Editorial Jeff Vogel's rants at RPG Vault

[elander_]

Personal development can be understood with a simple example: you raise your strength and punching skill and can punch for an extra 10 points of damage or you get the punching glove of hell for exactly the same effect. It's there for gp reasons to create variety in the game and feed new challenges to the player.

 

[Azael]

He has a point in that grinding and killing rats isn't fun, but I don't really see what his point is. As a designer, he can't see any other way of doing it? At least this explains a lot about the Geneforge games which can be great at times, but they are dragged down by tedious, unavoidable, combat. Hell, the last one starts out with a character encouraging you to "grind" to be able to complete one of your quests. Good job, Mr. Vogel.

Now, it would be interesting to play as a game where starting out as a fresh adventures actually meant starting out as a reasonably skilled character who's lacking live experience. I imagine that if you'd compare the results at the firing range between a rookie fresh out of a training and a hardened, combat seasoned, veteran, there wouldn't be that much of a difference. Out in the field though... Basically, character development that isn't just increased "skill".

 

[Kraszu]

Yes that is strange, finding different way of doing crpg is not so hard. Maybe he is just afraid that it would not sell.

 

[aries202]

Actually, he has a point, Jeff Vogel.

To often, rpgs start by your character being appointed by fate, the stars, or wahtever
as being teh saviour of teh waaorllddd..

Very boring ...

as the too often repetitive combat grinding rats,
zombies, etc. becomes very boring....

I wish many more writers would go the way of
one of the modders in the NWN2 forums. In his
(or her) mod, no exp. is given for combat.

Instead, XP is given solely for solving quests,
exploration, and talking to people etc.

This means that your character will be more interested in solving quests through dialoque
than through combat.

 

[obediah]

I think he actually hit the nail head on. I have been thinking of the same (for a very long time, no kidding) , with the difference of that I'm not a developer.

He basically just says of his thoughts and I guess he is sick now making games in the same manner.

I as well tire of starting out as a peasant/criminal/low life/scum of the earth/ person, who can't even wipe his ass without getting tired.

I was just thinking the opposite. Why does every rpg end with me shooting lightning bolts out of my eyes while swinging around a magical swrd formed from the femur of the old god saving the multiverses yet again from some infernal horde.

The act of leveling up is fun and satisfying, but usually hurts gameplay. Everyone loves lvl 9 spells, but AD&D was all about 2-6th lvl. Everyone loves eye crits and upgraded plasma rifles, but fallout combat was more fun and exciting early on.

Then there is all the logical WTF's of having to be groomed for saving the universe from lvl 1. Why doesn't someone lvl 20 solve it right away? Why doesn't the grand foozle just kill you the first 20 times you meet?

 

[Claw]

But for real: I think he's walking a narrow plank. The improvement of stats and your character is one of the things that made RPGs fun in the first place.

Unfortunately, some RPGs lack anything else that's fun. You play for your levels, you play for your loot, and one day you wonder WHY THE FUCK?!
At least that's how I felt.
Oh, I don't mean I dislike character development. I just strongly prefer a more subtle variant, and don't play the game for the sake of becoming more powerful.

Play Gothic! Be raped by prisoners at the beginning! Learn to slowly rise in strength physically and socially in a rather realistic pace. The advancement in Gothic never struck me as tedium or grind.

The advancement in Gothic is the exact opposite, which I am not fond of either. Extreme Superheroing! Really, too many levels and too much POWA per level.
However, the positive aspect is that the experience just keeps flowing in. You don't have to go out of your way to "level" because you aren't powerful enough.

Same for Realms of Arkania or Baldur's Gate. In RoA, the difference between level 5 and 1 characters is /hauntingly/ small but still very noticable.

Same? Hardly. RoA has a excellent, subtle character developement where Gothic errs on the side of power.

I do not want to start as a powerful guy in an RPG and get even stronger, unless we're talking about that hypotethical no levelling social-advancement only RPG.

