Elegance in CRPG rulesets

[scratch]

I like the idea of classes for a very simple reason, they happen to be roles which are predefined which folks happen to know about.

 

The biggest issue is when you have classes which are not defined as a result of the design of the game, but which just happen to be there. Really a class should be defined based on how it affects the story, in NWN2 this is not as much of an issue since you "should" have a DM, and the classes help the DM who does it backwords, but the lack of maturity on the DM client and the fact it's a single player game 99% of the time show the shortcomings of this.

 

I do think it's a major issue when you just focus on a particular system, which is how most systems are done, really it needs to mature to the point where it's not patched on but integrated with the overall game design. The idea of doing the character creator afterwards and just putting in the options that affect game play is indeed very wise.

 

Of course there is a lot of folks who focus on more than just gameplay, the so called "role" players who are really looking for a sims like experience, where they make their character. So a little fluff will appeal to those, but you have to balance this overhead with the fact many don't like this. Being able to control appearance, and enter in a custom description likely would be all that is needed.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I like the idea of classes for a very simple reason, they happen to be roles which are predefined which folks happen to know about.

 

The biggest issue is when you have classes which are not defined as a result of the design of the game, but which just happen to be there. Really a class should be defined based on how it affects the story, in NWN2 this is not as much of an issue since you "should" have a DM, and the classes help the DM who does it backwords, but the lack of maturity on the DM client and the fact it's a single player game 99% of the time show the shortcomings of this.

 

I do think it's a major issue when you just focus on a particular system, which is how most systems are done, really it needs to mature to the point where it's not patched on but integrated with the overall game design. The idea of doing the character creator afterwards and just putting in the options that affect game play is indeed very wise.

 

Of course there is a lot of folks who focus on more than just gameplay, the so called "role" players who are really looking for a sims like experience, where they make their character. So a little fluff will appeal to those, but you have to balance this overhead with the fact many don't like this. Being able to control appearance, and enter in a custom description likely would be all that is needed.

 

Aaaactually, I think a lot of the fluff things can be integrated into the ruleset in a smart way. However, that is really part of the 2nd or 3rd layer of development on a rules system.

 

I'd describe my approach as this:

 

1) Develop the core mechanics that will drive the game. For something like D&D or Fallout1/2, this would mean developing a simple version of the tactical combat game. For a more action oriented RPG, it would mean developing the action gameplay.

 

2) Determine the variables that make sense to expose to RPG progression. In a western CRPG, character development is a key part of the gameplay, and a lot of the job of an RPG system is to express that character development in the rulesset. So basically, you pick out from the core gameplay which variables you'll use to express tougher and weaker creatures/challenges/etc., and to allow the player to improve relative to those challenges.

 

3) Develop the framework in which those variables will be improved. This is the step that Josh and I are saying is mistakenly taken as the first step in a lot of systems. This is the point where you determine things like attributes, classes, etc. A lot of the choices here are more about how you want the game to feel, what kind of player experience you want to create for each class, etc. These are higher level goals that rest on the lower level gameplay you've constructed earlier. This is also where you'd tie together the classes in a way that integrates well with your story/world.

 

The real advantage to this system is that you really understand the foundation and can use that to elicit the kind of gameplay you want when setting up the more touch-y feel-y aspects like classes, stats, level progression, etc.

[bhlaab]

I can't speak for all system designers at Obsidian, but what I described is my outlook on system design and it always drives the process. Core gameplay prototyping should define the basic style and flow of gameplay, with character advancement being developed from that core.

 

I think F3's opening did a better job than most at integrating a relatively elaborate CC process into a narrative framework. By comparison, for example, Mass Effect basically just has you build an appearance, select a class and background, and sends you on your way. NWN2 allows you to define a lot of things about your character, but ultimately it's a pretty boring CC experience.

 

Of those, I think NWN2's CC was the worst overall. You had a ton of fiddly options, but those options were presented poorly; you had no connection to the story; and generally it felt like you were interacting with an interface instead of playing the game.

 

Gotta disagree, I prefer a very interface-driven character creation system. Going through a mandatory tutorial sequence in order to integrate it into the story just means that the game's beginning is that much slower-- this is especially excruciating on replays where you don't really give a damn about the birthday party or whatever.

