Editorial Rampant Coyote on Creating Good High-Level CRPGs

[Infinitron]

Tags: D&D; Jay Barnson; Rampant Games

It's a commonly heard complaint on the Codex that "high level D&D sucks". Jay Barnson had a few thoughts about that while reminiscing about a deadly high-level PnP D&D module called Necropolis. Here's an excerpt:

At the high-level game, players have access to all kinds of powers that can change the game. This was always by design, from the early days prior to even the first edition D&D rules. Does one door lead to certain death? Okay, well, the players should have all kinds of divination spells to learn what is behind each door. They can cast disintegrate spells on the doors (or the walls next to them) to bypass whatever might be on the doors themselves. They can teleport to where they want to go, bypassing the doors altogether. They could animate an object or summon an extra-dimensional being to do the job for them. Or they could try far more mundane tricks to figure things out. Simply tracking footprints to learn which door has almost all of the traffic could solve the problem.​

[...] I think that’s how the high-level game in RPGs should go, in general. At high level, characters should be able to change the rules of the game, to make the unfair reasonable. In a fantasy game, maybe it’s using magic to warp reality in their favor. In a science fiction RPG, maybe it’s calling upon powerful (perhaps alien) technology to do the same. Or in a more mundane setting, it’s calling in contacts and favors and paying bribes to redefine the problem. ‘Cuz sometimes nuking the site from orbit is the only way to be sure.​

RPGs at high level should demand that the players do the impossible. Not just beat ever-tougher bad guys.​

In my perfect world, CRPGs would be exactly the same way. The only way to do this is to create a more open-ended design, and to make what some games would term bugs or exploits to be perfectly legitimate approaches to solving encounters. Think less Dragon Age and more Minecraft. It’s the approach Richard Garriott seemed to embrace back in the earlier days of creating the Ultima series.​

What would a CRPG need to accomplish this?​

#1 – A very strong, if simple rules system.​

#2 – A very flexible quest / plot progression system that makes no assumptions about the manner in which quest goals are achieved. If the scepter is in deepest dungeon of the Fortress of Horrible Death, the quest to obtain it shouldn’t break if the player simply tunnels under the fortress and grabs the scepter in five minutes.​

#3 – Lots of player-acquired high-level abilities that change or break the rules.​

#4 – An open-ended approach to creating challenges, including a willingness to make them completely unfair against a “brute force” approach, and a willingness to let the player ‘cheat’ his way to victory. And no more making ‘boss monsters’ impervious to the most debilitating spells!​

#5 – Some cool acknowledgement of the player’s clever actions periodically. Was the player able to obtain the Sword of Thumb-Smiting from Lord Gregor the Thumbless without killing poor Gregor over it? That’s quite an accomplishment no matter how it was achieved, and surprised NPCs should make a note of it.​

It's a sound approach. Although, I would say that it's also a kind of admission of defeat. As your characters grow more powerful, they tend to converge to a "high level singularity", such that the game's RPG mechanics recede into the background and it becomes more of a puzzle or adventure game.

 

[Captain Shrek]

All the usual problems of a purely vertical scaling game.

 

[Dorateen]

I recall taking some creative measures in Pools of Darkness, via the character export option. This article seems to reaffirm that I was properly exercising high-level gameplay.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It would be cool to blow up a mountain.

 

[Ismaul]

Or, ya know, enslave nations with necromancy...

 

[Metro]

All of this is easier said than done and is rarely pulled off well. Simply eschew making high-level CRPGs. Pools of Darkness just ended up being a massive slogfest as they threw more and more hordes of increasingly powerful monsters at you. Problem is a lot of developers are afraid to do low level stuff and insist that every adventure hinge on the fate of the world.

 

[sea]

As usual, this is all because most RPG developers only have the time, budget or care to create combat-focused games. Combat itself takes so long to design, implement, balance and so on that any other options really are just secondary, even in games with strong non-combat components (Fallout, Arcanum). No developer is going to make non-combat choices that are each as individually compelling as combat itself - while it can be done, a large percentage of players are interested in fighting (not to mention the marketing department), and taking resources away from building "the thrill of combat" in order to work on more compelling speech options or tunneling skills isn't exactly something most developers, even the most old-school, are going to do, unless they truly do have no obligations towards a large fanbase, publisher, or making money.

That's not to say these are all good reasons or that it's forgivable to have bad gameplay options which don't grow horizontally as the game goes on. I applaud developers who try to break out of the mold and do something interesting with universal rulesets - Fallout: New Vegas being one of the most recent games to still highlight it. But just like you can't really replace a human DM with a computer, you can't create infinite custom content and compelling gameplay out of something that probably doesn't have too much mechanical potential in and of itself.