That's funny, my RoA character were pretty powerful from the start. Decent skill levels in weapons skill for the warrior, some reliable spells for the casters. Of course they became more powerful, but I got decent equipment really soon and after that, all improvements were subtle. I had tough fights against large parties of orcs at very low levels, and was powerful enough to survive them. A few levels later, such fights became a little less threatening, but not harmless. I lost my wizard to overconfidence twice.


I'm not a fundamentalist. My main concerns are grind and an unhealthy focus on levels and loot. Give me an RPG without character development or with subtle character development, same difference to me.
Here's an idea: How about a game where you have a cerain amount of "free skill" which you can use for ingame development? Maybe a young character would have lots of free skill and less developed abilities, while an older character would be more developed but with less potential for further development?



PS:

I was just thinking the opposite. Why does every rpg end with me shooting lightning bolts out of my eyes while swinging around a magical swrd formed from the femur of the old god saving the multiverses yet again from some infernal horde.

I completely agree.

 

[dagorkan]

Claw, obediah: couldn't you have just said - "I agree with dagorkan. He is my master and gets everything right."

 

[Shannow]

I wish many more writers would go the way of
one of the modders in the NWN2 forums. In his
(or her) mod, no exp. is given for combat.

Instead, XP is given solely for solving quests,
exploration, and talking to people etc.

This means that your character will be more interested in solving quests through dialoque
than through combat.

the nwn1-mod "tales of arterra" was just like that. Bloodlines was like that too. but here your roleplaying will be influenced again. fight: get some mediocre loot. stealth/diplomacy: get alot more exp.
i may be weak of mind, but such decisions still influence the way i play. instead of killing things, i go through all dialogue options, even if they don't interest me

another downside is, that my fighter in tales of arterra was lvl 5-6 before he ever had to fight. i know it sounds stupid but that really broke my IMMERSHUN...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Funny how we're just now having a thread about an RPG without leveling on the Codex. Maybe Jeff ought to read it sometime.

Just now? You think that discussion is new? Dumbasses have been suggesting removing levelling/experience from CRPGs for years all over the 'net, including here. It wasn't more than a few weeks after this site openned that some chucklepuss posted something about it.

 

[Claw]

I meant "right this moment" since there wasn't a similar thread for some time.

My point was actually "Oh my Jeff, you're so clever. Noone else noticed any problem with an excessive focus on leveling in RPGs."


PS: Thanks for the "dumbass" you grumpy old man stuck in the past.

 

[Crichton]

I do think it's possible to provide interesting choices, leading to a range of fresh gameplay options, without using stat progression to do it. However, I also quite like open RPGs, rather than a linear series of areas. The obvious way to keep things fresh without requiring that the player progress through a series of levels, is to change the capabilities of the character. That way he gets the extra variety of options whether or not he's running off to the next stage. [IIRC you've used Hitman as an example before of good non-progression, but that relies on a progression through a series of well designed game levels - it's not an open world.]

Adding new options periodically is pretty common in a lot of games, but rpg-style supa-progression is going to cause serious balance issues in a non-linear game (see jediutcast for what's possible by adding new options in a linear game).

However unlike progression action games (jedi outcast/academy, second sight, GTA: SA) "Open-world RPGs" don't give me more options as a go along, they just increase numbers. Examples: I started G3 as a guy with a sword, moved to being a guy with an axe and ended as a guy in heavy armor with a really big axe, I started Morrowind as an orc with an axe, ended as an orc with an axe, started oblivious as a super-plate-mail-kickboxing cat-man, ended as..... Acquiring new magic in G2 provided some new options, new magic in G1 was a waste of LP.

