Do you believe in the concept of "system bloat" in RPGs?

[Infinitron]

luj1 often mentions this as something that is a major, deal-breaking flaw in RPGs. Let's discuss.

 

[luj1]

This is nothing to "believe in", only accept or reject.

The worst offender are Owlcat games for their automated barebone managerial systems (such as Kingdom management with its associated card game) that are violently inserted in place of traditional quest structure.

A game that wants to do everything, will be mediocre in all aspects.

Let me just add that there is a slight difference between feature bloat, system/ruleset bloat and class bloat. Owlcat amazingly the master of all three.

 

[Not.AI]

Do you believe in the concept of "system bloat" in RPGs?​

@luj1 often mentions this as something that is a major, deal-breaking flaw in RPGs. Let's discuss.

Yes, if the game is rubbish; no, if the game is good.

You can do kitchen sink design in a good game, and it gets better, but not in a bad game, pretty much.

 

[Infinitron]

This is nothing to "believe in", only accept or reject.

The worst offender are Owlcat games for their automated barebone managerial systems (such as Kingdom management with its associated card game) that are violently inserted in place of traditional quest structure.

A game that wants to do everything, will be mediocre in all aspects.

Let me just add that there is a slight difference between feature bloat, system/ruleset bloat and class bloat. Owlcat amazingly the master of all three.

Furthering the discussion: But if you're a hardcore gamer, shouldn't you want to engage with more systems? Isn't it cool to have more knobs and dials to adjust? You're playing a genre that's all about developing character builds, so why is it so objectionable to also develop kingdom builds, or develop item builds (crafting)?

 

[luj1]

Furthering the discussion: But if you're a hardcore gamer, shouldn't you want to engage with more systems? Isn't it cool to have more knobs and dials to adjust? You're playing a genre that's all about developing character builds, so why is it so objectionable to also develop kingdom builds, or develop item builds (crafting)?

What is a "hardcore gamer"? It's dumb to use such terminology. Just say gamer for fucks sake.

 

[luj1]

shouldn't you want to engage with more systems?

Isn't it cool to have more knobs and dials to adjust?

Notice that you're always saying more, more, more.

*More* systems, *more* knobs, *more* dials to turn.

No. More isn't always better. I prefer to view this discussion as good design vs poor design, not "more vs less".

 

[luj1]

why is it so objectionable to also develop kingdom builds, or develop item builds (crafting)?

Because you should focus on core gameplay.

What is your core gameplay in an RPG? It's not naval combat or having 1000 recipes for baking cookies.

Learn to differentiate between core gameplay and peripheral. Peripheral gameplay must not have more depth than core. It's there for flavor, like Pazaak in SWKotOR or fishing in Underrail. Small, optional and unintrusive. Today you are seeing literally the opposite with many RPGs. Large, mandatory and intrusive features and systems.

 

[†††]

You can do kitchen sink design in a good game, and it gets better

Do you think crafting, tower defense and cooking would make Fallout better, or detract from the core game?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

no, there is only good or bad.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The worst offender are Owlcat games for their automated barebone managerial systems (such as Kingdom management with its associated card game) that are violently inserted in place of traditional quest structure.

How is this bloat? The issue is these systems are too simple. They confuse quantity with quality.

 

[whydoibother]

luj1 often mentions this as something that is a major, deal-breaking flaw in RPGs. Let's discuss.

The only "system bloat" I've experienced is trying to get into some long lived strategy game, and not getting to experience the systems as they are added over time.
Lets take Europa Universalis 4 as an example. If you played it on release, its complicated, but not too much. But if you tried to get into it 2 years after release, there were multiple DLCs and expansions worth of systems tacked on, and they weren't designed to all be learned from scratch at once. Also contrast to how playing the "ultimate" version of Skyrim or Oblivion as your first time playing the game, you get that popup for various DLCs unlocking at the start, that you have no idea of and don't know how they work or what they mean.

In a typical RPG, the system bloat isn't from expansions, its from the game progressing. So you always start with few systems, and experience new ones added over time, making the learning process easier. Even in poor efforts like Fallout 4, you first learn how to walk through space, then to fight, then what gun is good against what, and THEN to craft guns. First you learn about loot, and prices, and weight, and walk around a few buildings, and THEN have to build shit. In Europa Universalis, you have to handle the estates, crown lands, etc DLC content on the first minute of starting, before unpausing the game, and they are DLC content that requires knowledge of the core game.

The worst offender are Owlcat games for their automated barebone managerial systems (such as Kingdom management with its associated card game) that are violently inserted in place of traditional quest structure.

How is this bloat? The issue is these systems are too simple. They confuse quantity with quality.

The necromancer tower in Divinity II: Dragon Knight (or the undead building in the same game) are simple, yet use existing systems and resources that you are aware of and already interact with, so they don't feel convoluted. They aren't parallel to the core game, they are integrated in the core game, and use similar prompts, resources, interactions.
Unlike the dragon flying ending, which is the opposite, and widely disliked.

