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

[Valorian]

An incentive to not rest too often would be that, at the end of the game, you get at least a little text bubble that acknowledges how you haven't slept over that village being burned to ashes or something like that, a recognition.. A nice push to not overdo it.

 

Or maybe even better, a separate hardcore option on which Obsidian, knowing the game, limits the number of rests per game. And voila you wouldn't need to worry about "am I resting too much??".

 

***Note that I'm not talking about timed quests but the rest spam issue.

[metiman]

By "exploit" do you mean using mechanics in a way that circumvents developer intent or do you mean any mechanic that makes encounters (or recovery from encounters) easier? I think that role-playing games in particular need to offer a fair amount of latitude (and responsibility) to the player. For some it's all about stat optimization. Some think that things like clerical domains, deity-worshiped, and alignment should be in synch, even if the game allows them not to be. On balance I favor supporting a variety of playstyles with the caveat that if the player finds their chosen RP too difficult or their relentlessly optimized character OP, it's on them to make adjustments either via adjusting their play or via mods that tweak the game to their taste.

 

First of all I more or less agree with what you say here. By exploit I mean leveraging implementation details and/or bugs to get out of some battle without fighting much at all. The fake talk strategy is a perfect example: attacking a foe while he is still talking to you and hasn't gone hostile yet. I had a rule that I wouldn't start fighting until the enemy had actually gone hostile. I certainly don't think that's the only way to play or that another style is cheating. I just found gameplay more fun that way.

 

Feebleminding Firkraag isn't an exploit. It's cheese. It takes away the entire point of the battle if you succeed. You may as well just hit CTRL-Y if you're going to do that. Now, you might argue that a spell like that shouldn't be in the game, but I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the spell. The problem is with players who seem to want to intentionally ruin the game for themselves by using easy or unfair tactics. I think Feeblemind is one of the things that makes a game like BG2 so interesting. Yes, you can make your game less fun briefly until you just reload (gasp!) and try it again a different way that turns out to be more enjoyable. Bioware could have simply made Firkraag immune to feeblemind, but I would see that as cheating. If I play fair then so should monsters. That's not to say that monsters shouldn't have resistances that humans don't have. It's just that adding a resistance just because it weakens a tough monster does not seem like a sufficiently good reason to me.

 

A lot of players also refused to use Web + Cloud Kill especially from a long distance away for similar reasons. It's cheesy and often not a particularly fun way to end a battle. I did use Web + Cloudkill sparingly because I sometimes thought it was fun and fun is the whole point. The way I see it, options are good. More options are better. Preventing the player from being stupid should not be part of game design. Giving him options to be smart should be.

[Shadenuat]

What's the point of the question?

 

If we need to restrict ourselves from abusing game mechanics to break it, that mechanics is already broken and unbalanced.

[Osvir]

What's the point of the question?

 

If we need to restrict ourselves from abusing game mechanics to break it, that mechanics is already broken and unbalanced.

 

Well there are certain freedoms that come with an exploitable feature, whilst the un-exploitable feature would make everything more authentic/a.k.a. hardcore.

 

Take a look at the Baldur's Gate rest mechanic as an example. If you could rest, but not abuse it, and the ambushes scaled and were more of a challenge, it would feel atmospheric/authentic I am sure. But facts stand that the Rest feature is highly exploitable, and it is an enjoyable freedom in itself.

 

Within freedom you will find yourself more in the situation where you ask yourself "Should I use this or not?".

Baldur's Gate got the resting mechanic to mirror this.

 

Whilst in a constricted, authentic world, you will more oftentimes find yourself in the situation "I should use this".

Diablo II got the Waypoint mechanic to mirror this.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Lady Evenstar]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Simply put; how can players make an educated choice the first time through the game?

 

By paying attention in-game? If it starts feeling too easy, sleep less frequently and close to melee sooner. Or change the difficulty level.

That just reeks of bad game design to me if I have to install my own limitations just to play the game as the designer intended.

 

I would be perfectly happy if different difficulties limited these things differently.

 

Not bad game design. Just common sense. You never really know how easy or difficult something will be for you until you try it. First time through you make your best guess at difficulty level and adjust what you can on the fly if it proves too hard or too easy. Depending on class/group make-up difficulty can also vary in the course of the game. You either change what you can or don't.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Lady Evenstar

[Ninjamestari]

I don't want the game to bind me to the computer, I want to be able to leave with a moments notice without losing my progress. Thus I definitely want to be able to save at will. As far as resting goes, it should be restricted to inns and camps anyway to enhance immersion, making rest abuse less of an issue. I definitely don't want to see another NWN2 5sec rest in the dungeon and full spell mayhem type implementation.

 

Regardless of how resting is implemented, I absolutely want to be able to save at will.

