Encounter design is king

[Ludo Lense]

Great encounter design can take a simplistic, mediocre, or even bad system and elevate it into something good..

But if you can make good encounters with a system...how can that system be bad?

 

[Lurker King]

Poor encounter design is why Torment, BG2 and most cRPGs had shit combat.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Lilura]

Sorry and thanks for the correction!

It wasn't really a correction; just what I consider more appropriate/stronger wording.

Maybe I just sucks at RPG then

Or maybe I'm just an aspie who has played them too much.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

What is good encounter design? The most important thing is diversity. Facing heterogenous groups is boring in general. Have the player face groups of monsters and humans where individual enemies have their unique roles, skills, strengths and weaknesses. Give the enemy group a hierarchy, from identifiable powerful leaders too weak but more numerous goons.

I think you meant homogeneous. Heterogeneous groups are diverse in character and have different roles/abilities.

Yep, I always mix those up

 

[Mustawd]

Encounter design -- meaning what enemies you'll face in battle, how many, their skills and tactics, etc -- is the most important aspect of RPG combat design.

Agree.

People will sperg on for hundreds of posts about mechanical things like die rolls, attributes, classes, skills, and all that. And that's fine -- systems are important, and they should be analyzed and improved upon where possible.

Agree as well. Good encounter design can save a mechanically/system poor combat focused game. While the same is not always true about the reverse.

In fact, one can look at many, "the combat sucks!", discussions and realize it's less about the system and moreso aboit the encounter design.

In an attempt to not make yet another thread about PoE, I will not mention it here. But you get my drift.

 

[Mustawd]

Good encounter design actually takes these things into consideration, so no, yer wrong there.

The second one IS part of encounter design, but the first and third are most definitely system based. If someone made you the designer of all encounters you'd have to work within these limitations.

Yes, the third, no rest restrictions, is a pain to design something challenging, but does not necessarily lead to bad encounters. There are plenty of games that assume the party will be fully equipped/rested/healed at the beginning of each encounter. Tactics games are perfect examples of these. Many good ones allow full healing and weapon armament after each battle. You just need to adjust for it.

The first one, OP itemization, is harder, and depending on the system can completely break even the best encounters, even to the point of not making it fun. The only alternative in that situation is to match OP itemization with OP itemization, and try and create variety amongst the enemies.

 

[octavius]

The best encounter design is rendered meaningless by OP itemization and non-existent resource management and rest restrictions.

Of course, Swordflight is one of the rare RPGs that avoids those pitfalls. I can't think of any others that concertedly enforce such things campaign-wide: most of them buckle and break midway through, giving the munchkins just what they want.

To the gallows with those who self-impose rest restrictions and think the RPG is suddenly good if they do that. Wrong. The RPG is still shit, the devs are spineless, and you're an idiot for DMing your own party.

Bullshit. It's just like modding the game, except some games can't be modded to fix design faults.
Also, it's always easier for the devs to cater for the casuals who give up at the first sign of something not being simple or awesome anymore.

 

[octavius]

Reposting what I wrote in the expeditions sub-forum thread. Also, advertising to come join there and give the devs good feedback for making a game we can all get behind.

As I see it, the most important aspects of Encounter design is the quality and the variety of the encounter. There are games like Diablo where the encounter is all about loot and not about what you fight, although that can also take the center stage occasionally. In the other category, there are games like IE series, where you might have to slug through countless trash mobs before getting to the encounter relevant to the plot.

It never fails to amaze me that people mention the IE games as the games with trash combat, when they (at least the BG games) have among the best unique encounters to thrash combat ratio.
On the other side of the scale is Wizardry 7, where there are 1000 trash encounters for each unique one.

 

[Suicidal]

Amen to that brother! I'd rather play an RPG with mediocre or simplistic systems but interesting encounters with varied and powerful enemies than an RPG with a great system but with enemy encounters that lack variety or challenge. That's like coming to a shooting range that has the best most cutting edge weapons available but no targets to try them on.