 

[Metro]

I assume Rampant Coyote had no obligations to anyone in Frayed Knights and they just made it a standard blobber. Jay needs to spend more time enacting these ideas into practice rather than opining about them on a blog.

 

[Johannes]

I assume Rampant Coyote had no obligations to anyone in Frayed Knights and they just made it a standard blobber. Jay needs to spend more time enacting these ideas into practice rather than opining about them on a blog.

I don't know if he did games prior to that, but in many ways it's better to start simple, where you know you can deliver what you're setting out to make. Only then go for more ambitious projects, otherwise it's very easy to end up with AoD-like development schedule.

 

[Johannes]

Oh and the levels in D&D that actually suck are the first few, when you hardly have any options compared to later. High level combat is cool.

 

[MicoSelva]

It's a sound approach. Although, I would say that it's also a kind of admission of defeat. As your characters grow more powerful, they tend to converge to a "high level singularity", such that the game's RPG mechanics recede into the background and it becomes more of a puzzle or adventure game.

I disagree. RPGs (as we know and like them, so more of a RPG/adventure hybrids) should throw more challenges at a player than just appropriately scaled combat and skill checks.

Although I can't see how the approach suggested by Rampant Coyote can be achieved without creating some sort of AI game master that is able to react to player's actions (and we have a long way to go before something like this appears), unless these high level game breakers are pre-planned and limited.

 

[Infinitron]

It's a sound approach. Although, I would say that it's also a kind of admission of defeat. As your characters grow more powerful, they tend to converge to a "high level singularity", such that the game's RPG mechanics recede into the background and it becomes more of a puzzle or adventure game.

I disagree. RPGs (as we know and like them, so more of a RPG/adventure hybrids) should throw more challenges at a player than just appropriately scaled combat and skill checks.

Although I can't see how the approach suggested by Rampant Coyote can be achieved without creating some sort of AI game master that is able to react to player's actions (and we have a long way to go before something like this appears), unless these high level game breakers are pre-planned and limited.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

 

[Captain Shrek]

It's a sound approach. Although, I would say that it's also a kind of admission of defeat. As your characters grow more powerful, they tend to converge to a "high level singularity", such that the game's RPG mechanics recede into the background and it becomes more of a puzzle or adventure game.

I disagree. RPGs (as we know and like them, so more of a RPG/adventure hybrids) should throw more challenges at a player than just appropriately scaled combat and skill checks.

Although I can't see how the approach suggested by Rampant Coyote can be achieved without creating some sort of AI game master that is able to react to player's actions (and we have a long way to go before something like this appears), unless these high level game breakers are pre-planned and limited.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

He is trying to fix cancer with band-aid.

 

[MicoSelva]

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

Ok. The limited high-level game breakers aI mentioned are exactly the thing that You wrote about (puzzle/adventure type gimmicks) and they are the only way to implement this at the moment since we don't have an AI game master. I agree with You that this is something of a give up statement on the RPG part, but that's mostly because (as sea has already mentioned above) today's RPGs are all about combat, getting better at combat and defeating stronger and stronger enemies.

As for other challenges. Some old school RPGs (like early Might & Magic games) did that. Basically, You had to exploit the high-level abilities (actually, spells) to get through some of the areas. I can't provide an accurate example, because I never played these games myself, only read the LPs, but they were something in the vein of using the ability to walk through walls to get to the destination instead of fighting the enemies in the area. Because enemies in that area were so ridiculously powerful that even the highest level party was not able to fight them in any efficient way.

So, basically what I meant are alternate ways to quest-solving, but ones that only appear if You invest in a certain skill/spell, like levitating over a trapped floor (instead of disarming the trap) or burning down the door with a fireball (instead of lockpicking/bashing it), etc.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Ok. The limited high-level game breakers aI mentioned are exactly the thing that You wrote about (puzzle/adventure type gimmicks) and they are the only way to implement this at the moment since we don't have an AI game master. I agree with You that this is something of a give up statement on the RPG part, but that's mostly because (as sea has already mentioned above) today's RPGs are all about combat, getting better at combat and defeating stronger and stronger enemies.

Wait...I've seen this movie before, and it doesn't end well. If not "giving up" means developing an AI whose main purpose is to devise deadly puzzles for humans player characters, I'd say discretion is the better part of valor. I'd rather stick to non-epic crpgs than unleash super-intelligent AI Jigsaw on the world.

