Editorial Jeff Vogel's rants at RPG Vault

[undead dolphin hacker]

Bimbos, you're missing the point.

And the games I write are no better. They do exactly the same thing. Sure, it might be cool to make a game where your character starts out a level 50 badass and then just trashes bozos. But it just wouldn't sell as well. The addictive, statistic-increasing, time-eating quality isn't the problem with these games. It's the point.

He's criticizing the market, and is kind of maudlin that he's forced to play to its wishes in order to pay his bills.

Face it, this place is a haven of the vocal minority. The market doesn't want roleplaying at all. It wants advancement.

 

[CreamyBlood]

I never played 1 or 3, but I really enjoyed Gothic 2:NOTR.

I remember getting my ass whipped at first, but after learning that I can't kill a wolf or whatever, I by passed them and got on with the story. Late at night I'd think, "I'lll just finish this quest', but it was never so simple, I was always embroiled in about ten other mini-quests.

For me it was fun. The stats were simple but when I finally noticed that I had to level up it took a lot of thinking on my part. Someone said it was a combat/level up game but I never noticed that, I kept wanting to continue the main story but found I was always absorbed in the side-quests.

One of the best games I can remember playing to date.

On another note. I've had Neverwinter Nights for ever and shelved it because I couldn't stand the original campaign. I finally re-installed it with the expansions. I haven't bothered playing those either but have downloaded a whole whack of user made modules.

The only one I've completed so far is 'Salerons Gambit' (I finished the first out of five and am half way through the second).

I finally finished my first NWN module, and I think the reason why is that it's super low XP and loot. You end up concentrating on the story and the adventure as opposed to leveling up. Someone said that DnD isn't made for this, but in my DnD days, making level TWO was an accomplishment. And fun. I'm finally having fun with a crpg again.

Takes a lot of hunting, but whatever. I also have to check out this 'Realms of Arkania', never heard of it before. Will start googling now.

 

[taxacaria]

If I remember how many MONTH I've needed for some games ('The Return of Werdna' ohoh) JV is surely thinking that I must have a very boring life.
Surprise, surprise - I wasn't bored a single hour when playing it.

In Oblivion and Gothic3 I was bored before reaching half of the game and had to force myself to complete them.

Could it be, Mr.Vogel, that dumbed down action games are unable to feed the gamers brain in a satisfying way?
Or do you think mouse klicking sports is an exciting amusement?

 

[Claw]

If the various portions of the game's content require you to be on some arbitrary stage of character progression (the temporal capacity for character progression being determined by the game designers) than access to those areas is being restricted by the artifice of the game designer, you previous statement is a non sequitor.

Given your lackluster grammar and orthography, I can only hope I interpret your words correcty.
You seem to presume a linear character development, which I find highly questionable given many examples to the contrary. (RoA, Fallout, to a lesser extent Gothic)
Your reply to my post didn't seem to actually address its content, although you did quote me.
Was "level X before quest Y" supposed to be a relevant point? The only "RPGs" that would require such from me were MMORPGs. Citing examples from dedicated treadmills can't speak against character development in general.
Then you appear to broaden my point of modelling the game world after the real world to encompass character development, and that was neither my intention nor do I see any reason for you to believe such.
I was merely trying to point out that I see no reason that "open world " should mean "all the quests have to be fun whether the character has gained ability X or not" - my character should merely have the potential ability to go anywhere, barring "natural restrictions" as galsiah called it, not "free passage" to every location and quest.
Also, some character development does take place in the real world, and some abilities can be gained in a relatively short time, even if the excessive progress encountered in many RPGs is unnatural.

All in all, you make some valid points in regard to the actual implementation of character development in RPGs, but not in regard to the concept of character development.

I can try to write it out in german if that's the problem but my german's rusty.

Even more so than your English? In that case I'd strongly advise against it.

 

[Sitra Achara]

I've said it before - Vogel really ought to make a game based on that Scorched Earth Party of his. (Link)

The focus of the game would naturally be acquiring political power/fanatical followers/world domination through plotting, backstabbing, underhanded diplomacy, brainwashing, and of course, lead piping people to death. Combat would mostly consist of doing the latter in a dark alley and such, and rely primarily on whatever unfair advantage you can get, rather than your HP / Level / Leadpipe skill.

