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

[Robotigan]

You can have very complex games with a lot of systems that feel remarkably tight, the design overhead just gets a lot harder to manage. You don't want the player to feel overwhelmed or like they're constantly getting interrupted from what they want to do. Management sims seem to handle complexity a lot better than RPGs for whatever reason. Maybe because the lack of narrative makes it easier to focus on the game elements, or relatedly, maybe because the genre tends not to attract as many writers trying their hand at game design. At any rate, I think these are some good rules to follow:
1) Use intuitive/diegetic design whenever possible
2) Contextualize stuff so the player can easily focus in on a certain thing while ignoring the rest.
3) Only display as much information as the player needs at a given time.
4) Don't ship with complicated systems the game doesn't even make use of.
5) Don't implement every blasted idea you have, half of them probably aren't any good.
6) The more complex the game, the more good UI becomes non-negotiable.

 

[Tyranicon]

System/mechanics bloat is absolutely a thing and can ruin otherwise good games. I see it generally from three sources:

1. Passionate, but somewhat inexperienced devs with big ideas
2. Experienced devs working on 10+ year personal projects, and who don't give a fuck
3. Assholes who want to shove more things in a game so they have more options for monetization, leading to 17 different currencies

 

[Kruyurk]

RPGs get away with shitty gameplay easier that other genres, because they are saved by the narrative aspects (which is ironically also shit most of the time), the exploration, ambiance, etc.
Nobody would care about a driving game with a bad driving experience, yet a RPG with as shitty combat as Morrowind can still be a classic.
So RPG devs know they can get away with bloating their games with halfway baked features rather than trying to make the core gameplay good.

 

[somerandomdude]

Case and point for a series that's got too many different systems would be Xenoblade Chronicles (JRPGs). Constant distractions for all the different things to put check marks into boxes for to the point where it's pure unadulterated autism.

 

[lukaszek]

star traders is only example I can think of where system bloat works. You pick your niche(s) without interacting with the rest and everyone is happy.

 

[Zanzoken]

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.

Well stated. I think most RPG designers just tack on a bunch of features they think players expect to see, and never stop to consider whether a system makes sense in the overall context of the design.

Crafting is an easy example. Why would your character spend their time trying to craft items and equipment? Wouldn't it make more sense to just pay an artisan to do it for you? Of course it would.

That's why crafting only makes sense if the game has a survival or post-apocalyptic theme. When resources are scarce and skilled traders aren't easily accessible, it makes sense that your character would have to learn how to make stuff.

 

[Fedora Master]

NWN2 is a good example of this. They had all those crafting skills but no reason to actually implement them in the campaign, apart from Zehir

 

[Artyoan]

Not really, but this mostly seems to be an argument about phrasing. Bloat implying an issue of too high volume. I've never had a problem with the volume of systems, only the quality of those systems. So its not an issue of bloat, so much as a failure to make those systems matter in the grand scheme of the design. There could be a bunch of inconsequential systems tacked on to make a game appear deeper, one could call that bloat, but it seems more like poor design that they are inconsequential. If they had the time to make the system, they should have had time to incorporate it into the entire frame.

What is an example of a game that has too much bloat by having a lot of systems yet each system is a consequential factor in the game itself?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The more systems you have, the closer you will get to simulation. RPGs have to abstract things through contrived mechanics--traditionally dice or cards. There are limits to how many things you can represent that way--at least coherently or well.

Something like Star Citizen is the natural evolution of what the "ultimate" RPG would probably look like. The more features you have, the closer to simulation you must be. Cyberpunk 2077 tried to be the omni-RPG and it was a resounding "meh". An ocean as deep as a puddle. Theoretically there is no limit to an RPGs ambitions, but realistically there are many. If something can be everything, its just as likely to amount to nothing.

 

[mondblut]

The more systems you have, the closer you will get to simulation. RPGs have to abstract things through contrived mechanics--traditionally dice or cards. There are limits to how many things you can represent that way--at least coherently or well.

Something like Star Citizen is the natural evolution of what the "ultimate" RPG would probably look like. The more features you have, the closer to simulation you must be. Cyberpunk 2077 tried to be the omni-RPG and it was a resounding "meh". An ocean as deep as a puddle. Theoretically there is no limit to an RPGs ambitions, but realistically there are many. If something can be everything, its just as likely to amount to nothing.

If you get a holodeck, can you please leave our dice-rolling games alone? Thanks.

 

[Daemongar]

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

For the sake of us pikers, could you define clearly what "system bloat" means?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

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)?

Given a finite amount of resources for game development, additional systems necessarily detract from some other aspect of a game, whether due to diverting resources from refinement of the mechanics of more fundamental systems, or consuming funds that could be spent on additional content, or even by hindering bug-testing. This does not mean that RPGs should be streamlined, or even that proposed additional systems should be rejected, but care should always be given that a proposed system be valuable for this particular kind of RPG rather than being neutral or even detracting by clashing with existing systems. Crafting, for example, makes perfect sense in Outward, which added survival aspects to an exploration-focused Open World RPG frame, but would be nonsensical in a Dungeon Master-like. This not an issue of "sytem bloat" as such but rather in the difficulty of creating mechanics for systems crucial to the subgenre, and the associated content for them, which generally does not leave many resources for peripheral systems and content.

