Difficulty in RPG games

[Zed Duke of Banville]

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

Depends on what year it is. Right now I can't bother wifh getting good. I just accept how I perform and I don't put much effort into improving my performance. It's nice this way. I don't get mad like I used to. Patience and complacency can be wonderful things and I really mean that.

 

[Pulse]

RPG Games.

That was retarded of me, I apologize

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Good difficulty requires me to rethink my approach and to explore alternative solutions. It adds variation to gameplay. Bad difficulty has an obvious solution that is just a bother to execute. It adds repetition and boredom. But that doesn't mean that some repetition or selective bloat is bad. It can serve defining a base line to make bosses and other encounters stand out. Finding the right balance is the tricky part.

There is also a thin line between very hard and frustratingly hard. Games should avoid crossing too often into the second domain. I don't recall any rpg that was frustratingly hard. The only games that I'd place there would be arcade games, although they are special cases since they are designed to be that hard. And many failures of the players are intended to be part of the experience. I don't think that approach transfers well to rpg's, so the first two panes of the comic with the obese delinquent squirrel from Zed Duke of Banville's posted comic stripe describe the problem fairly accurately.

 

[Maxie]

doesn't matter, all developers run out of steam after the first chapter/hub/map etc. and all balance goes to shit

 

[WhiteShark]

I voted Extremely Hard, but as a matter of pacing, I don't think every encounter should be like that. However, if a game foregoes all Extremely Hard encounters, then it usually ends up being completely unmemorable. Overcoming adversity is really the core of gaming, and there's nothing quite like the thrill of a hard-won victory. Voidspire Tactics is one of my favorite RPGs from recent years and the parts I remember best are the tough fights: the necromancer, the early final boss encounter, the platoon of soldiers, and the double boss. On the other hand, the only fight I remember in detail from KotOR 1 is the final boss fight, and that only because I was shocked to see my character simply auto-attack him to death without even engaging with his healing gimmick.

As for difficulty type, I don't think this part of the poll is divided up very well. Regardless of difficulty, I would prefer for enemies to boast an appropriate level of intelligence; for the vast majority of games this would mean a major upgrade. The other option of "more" lumps together several different types of "more" that don't necessarily have the same effect on gameplay. More HP is boring and makes fights drag even if it does technically do its job by weeding out inefficient tactics. Immunities applied judiciously can be alright, but when spread liberally are annoying as they usually neuter tactics that required character investment, e.g. status effect immune bosses in most JRPGs. Furthermore, if immunities are applied to enemies who did not have them at lower difficulties, then the player is forced to recheck each enemy type just in case, or every individual enemy if they are applied randomly as in certain roguelikes.

Of the three "more" options, more enemies is by far the best because it adds the most dynamism. Two 50 HP enemies will create vastly different situations than one 100 HP enemy. Against two enemies one must consider the opponent's increased action economy, and in a positional game the player is forced to create chokepoints or maintain multiple fronts. Spells that nullify one or a few enemies are proportionally weakened without the blunt hammer of immunities. Anybody who runs TTRPGs with a heavy combat side should know this: never have a villain fight alone. In most cases it matters little how high his stats are or how many immunities he has because he simply can't keep up with the discrete action count on the player side. Likewise, the challenge presented will simply be a matter of finding his weakness and/or tying up his actions while the rest of the party whacks away - not a particularly tactical or stimulating exercise. A villain with minions, though, has options. The players must do more than just lock down the boss.

TL;DR: Extremely Hard, Smarter Enemies, More Enemies

 

[Nortar]

Good difficulty requires me to rethink my approach and to explore alternative solutions. It adds variation to gameplay. Bad difficulty has an obvious solution that is just a bother to execute. It adds repetition and boredom. But that doesn't mean that some repetition or selective bloat is bad. It can serve defining a base line to make bosses and other encounters stand out. Finding the right balance is the tricky part.

Well said.
To me victory is always more memorable and tastes better when it's hard won.
The increase of difficulty should encourage players to think out of the box and try different tactics, instead of using the single best-working method.

This could be achieved by different ways, and while smarter AI and more enemies sound like the obvious and more prestigious option, the best result would be achieved by the combination of "everything of the above", including even extra HP (when not overdone) and immunities, even by extra attrition and lack of resources.