 

I don't understand your critcisms of Mass Effect's CC, though. Yeah it's boring, I guess, but how exciting does CC need to be? You can make it so you're doing wicked dirtbike stunts to select your class (wheelie for Mage, 360 spin for Rogue, stand up on seat and have an explosion of sparks behind you for Warrior) which would not be boring but it doesn't make it a good process.

 

The one thing I will say that I liked about Fallout 3's CC was that it made a point to separate SPECIAL, Skills, etc and explain each thing individually and very specifically. What I hate about most games' CC process is that they just throw a big wall of nonsense at you and expect you to figure it out. Character creation is the backbone of your game, you shouldn't allow the player to make any uninformed choices whatsoever. The problem I have with NWN2's creation is that if you have no idea how to build a 3rd edition character to serve a specific purpose, it doesn't do a lot to help you learn.

Edited January 15, 2010 by bhlaab

[J.E. Sawyer]

I don't understand your critcisms of Mass Effect's CC, though. Yeah it's boring, I guess, but how exciting does CC need to be?

Enough to actually make me interested in playing the game.

[bhlaab]

I don't understand your critcisms of Mass Effect's CC, though. Yeah it's boring, I guess, but how exciting does CC need to be?

Enough to actually make me interested in playing the game.

 

If you've gotten to that point surely you're already interested. And by having a lengthy, narrative CC process you're delaying the actual game part anyway.

Either I want to deliberate on my choices for a long amount of time to get the perfect build, or I want to be done with the whole thing as quickly as possible. Either way, I think the interface method is a superior choice.

[J.E. Sawyer]

If you've gotten to that point surely you're already interested.

I was recently surprised to see a compilation of Xbox 360 Achievement data that showed there's a staggering number of people who start a game but do not even get five minutes into it. So even among people who like a game enough to buy it, some people get turned off/bored within those first five minutes and never pick it up again.

[Slowtrain]

get turned off/bored within those first five minutes and never pick it up again.

 

 

I don't even understand how that's even possible. Unless it includes rentals, I suppose. Maybe if you're just renting on a whim. But even still, 5 minutes. If I am going to go to the effort of buying or renting a game, I'm going to give it at least a few hours. I mean, if I wasn't at least potentially interested in the game, I wouldn't have purchased/rented it in the first place.

[Slowtrain]

I'll just add though the FO3's entire CC part almost did stop me playing the game. But I was interested enough to push by it.

[J.E. Sawyer]

BTW, the way this was deduced is through Xbox Live's tracking. It can detect when you're playing a game and it knows what achievements you've unlocked. So if you've played a game and never received even the most baby "walk two steps forward" achievement within the first 5-10 minute, that's a pretty sure sign the person, for whatever reason, just turned it off before that point.

 

I can see it happening for several reasons:

 

* It's a rental, so the player really doesn't care too much about the monetary investment.

* It was purchased with someone else's money/they are rich/money doesn't matter.

* They buy a lot of games and sometimes never actually get around to playing some for more than five minutes (I do this).

 

If you check my GamerCard (in sig), you'll see that I never got any achievements in Saints Row 2 or Enchanted Arms. Saints Row 2 has a mega crazy character customization process that basically exhausted me and I never picked it up again because I had like five other games to play. I did not find Enchanted Arms enjoyable. But I guess the joke's on me because the same people made Demon's Souls, which owns.

[bhlaab]

But now it seems as though you're arguing against Fallout 3-style CC processes. If there's anything that will kill a player's drive to continue in the first 5 minutes, it's an extended tutorial level with lots of "sit and have characters talk at you" scripted events (aka unskippable cutscenes for the new millenium!).

 

If Fallout 3 had started with a quick CC screen and then Amata waking you up, you're right in the middle of it so unless you really hate what you see you're going "Well I gotta at least make it past this part"

Mass Effect had a good start on planet pinkdirt, I think if anything it was the barrage of cutscenes hindering its intro and not the CC screen.