 

[octavius]

Wizardry 7

Talking of which, I'm reminded that one important aspect of encounter design is the encounter frequency. When you can hardly move or even turn (Bard's Tale 3) without facing yet another thrash mob you know the encounter frequency is too high.
Wiz 7 is definitely the worst of the first seven Wizardries in this regard, and the Bard's Tale games are the all time worst.
But at least abstract blobber combat is quick. It's worse when it's slow, cumbersome turn based combat systems like in Ultima IV, for example.

 

[DraQ]

People will sperg on for hundreds of posts about mechanical things like die rolls, attributes, classes, skills, and all that.

Systems are by definition formalized. Once done they can simply be applied and often reused. They are also subject to pretty much rational principles.

Good encounter design is, OTOH, a case by case affair. If you formalize it then apply and reuse, you - by definition - no longer have good encounter design. Sure, there are parts of good encounter design that are based on rational principles and are pretty much exact science, but that's merely serviceable encounter design at most.
Good encounter design needs to surprise the player and offer unique experience while also fitting into context. It needs to be sound tactically, but also give players tactical opportunities and rich enough playfield.

But content is what separates the wheat from the chaff, and in a combat-heavy game -- which let's face it, pretty much all RPGs are nowadays -- encounter design is the most important content there is.

Content is by definition unique, so unlike mechanics it can't be discussed in generic terms. Also, even combat heavy games don't necessary benefit the most from good encounters. I'm not saying that encounters are not important but you need a good WHY to even start caring about HOW, so interesting premise, setting and so on are what decides whether or not you even see the encounter design.

Great encounter design can take a simplistic, mediocre, or even bad system and elevate it into something good. But the reverse just isn't true. A game with boring encounters can't be saved even by the best combat system. Even if it's fun in the beginning, smashing the same old trash mobs over and over inevitably loses its luster.

Again, debatable. Good systems are also good at addressing gameplay diversity by creating interesting situations while bad systems may reduce even diverse and superbly designed encounters to the same set of rote moves repeated over and over.

 

[Mustawd]

Again, debatable. Good systems are also good at addressing gameplay diversity by creating interesting situations while bad systems may reduce even diverse and superbly designed encounters to the same set of rote moves repeated over and over.

You're addressing something different than what you were quoting. Yes, mechanics can make combat better, but not enough if your encounters are done wrong. The point is, if you have to pick one to get it right, then encounters are more important.

 

[Ebonsword]

If you need to wrestle control from the player and inexplicably dump his party into disadvantageous battlefield location, or invent ad hoc shit like "lol, magic suddenly doesn't work here", because muh challenge - you are doing it wrong.

Agreed. It's one thing to have your party ambushed because you don't have a ranger or someone else with good reconnaissance skills, but when you get ambushed no matter what your party composition or tactics, it can be pretty annoying.

 

[vivec]

Reposting what I wrote in the expeditions sub-forum thread. Also, advertising to come join there and give the devs good feedback for making a game we can all get behind.

As I see it, the most important aspects of Encounter design is the quality and the variety of the encounter. There are games like Diablo where the encounter is all about loot and not about what you fight, although that can also take the center stage occasionally. In the other category, there are games like IE series, where you might have to slug through countless trash mobs before getting to the encounter relevant to the plot.

It never fails to amaze me that people mention the IE games as the games with trash combat, when they (at least the BG games) have among the best unique encounters to thrash combat ratio.
On the other side of the scale is Wizardry 7, where there are 1000 trash encounters for each unique one.

Because learning to read helps in the long run.

 

[Lhynn]

yeah. I liked how you fought the same exact enemies every encounter.

Then you havent really played diablo. Unlike diablo 2 each floor in diablo had their own randomly generated ecology. Which meant each playthrough was wildly different. As an example you could find ranged enemies with melee enemies, enemies that charged at you and stunned you, enemies that set DoT areas that forced you to stay mobile, etc. Each kind of enemy could be aligned to an element and it really made you hate enemies of certain elements, this ties into itemization.
On top of that each level worked as an encounter in itself, with its own traps, treasure locations and enemy groups composition, plus obviously the level itself with its corridors, open spaces and rooms that you usually had to use to navigate it completely.
Finally you had finite resources in each playthrough, which meant you had to make due with what you found. Its a classic, go and play it.