 

[Gord]

A proper RPG in a Minecraft-like engine, with plenty of emergent gameplay? Doesn't sound too bad to me.
Question is if it will happen.

 

[Delterius]

It's a sound approach. Although, I would say that it's also a kind of admission of defeat. As your characters grow more powerful, they tend to converge to a "high level singularity", such that the game's RPG mechanics recede into the background and it becomes more of a puzzle or adventure game.

I disagree. RPGs (as we know and like them, so more of a RPG/adventure hybrids) should throw more challenges at a player than just appropriately scaled combat and skill checks.

Although I can't see how the approach suggested by Rampant Coyote can be achieved without creating some sort of AI game master that is able to react to player's actions (and we have a long way to go before something like this appears), unless these high level game breakers are pre-planned and limited.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

There are worse games than the creative use of abilities.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fuck, this thread makes me want to play Populous II.

 

[Alex]

Hey, finally someone who gets high level D&D.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

Well, they aren't very well puzzles because they are open ended. They are not made with a particular solution in mind. But I wonder, if you consider this puzzle gameplay, what do you consider RPG gameplay?

 

[Infinitron]

There are worse games than the creative use of abilities.

No doubt.

Well, they aren't very well puzzles because they are open ended. They are not made with a particular solution in mind. But I wonder, if you consider this puzzle gameplay, what do you consider RPG gameplay?

Something that incorporates the full depth and inherent limitations of RPG mechanics as seen at lower levels. Like I said, what Jay is describing is a state of "high level singularity" where the players have turned into demigods who can spam magic spells to do all sorts of weird shit. That's certainly fun and everything, but at that point they've basically transcended the system. (Although I agree that it's still better than pretending that they're mundane and forcing them to fight against boring level scaled health-sponge enemies.)

 

[Alex]

(...snip)

Well, they aren't very well puzzles because they are open ended. They are not made with a particular solution in mind. But I wonder, if you consider this puzzle gameplay, what do you consider RPG gameplay?

Something that incorporates the full depth and inherent limitations of RPG mechanics as seen at lower levels. Like I said, what Jay is describing is a state of "high level singularity" where the players have turned into demigods who can spam magic spells to do all sorts of weird shit. That's certainly fun and everything, but at that point they've basically transcended the system. (Although I agree that it's still better than pretending that they're mundane and forcing them to fight against boring level scaled health-sponge enemies.)

Could you give a concrete example? Like, what kind of situation is possible in lower levels for which higher levels become too corrupted?

 

[Delterius]

Infinitron

What I mean is this: wouldn't the article's suggestion imply a paradigm shift in all levels, not just the highest? I'm all for minimizing combat and putting an emphasys on the creative use of abilities, after all, Portal was a pretty good game.

 

[Infinitron]

Infinitron

What I mean is this: wouldn't the article's suggestion imply a paradigm shift in all levels, not just the highest? I'm all for minimizing combat and putting an emphasys on the creative use of abilities, after all, Portal was a pretty good game.

The difference between "creative use of abilities" at high levels and at low levels, is that at low levels, when you choose to use an ability, you're taking a risk. You're not a demigod. You might fail. You're probably sacrificing another option by choosing to specialize in that ability. That depth is usually lost at high levels.

 

[Haba]

There is a reason why I remember crystal clear that one time when you had to die to progress the game in Planescape... And can't remember anything of the combat in the whole game.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Hey, finally someone who gets high level D&D.

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant when I wrote that.

The type of challenges that Jay is suggesting are puzzles and brain teasers. Portal: D&D Edition. He's saying that the best way to play a high level campaign is to focus on those sorts of things. That's what I was describing.

Well, they aren't very well puzzles because they are open ended. They are not made with a particular solution in mind. But I wonder, if you consider this puzzle gameplay, what do you consider RPG gameplay?

I don't really think that having a single solution is a requirement for something to be a puzzle, you just need to have a single goal that the solution accomplishes. It doesn't matter which way you the rubix cube, as long as all the faces are the same color in the end. Sure, the designer will probably need to have a solution in mind, but that is to ensure that its solvable rather than to limit the number of solutions.

When I think of the kind of open-endedness that would be incompatible with a puzzle is if there is no goal in the end - someone hands you a rubix cube and just tells you to start twisting until you have fun.

The approaches described in the article aren't really open-ended in that sense; there is something you need to accomplish, but the game just wouldn't prescribe a single way of doing it. In the deadly-door example from the article, your goal is to get around the door, but you can do that in any way you can think of.