Contrast this with the GTA games. They're open-world in large part, but opening up the entire playing area requires doing story missions. Story missions also allow the character to progress in terms of equipment. Things stay interesting because each area is different and there's a wide range of side missions, some infinitely repeatable. The "character" doesn't progress at all in the first two and not much in the third (added as a sop to treadmillers), but simply changing his circumstances allows for new gameplay at every turn. (The game has everything from driving to flying planes to sneaking, shooting, boxing, stunt-jumping, swimming, parachuting, super scifi jetpacking and speed boat races, meanwhile "RPGs" are seriously considering allowing mounted combat, and people wonder why the genre's dead)

But for real: I think he's walking a narrow plank. The improvement of stats and your character is one of the things that made RPGs fun in the first place. Play Gothic! Be raped by prisoners at the beginning! Learn to slowly rise in strength physically and socially in a rather realistic pace. The advancement in Gothic never struck me as tedium or grind.

Gothic didn't require much of any grinding because the wildlife wasn't that tough and didn't improve much at the end of each chapter, but think about G2: NOTR, you have to grind like mad just to keep up with the joneses or you'll get eaten alive when the new super monsters come in at the start of the next chapter. I can tolerate G1 advancement since it doesn't require a whole lot of stupid grinding, but what point did the stupid character advancement serve in the first place? As far as I'm concerned there's nothing "fun" about character advancement, I'm happy when I gain a level because that's one less level I'll have to grind later, the satisfying feeling of finishing your chores.

 

[galsiah]

However unlike progression action games (jedi outcast/academy, second sight, GTA: SA) "Open-world RPGs" don't give me more options as a go along, they just increase numbers. Examples:...

Sure, but Saint is right here: this alone is no argument against stat progression any more than shit writing is an argument against writing. It's an argument in favour of not screwing it up.

The TES levelling system is dire, plain and simple. Others aren't so bad, but aren't great. There are two options here - scrap them or improve them. Scrapping them without considering improvements is as silly as sticking with them blindly.

Contrast this with the GTA games. They're open-world in large part, but opening up the entire playing area requires doing story missions.

Sure - that's one approach. But suppose for the game I'm designing, I'd rather not impose any artificial area limits (since it helps for unrelated reasons X Y and Z). In that case, pacing fresh content by area doesn't work so well.
Should I rule out pacing content through progression automatically? Why?

Story missions also allow the character to progress in terms of equipment.

Where's the real difference between equipment progression and stat progression (if it's e.g. rewarded for quest completion)? The only clear difference I see is realism - which is an issue, but hardly the largest.
Why be against stat progression, but for equipment progression? (presuming you are)

The game has everything from driving to flying planes to sneaking, shooting, boxing, stunt-jumping, swimming, parachuting, super scifi jetpacking and speed boat races

Great, but that's not an argument against introducing all this content through character progression, rather than through location.

So long as the focus is taken off progression, it needn't be a bad thing. I agree that there are good alternatives, but I don't think there's one clearly better solution. The only really poor solution is poor design/implementation of either.

 

[MorningStar]

Duh, am I the only one who plays RPG mostly for the story, not the combat system ?

I loved Fallout. Planescape Torment. And, god save me before the japan haters tries to kill me, i fell in love with Xenogears. Three games where the story and characters are more interesting than the competition, and where the combat is second class citizen. You don't need to grind levels to see the end of those threes. (Xenogears battles were pretty hard if you didn't grind but it just added to the fun.)

I don't care what kind of combat system you have. Just make it a fucking second class citizen part of the game. Not a game like Oblivion where dungeon grinding is the only thing it has for itself.

 

[Crichton]

Sure - that's one approach. But suppose for the game I'm designing, I'd rather not impose any artificial area limits (since it helps for unrelated reasons X Y and Z). In that case, pacing fresh content by area doesn't work so well.
Should I rule out pacing content through progression automatically? Why?

Most obviously due to balance issues, morrowind might be an example if the combat system weren't FUBAR to begin with, so let's try oblivion/G3. The player can go anywhere and do any quest. If he's actually supposed to be able to go anywhere and do any quest, because this is an open world, all the quests have to be fun whether the character has gained ability X or not. How is this going to work? Answer, the monsters gain new abilities too. Even if this is very carefully balanced (like g3), it causes issues, in the case of oblivious where the animals scale faster than a lot of players, it's just sad.

Where's the real difference between equipment progression and stat progression (if it's e.g. rewarded for quest completion)? The only clear difference I see is realism - which is an issue, but hardly the largest.
Why be against stat progression, but for equipment progression? (presuming you are)

I don't generally like equipment progression either, but in the case of GTA, it's quite bearable because it's so transient. Progression means having access to a nicer car, this doesn't mean you'll have a nicer throughout a mission because the average car lasts about 45 sec with me driving it. I can always go get another one after the mission's over, but in the meantime, I use what I have, the nicer car also isn't generally much better, just prettier. Some weapons really are a lot better than others but the first set of weapons available to you is about 80% as good as it gets. You also loose all your weapons when you're knocked unconcious or arrested.

I agree that there are good alternatives, but I don't think there's one clearly better solution.

Solution to what? What problem would there be if instead of dribblling out whatever these new abilities are throughout the game, they were handed over at the start? We'll bring back the hitman example since I like hitman. Every mission is different because the designers actually make each mission different, but you're working with the same bald assassin with the same stats. How would not letting the the player use the garrote for the first three missions improve anything?

 

[mister lamat]

How would not letting the the player use the garrote for the first three missions improve anything?

more bloody and violent throat stabbing, of course. we all prefer the bloody geyser over the wet snap.

disposable character progression... you're fast when you've got the lexus, deadly with the spas-15 and utterly normal when you're out of ammo or gas. using tools not stats or classes to define the character... cool concept.

such a shame the genre is stuck with d20, special, gurps et al...

gta3 and a branching storyline together would be a revolution. kinda hope fo3 turns out just like that.

 

[galsiah]

The player can go anywhere and do any quest. If he's actually supposed to be able to go anywhere and do any quest, because this is an open world, all the quests have to be fun whether the character has gained ability X or not.

I don't like this approach. I only want there to be no transparently artificial barriers. There's no good reason to have every quest available to characters of any level, so long as there are reasonable, natural restrictions.

In fact, I'm not really against some form of "barrier" to travelling between areas. It just ought to seem natural, rather than contrived. It's somewhat vexing to be disallowed from leaving town for no reason, or to come across yet another bridge that was recently destroyed...
If these kind of design decisions are made for technical reasons, it's fair enough, but I'd rather they weren't made for pacing reasons. Putting up a barrier to delay fresh content can be done more subtly, and preferably without a pre-defined, arbitrary trigger.

I don't generally like equipment progression either, but in the case of GTA, it's quite bearable because it's so transient.

I think this is worth consideration.
In most RPGs, you have a huge inventory. That often means that you keep almost everything just in case it's useful, and that you rarely lose most item types. For things like weapons, armour etc., it's often just a slow, linear progression with little variety.

If the environment were rich, and supported a wide variety of items/actions, it'd be interesting to see that used more fully. If the PC didn't have a cartload of items forever up his sleeve, he'd be forced to use what was readily available - providing more variety. [yes - OMG adventure gaem lol ]
Perhaps this would make most sense in a setting where carrying various items is naturally limited - e.g. town where carrying any weapon/armour is an offence; a dangerous area where bandits target anyone with a lot of stuff (bandits that win, steal it, and leave you for dead - not pathetic XP boosters)....

Various incentives could also be used to make carrying loads of stuff counter-productive in general - e.g. slowed travel with heavy stuff, bandit attacks, random searches, a lack of (non-unique) key-like items as the only solution to quest X....

Anyway - it's a thought.

Some weapons really are a lot better than others but the first set of weapons available to you is about 80% as good as it gets.