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.

At the time original Dungeons & Dragons was published in January 1974, Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign had existed for less than a year (and Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign for less than three years), so even the few pages on strongholds and dominions that were present in the rules were more conjectural than anything actually played. Oddly, Gygax did not include more extensive rules on these subjects in the relatively voluminous Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, so that it was not until the D&D 'Green Box' Companion Set by Frank Mentzer in 1984 that more substantive rules for dominions and strongholds were published.

Stronghold building can make perfect sense in a CRPG focused on higher-level characters establishing control over an area, but it would be nonsensical in many subgenres or for many specific games.

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

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

You forgot to mention narrative.

 

[luj1]

For the sake of us pikers, could you define clearly what "system bloat" means

Feature bloat is when the game has too many features. Camping, cooking, fishing, crafting, etc.

 

[huskarls]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'

I could only see such a thing in a live service multiplayer game where they add on features and it makes the game less accessible to new players from launch. very little relevance in rpgs which lean towards stream lining

 

[gaussgunner]

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)?

More interesting systems, not just more systems. "Streamlining" is a dirty word around here, but every big modern RPG could be improved by removing uninteresting systems and parts of systems. Character builds are all about specialization. Why would an adventurer specialize in crafting beyond basic bushcraft? Collecting herbs and trash is not interesting. Why not simply purchase professionally crafted items from skilled specialists (i.e. shops) who provide the materials?

Certainly other kinds of role-playing games besides D&D can benefit from "innovative" systems, and they could even be good, but as a rule they aren't.

 

[Not.AI]

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?

1. Some people want a game that does everything. Other people want a game that does nothing.

System bloat allows both of these people to get what they want.

Even though games really should aim to do neither everything nor nothing but a few things really well, there is a distribution of types of players. Some of them have strange lexicographic preferences. No fishing in a game means some of them can't like the whole game.

2. If the core game is otherwise good, then system bloat is like the rubbishy bread at KFC. It comes with the chicken.

I think it's really mediocre, I just don't eat it. I just eat the crispy chicken. I wanted some crispy chicken, I got some crispy chicken.

Sure, it makes me think less of KFC (like what were they thinking?), but it doesn't (this is the key thing!) impair the taste of the chicken.

I just don't eat it.

But if the bread was good, I'd think better of the experience.

Battlezone 1 (1998) & Battlezone 2 (1999) had awesome FPS and base building and unit management combined.

If the chicken was bad and the bread was bad, I'd be very disappointed and sad and never ever again buy the chicken. Fried chicken is art. Fried chicken is joy and happiness and peace.

3. Well, now we can see where the bloat issue really hinges. The whole issue depends on whether the bloat is linearly separable and optional.

You can skip the base building nonsense in Fallout 4. If you couldn't, agreed, it'd downgrade the experience of Fallout 4.

The problem with software bloat and appliances features bloat is that they force the user to also take notice of or even use X to use Y. At least because there is limited space on a physical object for more buttons.

I wouldn't like the crispy chicken from KFC if I had to eat it with the nasty free bread from KFC.

Games with optional and ignorable bloat are being lumped into the same category with games with mandatory bloat. When a game forces the player to use all the systems, bloat makes even an otherwise good game bad. An otherwise good game with optional bloat is fine.

System bloat doesn't even waste much budget in more cases. It's what people do when they have nothing to do for a while because they are waiting for somebody else.

Edit. Test case is ignoring the crafting in Witcher 2 & Witcher 3. If you ignored it, you wouldn't even know it's there.

 

[Not.AI]

"WTF am I reading"

My personal review of the bread at KFC.

The topic of this thread.

 

[Butter]

"Just ignore the bad parts of the game. It's not a problem, see?"

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'.

Feature bloat is a product of execution. It can only be identified ex-post facto. When there is a high disparity in quality between different aspects of a game, those on the lower spectrum are probably chaff.

 

[APGunner]

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.

Giants: Citizen Kabuto is a masterpiece that combines different genres. I recommend you to give it a chance.

 

[luj1]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'

Well, you are wrong. You can define it as a 'poorly-designed system`.

 

[luj1]

Giants: Citizen Kabuto is a masterpiece that combines different genres. I recommend you to give it a chance.

I have played this game when it came out. It's great. Another even better example is Sacrifice. Our topic is a little different however.

 

[Ol' Willy]

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

Crafting is done fairly well in Nevada and New Vegas

 

[Ol' Willy]

In general, I love games with shitload of systems. The more complicated it is, the better for max autism points

 

[rusty_shackleford]

No one ITT can define system bloat as something other than 'system I don't like'

I could only see such a thing in a live service multiplayer game where they add on features and it makes the game less accessible to new players from launch. very little relevance in rpgs which lean towards stream lining

because 'system bloat' doesn't exist, only good or bad systems.