[Tigranes]

Actually, if you're going to have a long tutorial, then FO3 was quite well built. At first glance it looks like FO3 is more ponderous and takes its time to hand you the reins, but think about what happens in in media res openings (KOTOR2, NWN2 OC) - there's a fire and it's all hectic but you still gotta take your sweet time to equip everything, level your guys, check the level of your companions, go through a couple of ridiculously easy fights with tutorial explanations, etc, so I think they score about the same. The difference is that in, say, NWN2 OC, you've gone through 5-10 minutes making your character already, then you're spending another 5-10 levelling up that guy and working out what all your abilities do, because you have 15 of them already. FO3 opening is very focused in that it tells you what one thing to concentrate at any given time, all of the 'cutscene' sequences give you stuff to do, and the fact that you're speeding through 20 years of your life in 20 minutes means it feels as if you're getting things done quickly, whereas in Harbour Town or Peragus, despite the "OH GOD WE GOT TO HURRY" what you're actually doing is getting to terms with the quickbar or looking for a wooden staff or whatnot, and it actually feels like slower pace.

 

Anyway, I like MC's idea somewhere before - let's go back to what we had with those 'multi-choice answers' for your background (e.g. Ultima gypsy), and expand that into something like Dragon Age origins / FO3 tutorial. You are born - you choose the circumstances in which you are born (near-death, which has a hit on your constitution; unusually large baby, which gives you a strength bonus; born in a normal home or without proper parents, which determines choices you get later.) Fade out and back in to 5 years later, what do you ask for your birthday present? (toy sword, book); when you are 13, do you follow the strange magician visiting your village to be trained in magic or not? So forth.

[J.E. Sawyer]

But now it seems as though you're arguing against Fallout 3-style CC processes.

I'm arguing against boring intros/CC processes, whatever form they may take. Clearly not everyone found Fallout 3's intro/CC process boring.

 

All of the examples I've given were assessed based on what I viewed as their overall quality, not necessarily an endorsement or rejection of their fundamental structures. I'm sure that ME's CC process could have been a little more interesting/well integrated with the beginning of the game. I know NWN2's could have been way better. And while I'm sure F3's could be improved in a lot of ways, I still enjoyed it on my first time through. To be perfectly honest, while players like you and I and other folks on this board might be concerned with what happens on your second or third playthrough, we are in a very tiny minority.

 

BTW, you haven't really lived until you've watched a non-RPG person try to dive into a D&D-based game like NWN2. It's like a steel-toed boot repeatedly kicking them in the nuts and calling them an idiot. YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME, DUMMY? HA HA HA YEAH RIGHT.

[bhlaab]

Actually, if you're going to have a long tutorial, then FO3 was quite well built. At first glance it looks like FO3 is more ponderous and takes its time to hand you the reins, but think about what happens in in media res openings (KOTOR2, NWN2 OC) - there's a fire and it's all hectic but you still gotta take your sweet time to equip everything, level your guys, check the level of your companions, go through a couple of ridiculously easy fights with tutorial explanations, etc, so I think they score about the same. The difference is that in, say, NWN2 OC, you've gone through 5-10 minutes making your character already, then you're spending another 5-10 levelling up that guy and working out what all your abilities do, because you have 15 of them already. FO3 opening is very focused in that it tells you what one thing to concentrate at any given time, all of the 'cutscene' sequences give you stuff to do, and the fact that you're speeding through 20 years of your life in 20 minutes means it feels as if you're getting things done quickly, whereas in Harbour Town or Peragus, despite the "OH GOD WE GOT TO HURRY" what you're actually doing is getting to terms with the quickbar or looking for a wooden staff or whatnot, and it actually feels like slower pace.

 

Anyway, I like MC's idea somewhere before - let's go back to what we had with those 'multi-choice answers' for your background (e.g. Ultima gypsy), and expand that into something like Dragon Age origins / FO3 tutorial. You are born - you choose the circumstances in which you are born (near-death, which has a hit on your constitution; unusually large baby, which gives you a strength bonus; born in a normal home or without proper parents, which determines choices you get later.) Fade out and back in to 5 years later, what do you ask for your birthday present? (toy sword, book); when you are 13, do you follow the strange magician visiting your village to be trained in magic or not? So forth.

 

Well you've gone and thrown things in the completely opposite direction. A game can start out in media res without it being all hell breaking loose.

 

Imagine, like I said, that Fallout 3 started right when Amata wakes you up in your room. There's a good reason that you're ill-equipped, there's a good reason for the story to begin.

There isn't really a good reason why I have to sit through the boring birthday party (other than to drop a few obvious foreshadow bombs and force me to do tutorials)

 

And if there's anything I hate about as much as the forced tutorial it's the Character Creation Quiz. Can we just cut the crap and let me pick my own skills please? "Your entire family is drowning and you only have the time to save one. You'd save your father? That means you must be into Swords!" what no shut up here's an idea for a quiz: "Do you use swords Yes/No"

[J.E. Sawyer]

And if there's anything I hate about as much as the forced tutorial it's the Character Creation Quiz. Can we just cut the crap and let me pick my own skills please? "Your entire family is drowning and you only have the time to save one. You'd save your father? That means you must be into Swords!" what no shut up here's an idea for a quiz: "Do you use swords Yes/No"

Character creation quizzes were used in a lot of the Ultima games and they seemed pretty popular there.

 

I think it's important to note that system design isn't really about making things as we like them as much as it is about making things as our target audience will enjoy them -- both structurally and aesthetically. As such, we have to balance various tastes within a reasonable spectrum. It's impossible to make everyone happy, and attempting to do so is pretty much doomed to failure. We're not making games for dummies who hate RPGs but we're also not making it for PhD-holding 40k players.

[bhlaab]

Well if you were making a game based on 40k, what would you do?

[Oner]

Well if you were making a game based on 40k, what would you do?

IMO 40K is perfect origin story material.

 

BTW, you haven't really lived until you've watched a non-RPG person try to dive into a D&D-based game like NWN2. It's like a steel-toed boot repeatedly kicking them in the nuts and calling them an idiot. YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME, DUMMY? HA HA HA YEAH RIGHT.

Don't remind me, my first was IWD and the easy setting certainly didn't help. Let's just say there's a reason I perceive SPECIAL as the most competent CRPG ruleset.

 

IMO what really needs to go are the IN YOUR FACE POP-UP PRESS OK TO CLOSE. Everyone should put them in the corner like DA.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Oner

[bhlaab]

BTW, you haven't really lived until you've watched a non-RPG person try to dive into a D&D-based game like NWN2. It's like a steel-toed boot repeatedly kicking them in the nuts and calling them an idiot. YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME, DUMMY? HA HA HA YEAH RIGHT.

Don't remind me, my first was IWD and the easy setting certainly didn't help. Let's just say there's a reason I perceive SPECIAL as the most competent CRPG ruleset.

 

Speaking of which, I redownloaded the van buren demo recently and I've gotta say its CC screen was well done. Everything is intuitively placed for people who know what they're doing, and the description tooltips were simple and had specific scenario-based examples for what each skill actually did for people who don't. Plus the ruleset kind of speaks for itself, which helps.

 

Also its camera is better than Dragon Age's

[Wrath of Dagon]

My first RPG was KOTOR and it was very newb friendly. You had the preset characters and you could auto level up until you figured out how things worked. It also did a bang up job of a beginning tutorial, introducing urgency and drama right at the beginning to get you involved in the game, while pointing out all the basics you needed to play. KOTOR2 also had a good dramatic intro on Peragus. Newer games seem intent to bore you in the beginning, you kind of have to persist until things get interesting.

[kirottu]

KOTOR also had Carth, who was well written and interesting character.

[Slowtrain]

BTW, you haven't really lived until you've watched a non-RPG person try to dive into a D&D-based game like NWN2. It's like a steel-toed boot repeatedly kicking them in the nuts and calling them an idiot. YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME, DUMMY? HA HA HA YEAH RIGHT.

 

 

Isn't that more an issue with using a pnp ruleset that has a pretty steep learning curve. I mean, how does one explain THAC0? Or even just the concept of a "To hit" roll or AC? Without a few pages of text? Either on screen or in a manual.

 

It's possible to learn, of course. I've never played a pnp crog in my life, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but learning D&D or SPECIAL or whatever never presented any difficulty. Which is because I was INTERESTED in learning how to play a particular game. So I took the time to understand it. If I had been more interested in throwing a football in a tight spiral, I would have taken the time to learn that instead.

 

 

This is one of the things that bugs me a lot about current game design paradigms. The goal apparently is to get as many people as possible to buy a game, which I understand intellectually but I think is an incorrect approach, so games are designed primarily for people who have little actual interest in playing them or learning them.