 

[Zomg]

Character development as a game mechanic can be defended on an individual game basis; it has been done well. However, as a repeating design structure in the market, it's toxic. There is clearly something about it that is not gameplay, but rather behavioral conditioning and addiction. That's what salable about it, and why it can be used as an uncontextualized bulk additive to any otherwise vile game.

The situation has gotten so bad that it invites the kind of anti-evangelism that Vogel has gone in for.

 

[dagorkan]

On another note. I've had Neverwinter Nights for ever and shelved it because I couldn't stand the original campaign. I finally re-installed it with the expansions. I haven't bothered playing those either but have downloaded a whole whack of user made modules.

The only one I've completed so far is 'Salerons Gambit' (I finished the first out of five and am half way through the second).

I finally finished my first NWN module, and I think the reason why is that it's super low XP and loot. You end up concentrating on the story and the adventure as opposed to leveling up. Someone said that DnD isn't made for this, but in my DnD days, making level TWO was an accomplishment. And fun. I'm finally having fun with a crpg again.

Word to the five, homeboy. I had exactly the same experience. Currently playing 'Tortured Hearts' and it is exactly what I always wanted. There are some design flaws and bugs but I really feel that I have to play the character. I can't fuck around and rob people, look for fights or insult people because I know I'll get raped (the very long load times help with that too, save/reload is not a sane option). When I finally made level two it was rewarding because I really had to fight for it and I had only been a three or four fights.

Too bad it uses the NWN engine.

By the way, where did you get Saleron's Gambit? I haven't been able to find it on the Vault.

Takes a lot of hunting, but whatever. I also have to check out this 'Realms of Arkania', never heard of it before. Will start googling now.

Definitely do that. I would advise on Blade of Destiny (the first in the trilogy), the second one is just too difficult and the interface is plain ugly. It's not the best game in the world, it's not open-ended and doesn't have an amazing story, but it is aimed at ordinary characters and you will not be counting the seconds toward your next level-up.

 

[Jasede]

RoA 2 > 1 > 3, but they're all amazing in their own right. It's true what has been said about RoA's levelling. Just get 1 from an abandonware site. If you can bear the clunky interface, great! I'll get more and more bearable with each game. You'll have a lot of fun with those games. RoA 2 ranks as one of the top ten CRPGs ever, at least in my personal list of hits.

 

[Human Shield]

Rats should stop being targets, unless a bite gives you a disease they shouldn't be enemies. Animals should stop being enemies, fire or one wound would keep them away, hunters go out and kill them everyday by RPG standards they would all have to be high level heroes.

Fantasy RPGs need more realism. JA2 has levels and it can have a dramatic effect but only in certain ways. Rambo has an advantage against weekend volunteers but he still runs away from bullets and groups. High level JA2 characters can react faster and aim better but a burst at close range will keep them wounded for a day or two and ruin their armor.

Get rid of HP, archers ambushing an unarmed target (even a big orc) should mean close to death.

 

[dagorkan]

When I used to play D&D we got most of our experience from completing quests. How much you got at the end of the session depended on how much you achieved, if you took risks, team play and individual role-playing quality.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Face it, this place is a haven of the vocal minority. The market doesn't want roleplaying at all. It wants advancement.

Because in a good CRPG, advancement and role-playing are the same thing. At least, that's how they should be designed. Take the thief, how many CRPGs are designed with much thought for the thief? Not many. Advancing as thief in a CRPG really only means you kill better for the most part, not finally being able to scale that tower wall or sneak around that watchful guard. Instead, you can now kill him because you can do a triple damage backstab with a bow while staring him in the face or some such.

 

[mister lamat]

Face it, this place is a haven of the vocal minority. The market doesn't want roleplaying at all. It wants advancement.

Because in a good CRPG, advancement and role-playing are the same thing. At least, that's how they should be designed. Take the thief, how many CRPGs are designed with much thought for the thief? Not many. Advancing as thief in a CRPG really only means you kill better for the most part, not finally being able to scale that tower wall or sneak around that watchful guard. Instead, you can now kill him because you can do a triple damage backstab with a bow while staring him in the face or some such.

better than the example of 'the thief' just take Thief the game and compare. how far advanced is even the first installment in that series compared to any stealth/thievery system in any rpg released? there are light years of difference and there's no real need at all. it's just a roll/check system being supported by 'stats' because that somehow makes it an 'rpg'...

i guess oblivion had something sort of close, but it was still pretty shit. worse, take gothic... 'i hit crtl! i are master teef!'

the stats look nice on the character page and feed the e-peen when you roll off a massive crit but at this point in game development i think they're killing the genre.

 

[Lurkar]

Ironically, I think Geneforge 4 does improve on this - there are plenty of points where you get "Mindlessly hacking your way through isn't gonna work - try something else." Granted, it only improves, not fixes, this - the emphasis is still on "get stronger, make cooler creatures, wreck everyone's shit."

Proverbius has a good point; in many games, no matter what "class" you are, leveling up means one and only one thing - you kill things better.

I would argue that the problem isn't "leveling up" in itself - you want progression - but how we do it in most cases. That was one thing I liked about Geneforge - getting EXP for picking locks. Ideally, there would be multiple ways of getting EXp, and multiple ways of playing through a game. Without really shitty combat-driven endings like Bloodlines had.

 

[taxacaria]

When I used to play D&D we got most of our experience from completing quests. How much you got at the end of the session depended on how much you achieved, if you took risks, team play and individual role-playing quality.

The problem with RT-RPGs is they usually have more enemies to refill the playing time - and these enemies are providing exp. If they don't do that in an decent way, player is missing his reward. So you have to deal with another exp balance there.
You can substitute a part of the rewards by loot - but not all of them to keep the player satisfied.
The second way is to advance used skills here - but now player is forced to look for possibilities to rise his skills which leads to more fights automatically.
Third way is a combination of exp and skill advancement.

So RT results in more battles especially if the devs are lazy ones. Adding more quests or puzzles would be a better way...but there are action gamers attracted by this style and they're wanting these battles.
RT brings an annoying element of players' abilitiy to mouse click/fast key handling in the role playing game - I'd say RT cRPGs are actionc RPGs, but they never are 'real' cRPGs, as long as they're coming with this alien element.

 

[Crichton]

Given your lackluster grammar and orthography, I can only hope I interpret your words correcty.
You seem to presume a linear character development, which I find highly questionable given many examples to the contrary. (RoA, Fallout, to a lesser extent Gothic)
Your reply to my post didn't seem to actually address its content, although you did quote me.
Was "level X before quest Y" supposed to be a relevant point? The only "RPGs" that would require such from me were MMORPGs. Citing examples from dedicated treadmills can't speak against character development in general.
Then you appear to broaden my point of modelling the game world after the real world to encompass character development, and that was neither my intention nor do I see any reason for you to believe such.
I was merely trying to point out that I see no reason that "open world " should mean "all the quests have to be fun whether the character has gained ability X or not" - my character should merely have the potential ability to go anywhere, barring "natural restrictions" as galsiah called it, not "free passage" to every location and quest.
Also, some character development does take place in the real world, and some abilities can be gained in a relatively short time, even if the excessive progress encountered in many RPGs is unnatural.

All in all, you make some valid points in regard to the actual implementation of character development in RPGs, but not in regard to the concept of character development.

Arguements about the "naturalness" of exploration limited by character progression have nothing to do with how many progression paths there are or whether the game in fact has "levels". X can be anything or any set of things. The point is that if content is indeed progression-limited than this is no more natural a barrier than story-based limitations.

'The bridge to areas 2A, 2B and 2C is out and won't be fixed until you complete areas 1A, 1B and 1C'

is no less natural than

'you aren't strong/fast/tough/stealthy enough to handle areas 2A, 2B and 2C, no matter how talented you are because you are TEH NOOB, but have no fear, somehow experience will give you something you need to make it through, so go stomp on rats, deliver food to guards, try different types of swampweed, beat mole-rats with sticks or whatever else you like in areas 1A, 1B and 1C'

These are equally "artificial" restrictions set in place by the same game developer and neither of these worlds is any more "open" than the other. I charitably chalked up your previous misunderstanding to you not being a native speaker, if you'd prefer I'll just assume it's the usual codex hole in the head.

 

[galsiah]

The difference is that "The bridge is out" has no elasticity or grey area. It's an absolute limit with zero subtlety or ability to adapt naturally to different players/characters.

