Should a Game restrict Us from Abusing it, or should We restrict Ourselves from Abusing it?

[ogrezilla]

I really do not understand this obsession with preventing any kind of potential exploitation in a single player game.

 

The problem I have is with the difficulty of the game for myself. If I don't know what to expect throughout the game, I'm not going to add my own limitations to create extra difficulty. I'm going to play the game the way it seems to be designed. So if I have access to unlimited resting or unlimited or super cheap supplies, I'm always going to be rested and well supplied. If the game is designed -- and the encounters are balanced -- for me to have to conserve my arrows and my spells but then I have easy access to replenishing both, the game ends up being easier than its meant to be. The second time through the game I can limit myself based on what I know is coming, but the first time through I will just assume I need to take advantage of the available supplies or resting or whatever. Because why would they be easily available otherwise?

 

Basically, what is the difference between using an intended game mechanic and exploiting a game mechanic? If I have a button that fully heals me and recharges my spells with very little drawback, how is it an exploit to use it repeatedly? Its not. Its using the mechanic as it is designed. If the obvious use of the mechanic goes against the intended design of the game then I would call that a poorly designed mechanic, not a mechanic being exploited.

Edited October 21, 2012 by ogrezilla

[fallendrgmaster]

It is, unequivocally, not the game designer's job to protect us from ourselves.

 

Every product in the world should come with an "I am not an idiot" button which I can press and then fiddle with it without interference from those features that are supposed to keep me from doing it wrong.

 

Well thats true I guess to an extent, but for every program their is always an attempt to idoit-proof it, one of the quotes I was shown when I first started learning to program was:

 

Rich Cook "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot- proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

 

As far as resting in BG goes, I guess some people chose to exploit it but I always felt resting it self was a result of the rules of DnD. They are based around an average 20% of your resources being used per equal level encounter. (Thats based on 3rd Edition rules, I can't exactly remember 2nd) And during 2nd Edition (the ruleset BG was based off of) Mages started with very little casting ability.

 

I wouldn't mind having a time limit (like NWN) or limited rest areas though they could also take a middle route with various levels of rest, such that in the field it is not as effective as resting at say an inn. But I would also perfer the combat system support multiple combats in a row with out expending all of your resources. I always felt resting so often removed some the immersion, but it sometimes was needed to even have a chance to continue.

[Frenetic Pony]

A. People don't restrict themselves. It's just not the way the vast majority of people work. Making something intentionally harder by ignoring obvious advantages makes us feel stupid.

 

B. This question pre-supposes there aren't people that like a challenge to begin with and that the game isn't for them. And since the game is, optionally, for those types of players, the ones that enjoy eking out every advantage possible, it's not even a question to be asked.

[HangedMan]

As always, I am in favor of the players being responsible for themselves; controlling themselves.

[ogrezilla]

As always, I am in favor of the players being responsible for themselves; controlling themselves.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied.

 

In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed.

Edited October 21, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Gatt9]

As always, I am in favor of the players being responsible for themselves; controlling themselves.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied.

 

In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed.

 

Ah, but the system works perfectly fine.

 

The implementation of the system pretty consistently leaves a bit to be desired.

 

The system is a implementation of the PnP rules regarding resource restoration. In a PnP game, the DM won't let you rest every 10 minutes. Further, in a PnP game, the longer you rest the further the world progresses. The bad guy gets a step closer to his goals, or the denizens of the area reinforce and prepare for your approach, if they don't outright ambush you while you're sleeping.

 

A CRPG doesn't make any attempt to do that. A CRPG lets you click the Rest button every 5 seconds. A CRPG doesn't progress the main quest while you're sleeping, nor does it reinforce or ambush you.

 

The best solution to your contention would simply be to give the world a state and progress it independent of the Character's actions. Let the bad guy slowly complete his plan, and make sure his plan is one that can be undone even once it's completed. Which means the genre will have to quit using "Evil warlord/mage is going to destory the world!" and start using some less game-ending primary quests.

 

This would be a true innovation in RPG's, creating a world state that progresses. Then you'll be alot more hesitant to spam all of your spells in every battle and rest after every one, because time will suddenly make a difference (A non-game-ending one).

 

The problem is not the system. The problem is that the genre needs to take the next step towards emulating a PnP game and implement the thing that balances out the system.

[HangedMan]

As always, I am in favor of the players being responsible for themselves; controlling themselves.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied.

 

In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed.

In answer to your question, you don't know; you have to experiment and tinker. And for me, that's the fun part.

