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

[Infinitron]

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?

Well... https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...mes-now-in-alpha.143159/page-103#post-8265742

(And I'd say that by his standard, he's not wrong)

 

[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?

No, you are just an idiot. And you fell into your own trap, which you are doing a dozen times every day 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.

wait until you find out both AD&D editions had various books dedicated to strongholds

 

[luj1]

wait until you find out both AD&D editions had various books dedicated to strongholds

"Various books", oh wow.

And how many BOOKS does AD&D have on classes, monsters?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

wait until you find out both AD&D editions had various books dedicated to strongholds

"Various books", oh wow.

And how many BOOKS does AD&D have on classes, monsters?

So you admit that strongholds are just as important to D&D as classes and monsters?

 

[luj1]

No, they are absolutely not as important as classes, monsters. That is the whole point.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

No, they are absolutely not as important as classes, monsters. That is the whole point.

*me opening a copy of my 1984 D&D companion rules*

 

[luj1]

You need to take a break rusty, your keyboard will overheat.

How much of the OD&D rulebook is devoted to stronghold management, 2 pages? How fleshed out it really is compared to the rest of the rulebook?

This argument was brought up by YOU, yet you said that you'd enjoy having SMAC as a subsystem in an RPG. Therefore, you are a fraud and an idiot who doesn't know what he is saying.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You need to take a break rusty, your keyboard will overheat.

How much of the OD&D rulebook is devoted to stronghold management, 2 pages?

This argument was brought up by YOU, yet you said that you'd like to have SMAC as a feature in an RPG. Therefore, you are a fraud and an idiot who doesn't know what he is saying.

How much of OD&D is dedicated to skills?

 

[Infinitron]

You draw the line where the genre is.

OK, but even if we accept this genre essentialism (here on this forum that famously refuses to define what an RPG is), what genre does crafting belong to, anyway? It's heavily associated with the roleplaying genre at this point, more than any other genre except maybe online multiplayer survival games (and they probably copied it from RPGs).

The thing is, I actually dislike many of these same things that you do. For example, I found it hard to get into the Expeditions games (not just Rome, all of them - I don't see the difference) because of the abundance of systems that they force you to deal with. But I'm more willing to also blame my own short attention span for that, rather than just blame the designers for engaging in Illegal Cross-Genre Game Design Practices.

Like, maybe there's an audience for that sort of stuff! People will play grand strategy and 4X games for hundreds of hours and here I'm whining because I have to manage a unit of praetorians in addition to my companions, or because I have to craft some items to perfect my build? Nah, maybe I just suck.

 

[Fedora Master]

EUIV isn't an RPG obviously but it's a perfect example of system bloat. Miniscule mechanics heaped on top of older deprecated mechanics to create the illusion of progression of development.

 

[luj1]

You draw the line where the genre is.

OK, but even if we accept this genre essentialism...

What the fuck is genre essentialism?

Do you think genres exist for a reason? Perhaps some people prefer shooters, while others prefer racing games?

Do you think there are more than 2 genders?

Please let us not deconstruct the accepted norms. This is why civilisation is declining.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

do you think diablo 2 is an rpg? luj1

 

[luj1]

... what genre does crafting belong to, anyway? It's heavily associated with the roleplaying genre at this point, more than any other genre except maybe online multiplayer survival games (and they probably copied it from RPGs).

Good question and I think you are right in that it perhaps belongs the most to the roleplaying genre. But it's not a huge part of it. Which is why it's used as an element and added to various genres.

Crafting can be implemented well or not. Just like anything else. For example if Kingdom management was optional, Pathfinder would be a much better game.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

For example if Kingdom management was optional, Pathfinder would be a much better game.

you can put it on auto

 

[luj1]

I found it hard to get into the Expeditions games because of the abundance of systems they force you to deal with.

But I'm more willing to blame my own short attention span for that, rather than just blame the designers...

Why?

 

[luj1]

do you think diablo 2 is an rpg? luj1

Short answer is no.

Long answer is take away the RPG elements. Take away the stats, skilltrees, etc. What do you have left? Sort of an isometric beat 'em up game. How can a realtime action game based on player reflexes be an RPG?