On the other hand, control through progression isn't usually discrete - the world can be one big grey area. No quest is off limits - just easier/harder depending on ability. No area is off limits - just simpler/more challenging to get to/through.

This gives the player a framework wherein he can push the limits as much or as little as he wishes. There's no absolute, definite barrier - just a continuous system of soft control by virtue of the game's usual content.
I'm sure story / environmental limits could also be done in a continuous, elastic, subtle manner, but usually they aren't. This gets on my nerves. Where they're done well, and seem natural, I have no problem with them.

Clearly everything in a game is artificial in some sense, but the point is how things appear to the player. "The bridge is out" is in-your-face and unsubtle. A slow, un-even gradation of enemy difficulty is not. Nor is a natural variety in difficulty of quests etc.
Again, I think getting things right without character progression is harder (in some ways at least).

 

[Sentenza]

worse, take gothic... 'i hit crtl! i are master teef!'

Except that Dexterity determines your chances of being spotted I guess

 

[Claw]

Arguements about the "naturalness" of exploration limited by character progression have nothing to do with how many progression paths there are or whether the game in fact has "levels". X can be anything or any set of things. The point is that if content is indeed progression-limited than this is no more natural a barrier than story-based limitations.

Who said anything about story-based limitation? And why do you keep presuming that content is indeed progression-based? Any decent RPG features at least partially non-linear progression, and one character may have skills at level one another only learns at level ten, or never.

'The bridge to areas 2A, 2B and 2C is out and won't be fixed until you complete areas 1A, 1B and 1C'

is no less natural than

'you aren't strong/fast/tough/stealthy enough to handle areas 2A, 2B and 2C, no matter how talented you are because you are TEH NOOB, but have no fear, somehow experience will give you something you need to make it through, so go stomp on rats, deliver food to guards, try different types of swampweed, beat mole-rats with sticks or whatever else you like in areas 1A, 1B and 1C'

Why, that's absolutely correct. But then, what does making up two equally retarded examples ptove other than your aptitude for retarded ideas? Neither has anything to do with what I said.
Clearly you still haven't grasped what I meant by modeling the gameworld after the real word. If you can't pick a lock because you lack the skill, have no key and find no other way to get through the locked door, you'll just not get to that room. THAT is a natural restriction.


At least I can rest assured I didn't misjudge you.

 

[Crichton]

Who said anything about story-based limitation? And why do you keep presuming that content is indeed progression-based? Any decent RPG features at least partially non-linear progression, and one character may have skills at level one another only learns at level ten, or never.

Read through the discussion about pacing content between galsiah and me that you jumped into, the crux of the matter is how, if at all, an "open world" RPG should limit content, the two examples he and I discussed were story-limited (a la GTA) and progression limited (a la gothic). Skills that some characters have or will have and other's won't have no place in a discussion on progression-limited content, but belong rather in a realm of character-limited content which is entirely different.

 

[mister lamat]

Except that Dexterity determines your chances of being spotted I guess

'hunting skill' actually... which is the entire point.

 

[Crichton]

The difference is that "The bridge is out" has no elasticity or grey area. It's an absolute limit with zero subtlety or ability to adapt naturally to different players/characters.

On the other hand, control through progression isn't usually discrete - the world can be one big grey area. No quest is off limits - just easier/harder depending on ability. No area is off limits - just simpler/more challenging to get to/through.

This gives the player a framework wherein he can push the limits as much or as little as he wishes. There's no absolute, definite barrier - just a continuous system of soft control by virtue of the game's usual content.
I'm sure story / environmental limits could also be done in a continuous, elastic, subtle manner, but usually they aren't. This gets on my nerves. Where they're done well, and seem natural, I have no problem with them.

Clearly everything in a game is artificial in some sense, but the point is how things appear to the player. "The bridge is out" is in-your-face and unsubtle. A slow, un-even gradation of enemy difficulty is not. Nor is a natural variety in difficulty of quests etc.
Again, I think getting things right without character progression is harder (in some ways at least).

That's certainly true, few progression systems are as boolean as bridge out / bridge open, but keeping that greyness while ensuring that the gameplay is worthwhile through most of the spectrum is something I've just about never seen done, though that may have more to do with RPG "gameplay" than anything else, outside of combat, practically everything is black or white (lock pickable / lock not pickable, guard spots you instantly / you are invisable, know spell / don't know spell, dialog option automatically succeeds / dialog option automatically fails, etc).