 

As for everything else you said, their's no real point for me to address, considering you addressed your own points.

 

I do, however, have a question: Who determines what is and is not an undesired action?

[Ainamacar]

I think it is all about incentives. In my opinion a good system lets optimizers optimize without falling apart (and there are many different flavors of "optimum"), and lets casual players progress without (usually) ending up in a hole they cannot dig themselves out of. The incentives should be such that behavior we might consider "abuse" are actually not the best course of action, without actually preventing those behaviors. Note that I'm not talking about modifying save files, at that point a person has entirely opted out of the metagame, and if they want to do that so be it. (I love Shadowkeeper, and hope we'll see its equivalent for PE.) Something like the save/reload process, however, is part of the metagame and is thus within the scope of the conversation.

 

The main issue, in my opinion, is when the incentives for the characters within the game to act a certain way are drastically different from the incentives set up by the game system from the player's perspective. I don't think we should artificially prevent players from taking actions that might be "abuse", we should instead modify the incentives to respect game mechanics and game world in the first place.

 

Consider resting again, as most of you have done. In most RPGs resting sets the party to its maximum possible strength. Thus there is an obvious incentive to do so from the perspective both of the game characters (who don't want to die) and many types of players (who want to win decisively). However, the incentives on the side of "not resting" are divergent. For the characters (who don't know they're in a game) resting would usually introduce all sorts of hazards and consequences. For players, however, typical implementations have meant all the hazards and consequences are a reload or two away from not existing, and so resting introduces no tradeoffs that matter to a certain kind of player. The solution isn't to ban resting or save/reload, it is to have using those abilities maintain the incentives the party itself faces, and perhaps put in some gentle metagame consequences.

 

Here are some ways to address this particular example:

1) Determine ambushes on the condition of the dungeon, not randomly at time of rest. For example, if the enemy has scouts, let them use them. The ambush itself can still be random, just preserved across saves.

 

2) In-game consequences for resting besides adjusting party power, and which make sense within the world. If the enemy knows the party is out there they may call for reinforcements, leave the area, dig in, or otherwise react in a sane way. This needn't be complicated: in many cases it could be as simple as the enemy spending resources to improve its defenses, or sending the women and children away with the valuables, etc. That puts the incentives for the player more in line with the incentive of the characters. Moreover, even if the characters don't value the enemy's "loot" the player probably does, so the metagame offers a tradeoff between immediate power and loot.

 

3) When it makes sense the consequences of resting should not be known immediately. The point isn't to take a sledgehammer to save-scumming by tossing in all sorts of "random gotchas", but to keep the knowledge and incentives of the players on the same page and thus provide a more engrossing experience. In other words, save-scumming is usually a symptom of a problem with the game world, not a problem in and of itself.

 

4) Consider designing elements of the system such that it isn't always the case that resting sets the party's power to maximum. For example, maybe there is a "desperation" or "resolve" mechanic that makes the game play a little differently after a long time without resting. This might make the party more powerful in some ways, even as it is also weaker in other ways due to attrition. The point is, the game mechanics can make it so that resting isn't necessarily the best decision in terms of raw party power. This sort of thing should have a compelling reason to exist within the game world, though, or else it is as transparently artificial as arbitrary limits on resting.

 

All these examples try to harmonize the metagame with the game world, so we can embrace both on their own merits rather than pitting them against each other. If done well I think this obviates the conflict between "protecting players from themselves" vs. "trusting the player to exercise self-control" while actually enhancing the game itself for both types of player. As game design goes, that's the kind of optimization I want to see.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ainamacar

[JFSOCC]

Well part of the save scumming thread discussion went into this, so I'll give my more general attitude:

I believe that while a game shouldn't be forceful in what experience you have, it is allowed to encourage behaviour, under the condition that it is a game-design choice that improves gameplay.

 

lots of caveats.

 

but it bears repeating also, that this is phenomenally hard to do in a subtle and non-coercive way.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think the player should restrict themselves from abusing it. There are so many things in a game for a player to abuse(like reloading) that would be pretty damn difficult to restrict without making them frustrating as hell. I would bet that most people that will be playing PE aren't the type who reload every roll to make sure they get a success or spam resting to be fully refreshed for every encounter.

