the system, as discussed above. Consider eliminating many of the free sources of goods the player has access to and outright force them to buy stuff in order to proceed in the game.
• Avoid giving permanent upgrades to players in exchange for currency. If you've ever played an online game with an economy, you've probably noticed that some items have incredible value while others have very little. One of the main reasons for this comes down to the simple difference between permanent items versus consumables - something that lasts forever is far more valuable than a temporary benefit. Instead of granting the player a +5 Longsword of Slaughter, consider instead giving the player a potion which gives +5 damage for 10 minutes. If the player has to spend money to stay competitive within the rest of the gameplay systems, then money has been given enough meaning to be justified.
• Horizontal expansion of currency systems. Earlier, I discussed how vertical progression is very common in games. Just like it's possible to avoid the dreaded "HP bloat" in an RPG by introducing more methods to deal with enemies rather than simply increasing the numbers, you can do the same for an economy by introducing multiple types of currency or additional nuances in how it can be acquired and spent.

Eric concludes the article with the admission that ultimately, game economies are often just an afterthought - non-meaningful systems that stop receiving attention as soon as a game's development is pressed for time. However, he does optimistically note that these systems seem to be improving in recent years, possibly due to the influence of MMO design practices.

 

[DraQ]

I think the actual problem is how to find balance between income and money sink functions, such that you don't get runaway trend in either direction. If as a developer you had to choose between system that pretty inevitably makes players insanely rich, and one that pretty inevitably makes them too poor to survive, the choice would be a no-brainer.

What you really want is a system where there is stable equilibrium at the bottom of the curve, guaranteeing that the player will be able to recover and survive the worst economical crisis, but climbing up requires increasing continuous effort to merely stay in place. For example to keep functioning as a dirt poor lvl1 (or high level 'fallen' character), you'd need relatively little effort, maybe a self-made shitty bow to bag some game for eating and maybe selling hides to gain funds for basic equipment and essential consumables, but shitty self made bow, some animal hides and maybe some limited form of healing won't be nearly enough to take on pretty much anything in game. To tackle truly powerful challenges you may require top of the line gear requiring expensive maintenance or spells requiring rare and expensive components, you might be forced to pay off numerous henchmen, some of them qualified, and even just find a way to maintain and operate your raw wealth - you won't be tugging around a wagon with several million GP.
For that you'd require to regularly tackle serious challenges because only those would generate income required to overcome the costs.

To put it short - wealth and power should be costly to upkeep. As long as you don't force player to run to remain in the same place, you won't tackle economy breakage in an RPG with any sort of economy.

 

[hiver]

Good article from sea, as became usual. To his credit.



If it were only that simple....

The real problem is that some of the other mechanics.. or rather effects of games that affect the wonkey gimmicky money systems in grievous ways from the ground up.

You see, in reality we are literally forced to spend money ever single day - on our food.
And there is no game i can think off where you actually have to eat three times a day, preferably something different, prepared in a good way.
In games food is a gimmick.

Because in games time doesnt really work. Its also a gimmick.
And if it moves then its never anything close to what we experience as real in our lives.
Days just flip by, daylight turns to night over a course of few minutes or half hour or so.

And none of the necessities time imposes on us usually, exist.

No lodging is really required, no housing and therefore no expenses ever arise from maintaining your house or place of residence.
Yeah sometimes you pay for sleeping, but that is largely irrelevant due to many other problems sea numbered.

Also, there is really no inflation in the gameworld when it comes to prices of items you sell.
Rarely if ever prices of some items drop regardless of how many tonnes of those items you sell to traders, nor any of the traders get rich or loose money because of it - with any of the consequences one might expect from it.
This in a system that usually throws thousands of various items at you from beginning to end.
So much so that one of the first things you learn in a crpg is that you really dont need to spend any money to buy something - when you can live of the land, in this sense.

How about a game where you actually damage an armor of the enemy when killing them? Damage it so much that you would have to pay more to get it fixed then what that armor is actually worth?
Just a small example of one trick that could work to reduce the amount of money you get from lugging hundreds of armors back to traders in addition to prices of that same type dropping the more you sell until the trader refuses to buy anymore.

In addition to prices of armor actually never even being close to realistic in the games own world. Or availability of better armor being anything close to realistic.
Or traders simply changing their inventory based on your level.

In addition to not having even a possibility to barter for other items, like of course our beloved Fallouts had.
(even though the value was calculated through money worth of every item)

And the same usually goes for whetever is playing a role of medicine in the game world.


...............


There are many other such examples but ill just leave this here for now.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

What you really want is a system where there is stable equilibrium at the bottom of the curve, guaranteeing that the player will be able to recover and survive the worst economical crisis, but climbing up requires increasing continuous effort to merely stay in place. For example to keep functioning as a dirt poor lvl1 (or high level 'fallen' character), you'd need relatively little effort, maybe a self-made shitty bow to bag some game for eating and maybe selling hides to gain funds for basic equipment and essential consumables, but shitty self made bow, some animal hides and maybe some limited form of healing won't be nearly enough to take on pretty much anything in game. To tackle truly powerful challenges you may require top of the line gear requiring expensive maintenance or spells requiring rare and expensive components, you might be forced to pay off numerous henchmen, some of them qualified, and even just find a way to maintain and operate your raw wealth - you won't be tugging around a wagon with several million GP.
For that you'd require to regularly tackle serious challenges because only those would generate income required to overcome the costs.

To put it short - wealth and power should be costly to upkeep. As long as you don't force player to run to remain in the same place, you won't tackle economy breakage in an RPG with any sort of economy.

I think this is true. Another way to do it would be to tie the PCs money supply to a faction, like an adventurers guild or a wealthy patron which would guarantee some minimum access to wealth while extracting a cut from total wealth acquired by the player.

The faction would effectively employ your character and advance them a modest salary, sufficient to equip yourself for an expedition (potions, healing etc). If you have extreme needs, like resurrection, they will do it on credit, which will come out of future earnings. Essentially, the faction will always let you borrow enough money to keep playing, but in order to gain wealth you will have to pay this off.

Your expeditions will generate valuable non-monetary rewards, but in order to convert these into currency you need to go through the faction and the faction will take a cut. For example, instead of having cash as a quest reward, have a valuable piece of art be given. No ordinary merchants would have a reason to purchase this, so you have to go to your contact at the guild so they can utilize their connections to sell it for you. Or you can go through a fence, but the fence will only give you fraction of its value. So the vast majority of your money will be channeled through the faction, giving the faction an opportunity to take funds to pay back your debt and take a cut of your further profits as the guild dues. Or it could just be a flat membership fee, which increases as your character level increases.

You will never lose the ability to purchase consumables, equipment repairs and other necessary supplies from the guild, but it will take increasing amounts of effort to maintain a high level of wealth.

 

[DraQ]

barter

Ah, yes, the good ol' barter system.

It may not be a fix-it-all when it comes to economy, but it does put some heavy hamper on attempts to cheese the system.

 

[hiver]

It would be better if individual NPCs would barter specific items for specific things you might have, corresponding to the overall situation of the area... say for example if a healing potion would be a rare thing in some part of the world an NPC would ask five great swords, three sets of quality armor and some other items while he would refuse bows, scrolls, or even artifacts in exchange. etc.
Of course that doesnt work when you can find a bloody magical healing potion in every field toilet or a bush.

 

[Moribund]

As always, eric adresses the symptoms and not the problem.

Maybe you shouldn't have a world where a level one tard goes on an epic quest to save all humanity, all by himself. That you can buy a sword that would be a game winner in 26 different stores is just icing on the cake so to speak.

Wiz games make much more sense. You are isolated from real society, you have to work hard to have any progress. There's no level scaling, and all loot is hand placed or goes with specific monsters in random enconters, which are places by area, Which is how PnP works.

The problem is game devs want to take short cuts, and also most of them are simply idiots anyway. So we get what bethesda always did and what bioware does now. Generic nonsense. Level scaling, able to buy items anywhere, can go anywhere any time, all the crap everyone has complained about since forever.

 

[Gondolin]

I think this is true. Another way to do it would be to tie the PCs money supply to a faction, like an adventurers guild or a wealthy patron which would guarantee some minimum access to wealth while extracting a cut from total wealth acquired by the player.

The faction would effectively employ your character and advance them a modest salary, sufficient to equip yourself for an expedition (potions, healing etc). If you have extreme needs, like resurrection, they will do it on credit, which will come out of future earnings. Essentially, the faction will always let you borrow enough money to keep playing, but in order to gain wealth you will have to pay this off.

It should also be done in a realistic manner, as much as possible. I remember going to the weapons vendors in the Pandemonium Fortress (Diablo II) and thinking: "Since I'm fighting the hordes of hell for the good of all creation, how about you give me your best gear free of charge. I'll return it when I'm done."

 

[Captain Shrek]

I don't know really. A lot of gamers think that it is a good idea to cram a huge number of components into any genre. This is not a good idea. XCOM for example is a really smart game to do this right: It takes ONLY components relevant to it core genre to make itself the most rich game I know.

I hope when a game seriously invests into economics it is not doing that in an action (RP)Game. We don't want to do accounting while trying to get kills right? Of course exceptions may exist where action RPGs also have an element of army/warband management (M&B); but these are scarce.

The correct place for economics is Strategy games and Tactical games along with Sims. In most cases, a strict multi-component economics will only hinder the gameplay.

NWN2 even with SOZ overland map and trading simulation, was not really well suited for restrictive economics. The mechanics was simply not present and to create a real market the tools not enough. Probably best to put it into games like Mount and Blade which have the potential to do it right but failed.

 

[Kz3r0]

Actually the solution is very simple, don't give any money for crap loot, or very little, if by selling thousands of a-dime-a-dozen weapons and armors makes you rich is fairly obvious that something is wrong with that, the only way they should be sold is as scrap metal, one gold coin for ten complete armors for example.

 

[Infinitron]

Actually the solution is very simple, don't give any money for crap loot, or very little, if by selling thousands of a-dime-a-dozen weapons and armors makes you rich is fairly obvious that something is wrong with that, the only way they should be sold is as scrap metal, one gold coin for ten complete armors for example.

Yes. On the Wasteland 2 forums, I once advocated a simple "no selling!" policy. No selling, no problem.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

It should also be done in a realistic manner, as much as possible. I remember going to the weapons vendors in the Pandemonium Fortress (Diablo II) and thinking: "Since I'm fighting the hordes of hell for the good of all creation, how about you give me your best gear free of charge. I'll return it when I'm done."

Totally agree. The Pandemonium Fortress was a particularly silly version of this problem. There was absolutely no reason for supernatural agents of goodness to be engaged in a profit making enterprise in a fortress where the only use for gold would be to buy shit from the other supernatural merchant.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

You see, in reality we are literally forced to spend money ever single day - on our food.
And there is no game i can think off where you actually have to eat three times a day, preferably something different, prepared in a good way.
In games food is a gimmick.

Well Mount&Blade have all that,you need food everyday and if it's different it gives more moral.It's not a gimmick ,but core element of gameplay-you need to provide food or your army leave you,forcing you to go out of your way(looting,doing quests etc.). Also good example is JA2 or any game that you must pay for companions(aka time units),it brings dynamic to the world and make time actually meaningful from economic standpoint too.

 

[Carrion]

What you really want is a system where there is stable equilibrium at the bottom of the curve, guaranteeing that the player will be able to recover and survive the worst economical crisis, but climbing up requires increasing continuous effort to merely stay in place. For example to keep functioning as a dirt poor lvl1 (or high level 'fallen' character), you'd need relatively little effort, maybe a self-made shitty bow to bag some game for eating and maybe selling hides to gain funds for basic equipment and essential consumables, but shitty self made bow, some animal hides and maybe some limited form of healing won't be nearly enough to take on pretty much anything in game. To tackle truly powerful challenges you may require top of the line gear requiring expensive maintenance or spells requiring rare and expensive components, you might be forced to pay off numerous henchmen, some of them qualified, and even just find a way to maintain and operate your raw wealth - you won't be tugging around a wagon with several million GP.

Fallout: New Vegas did something like this with its weapon and armor repair system. To repair and maintain your equipment you either need to pay an NPC to do the job for you (which is expensive), find another piece of similar equipment for spare parts (or a roughly similar one, if you have the Jury Rigging perk) or use a weapon repair kit (which are pretty rare and not very effective). Maintaining low-level gear is pretty easy since you constantly run into bandits who carry the same cheap weapons, but when you get access to high-level stuff, it's much harder to find spare parts, and paying an NPC to repair that stuff can cost a fortune. The condition of the weapons and armor also affects their price, and since most of the stuff you loot from enemies is in bad shape, it's harder to get rich by just selling stuff.

This system also has other gameplay advantages. If you encounter and kill an enemy that has a minigun in the early stages of the game, it won't completely screw up the game balance since you probably won't have the resources to maintain that weapon for long, and unless it's in perfect condition, you won't get a full price when you sell it either. In the end, you'd rather use that inventory space for consumables and actually useful stuff instead of just collecting every piece of junk that lies around in the game world (although you still have far too much inventory space in vanilla NV).

You can still break the economy if you put your mind to it, but it's still probably the best-balanced economy I've seen in an open-world RPG.

 

[Kz3r0]

Yes. On the Wasteland 2 forums, I once advocated a simple "no selling!" policy. No selling, no problem.

Actually Wasteland 2 is the game where Harg Harfardarssen' solution makes more sense, all the equipment you receive comes from the Ranger Headquarter, loot should be considered only for special items or for rangers gone rogue that couldn't' count on the support of the headquarter anymore.
Just as an example, hand crafted weapons of some band of punk should be useful or valuable to similar kind of people, why an average ranger should even bother to pick them up when he can count on better gear?

 

[dibens]

As long as we're talking about single player crpgs- who gives a fuck? Why come up with another mmo jew scheme in a game where you play through the story and move on? Once you hit mid-late game, the best items are looted and given as quest reward rather than bought in a shop anyway, so I really don't see the point in giving players incentives for extra grinding. If supplies and npc services are what's bothering you, then just make the prices rise after every use- the more potions and temple/trainer services you buy, for example, the more expensive they become. Plenty of games do that already.

 

[Carrion]

Actually Wasteland 2 is the game where Harg Harfardarssen' solution makes more sense, all the equipment you receive comes from the Ranger Headquarter, loot should be considered only for special items or for rangers gone rogue that couldn't' count on the support of the headquarter anymore.
Just as an example, hand crafted weapons of some band of punk should be useful or valuable to similar kind of people, why an average ranger should even bother to pick them up when he can count on better gear?

In games set in post-apocalyptic settings it would in general be relatively easy to avoid excessive loot. Just think of Mad Max 2 and how precious those few shotgun shells were. When the majority of enemies have tire irons and hockey sticks, firearms and especially ammunition become quite a luxury.

 

[Dorateen]

Training halls, and charge for training, eh? It's the one constant that every character will be going throughout the whole of the adventure.

Once the player starts worrying about being gold-pinned, there will be no more concern about a broken economy.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I am not criticizing you but just adding to your post dude.

 

[Captain Shrek]

As to how the adventurers should earn money:

1) Of course Monster slaying and bounties is a very viable source of income. Not amazing income and the danger should not be trivialized by fedex.
2) Crafting within reason can be another using parts of monsters + costly components
3) Dragon Hoards that are NOT like in Hobbit. If they are, this better be the endgame.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

M&B does a poor job at this because your rewards far outstrip any costs from expenses. Yeah you need food but the cost is so trivial it isn't a significant concern. They also have wages for troops and while they are more expensive than food it still isn't enough to be a concern for the player. If expenses wind up being mostly trivial they actually detract from the game. Instead of providing you interesting decisions to make they just end up being an annoyance.

You are right ,but only when you progress enough so providing food becomes small fee for you(witch make a lot of sense). When you start you can't do shit,one piece of good food cost the money of any quest reward.When you go to war and plunder and pillage and start to amass wealth there are more things to buy- armour,weapon,upgrades for your holdings and etc.Then if you loose in battle you are again in the beginning and the system again become challenging.There is in-game mechanics that help you store some money for these days(like businesses,fiefs,and stored items). My point is that it's very hard to be in position where you can't spent your money and the game have real economic mechanics on couple of levels,so if you fail it's not game over-you just go back to lower tier.But I see it be viable only in open world type rpgs ,where your character progress is the main tool for advancing ,rather than plot.

 

[Severian Silk]

• Avoid giving permanent upgrades to players in exchange for currency. If you've ever played an online game with an economy, you've probably noticed that some items have incredible value while others have very little. One of the main reasons for this comes down to the simple difference between permanent items versus consumables - something that lasts forever is far more valuable than a temporary benefit. Instead of granting the player a +5 Longsword of Slaughter, consider instead giving the player a potion which gives +5 damage for 10 minutes. If the player has to spend money to stay competitive within the rest of the gameplay systems, then money has been given enough meaning to be justified.