This would be nice too. It'd be a change if losing a good sword meant just that - needing to get another of comparible quality at the next town. The presence of +8 swords of awesome uberness mean that taking away the PC's equipment for any reason is not an option. It ought to be.

Solution to what? What problem would there be if instead of dribblling out whatever these new abilities are throughout the game, they were handed over at the start?

Content is generally appreciated more when it's not all introduced at once. I don't think this is treadmill porn - it's true however the options are introduced. It's just good pacing. Handing things out slowly isn't the problem IMO - the problem is when the hand-outs become the main focus of the game.

We'll bring back the hitman example since I like hitman. Every mission is different because the designers actually make each mission different, but you're working with the same bald assassin with the same stats. How would not letting the the player use the garrote for the first three missions improve anything?

It wouldn't, but as you said yourself - every mission is different. Once you're done with an area, you don't return to it - or if you do, the situation has changed entirely (I'm thinking of Contracts - haven't played the earlier/later ones).

If you don't have character progression, and you want an open world, I think you need to have the environment of that world change over time. For example, having a demonic invasion that actually had some effect on the world, would qualify. Of course, good quest design can create a lot of variety between quests, but in any TES/Gothic... type game there's a lot of time spent wandering around the general environment, rather than in any specific quest. If you're not providing new character options, I think fixed areas (at least some of them) need to change as significantly as Hitman levels vary from one to the next.
I'd love to see that kind of variety / reactivity, but it's hardly a simple task.

[Note: I'm not saying open world RPGs are better than other styles - just that once you decide to make one, progression is an option worth considering]

 

[Greatatlantic]

Duh, am I the only one who plays RPG mostly for the story, not the combat system ?

The problem with this approach, is RPGs don't need to have stories to be RPGs, and perhaps more telling is any game from almost any genre can have a great story to make the game better. While perhaps the mechanics of RPGs lend themselves to story telling more so then other genres, they simply aren't defined by it. Personally, I like my RPGs to have a good story, or at least a good narrative, and can't stand your typical "dungeon crawler."

 

[Claw]

The player can go anywhere and do any quest. If he's actually supposed to be able to go anywhere and do any quest, because this is an open world, all the quests have to be fun whether the character has gained ability X or not.

Ah, that's some newage nonsense. The model for an "open world" should be the real world. Can I do everything in the real world regardless of my abilities? No.
There is a fundamental difference between being limited by your character's abilites and some artificial borders imposed by the game designer.

gta3 and a branching storyline together would be a revolution. kinda hope fo3 turns out just like that.

Now you're really asking for it.

 

[mister lamat]

Now you're really asking for it.

yea, asking for something other than bethesda's version of a ten year old design doc.

 

[Crichton]

There's no good reason to have every quest available to characters of any level, so long as there are reasonable, natural restrictions.

Ah, that's some newage nonsense. The model for an "open world" should be the real world. Can I do everything in the real world regardless of my abilities? No.
There is a fundamental difference between being limited by your character's abilites and some artificial borders imposed by the game designer.

If the model for our "open world" is the real world, than their wouldn't be any significant character progression, the best reason to avoid character progression in "open" games is that if the player has to treadmill to level X before quest Y is possible, than it's just linearity by another name, every bit as artificial since real people can't grow in POWAH like radioactive mushrooms.

Content is generally appreciated more when it's not all introduced at once. I don't think this is treadmill porn - it's true however the options are introduced. It's just good pacing. Handing things out slowly isn't the problem IMO - the problem is when the
hand-outs become the main focus of the game.

If you don't have character progression, and you want an open world, I think you need to have the environment of that world change over time. For example, having a demonic invasion that actually had some effect on the world, would qualify. Of course, good quest design can create a lot of variety between quests, but in any TES/Gothic... type game there's a lot of time spent wandering around the general environment, rather than in any specific quest. If you're not providing new character options, I think fixed areas (at least some of them) need to change as significantly as Hitman levels vary from one to the next.

There's no reason that areas can't be significantly different even if they aren't attached to a "quest". Rather than simply changing the tiles, game designers could actually make areas different by making the enviroment more important (hostile environments like deserts and tundras, diving down into underwater caves, climbing across rooftops) and having different worthwhile repeatable activities. In addition to fighting it out with foozles, GTA has driving, flying, piloting boats, swimming, sneaking into houses and stealing crap, acting as a taxi driver, vigilant cop, volunteer firefighter and race driver. On the other hand ZOMG MASSSIVE rpgs offer.... poorly implemented horse riding, picking flowers and pathetically easy theft. The way to avoid everything seeming the same isn't to try to stretch content by forcing people to kill X many foozles to use this or that special attack move, it's to actually add more content.

 

[Claw]

If the model for our "open world" is the real world, than their wouldn't be any significant character progression, the best reason to avoid character progression in "open" games is that if the player has to treadmill to level X before quest Y is possible, than it's just linearity by another name, every bit as artificial since real people can't grow in POWAH like radioactive mushrooms.

I have no idea what you're trying to say (beyond the obvious, trivial meaning), so I'll just assume you're retarded. Or maybe you played too many MMORPGs, which basically means the same thing.

 

[mister lamat]

I have no idea what you're trying to say (beyond the obvious, trivial meaning), so I'll just assume you're retarded. Or maybe you played too many MMORPGs, which basically means the same thing.

let him spoon feed it to you a few more times, then you'll get it... and you'll even think it's your own idea! i know original thought ain't your thing...

poor design and shitty mechanics being propped up and defended in the name of 'stats' in place of learning from other genres and incorporating them. probably why rpgs are so stale, or become terrible 'action' hybrids. neat way of looking at the issue.

 

[Claw]

At least in your case I don't have to assume.

 

[Crichton]

I have no idea what you're trying to say (beyond the obvious, trivial meaning), so I'll just assume you're retarded. Or maybe you played too many MMORPGs, which basically means the same thing.

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

 

[galsiah]

There's no reason that areas can't be significantly different even if they aren't attached to a "quest". Rather than simply changing the tiles, game designers could actually make areas different by making the environment more important (hostile environments like deserts and tundras, diving down into underwater caves, climbing across rooftops) and having different worthwhile repeatable activities.

Sure, but that's variety between areas (which is great), whereas I'm saying that there ought to be variety over time in each area (or many of them). Clearly it's a good thing if most areas maintain their individual character, but they should ideally be dynamic and responsive enough to feel alive.
In Hitman there's no equivalent of a town you might visit many times in an open RPG. That town is going to get a little old if nothing changes in it, and nothing changes about the PC. [there needn't be epic change of course - just change on the level of operation of the game: if it's a game about widespread demonic invasion, there ought to be appropriately drastic change; if it's a game about the personal problems of one family, change should reflect that]

GTA has driving, flying, piloting boats, swimming, sneaking into houses and stealing crap, acting as a taxi driver, vigilant cop, volunteer firefighter and race driver.

Sure, but I'm no great fan of these activities where they don't tie in well with the game. I haven't played the most recent GTAs, but in either 3/Vice city (I don't recall which), there was e.g. a toy-helicopter/bomb flying mission. This was crap IMO - just something different for the sake of it, with fairly annoying controls, and little sense (it's an absurd premise). Things like the taxi-driving etc. are different - they tie in naturally with the game, and are more part of the game world than minigames.

That's where I think RPGs might aim - expanding the range of activities that are widely applicable and relevant in the game world. [even then, I'd rather such activities applied in quest situations, rather than just as distractions] Sticking in a load of isolated mini-games in the name of variety is a waste of time.

The way to avoid everything seeming the same isn't to try to stretch content... it's to actually add more content.

True, but with a given amount of content, it still makes sense not to throw everything at the player at once. Player progression isn't the only way to do this, but it's one way.