[teknoman2]

all in all this is a very tricky matter. you play cards with the local gambler. you can just play on, win or lose, or save before each round and load if you lose. the only way to prevent you from using the save-load trick, is to not allow you to save. this could be done by using an autosave only function, if you play on hardcore where you save automatically when you quit and cant load, or if (and its my personal favorite) you are not allowed to save manually more than once every few minutes.

let's say that there is a 10 minute restriction on saving. that means that you cant save manually for 10 minutes since you last saved or loaded a game (autosaves keep working normally). so you save and you play cards. the match lasts 30s, you lose and reload. you play again and win in 30s. you have to either keep playing without saving, go do something else for the next 9:30 or just wait there for the time to pass. 10min is not much to replay if you lose, yet is much to just wait around doing nothing until you can save again

[HansKrSG]

Making artificial restrictions will not give anyone anything. Those who do not reload at every failure will not, those who do, will. See no problem with that.

[AlphaShard]

We should restrict ourselves to the way we want to play the game. The Game Devs shouldn't have to babysit or "police" abuses. If someone wants to abuse and break there game that's there prerogative.

[Remmirath]

I prefer the restrictions to be up to the player, rather than imposed by the game. I often play through various games with a good deal of restrictions on that playthrough, but I like to be able to also play through with no restrictions when I feel like it. It's not exactly difficult to restrict oneself, and I honestly don't see the problem with some people abusing various mechanics in their game if that's how they like to play.

[anubite]

It's fun when you're abusing a game. That's called mastering it.

 

When a game devolves into scumming, or something, then there's something un-fun deeply rooted in the game that needs to be eradicated.

[ogrezilla]

I do, however, have a question: Who determines what is and is not an undesired action?

the game designer. Icewind Dale, for example, is seemingly balanced with the assumption that you would only rest occasionally and be careful with your spells and supplies. If you use the rest and shopping mechanics (go back to town whenever you want with no drawback) as they are designed, the game is incredibly easy. But the first time through the game, I was always going to be prepared for something that actually required me to use the mechanics as they were seemingly designed to be used. It never happened and the game was disappointingly easy the first time through. If the game was designed to be easy that's fine; I just doubt that was the case.

 

 

Ah, but the system works perfectly fine.

 

The implementation of the system pretty consistently leaves a bit to be desired.

 

The system is a implementation of the PnP rules regarding resource restoration. In a PnP game, the DM won't let you rest every 10 minutes. Further, in a PnP game, the longer you rest the further the world progresses. The bad guy gets a step closer to his goals, or the denizens of the area reinforce and prepare for your approach, if they don't outright ambush you while you're sleeping.

 

A CRPG doesn't make any attempt to do that. A CRPG lets you click the Rest button every 5 seconds. A CRPG doesn't progress the main quest while you're sleeping, nor does it reinforce or ambush you.

 

The best solution to your contention would simply be to give the world a state and progress it independent of the Character's actions. Let the bad guy slowly complete his plan, and make sure his plan is one that can be undone even once it's completed. Which means the genre will have to quit using "Evil warlord/mage is going to destory the world!" and start using some less game-ending primary quests.

 

This would be a true innovation in RPG's, creating a world state that progresses. Then you'll be alot more hesitant to spam all of your spells in every battle and rest after every one, because time will suddenly make a difference (A non-game-ending one).

 

The problem is not the system. The problem is that the genre needs to take the next step towards emulating a PnP game and implement the thing that balances out the system.

 

I would love something like you are describing to be included. Though I disagree with you saying the system isn't the problem. The consequences and restrictions (or lack there of) are a part of the system. If PnP RPGs have different consequences and restrictions than cRPGs, then they aren't using the same system. That's semantics though. I agree with your point . The basic ideas are fine; they just aren't implemented particularly well in most cRPGs.

[ogrezilla]

We should restrict ourselves to the way we want to play the game. The Game Devs shouldn't have to babysit or "police" abuses. If someone wants to abuse and break there game that's there prerogative.

I'm ok with that as long as the most obvious way to use a mechanic is how it is "supposed" to be used. Don't include a rest mechanic with very few restrictions and then balance the game around people restricting their rest. The rest mechanics and spell mechanics of the IE games completely clash with one another.

 

the main thing is the different mechanics of the game need to mesh together well.

Edited October 21, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Avaruz]

I don't think developers should waste their time preventing people from manipulating chance.

 

Consider these examples:

1. Guy attempts to pickpocket amazing item, with a 10% success chance. He saves first, then tries and loads until success.

2. Guy attempts to complete quest by defeating group of enemies, having a 10% success chance. He saves first, then tries and loads until success.

 

Most of you say the first example is someone abusing the system, while the other one is simply having a hard time.

I say both examples are of players who like to take "chances" without facing consequences.

 

If you want to restrict yourself; play Trial of Iron mode. If you do not like to face consequences; save and load.