 

[Desiderius]

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.

In a sense this is correct, but ironically few of you have even explored half of what *is* there. They've bit off more design space than they so far have shown the capacity to competently chew, but there is a lot more there than is commonly assumed.

When people pull up their soapboxes rather than exploring the content that people develop it lessens the incentive to actually carry out that development.

 

[mondblut]

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".

The problem with "crafting" is not that there are too many systems, it is that some systems cancel out each other. A game already has loot and shops competing with each other with regards to itemization, with one system invariably becoming worthless. Throw in crafting, and you get two worthless systems. Imagine if a 4x game allowed you to recruit any superior units you encounter in the wild - why would you use a system to produce them at home?

Not to mention that implementation of "crafting" is usually retarded and offensive to human sensibilities, with few exceptions like Kenshi.

 

[Fedora Master]

Great now the Wrath autistic has found the thread. I'm sure Victor will soon go on a idiotic tangent about magic and then the earth will be scorched for any actual discussion.

 

[Glop_dweller]

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

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

The detail is in the intended audience of the game. Gamers are not an equal playing field. Some want a game like Afterburner, while others want (expect, and understand) a commercial flight simulator.

 

[J1M]

Thread is great evidence that the game industry isn't producing enough quality entertainment. Your most engaged customers are arguing about definitions.

Very few products today instill a sense of confidence that thoughtful time dedicated to design was applied and it is exceedingly rare to feel as though the person tasked with a system design today was of equal or greater intelligence of the player.

The lack of confidence shows through in the overall design as well. Manifesting as the system being completely optional or the hooks into the main game being entirely superfluous.

If it obvious to me as a player that the system wasn't considered important by the development team, why should I care about it?

If the potential benefits of interacting with a system fully are inscrutable, why should I navigate the system when all contemporary evidence suggests the most likely result is disappointment?

At this point, unless it is a central design pillar for a particular RPG, players correctly assume that the merchant and crafting systems can be ignored. May as well delete them and focus on a better treasure hunting experience. Developers don't realize this because on average they don't play games.

Many such examples.

 

[luj1]

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

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

The detail is in the intended audience of the game. Gamers are not an equal playing field. Some want a game like Afterburner, while others want (expect, and understand) a commercial flight simulator.

The division into hardcore and casual didn't exist back in the day. It does more harm than good.

 

[luj1]

Thread is great evidence that the game industry isn't producing enough quality entertainment. Your most engaged customers are arguing about definitions.

Very few products today instill a sense of confidence that thoughtful time dedicated to to design was applied and it is exceedingly rare to feel as though the person tasked with a system design today was of equal or greater intelligence of the player.

The lack of confidence shows through in the overall design as well. Manifesting as the system being completely optional or the hooks into the main game being entirely superfluous.

If it obvious to me as a player that the system wasn't considered important by the development team, why should I care about it?

If the potential benefits of interacting with a system fully are inscrutable, why should I navigate the system when all contemporary evidence suggests the most likely result is disappointment?

At this point, unless it is a central design pillar for a particular RPG, players correctly assume that the merchant and crafting systems can be ignored. May as well delete them and focus on a better treasure hunting experience. Developers don't realize this because on average they don't play games.

Many such examples.

Yes and let me add that games just aren't as fun.

Gameplay is suffering due to graphics, voice acting and systemic bloat.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

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)?

He already answered that. He stated that attempting to do higher volume causes execution of any given feature to suffer. Quality over quantity. It's not a complex assertion.

 

[Ontopoly]

99 percent of everything is shit. The more you add into a game, the more potential there is for shit. As a developer you're going to have to be very confident in your ability to hit that 1 percent in everything you do, otherwise at least one of the things you implement is going to be shit. If you have any amount of shit in your game it's going to affect everything around it, even if the rest is good; you wouldn't eat a world class delicious brownie if i sprinkled 1 gram of shit in it.

When a developer like owlcat creates a good game but then adds a bad side mechanic that wastes time and makes me want to stop playing everytime I'm forced to engage with it, they are hurting the entire product, even thought it's otherwise good.