Speaking about the difficulties curves:

 

[Arthandas]

Don't include cheats enabled by default?
There's no such thing as difficulty when you get unlimited retries and no penalty for failure.

That's why I love permadeath (and true roguelikes). I had more fun beating Wiz I than any recent blobber with no permadeath and save/load function available at all times because god forbid you actually lose some progress after party wipe...

 

[Silverfish]

Easy then tough. I play pretty much everything on its baby-boy normal difficulty the first time through, then, if the game's any fun, bump up the difficulty for subsequent runs. Tactics v. stats doesn't really matter to me since the former is so rare, I could probably count on one hand the number of games I've played where that was the difference-maker and the latter is eventually overcome via levels / gear / whatever.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Depends on the game, really. Some I intentionally may pick up for an added challenge -- with those, they also may be typically designed from the ground up in a way that they are supposed to be a challenge. Some I won't -- with those, difficulty options to crank it all up may exist, but they may just turn enemies into bullet sponges and upping their stats to ridiculous levels, which is something I rarely, if ever liked. Thinking back about it, Thief still has one of the most sublime difficulty settings ever (yeah, it's not an RPG, Capital Arrr, Peee, Geee, I get it, or is it :D).

I'm certainly more flexible with a general level of difficulty than with hand-holding (markers, quests witcher sensing themselves, no actual choice, everything being blatantly telegraphed to me as if the devs wondered whether I could find out of my own closet).

That's just gaming cancer.

 

[Pulse]

I voted Extremely Hard, but as a matter of pacing, I don't think every encounter should be like that. However, if a game foregoes all Extremely Hard encounters, then it usually ends up being completely unmemorable. Overcoming adversity is really the core of gaming, and there's nothing quite like the thrill of a hard-won victory. Voidspire Tactics is one of my favorite RPGs from recent years and the parts I remember best are the tough fights: the necromancer, the early final boss encounter, the platoon of soldiers, and the double boss. On the other hand, the only fight I remember in detail from KotOR 1 is the final boss fight, and that only because I was shocked to see my character simply auto-attack him to death without even engaging with his healing gimmick.

As for difficulty type, I don't think this part of the poll is divided up very well. Regardless of difficulty, I would prefer for enemies to boast an appropriate level of intelligence; for the vast majority of games this would mean a major upgrade. The other option of "more" lumps together several different types of "more" that don't necessarily have the same effect on gameplay. More HP is boring and makes fights drag even if it does technically do its job by weeding out inefficient tactics. Immunities applied judiciously can be alright, but when spread liberally are annoying as they usually neuter tactics that required character investment, e.g. status effect immune bosses in most JRPGs. Furthermore, if immunities are applied to enemies who did not have them at lower difficulties, then the player is forced to recheck each enemy type just in case, or every individual enemy if they are applied randomly as in certain roguelikes.

Of the three "more" options, more enemies is by far the best because it adds the most dynamism. Two 50 HP enemies will create vastly different situations than one 100 HP enemy. Against two enemies one must consider the opponent's increased action economy, and in a positional game the player is forced to create chokepoints or maintain multiple fronts. Spells that nullify one or a few enemies are proportionally weakened without the blunt hammer of immunities. Anybody who runs TTRPGs with a heavy combat side should know this: never have a villain fight alone. In most cases it matters little how high his stats are or how many immunities he has because he simply can't keep up with the discrete action count on the player side. Likewise, the challenge presented will simply be a matter of finding his weakness and/or tying up his actions while the rest of the party whacks away - not a particularly tactical or stimulating exercise. A villain with minions, though, has options. The players must do more than just lock down the boss.

TL;DR: Extremely Hard, Smarter Enemies, More Enemies

I might take a look at this game (voidspire tactics). I like a challenge also for sure.

 

[Pulse]

Don't include cheats enabled by default?
There's no such thing as difficulty when you get unlimited retries and no penalty for failure.

That's why I love permadeath (and true roguelikes). I had more fun beating Wiz I than any recent blobber with no permadeath and save/load function available at all times because god forbid you actually lose some progress after party wipe...

You mean Wizardry 1?