 

[luj1]

And this is how interested you really were in this discussion, in the first place.

Started a thread, didn't like what you saw, and dissapeared.

Can't say I'm surprised because you always had a shallow understanding of these things.

And of course, it's better to use your time to copy-paste Sawyer's tumblr posts about cats, cookies and rubbish no one here cares about.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

luj1 often mentions this as something that is a major, deal-breaking flaw in RPGs. Let's discuss.

The only "system bloat" I've experienced is trying to get into some long lived strategy game, and not getting to experience the systems as they are added over time.
Lets take Europa Universalis 4 as an example. If you played it on release, its complicated, but not too much. But if you tried to get into it 2 years after release, there were multiple DLCs and expansions worth of systems tacked on, and they weren't designed to all be learned from scratch at once. Also contrast to how playing the "ultimate" version of Skyrim or Oblivion as your first time playing the game, you get that popup for various DLCs unlocking at the start, that you have no idea of and don't know how they work or what they mean.

In a typical RPG, the system bloat isn't from expansions, its from the game progressing. So you always start with few systems, and experience new ones added over time, making the learning process easier. Even in poor efforts like Fallout 4, you first learn how to walk through space, then to fight, then what gun is good against what, and THEN to craft guns. First you learn about loot, and prices, and weight, and walk around a few buildings, and THEN have to build shit. In Europa Universalis, you have to handle the estates, crown lands, etc DLC content on the first minute of starting, before unpausing the game, and they are DLC content that requires knowledge of the core game.

That nuxcom phoenix whatever game is an example of this. It has a ton of dlcs that start all activating simultaneously and confuses the hell out of someone who didn't experience them as they were developed & added.

 

[luj1]

The worst offender are Owlcat games for their automated barebone managerial systems (such as Kingdom management with its associated card game) that are violently inserted in place of traditional quest structure.

How is this bloat? The issue is these systems are too simple. They confuse quantity with quality.

It's feature bloat regardless of internal complexity.

Let us imagine that Kingdom Management was amazingly done, like you had Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri inside an RPG.

Would you really care? You wanted to play an RPG in the first place.

Or you could have a Need for Speed game with a shooter minigame on the level of Quake. Would you really care? You wanted a racing game.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Would you really care?

Yes

You wanted to play an RPG in the first place.

Take it up with OD&D having base management, not me.

 

[Sigourn]

I'd rather have few systems done well than a shitload of systems the player has little reason to engage with other than "muh immershun".

 

[Dadd]

What do you mean, do I "believe" in it? Some games have systems that are incongruous with the whole of the game. Belief has nothing to do with this.

 

[luj1]

Would you really care?

Yes

So, you would care to have Alpha Centauri inside Pathfinder Kingmaker. That is pointless and only an idiot would say such a thing.

You wanted to play an RPG in the first place.

Take it up with OD&D having base management, not me.

Rules for that can fit on 2 pages.

And you just wrote that you would like having a 4X minigame on the level of Alpha Centauri in an RPG. That is really the opposite of how OD&D handled it.

Go back a few posts where I wrote that "peripheral" gamplay must not have more depth than core gameplay.

 

[Infinitron]

The question is, where do you draw the line between "too many systems" and "player has a limited attention span"? For example, some players hate levelling up NPC companions. They only care about their own character's build and want the game to decide how their companions should develop. There's a similarity between that and the logic of anti-crafting. "I don't want to decide the attributes of my items, I just want to deal with what the game presents me with".

 

[luj1]

What do you mean, do I "believe" in it? Some games have systems that are incongruous with the whole of the game. Belief has nothing to do with this.

He's an idiot.

 

[Dadd]

The question is, where do you draw the line between "too many systems" and "player has a limited attention span"? For example, some players hate levelling up NPC companions. They only care about their own character's build and want the game to decide how their companions should develop. There's a similarity between that and the logic of anti-crafting. "I don't want to decide the attributes of my items, I just want to deal with what the game presents me with".

Depends on the specific game.

 

[luj1]

The question is, where do you draw the line between "too many systems" and "player has a limited attention span"?

What are you talking about?

Nothing to do with attention span. You can have Quake, Need for Speed and Fallout in one game. Theoretically you could. But you don't, because not all people like racing games, or shooters, or RPGs.

You draw the line where the genre is.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Rules for that can fit on 2 pages.

You can fit basic D&D's rules on 2 pages, what's your point? Are you now arguing that 3E itself is just bloated trash?

 

[smaug]

Pathfinder is bloated trash because none of its systems are refined thus much time and resources are wasted.

Also, makes the game unfun when it borders on 100 hours of content.

 

[luj1]

Rules for that can fit on 2 pages.

You can fit basic D&D's rules on 2 pages, what's your point? Are you now arguing that 3E itself is just bloated trash?

No, you are just an idiot. And you fell into your own trap, which happens every day with you on this forum.

My point is that OD&D rules for strongholds are 1% of the whole rulebook. That is why it's stupid to do the opposite in a CRPG.