[HangedMan]

I don't think developers should waste their time preventing people from manipulating chance.

 

Consider these examples:

1. Guy attempts to pickpocket amazing item, with a 10% success chance. He saves first, then tries and loads until success.

2. Guy attempts to complete quest by defeating group of enemies, having a 10% success chance. He saves first, then tries and loads until success.

 

Most of you say the first example is someone abusing the system, while the other one is simply having a hard time.

I say both examples are of players who like to take "chances" without facing consequences.

 

If you want to restrict yourself; play Trial of Iron mode. If you do not like to face consequences; save and load.

I'm not sure who or what you are, but I platonically love you for this.

[Jojobobo]

A game should restrict people from abusing it. It seems like the devs aren't going to have rest abuse as a thing anyway, so I wouldn't worry given the health/stamina mechanic. For pickpocket abuse, just have a legal system where you can pay for your crimes like Skyrim, but also with a reputation penalty. This does not outright stop abuse, but it's better than having a whole town turn hostile for stealing an egg which would sometimes warrant a reload. If there was a reputation penalty it should not stop you from getting in with the criminal elements of a city (maybe they have their own district with it's own reputation system), or maybe you only get approached by criminal elements when you've been caught for a crime (I always thought it was a bit stupid how casually thieves reveal themselves in rpg games "Oh well regardless of whether you're a law enforcement officer, seeing as you made that persuasion attempt I'm going to not only tell you I'm a thief but also where all my thieving buddies hang out").

 

In a broader sense, don't have any class/race/background combination too overpowered (maybe have say one race as the strongest - an obvious choice for a fighter - but another with an racial ability that a character could make use of; picking a "best" combination of race and background for a class should never be a clear cut thing). But more to the point, have all class/race/background combinations as viable on PE's version of HoF mode - I think PE's HoF mode should bring more to the table in terms of difficulty then the enemies being incredibly strong (or if not, then all classes should be able to be able to deal with these challenges in one shape or another).

[Freshock]

I hope there will be as few ways to abuse the game with save/load as possible. I've always abused the loading system in The Elder Scrolls, and it kinda leaves me with no feeling of accomplishment. I know I have the freedom to not abuse it - but I just can't .

[HangedMan]

I hope there will be as few ways to abuse the game with save/load as possible. I've always abused the loading system in The Elder Scrolls, and it kinda leaves me with no feeling of accomplishment. I know I have the freedom to not abuse it - but I just can't .

Find ways to train your willpower.

[Kaz]

Is it the developer's job to safeguard the player's game experience? (I'm going to answer in the scope of combat mechanics)

In a multiplayer or competitive setting - of course. Same goes to single player games but at a reduced degree. Even in a single player with a big emphasis on role playing and story, if you are going to have a game where there is combat (which PE will feature) with reward systems and character growth that directly influence your performance in combat, it stands to reason there will be rules and regulations that will be imposed on the player to make those achievements significant. The enjoyment you get from a balanced combat system is derived from the great challenges posed to the character, and the attempt to overcome that challenge by exhausting many options and making use of the tools available to you. Good systems are usually tightly designed - chess or even starcraft give rise to a plethora of strategy. Don't think those games are relevant? Just look at the AD&D rule sets, they are chalk full of tables and specific attributes. If the single player difficulty and overall experience was intended to be self regulated by the player, why did the developers bother fine-tuning these tables in the first place? Bottom line is, these games were trying to create a tight framework to give meaning to all the stats defined in the world, that much is very evident. Whether they succeeded in that is another topic, but I think we can agree on their intent.

 

Some posts here argue that additional rules and regulations impede on their style of play, while no regulation affects no one and is fine. Look, I enjoy a good story as much as the next guy, but for a lot of us the draw for these games were the deep strategy and difficult combat. As I said above somewhere, difficulty and challenges arise from clearly defined rules, relying on self regulation simply deludes that experience. Don't get me wrong, self imposed limitations (such as no-armor runs etc.) are fun, I love those too, but it's not how you design your "normal difficulty".

 

Edit: By the way I understand PE will attempt to fix the resting mechanic, which I am happy for. I'm just making this argument because there seems to be differences in philosophy.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Kaz

[Kaz]

Double post, please ignore

Edited October 21, 2012 by Kaz

[Orogun01]

I really hope that this game leveling curve will be perfect, meaning there won't be any need to abuse it and players who do will feel bad because they feel that they are missing out on the experience. That's what it was for PS:T and that's what I want here, something crafted so well that the player won't want to alter the experience because they realize that it would ruin it.