 

[Saravan]

In an ideal world you want difficulty to be adjusted by smarter AI, combined of course with a wide range of options (buffs, debuffs, spells, abilities, etc.) for the AI to utilize against the player. Even better is if the combat is designed with things such as terrain, weather effects, objects and elevation to allow for more "tactical difficulty" in the gameplay. This takes however a lot of effort so the normal way is to just inflate the shit out of numbers instead (and thus just becomes a pure build test). The only modern RPG I have seen so far that actually utilizes smarter AI to any noticeable degree is King Arthur: Knight's Tale, but even there it's not something exceptional, probably due to the somewhat streamlined combat system.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

The only modern RPG I have seen so far that actually utilizes smarter AI to any noticeable degree is King Arthur: Knight's Tale, but even there it's not something exceptional, probably due to the somewhat streamlined combat system.

That and Wartales are on my list. Unfortunately, I've just started playing Elden Ring, so... :D

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I don't think that approach transfers well to rpg's, so the first two panes of the comic with the obese delinquent squirrel from Zed Duke of Banville's posted comic stripe describe the problem fairly accurately.

I suppose posters from much of the world wouldn't be familiar with raccoons, although they have spread through Europe as an invasive species over the last half-century or more.

 

[Kruyurk]

I have no problem with such cute invader in Europe.

 

[WhiteShark]

I might take a look at this game (voidspire tactics). I like a challenge also for sure.

Be sure to play it on Hard then. The combat will seem entirely unimpressive on Normal.

 

[Serus]

Don't include cheats enabled by default?
There's no such thing as difficulty when you get unlimited retries and no penalty for failure.

That's why I love permadeath (and true roguelikes). I had more fun beating Wiz I than any recent blobber with no permadeath and save/load function available at all times because god forbid you actually lose some progress after party wipe...

So much this. I understood that only a decade ago when i started to play RLs myself. You can learn a long ironman game by restarting however if you want to finish one, you must play it well. The same is not true in a CRPG, tactical, some strategy games if it has very strong random element. Which is many of them. I wish more crpgs, tactical and strategy games were made either with:
1) Ironman
2) Limited saves
and last but not least:
3) What TOME4 does in adventurer more (IIRC): the game is still ironman but the number of lives is >1. Sort like credits in old arcade machines. If you set the number of credits high enough, the problem that some RLs face with randomness is greatly reduced. What's more interesting, some p&p RPGs do that in practice by introducing fate/whatever points. Why can't we have it in CRPGs that claim to copy p&p?

 

[Bruma Hobo]

difficulty doesn't matter as long as games put a time rewind cheat front and center, designing the game around it and encouraging its use. Any obstacle can trivially be overcome through trial and error.

That's an interesting take. But what's the alternative then?

Try playing Frayed Knights and Expeditions: Conquistador for nice non-hardcore games that encourage players not to savescum. A slightly more challenging alternative is the early Wizardry formula: individual party members might get permanently lost if they fail a resurrection roll, but even in a worst case scenario where your whole party gets destroyed you wouldn't lose all your progress, since you can keep much of their loot and key items.

Ironman modes are usually crap though.

 

[gurugeorge]

For me, CRPGs are adventure sims first and foremost - gesamtkunstwerke that have to hold a lot of factors in balance (story, instant gameplay, economic and other strategies, feeling of immersion in the virtual world, degree of abstraction vs. detailed simulation, good graphics, audio, fx, music, etc.). So it actually varies a lot for me, depending on mood, story quality vs. combat quality vs. depth of systems quality, and the degree to which the total feel is engaging and immersive.

I generally hover between Normal and Hard, but if the system is deep and chewy and actually rewards pondering (e.g. Troubleshooter) I'll sometimes go max difficulty. But I find that most systems aren't really deep enough or intricate enough to make max difficulty rewarding (as opposed to being just a slog).

Basically what I'm always chasing with a CRPG is that delicate balance between emotional immersion in the illusion of story/character/virtual world, and intellectual engagement in the systems and combat, leading to a trance state or a flow state - depending on the game, sometimes that can be attained via max difficulty, sometimes just by normal difficulty or hard.

 

[Trashos]

You don't need an ironman mode in order to play on ironman mode.

Ironman mode needs 2 things, gamemplay that doesn't necessarily require luck (ie, there are ways to stack odds greatly in your favor) and a willing player.

 

[Pulse]

For me, CRPGs are adventure sims first and foremost - gesamtkunstwerke that have to hold a lot of factors in balance (story, instant gameplay, economic and other strategies, feeling of immersion in the virtual world, degree of abstraction vs. detailed simulation, good graphics, audio, fx, music, etc.). So it actually varies a lot for me, depending on mood, story quality vs. combat quality vs. depth of systems quality, and the degree to which the total feel is engaging and immersive.

I generally hover between Normal and Hard, but if the system is deep and chewy and actually rewards pondering (e.g. Troubleshooter) I'll sometimes go max difficulty. But I find that most systems aren't really deep enough or intricate enough to make max difficulty rewarding (as opposed to being just a slog).

Basically what I'm always chasing with a CRPG is that delicate balance between emotional immersion in the illusion of story/character/virtual world, and intellectual engagement in the systems and combat, leading to a trance state or a flow state - depending on the game, sometimes that can be attained via max difficulty, sometimes just by normal difficulty or hard.

Thanks for the inputs - I also love immersion. My favourite games have always been able to pull me in their world. How do you judge as combat system as deep?

 

[Blutwurstritter]

I like the saving system of Baldur's Gate. Being able to save only outside of combat does a fair job at keeping fights interesting. Perhaps it could be pushed a bit further, by limiting saving to times when your outside of dungeons/wilderness. But I don't see a reasonable/fun way for a game of that type and scope to work with only a single live. You'd could tone encounters down to be more predictable but that would make the game less challenging, and boring. I don't think that is what proponents of iron man want. Or it would have to get gradually easier and easier( the game already does that although I'm not sure if its sufficient), so the chance to lose goes down as you progress such that a loss of a large chunk of time is low. Otherwise you'd have to repeat the same sections again and again, turning the game into a chore. Players would be more likely to spent their time on early game content and late game content becomes less likely to be explored. Can these points be harmonized with ironman without changing games like BG/IWD/Fallout/Gothic/Drakensang/Arcanum/etc... into something else entirely? Or do iron man fans mostly want more rogue likes and that's it?

 

[gurugeorge]

For me, CRPGs are adventure sims first and foremost - gesamtkunstwerke that have to hold a lot of factors in balance (story, instant gameplay, economic and other strategies, feeling of immersion in the virtual world, degree of abstraction vs. detailed simulation, good graphics, audio, fx, music, etc.). So it actually varies a lot for me, depending on mood, story quality vs. combat quality vs. depth of systems quality, and the degree to which the total feel is engaging and immersive.

I generally hover between Normal and Hard, but if the system is deep and chewy and actually rewards pondering (e.g. Troubleshooter) I'll sometimes go max difficulty. But I find that most systems aren't really deep enough or intricate enough to make max difficulty rewarding (as opposed to being just a slog).

Basically what I'm always chasing with a CRPG is that delicate balance between emotional immersion in the illusion of story/character/virtual world, and intellectual engagement in the systems and combat, leading to a trance state or a flow state - depending on the game, sometimes that can be attained via max difficulty, sometimes just by normal difficulty or hard.

Thanks for the inputs - I also love immersion. My favourite games have always been able to pull me in their world. How do you judge as combat system as deep?

Something like: a lot of actually effective options to play with. There are systems that have lots of options that make them appear deep, but many of those apparent options are just decorative LARPing gewgaws, levers that spin and don't do anything.

Or to look at it from the other end, a shallow system is one in which only one or two strategies are actually effective and viable.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

It would be great to live in a world where each individual encounter was designed in such a way to require the same level of strategy and co-ordination that good tabletop combat can have, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect video games to do this. I'm usually satisfied when the devs just take the effort to put fairly regular, but not necessarily predictable, setpiece fights and boss battles with increased difficulty.

Ideally, based on my own experience, I feel most satisfied when I die 5-8 times on a final boss. Any less, your game is too fucking easy, any more and you're taking the piss. For lesser encounters, fewer deaths but at the same time I'm not necessarily opposed to a fight that's just as hard as a final boss that's somewhere in the middle of the game if it's appropriate to the narrative. Rival enemy factions and whatnot, like Yxonomei and co. in IWD.