[ogrezilla]

but the first time through the game, when you have no idea what to expect around the next corner how can you know if you want to limit yourself or not? I don't want to make the game too easy by resting too often and using arrows non stop. But if the game allows me to, I am going to assume the difficulty of the game is based on me doing those things.

 

Simply put; how can players make an educated choice the first time through the game?

 

By paying attention in-game? If it starts feeling too easy, sleep less frequently and close to melee sooner. Or change the difficulty level.

That just reeks of bad game design to me if I have to install my own limitations just to play the game as the designer intended.

 

I would be perfectly happy if different difficulties limited these things differently.

 

Not bad game design. Just common sense. You never really know how easy or difficult something will be for you until you try it. First time through you make your best guess at difficulty level and adjust what you can on the fly if it proves too hard or too easy. Depending on class/group make-up difficulty can also vary in the course of the game. You either change what you can or don't.

I'm not a game designer. I expect the people who are game designers to implement the game mechanics so that they naturally encourage me to play the game as it is intended to be played. If I figure out the perfect class combinations then ya, that's on my for making it too easy. But if there is literally a button that lets me fully heal and replenish my spells, the natural response is to use that button every time I need healed and my spells need replenished. Why would they give me such a button if that wasn't their intent?

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Waywocket]

Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

 

What would that even mean? You're talking about having an entirely different magic system? I don't think it would have been anywhere near as good if it had used a mana-based system, which was the only other system in common use at the time.

[Vaeliorin]

The game should be fun to play and balanced to play. elements of previous games which created unbalance should be seen as cautionary tales.

 

That said I think its impossible for a game to be made that can't be exploited by the player in some way, so to my mind the focus for the game maker can't be in trying to solve the problem of how the user is going to abuse the system once it gets in their hands, but work on solid design that doesn't actively encourage players seeking ways to abuse the game design.

This is almost exactly what I was going to say. Essentially, I want a game that is designed in such a way that it doesn't require me to abuse it in order for it to be fun.

[Osvir]

Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

 

What would that even mean? You're talking about having an entirely different magic system? I don't think it would have been anywhere near as good if it had used a mana-based system, which was the only other system in common use at the time.

 

It simply means that Baldur's Gate would have been different game without the Rest mechanic, and from reading your post we agree/are on the same level.

[PsychoBlonde]

So, what you're really asking here is, should the underlying game mechanisms be degenerate or no?

 

In general, I prefer non-degenerate underlying systems. These aren't the same as "restricting" the player, though, in the sense that the player is aware of some artificial limitation being imposed to "fix" a problem. For example:

 

Degenerate problem: people pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest . . .

"Restricted" solution: "You cannot rest here"

Functional solution: You can only "rest" at special pre-placed locations.

 

The functional solution is invisible because that limitation covers the entire game. It is ALWAYS like that no matter where you go or what you do. I would much rather have functional design than a system that is degenerate or restricted.

[Osvir]

Kind of like this?

 

0 = places you can't rest

1 = Where you can't

 

Now imagine the game is side-scrolling, and for the sake of it that the quotes below is the game-screen.

 

Degenerate problem:

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

This would be Baldur's Gate, you can save & rest at any point in the game.

 

Restricted solution:

11111111110001111111111000111111111100011111111110001111111111

I would say that Final Fantasy series deploy's somewhat a system like this. You can save/rest anywhere on the world map, but you can't save in dungeons (unless at a save/rest points).

 

Functional solution:

00000000001110000000000111000000000011100000000001110000000000

Diablo II and similar employs something like this.

 

Am I understanding what you are getting at?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[PsychoBlonde]

 

This would be Baldur's Gate, you can save & rest at any point in the game.

 

Save, yes. There are dungeons where you can't rest IIRC, although that may have been due to mobs being out of sight around the corner, I can't remember now. I do know there were places in BG2 where you just flat out couldn't rest.

[Waywocket]

Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

 

What would that even mean? You're talking about having an entirely different magic system? I don't think it would have been anywhere near as good if it had used a mana-based system, which was the only other system in common use at the time.

 

It simply means that Baldur's Gate would have been different game without the Rest mechanic, and from reading your post we agree/are on the same level.

 

Fair enough. I'm not sure where you can get from there though - I guess you're just trying to point out that the system used by a game has a large bearing on the enjoyability, even if the plot, characters, etc are the same.

 

To be honest I don't really get why there's so much discussion about preventing rest. I mean, what's the goal? Just to make the game harder? I don't see how it would do that, but I do see how it could do the opposite.

 

Let's look at Baldur's Gate: at some point you've fought through as much as you can take, you have no spells left, and your party has 15 HP between them. At this point basically your only option is to find somewhere safe to rest, and do so. What does it matter if you've been awake for 8 hours to get to that point, or 48? If you can't rest for another 8 hours, pretty much your only option is to leave the game running for an hour of real time while you do something else. It's not like you can just say 'I'll be hardcore and fight on anyway' - you'd die the moment any enemy lands a blow.