 

It sucks when a hobby you have is reduced to the level of a pre-school intellectual exercise, just to make that hobby as inoffensive and mass-appealing as possible.

 

edit: spelling

Edited January 22, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Nathaniel Chapman]

This is one of the things that bugs me a lot about current game design paradigms. The goal apparently is to get as many people as possible to buy a game, which I understand intellectually but I think is an incorrect approach, so games are designed primarily for people who have little actual interest in playing them or learning them.

 

It sucks when a hobby you have is reduced to the level of a pre-school intellectual exercise, just to make that hobby as inoffensive and mass-appealing as possible.

 

I don't know, I think it can go either way.

 

Simplicity in rulesets in my eyes can make a game trivial, or it can make it elegant; interesting gameplay isn't really dependent on how complex the rules are, it's dependent on how complex the player's choices are.

[Sannom]

I have a question, what do you think of the fact that the math in the Dragon Age rule set is so inelegant that they don't dare to show it to the player (I remember Josh saying in one blog post that a developer should show clearly to the player what the different abilities do)? Also, what about the fact that the description of some capacities really makes them sound under-powered while they are in fact extremely powerful (Arrow of Slaying, Sunder Arms and Sunder Armor come to mind)?

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I have a question, what do you think of the fact that the math in the Dragon Age rule set is so inelegant that they don't dare to show it to the player (I remember Josh saying in one blog post that a developer should show clearly to the player what the different abilities do)? Also, what about the fact that the description of some capacities really makes them sound under-powered while they are in fact extremely powerful (Arrow of Slaying, Sunder Arms and Sunder Armor come to mind)?

 

Personally for me the math isn't as important as the results of the math, if that makes sense. It isn't critical that you know how the armor scaling formula works in WoW as long as you know that it works, more armor is better, and that relationship is clear as you upgrade your gear.

 

Also, this is true because sometimes math that looks pretty inelegant can work out elegantly in practice. For instance, you may have a relatively complex formula generating the values that you end up with but as long as those values result in good gameplay, you're golden.

 

I think it's a mistake to intentionally obscure the math, however I don't think it's a requirement to display the math itself. On the other hand games should absolutely display the results of the math, i.e. how much damage an attack will do or your chance to score a critical hit.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I have a question, what do you think of the fact that the math in the Dragon Age rule set is so inelegant that they don't dare to show it to the player (I remember Josh saying in one blog post that a developer should show clearly to the player what the different abilities do)?

More specifically, I think it's important that it is clear what the abilities/skills do, even if it's not explicitly stated. Personally, I think it's preferable that all upgrades show a tangible benefit that the player can figure out separate from a stat screen.

 

While I don't think mathematical formulae need to be explicitly displayed, I do believe that for the designers' benefit and the players' benefit, it is best if it's made clear when statistics scale linearly or non-linearly. Assuming you're spending points on an unweighted scale, it's unfairly punishing to the player to invisibly scale purchased benefits at different rates.

[Siamese Cat]

Basically I think that most designers are overly concerned with what's come before when they sit down to write CRPG mechanics. When looking at mechanics that typically go into CRPGs, it's pretty hard to reverse-engineer a plan of intent. The conclusion I'm usually left with is that they wanted the system to "look like an RPG" on a UI screen. They have classes and stats and skills and skill/talent trees and a ton of derived stats when probably not all of that is necessary.

 

I believe that game designers, whether working in the RPG genre or otherwise, should establish what they want the player to be doing within the world. That is, they must ask themselves what they want the core activities of the player to be. Within those activities, the designer can find ways to allow growth over time in a variety of ways. How they want that growth to occur and what sort of choices they want to force the player to make -- that's what should drive the design of the advancement/RPG system.

 

Instead it usually seems like most designers sit down and say, "Well what are the ability scores going to be?"

 

RE: Moving units: Nobody cares enough about the advancement mechanics to make or break sales. Mass Effect and Oblivion both show that you can have extremely simple (from a player perspective) advancement mechanics and as long as people enjoy the core gameplay, the apparent simplicity/non-traditional nature of the mechanics doesn't matter.

I basically agree with this. Even about tabletop RPGs, masters better imagine how the game they are dealing with is actually played rather than staring at the abstract numbers... Even the progressions should be "experienced" during the game plays.