How about a potion that you apply to the sword that grants the bonus but wears off after so many uses? (For instance, posion.)

 

[sea]

As always, eric adresses the symptoms and not the problem.

Maybe you shouldn't have a world where a level one tard goes on an epic quest to save all humanity, all by himself. That you can buy a sword that would be a game winner in 26 different stores is just icing on the cake so to speak.

Wiz games make much more sense. You are isolated from real society, you have to work hard to have any progress. There's no level scaling, and all loot is hand placed or goes with specific monsters in random enconters, which are places by area, Which is how PnP works.

The problem is game devs want to take short cuts, and also most of them are simply idiots anyway. So we get what bethesda always did and what bioware does now. Generic nonsense. Level scaling, able to buy items anywhere, can go anywhere any time, all the crap everyone has complained about since forever.

Having a level 1 player go on a quest to save the world is no more a cause of the problems with in-game economies than anything else - it boils down to poor systems design, period. If you have systems which lack gameplay function, which aren't well balanced, which are thematically and mechanically inconsistent, etc. then you will have problems. While the setting and story can have an influence on gameplay systems, there is no direct correlation that you seem to imply exists.

Ask yourself the simple question: can a game where you undertake a personal mission have a broken economy? What about a game where civilization is ruined and everyone has to scavenge to survive? I think it's fairly clear there are several examples of each most of us can name (Mask of the Betrayer, Fallout 3, etc.). Bad design happens regardless of whether a game has a particular aesthetic or not.

How about a potion that you apply to the sword that grants the bonus but wears off after so many uses? (For instance, posion.)

Duh, I was just pointing out the functional value and not worrying about aesthetics (also writing this in less than an hour with no editing while half-asleep and about to go to work probably had something to do with it).

 

[Bulba]

What you really want is a system where there is stable equilibrium at the bottom of the curve, guaranteeing that the player will be able to recover and survive the worst economical crisis, but climbing up requires increasing continuous effort to merely stay in place. For example to keep functioning as a dirt poor lvl1 (or high level 'fallen' character), you'd need relatively little effort, maybe a self-made shitty bow to bag some game for eating and maybe selling hides to gain funds for basic equipment and essential consumables, but shitty self made bow, some animal hides and maybe some limited form of healing won't be nearly enough to take on pretty much anything in game. To tackle truly powerful challenges you may require top of the line gear requiring expensive maintenance or spells requiring rare and expensive components, you might be forced to pay off numerous henchmen, some of them qualified, and even just find a way to maintain and operate your raw wealth - you won't be tugging around a wagon with several million GP.

Fallout: New Vegas did something like this with its weapon and armor repair system. To repair and maintain your equipment you either need to pay an NPC to do the job for you (which is expensive), find another piece of similar equipment for spare parts (or a roughly similar one, if you have the Jury Rigging perk) or use a weapon repair kit (which are pretty rare and not very effective). Maintaining low-level gear is pretty easy since you constantly run into bandits who carry the same cheap weapons, but when you get access to high-level stuff, it's much harder to find spare parts, and paying an NPC to repair that stuff can cost a fortune. The condition of the weapons and armor also affects their price, and since most of the stuff you loot from enemies is in bad shape, it's harder to get rich by just selling stuff.

This system also has other gameplay advantages. If you encounter and kill an enemy that has a minigun in the early stages of the game, it won't completely screw up the game balance since you probably won't have the resources to maintain that weapon for long, and unless it's in perfect condition, you won't get a full price when you sell it either. In the end, you'd rather use that inventory space for consumables and actually useful stuff instead of just collecting every piece of junk that lies around in the game world (although you still have far too much inventory space in vanilla NV).

You can still break the economy if you put your mind to it, but it's still probably the best-balanced economy I've seen in an open-world RPG.

a) fnv is a fps not an rpg
b) the repair system in the game is just terrible, hated it from the beginning right to the end. Basically what it does is forces you to run around with ten sets of armor and guns to have a constant supply of repair material. and what happens if you are in the middle of a long far away mission and you run out of guns? pain in the arse system..

 

[Kane]

http://www.mine-control.com/zack/uoecon/uoecon.html