 

If instead you use something other than a rest mechanic to throttle the rate at which people cast spells, what does that actually gain? In all the games I've ever played that's led to less downtime required, not more.

 

So, serious question: why are we talking about this? What do we want to get out of it? I don't really understand this discussion but I might have a better idea if those were spelled out to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

[Waywocket]

This would be Baldur's Gate, you can save & rest at any point in the game.

 

As a point of order, that's not true at all. There are loads of places where you can't rest, and in the wilderness areas (where you typically can) there's about a 75% probability that you'll be attacked partway through the attempt.

[ogrezilla]

Without resting in the game it wouldn't have been the same game, instead it was released to have that feature. What if the developer's had gotten cold feet and removed the feature from the game? Would it have been the same experience? Would we even be talking about it today?

 

What would that even mean? You're talking about having an entirely different magic system? I don't think it would have been anywhere near as good if it had used a mana-based system, which was the only other system in common use at the time.

 

It simply means that Baldur's Gate would have been different game without the Rest mechanic, and from reading your post we agree/are on the same level.

 

Fair enough. I'm not sure where you can get from there though - I guess you're just trying to point out that the system used by a game has a large bearing on the enjoyability, even if the plot, characters, etc are the same.

 

To be honest I don't really get why there's so much discussion about preventing rest. I mean, what's the goal? Just to make the game harder? I don't see how it would do that, but I do see how it could do the opposite.

 

Let's look at Baldur's Gate: at some point you've fought through as much as you can take, you have no spells left, and your party has 15 HP between them. At this point basically your only option is to find somewhere safe to rest, and do so. What does it matter if you've been awake for 8 hours to get to that point, or 48? If you can't rest for another 8 hours, pretty much your only option is to leave the game running for an hour of real time while you do something else. It's not like you can just say 'I'll be hardcore and fight on anyway' - you'd die the moment any enemy lands a blow.

 

If instead you use something other than a rest mechanic to throttle the rate at which people cast spells, what does that actually gain? In all the games I've ever played that's led to less downtime required, not more.

 

So, serious question: why are we talking about this? What do we want to get out of it? I don't really understand this discussion but I might have a better idea if those were spelled out to me.

I think its a question of balancing the difficulty. Do they design the encounters assuming you are resting between every fight or do they design encounters assuming you only rest occasionally?

[Lady Evenstar]

So, what you're really asking here is, should the underlying game mechanisms be degenerate or no?

 

In general, I prefer non-degenerate underlying systems. These aren't the same as "restricting" the player, though, in the sense that the player is aware of some artificial limitation being imposed to "fix" a problem. For example:

 

Degenerate problem: people pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest . . .

"Restricted" solution: "You cannot rest here"

Functional solution: You can only "rest" at special pre-placed locations.

 

The functional solution is invisible because that limitation covers the entire game. It is ALWAYS like that no matter where you go or what you do. I would much rather have functional design than a system that is degenerate or restricted.

 

If folks are pulling two mobs and resting, perhaps the problem lies not in the ability to rest but a more basic imbalance in the game? Poor companion AI? Certain classes lacking sufficient power or longevity (either at certain levels or throughout the game)? And yuck to solutions that require a trip back to town every time the group needs rest.

[ogrezilla]

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.

so it should be my job to figure out how the designers intend for the game to be played?

[ogrezilla]

So, what you're really asking here is, should the underlying game mechanisms be degenerate or no?

 

In general, I prefer non-degenerate underlying systems. These aren't the same as "restricting" the player, though, in the sense that the player is aware of some artificial limitation being imposed to "fix" a problem. For example:

 

Degenerate problem: people pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest . . .

"Restricted" solution: "You cannot rest here"

Functional solution: You can only "rest" at special pre-placed locations.

 

The functional solution is invisible because that limitation covers the entire game. It is ALWAYS like that no matter where you go or what you do. I would much rather have functional design than a system that is degenerate or restricted.

 

If folks are pulling two mobs and resting, perhaps the problem lies not in the ability to rest but a more basic imbalance in the game? Poor companion AI? Certain classes lacking sufficient power or longevity (either at certain levels or throughout the game)? And yuck to solutions that require a trip back to town every time the group needs rest.

people resting every two encounters doesn't mean they needed to; just that they can.

[Waywocket]

So, serious question: why are we talking about this? What do we want to get out of it? I don't really understand this discussion but I might have a better idea if those were spelled out to me.

I think its a question of balancing the difficulty. Do they design the encounters assuming you are resting between every fight or do they design encounters assuming you only rest occasionally?