That's autism. Anyone who enjoyed IWDs for the combat is probably mentally ill. However, BG1/2 were objectively better made for the most part in the encounter design. Even there, we have moments of trash.

Nonsense, anyone that enjoys micro in RTS would find himself right at home with BG1/2 or IWD1.

I don't understand.

CYOAs normally feature very detailed and interesting encounters with long term consequences.

As I said, autism.

Great job dismissing without proving the opposite. Turn based games can dispense with animations, which means you can finish a turn as fast as you use up your actions. Games like ToME allowed you to take hundreds of turns in a matter of seconds, you could also find yourself spending over 5 minutes thinking of the next move and setting up an strategy. Cool stuff.

BG2 has shit encounter design, then.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

It should be built in to every RPG that uses Vancian Magic and resting to heal; i.e, standardized.

No it shouldnt, as i said, takes too much resources to make for a viable system, or you find a game thats far too restrictive. And vancian magic sadly doesnt really belong to the realm of cRPGs. It rewards metagaming too much.

 

[Neanderthal]

Always thought encounter design should be organic, you know rising from situation an circumstances you're in, rather than just bein forced on players as part o adventure. Also think that ideally a combat encounter can become almost any other kind if played right, like a few in Torment, Fallout an a lot more in P&P. So much more potential than just waves o slaughter, but you hardly ever see much else.

Fairly much every CRPG i've played has really been an ARPG, simply cos theres sweet fuck all else to do other than kill, loot, sell an repeat, wi ocassional extra reward o advancement so you can repeat more efficiently. Skinner were a fuckin prophet.

I'd say one o me personal favourites were Glow in Fallout, bit o combat when it were called for, lots o explorin an fuck tons o scene settin an exposition done right. Really felt what place were tryin to conjure up. Military base an Cathedral did same stuff good an all.

 

[Severian Silk]

Always thought encounter design should be organic, you know rising from situation an circumstances you're in, rather than just bein forced on players as part o adventure.

This is why D:OS encounter design sucked. The goal was to cram as many encounters into a square kilometer and had fuck all to do with the story or "setting the scene".

 

[Zanzoken]

The best encounter design is rendered meaningless by OP itemization and non-existent resource management and rest restrictions.

Of course, Swordflight is one of the rare RPGs that avoids those pitfalls. I can't think of any others that concertedly enforce such things campaign-wide: most of them buckle and break midway through, giving the munchkins just what they want.

To the gallows with those who self-impose rest restrictions and think the RPG is suddenly good if they do that. Wrong. The RPG is still shit, the devs are spineless, and you're an idiot for DMing your own party.

Fair point but I don't agree. Not every game wants to be a dungeon crawler and managing resources over a series of fights is not always a design goal. You may not like games that don't have rest mechanics, but I wouldn't say they are poorly designed on that basis alone.

 

[Lilura]

The best encounter design is rendered meaningless by OP itemization and non-existent resource management and rest restrictions.

Of course, Swordflight is one of the rare RPGs that avoids those pitfalls. I can't think of any others that concertedly enforce such things campaign-wide: most of them buckle and break midway through, giving the munchkins just what they want.

To the gallows with those who self-impose rest restrictions and think the RPG is suddenly good if they do that. Wrong. The RPG is still shit, the devs are spineless, and you're an idiot for DMing your own party.

Bullshit. It's just like modding the game, except some games can't be modded to fix design faults.
Also, it's always easier for the devs to cater for the casuals who give up at the first sign of something not being simple or awesome anymore.

Self-imposed limits are not the same as embedded because it's not enforced for all players, all the time. Limits are for the DM to set, not for players on a whim. This is why Swordflight is so great: all bases are covered and you're stuck in that meat-grinder with no EZ escape or relief; ergo, you need a plan. Not just a tactics plan for each encounter but an overall dungeon strategy as well.

It's hilarious that no IE modder has imposed severe rest restrictions campaign-wide. Later versions of the old Tactics mod let you rest once in Chateau Irenicus, and that was it!

 

[Zanzoken]

For me, good encounter design is one that makes you diversify your builds, adapt tactically in-combat, not use the same abilities against every enemy, and significantly punishes you for the mistakes you make in character and party building. It makes you go "oomph" and "damn" when you witness the tricks the enemy has up its sleeve for the first time, and think about how you can counter that. It also makes your party composition and equipment actually matter, in that differently built parties approach the same combat differently.

I think this is closest to my initial thoughts on the topic. Good encounters will force you to learn the systems and get better at the game, and they are open enough to be approached in a variety of ways.

 

[Lilura]

Fair point but I don't agree. Not every game wants to be a dungeon crawler and managing resources over a series of fights is not always a design goal. You may not like games that don't have rest mechanics, but I wouldn't say they are poorly designed on that basis alone.

As I said resource management should be campaign-wide, not just in dungeons. BG1 merchants sell infinite scroll stacks and infinite wands of all kinds, f.e. That is a failure in itemization, and makes the urban encounters trivial, too.

IE dungeon-wise, I love Durlag's Tower because it at least tries to enforce limitations: timed respawns, punishing high % on-rest spawns (hasted greater ghouls with on-hit paralysis and disease, or mirror imaged greater doppelgangers); plus its remoteness and the depth of the delve (tedious to backtrack out to safety).

 

[Zanzoken]

Great encounter design can take a simplistic, mediocre, or even bad system and elevate it into something good..

But if you can make good encounters with a system...how can that system be bad?

I think systems and content exist independently for the most part. Systems are just rules that describe how you interact with the game, whereas content is the game itself.

I've only dabbled with it but World of Warcraft is probably an example of a game that has shitty systems by our standards, yet from appearances has some really tactical and tough encounters.

 

[Zanzoken]

Always thought encounter design should be organic, you know rising from situation an circumstances you're in, rather than just bein forced on players as part o adventure.

This is why D:OS encounter design sucked. The goal was to cram as many encounters into a square kilometer and had fuck all to do with the story or "setting the scene".

I think D:OS had some decent encounters, though. Admittedly I am not the best RPG player in the world, but the Ghoul at the lighthouse kicked my ass quite a few times.

Pillars of Eternity, on the other hand, has probably the worst encounter design in recent memory.

 

[Mustawd]

Kind of moving this in another direction...what are everyone's thoughts on the necessity of trash mobs?

I like interesting and challenging combat. However, going from hard combat to hard combat to hard combat, etc. for the entire game can be exhausting. It'd be like the equivalent of playing 20 hard chess matches in a row back to back. At some point you need a break.

I think a bit of trash mobs (encounters less than level 7 on a 1-10 scale) here and there is ok if you can vary and sprinkle in a bit of everything. Some tactics games feel like I need to take a break after 2 battles. Especially if they last long.

 

[Severian Silk]

Self-imposed limits are not the same as embedded because it's not enforced for all players, all the time. Limits are for the DM to set, not for players on a whim. This is why Swordflight is so great: all bases are covered and you're stuck in that meat-grinder with no EZ escape or relief; ergo, you need a plan. Not just a tactics plan for each encounter but an overall dungeon strategy as well.

I don't like D&D style rest mechanics.

JA2 on the other hand has fatigue that is more fluid. You can usually push your mercs past the tired stage, and eventually your mercs will refuse to travel, but they will still fight when a sector gets invaded at the expense of stamina points during combat (i.e. ability to run, swim, and take punches to the gut, as well as max AP points maybe).

In D&D you are either rested or you are not. It's too binary, and just leads to frustration and save scumming. I am glad it was not a big deal in BG.