Even in combat, the "greyness" is often very thin (G2 armor / weapon skills) and frequently the player is so dissociated from the act that "difficulty" is just a measure of how many reloads are necessary on the average (insta-death spellcasters in IE games, either you make the save or you don't, crits in fallout, instant death or nothing, etc). On the other than, the two games I can think of with undoubtedly "grey" combat progression are deus ex and bloodlines and I couldn't stand either of those systems.

 

[Txiasaeia]

Talking about character progression in RPGs always makes me think of Megatraveller 1 and 2 by Paragon, released in 1989 and 1991, respectively. In those games, you spend a substantial amount of time at the beginning designing your characters. This includes not only stats, but then playing through their "early" careers before you start the main quest. It's mostly dice-rolling and multiple choice questions, but there's an element of randomness too: sometimes you'll get an injury and have to leave the Army, for instance, so you've got a strength drawback but you've got more cash because of your early discharge. You could take two tours in the Navy and retire: you'd be 34 and still have great health, but not a lot of experience. On the other hand, you could retire as an Admiral at 60 with tons of experience and skills, but your physical stats will be lower than when you were younger.

In both games, you start in one of these careers (not limited to the military, either: you can be a scientist, diplomat, explorer, planetside navy, etc.), and once you're retired, you become a mercenary and get involved in the plot of the game. It's a fascinating process, and I greatly enjoyed building characters as much as playing the game. System Shock 2 had a system similar to this, but a lot simpler.

My point is that you *can* make a game in which you design your character from the ground-up without inane tasks at the beginning. In fact, it's been done years ago. With almost all RPGs released lately existing in a D&D universe with almost identical gameplay mechanics, I've not seen anything really innovative in the past decade. Sentinel Worlds, Hard Nova, MT1 & 2... nothing like any of these has been released lately, and I'm really hesitant to take up the mantle of yet another sword-swinging barbarian with a wizard at my side.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Jeffs lost his marbles. All games are about starting off weak and ending up strong, you just have different mechanics for each genre. In shooters, you get better weapons and armor over time, and the enemies get better. In RTS, more building/unit types over time, and stronger enemies, etc. In puzzle games, like Tetris, as you the player get better, the bricks start falling faster.

This progressive growth is one of the keys to giving the player psychological payoff. It gives the feeling of getting better at the game. If you think about it for a second it seems like an illusion, because even though you are better now you are facing more difficult challenges, but if you think about it for another second its actually not an illusion, you ARE progressing.

Lets say you play basketball. You practice a lot, and get bumped up to a better leaugue, hell you make it to the NBA, or whatever it is. You're now facing more difficult opponents, so relatively you're kinda the same, but you have very definately progressed within that field, while still remaining sufficiently challenged.

So you fulfill the human need to face new challenges, while feeling like you've accomplished something. Nothing at all wrong with that. Nothing wrong with it in sport, nothing wrong with it in life, nothing wrong with it in RPGs.

 

[galsiah]

All games are about starting off weak and ending up strong...

Indeed. I think Jeff might also be forgetting that the earth is flat, and that old women who can swim are witches.

The first half-baked solution to any problem must be the greatest and only solution to that problem. We need to make sure that the downsides of such solutions are ignored, and that no other solutions are pursued. Most of all, we must make sure that the problem is never re-examined in a new light. That's the way forward.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

better than the example of 'the thief' just take Thief the game and compare. how far advanced is even the first installment in that series compared to any stealth/thievery system in any rpg released? there are light years of difference and there's no real need at all. it's just a roll/check system being supported by 'stats' because that somehow makes it an 'rpg'...

The main reason I use thiefy classes/skills as the example is because thieves are the most obvious on who isn't getting the skill power love in CRPGs. Thief just seems to mean massive damage sneak attack and little more in just about every CRPG these days. When I played D&D back in the late 1980s, thief characters typically stayed away from direct combat and mostly hid out during massive dungeon combat. Thieves would sneak around and use bows or flaming oil as weapons. You know, scale a wall to a vantage point, light up some oil, and start dropping it on what the party was fighting.

We're not even talking about ubar-roel-playahz here. We're talking early teenagers during the 1980s.