 

Well if we're talking about encounter design in that way, then I'm definitely in favour of assuming you only rest after a sensible timeframe, but not enforcing that. After all, it's no fun if you get a couple of really unfortunate rolls in a fight but the game forces you to press on because "that shouldn't have been much of a challenge", and I don't see healing up after a hard fight as abusing a game mechanic.

 

(This kind of mirrors my feelings on the encounter design in IWD, which has for example a group of goblins in the first area, and if they happen to hit a thief or a wizard then they'll one-shot them. You can try to keep any party members with <8 HP back out of the fight, but the goblins all have ranged weapons, and they outnumber you. A couple of lucky hits and now your party is completely boned.)

[Lady Evenstar]

So, what you're really asking here is, should the underlying game mechanisms be degenerate or no?

 

In general, I prefer non-degenerate underlying systems. These aren't the same as "restricting" the player, though, in the sense that the player is aware of some artificial limitation being imposed to "fix" a problem. For example:

 

Degenerate problem: people pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest . . .

"Restricted" solution: "You cannot rest here"

Functional solution: You can only "rest" at special pre-placed locations.

 

The functional solution is invisible because that limitation covers the entire game. It is ALWAYS like that no matter where you go or what you do. I would much rather have functional design than a system that is degenerate or restricted.

 

If folks are pulling two mobs and resting, perhaps the problem lies not in the ability to rest but a more basic imbalance in the game? Poor companion AI? Certain classes lacking sufficient power or longevity (either at certain levels or throughout the game)? And yuck to solutions that require a trip back to town every time the group needs rest.

people resting every two encounters doesn't mean they needed to; just that they can.

 

It can mean either. In my game wizard companion Amie unloaded her entire arsenal of spells before leaving the Farlong home when the village is attacked at the beginning of NWN2. She was not yet equipped with a weapon. I didn't have the party rest, but I can see why another player might feel they needed to. Constant resting is boring. Why would players resort to it if they felt confident they had the resources to continue?

[ogrezilla]

So, what you're really asking here is, should the underlying game mechanisms be degenerate or no?

 

In general, I prefer non-degenerate underlying systems. These aren't the same as "restricting" the player, though, in the sense that the player is aware of some artificial limitation being imposed to "fix" a problem. For example:

 

Degenerate problem: people pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest, pull 2 mobs, rest . . .

"Restricted" solution: "You cannot rest here"

Functional solution: You can only "rest" at special pre-placed locations.

 

The functional solution is invisible because that limitation covers the entire game. It is ALWAYS like that no matter where you go or what you do. I would much rather have functional design than a system that is degenerate or restricted.

 

If folks are pulling two mobs and resting, perhaps the problem lies not in the ability to rest but a more basic imbalance in the game? Poor companion AI? Certain classes lacking sufficient power or longevity (either at certain levels or throughout the game)? And yuck to solutions that require a trip back to town every time the group needs rest.

people resting every two encounters doesn't mean they needed to; just that they can.

 

It can mean either. In my game wizard companion Amie unloaded her entire arsenal of spells before leaving the Farlong home when the village is attacked at the beginning of NWN2. She was not yet equipped with a weapon. I didn't have the party rest, but I can see why another player might feel they needed to. Constant resting is boring. Why would players resort to it if they felt confident they had the resources to continue?

so Amie could unload her entire arsenal of spells again. If you've never played the game before (I haven't), you probably have no idea what the next encounter might include. Maybe you'll need Amie ready to cast her spells. If you don't know what is coming next, I don't know how confident you can ever feel. If the game is giving me a convenient option to be fully prepared, I would feel like the game designers probably intend for me to be fully prepared.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Lady Evenstar]

so Amie could unload her entire arsenal of spells again. If you've never played the game before (I haven't), you probably have no idea what the next encounter might include. Maybe you'll need Amie ready to cast her spells. If you don't know what is coming next, I don't know how confident you can ever feel. If the game is giving me a convenient option to be fully prepared, I would feel like the game designers probably intend for me to be fully prepared.

 

Exactly my point! The problem wasn't that you could rest. It was that Amie lacked longevity.

[ogrezilla]

so Amie could unload her entire arsenal of spells again. If you've never played the game before (I haven't), you probably have no idea what the next encounter might include. Maybe you'll need Amie ready to cast her spells. If you don't know what is coming next, I don't know how confident you can ever feel. If the game is giving me a convenient option to be fully prepared, I would feel like the game designers probably intend for me to be fully prepared.

 

Exactly my point! The problem wasn't that you could rest. It was that Amie lacked longevity.

Then I think we are in agreement. The real key is that the different game design elements all work well together. We shouldn't have to decide which parts are good and which parts are bad and then create our own rules to make the game play how it was intended to be played.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla