The Most Overlooked, and Most Important Elements of an RPG

[Arsene Lupin]

I got into the whole kickstarter thing a bit late, but I was (quite pleased to be) able to contribute to the development of Project Eternity via the "Slacker Backer" thing. My understanding of crowdfunding is that, due to my contribution, I am now one of several thousand producers of the game. And so, while I have a great deal of faith in the extremely talented men and women developing Project Eternity, I still feel somewhat obligated to point out what I think are the most important, and most-overlooked elements of RPG gameplay.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) Magic.

 

Obsidian has been very clear about their desire to recapture the feel of the old Obsidian Engine games. To me, that feel was (in part): "kick-ass wizards." In IE games, mages were "glass-cannons," they always had to be protected, but were absolutely crucial to gameplay. Magic was the most powerful weapon out there, and there were tons of fantastical and astonishingly powerful and useful spells, and the price you paid for that was that Wizards were the most vulnerable class in the game. After the retirement of the Infinity Engine, there seems to have been a trend toward "equalization." E.G., all RPC character classes are made mostly equal, so that players don't feel unduly punished or rewarded for choosing one class over another. To me, that just makes the game boring. Uneven class balance is best, IMHO, and part of what made the Infinity Engines such a joy to play. Basically, I just don't want to see a magic system like Skyrim or Dragon Age, where lore-wise mages are incredibly powerful, capable of doing all kinds of wondrous things, but inside the game mechanics are either equal to, or inferior to a half-wit with a club.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2) Narrative/World Structure

 

I have no doubts that Obsidian will be able to deliver a fantastic story and characters. That's not what I'm talking about when I say narrative/world structure--this is more about the physical layout of the narrative. Basically, the player should never be able to see the full form of the narrative/game until he or she finishes the game. This does NOT mean "twists" to the plot, but rather a more naturally-evolving plot, the winds and shifts and whose ultimate form does not become apparent until you reach the end. Am I articulating this well? Maybe some examples. In Dragon Age Origins, you are almost-immediately told to go gather four magic jewels (i.e. armies) and use them to defeat the evil demon king (the dragon boss). And that's exactly what you do in the game. You're able to see the full structure of the narrative from beginning to end... and that's terrible. Compare that to the more naturally-evolving narrative in, say Dragon Quest VI. Here, the hero's initial quest is to pick something up in a village... but the shopkeeper is missing, so you have to search to find him... and you find him hanging off the edge of a cliff... you save him and fall down the cliff, and end up in another world, then you have to figure out how to exist in that world, then how to return to your own world... the movement of the plot is much more natural. Just as it's important for gamers not to know what's "over the next hill" when exploring the physical properties of a game world, so as to not ruin the joy of that exploration, so, too, is it important not to know what's "over the next plot point" when exploring the game narrative.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

3) Epilogues

 

This is something I'd rather think of as, "too obvious to mention," but it seems to have been forgotten in most modern RPGs, most horrifically Mass Effect 3. Think Baldur's Gate 2. After we play a game, we like seeing what happens to the world in the years and decades after we leave it. How did our adventure--and, if possible, our decisions--affect the world? And how were our friends, companions, and enemies changed by that experience?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4) The difference between Villains and Bosses

 

A boss is an enemy that must be killed--a villain is an enemy that must not necessarily be killed. I think it's important for RPGs to keep in mind that, with a complex, considered conflict, that the solution to the conflict cannot--and should not--always be "murder."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5) "Alignment"

 

D&D or no, most RPGs--especially recently--have taken the idea of "alignment" to heart--characters are either inherently good, or inherently evil. This is not human, nor is it terribly interesting. Every important character in an RPG, most especially the villains, need to have reasons... justifications for their actions. The best goals for a villain are the same as the goals for the heroes--the conflict would arise from the methods the villain uses to accomplish those goals. 

 

For example, one of the absolute best villains I've seen in gaming is Marcello, from Dragon Quest VII. The entire game establishes a dichotomy between the rulers and the ruled--the nobility and the commoners. All of the nobles in the game are self-serving, often incompetent, and very selfish. Their actions work universally to the detriment of the common people in their care. Marcello is a noble's bastard, so he also has a very personal dislike of the nobility. His ultimate goal is to seize power of the church (think: become pope) and use that power to abolish the nobility... a cause that, to me, seemed to be far more compelling and justified than anything the PC-party was trying to accomplish. In fact, Marcello--despite being fairly sever--was also ethical, he achieved his power peacefully (through the force of his charisma and extreme competence). But, in spite of all this, he was still a villain to be defeated--because he was being manipulated by the "Evil god," who would inevitably transform Marcello into a despot. This kind of think makes for a much more compelling villain than, say, Sarevok, who was an evil murder who simply wanted to become an even more evil, even bigger murderer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

6) Unforseen Consequences

 

This ties in a bit to #2--basically, that for exploration of the game and story to be fun, you should not ever be in a position where you know what's going to happen. At the smaller, local level, this manifests best as unforseen--and/or unintended consequences. CD Projekt Red is very adept at this. I'm getting tired, so I'm not going to explain this so much as the others, but basically the idea is that the player should be surprised by what happens during dialog choices/quest lines. The Firkraag quest(s) in Baldur's Gate II are a great example. When you first enter the area, you are attacked by orcs. The "choice" you make is to fight and kill the violent monsters. The "unforseen consequence" is that both you and the orcs were under an illusion spell, and what you thought were bloodthirsty monsters were actually noble paladins. This is sort of the same thing as #2, just on a much smaller, more immediate scale. Where #2 enhances the WHOLE experience of the game, this idea applies more to the hour-by-hour flow of the game.

[AGX-17]

Magic isn't overlooked. Have you played any of these games? Wizards and Sorcerers and so on are the heaviest hitters (figuratively,) in terms of damage in every cRPG I've ever played. The priority targets for NPCs in RPGs and PvP players in MMOs are spellcasters. Healing, buffs, debuffs, damage, they're always the biggest threat.

 

Secondly, Obsidian doesn't buy into the D&D alignment concept outside of D&D games, which they haven't made in about 5 years. Just play KotoR2 and listen to Kreia if you don't believe it. In New Vegas it's faction reputation that matters. Karma is still there, but it's largely irrelevant.

 

In NV you can complete the endgame without killing any of the antagonists of your particular story path. You're even betraying your black & white sense of morality/character by referring to "bosses" and "villains," rather than "antagonists." An antagonist isn't equivalent to a villain. If you're playing an "evil" character, it's "good" characters that will be your antagonists. Or in your terms, "villains." Which is contradictory to the common use and dictionary definition of the word.

 

You're making a bunch of points that are irrelevant as they were never issues to begin with.

Edited April 25, 2013 by AGX-17

[Tamerlane]

Mages were pretty broken in Dragon Age, yo. Arcane Warrior + Blood Mage was bull****, and even more traditional mages handled way better than fighting dudes.

 

EDIT: Also,

 

 

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Lephys]

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

Are you starting a... Fight Supremacist movement? o_o

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The most important element in a role-playing game is the ability of the player to consistently role-play a character as they see fit.

 

To do this, two things need to be implemented.

 

1. Player has full control of PC

2. The PC is not privy to any knowledge the player is not.

 

Everything else is secondary.

[Tamerlane]

 

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

Are you starting a... Fight Supremacist movement? o_o

 

 

Just warning the mage weaklings of the upcoming revolution. Save vs suck? Try save vs fist!

[Lephys]

Just warning the mage weaklings of the upcoming revolution. Save vs suck? Try save vs fist!

Them's... Fightin' words... HAHA! Get it?! 'Cause... Fighters?! 8D!!!!!

 

Okay, but seriously, u_u. We'll see how your fist does against my arcane veil... AND my 3 +1/level Telekinetic COUNTER-fists! You swing a fist? Please... I weave fists for BREAKFAST! O_O

 

What! WHAT! Come at me, bro!

 

*glows*

[Tamerlane]

Oh, no! The dreaded archenemy of the fighter supremacist! The muscle wizard!

 

[JFSOCC]

I have no doubts that Obsidian will be able to deliver a fantastic story and characters. That's not what I'm talking about when I say narrative/world structure--this is more about the physical layout of the narrative. Basically, the player should never be able to see the full form of the narrative/game until he or she finishes the game. This does NOT mean "twists" to the plot, but rather a more naturally-evolving plot, the winds and shifts and whose ultimate form does not become apparent until you reach the end. Am I articulating this well? Maybe some examples. In Dragon Age Origins, you are almost-immediately told to go gather four magic jewels (i.e. armies) and use them to defeat the evil demon king (the dragon boss). And that's exactly what you do in the game. You're able to see the full structure of the narrative from beginning to end... and that's terrible. Compare that to the more naturally-evolving narrative in, say Dragon Quest VI. Here, the hero's initial quest is to pick something up in a village... but the shopkeeper is missing, so you have to search to find him... and you find him hanging off the edge of a cliff... you save him and fall down the cliff, and end up in another world, then you have to figure out how to exist in that world, then how to return to your own world... the movement of the plot is much more natural. Just as it's important for gamers not to know what's "over the next hill" when exploring the physical properties of a game world, so as to not ruin the joy of that exploration, so, too, is it important not to know what's "over the next plot point" when exploring the game narrative.

I believe you are talking about difference between character driven and plot driven. Yes, Character driven is better.

[Katphood]

One of the things I am never satisfied with in rpg's are the shops and their items. You basically use them to sell your trash. I want to see unique shops, with unique items that aren't easy to aquire. Interacting with shops and merchants should be a rewarding experience in general.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Astiaks

[Greensleeve]

The stuff about magic you wrote is one of my largest fears with this game. I absolutely abhor having casters being the most powerful characters in the game. Why on earth should a wizard be more powerful than a fighter in PE? They both derive their power from the exact same thing. 

 

Mages were pretty broken in Dragon Age, yo. Arcane Warrior + Blood Mage was bull****, and even more traditional mages handled way better than fighting dudes.

 

EDIT: Also,

 

 

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

 

I'm in. Who do we beat up first?

[rjshae]

One of the weakest elements of virtually every CRPG I've played, and to me one of the most important, is the creation of a sense that this is a living, breathing world with lived-in settlements, people going about their business, and an economy working around you. Sure, games like MotB and DA2 had cities, but they felt like empty shells inhabited by vacuous zombies.

[Ffordesoon]

Combat. No, seriously.

 

It sounds weird, but how many classic cRPGs can you name that have combat you actually look forward to? And that you didn't get bored with before the end of the game?

 

Fallout's combat was fun occasionally, but more often tedious (though that depended on your build, admittedly). The IE games were generally hamstrung by their combat mechanics and the awkward pairing of RTwP with sprites that didn't have nearly enough animations for the amount of states they were supposed to convey. Most other D&D-based games after, like, the Gold Box ones had a similar problem. Arcanum is more or less rendered unplayable by the combat. The KOTOR games are at the mercenary whims of the D20 system. Ultima's combat is just kind of there. Deus Ex had fun combat by the end of the game, and it had a ton of options, but there's a very good reason most people try to stealth their way through. Morrowind's combat had the worst visual feedback of any cRPG. System Shock 2 had a similar problem to Deus Ex. The first Witcher game's combat wasn't vaguely passable until, like, Act 4. Bloodlines had the Deus Ex problem, but way worse, seeing as how it was never properly finished. I could keep going.

 

And the sad thing is, the ones that get combat right tend to be a bit crap at most other things. ToEE, for example.

[Arsene Lupin]

Or the obvious counter, Planescape Torment. Most people agree it's one of the, if not THE best cRPGs ever made... yet those same people also admit that the combat is terrible. (Which is weird, considering how well every other IE game did combat).

[Solstis]

Arcanum is more or less rendered unplayable by the combat.

 

Lies, that game is really good.

 

But you have a point that no RPG has really done combat justice. I want to see permanent wounds on enemies where they were struck, arrows stuck in them like a pin cushion, etc. It's gruesome, but that's the price you pay for being an adventurer... bloody boots.

[Ffordesoon]

@Solstis:

 

Well, that was my reaction. If you liked it, good for you! :D

[mcmanusaur]

First, why make a thread discussing ten different things?

 

Second, I stopped reading when you implied that magic is overlooked, and uneven class "balance" is a good thing. That's seriously... just dumb. Why should someone be penalized for not wanting to be some generic ego-indulging (for the player, I suspect) "badass" fireball-tossing wizard. To me mages are simply the most boring classes, and if characters can make their way using the giant non sequitur of magic (that's all it is) then at least other characters who choose more authentic sources of power shouldn't be beholden to the mages and their dubiously manufactured awsum.

TL;DR- magic gets too much attention as it is, and uneven class balance is bad and you should feel bad

[Tamerlane]

The stuff about magic you wrote is one of my largest fears with this game. I absolutely abhor having casters being the most powerful characters in the game. Why on earth should a wizard be more powerful than a fighter in PE? They both derive their power from the exact same thing. 

 

Mages were pretty broken in Dragon Age, yo. Arcane Warrior + Blood Mage was bull****, and even more traditional mages handled way better than fighting dudes.

 

EDIT: Also,

 

 

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

 

I'm in. Who do we beat up first?

Allow these poor, downtrodden fighter brothers to direct you to the appropriate target for your auto-attacking wrath:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU

[Greensleeve]

 

The stuff about magic you wrote is one of my largest fears with this game. I absolutely abhor having casters being the most powerful characters in the game. Why on earth should a wizard be more powerful than a fighter in PE? They both derive their power from the exact same thing. 

 

Mages were pretty broken in Dragon Age, yo. Arcane Warrior + Blood Mage was bull****, and even more traditional mages handled way better than fighting dudes.

 

EDIT: Also,

 

 

Fighter supremacy 2013, mother****ers.

 

I'm in. Who do we beat up first?

Allow these poor, downtrodden fighter brothers to direct you to the appropriate target for your auto-attacking wrath:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU

 

So you're saying we should beat up the jocks? Yeah, I'm up for that. 

[nikolokolus]

Or the obvious counter, Planescape Torment. Most people agree it's one of the, if not THE best cRPGs ever made... yet those same people also admit that the combat is terrible. (Which is weird, considering how well every other IE game did combat).

 

Not to start a war, but the combat in the IE games was mostly crap.  Pathing was a huge problem, it was nearly impossible to block or otherwise keep heavy hitters off of your squishy mage types, tons and tons of trash mob fights and pretty substandard AI (everybody remembers kiting right?)

[hairyscotsman2]

I'd like to see class balance and an end to those save-or-die instant win spells. I greatly admire Obsidian for making a game that steps beyond the limitations and inbalances inherent to the older d20 rules set.

I had 24 years at games tables with fighters with linear power progression and wizards who gained power exponentially, until the wizards became the gods who do everything and all other classes were there just to keep the gods alive so they could do all the interesting stuff.

[Stun]

2) Narrative/World Structure

 

Basically, the player should never be able to see the full form of the narrative/game until he or she finishes the game. This does NOT mean "twists" to the plot, but rather a more naturally-evolving plot, the winds and shifts and whose ultimate form does not become apparent until you reach the end. Am I articulating this well? Maybe some examples. In Dragon Age Origins, you are almost-immediately told to go gather four magic jewels (i.e. armies) and use them to defeat the evil demon king (the dragon boss). And that's exactly what you do in the game. You're able to see the full structure of the narrative from beginning to end... and that's terrible. Compare that to the more naturally-evolving narrative in, say Dragon Quest VI. Here, the hero's initial quest is to pick something up in a village... but the shopkeeper is missing, so you have to search to find him... and you find him hanging off the edge of a cliff... you save him and fall down the cliff, and end up in another world, then you have to figure out how to exist in that world, then how to return to your own world... the movement of the plot is much more natural. Just as it's important for gamers not to know what's "over the next hill" when exploring the physical properties of a game world, so as to not ruin the joy of that exploration, so, too, is it important not to know what's "over the next plot point" when exploring the game narrative.

Indeed. Actually, there's a lot of leeway here in how the narrative can be written/structured in order to acheive what you're asking for. A game's story can deliver that feeling of the unknown without having such a "mysterious" physical plot delivery structure. The various Infinity Engine games are proof of this.

 

For example, BG1 and the Icewind Dales did things precisely as you describe. The slow-drip plot flow was natural, even as the map-settings were ever-changing. In the meantime, the player was left in the dark with regards to both his greater objective and the climax of the story itself until near the very end, when the "plot twist" revealed what everything was really about.

 

But BG2 and Planescape Torment did NOT do it that way. They did the opposite. In the case of PS:T, you're flat out told, via a prophesy from a seer in the game's prologue, exactly where you were going to go in the end game, and what you'll be facing once you get there lol. In BG2's case, The entire plot's objective is laid out before you in the prologue, and then you're given confirmation scenes throughout chapter 2 and 3. Interestingly though, the "what's over that hill??" feeling was actually stronger (for me at least) in PS:T and BG2 than it was in those other games.

 

I chalk that up to good writing. And setting.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Stun

[Eiphel]

After the retirement of the Infinity Engine, there seems to have been a trend toward "equalization." E.G., all RPC character classes are made mostly equal, so that players don't feel unduly punished or rewarded for choosing one class over another. To me, that just makes the game boring. Uneven class balance is best, IMHO

 

I can't overstate how utterly I disagree with this. The whole point of these games is to have a reactive world and great player choice. This sentiment flies entirely in the face of that. RPGs are balanced to make all classes equal so that people can play whatever classes they want. Specifically balancing to be uneven is the exact opposite of what these games are aiming for. What if I don't want to be forced to include a wizard in all my parties? It completely defeats the whole notion of having a range of classes to choose from if you then railroad people into an optimal party makeup. And besides, you liked wizards but what if uneven party balance existed... And heavily emphasised the neccesity of making sure you had a sword-and-board fighter leading every party? Would you be so in favour of it then? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the IE games didn't have uneven class balance intentionally...)

Edited June 2, 2013 by Eiphel

[hairyscotsman2]

 IE games had inherent in-built class inbalance due to being tied to the old d20 system, because that's the only way d20 pen and paper games were then. TBH inbalance doesn't wind me up quite so much in a computer game with party control but it really wears me down at a gaming table and it's not a desirable design goal.

 

 

[hairyscotsman2]

Meaningful character death is important.

One game i don't understand the love and devotion expressed for it is KotC. I'm not sure why ppl praise KotC so much. Why have a strategy to kill an over-powered dragon early in the game when you can reload a few times and insta-gib it with a dragon slaying arrow that you can only get by unintuitively allowing someone who is clearly evil go free? Poor plot design on a poor base system IMHO. Reminded me of the poorer quality adventure game books that would kill you just because you turned right instead of left with no cluing. Now if a pen and paper games master made an adventure like that I'd have expected critical feedback from players, I'd have expected that GM to improve. As old GM'ing guides I've read advised me and experience has taught me: Player character death by chance or arbitary DM choice should be avoided. Players should experience failure by their own mistakes. That way they will have learned something to bring over into their new character (or resurrected body). The mistakes can be a lack of information gathering, a strategic error, saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, failing to spot a danger there a long list of mistakes that can lead to death but fatal events should never be 'just because' and there should, ideally, be multiple ways of overcoming the challenges. RL has quite enough pointless, arbitary, meaningless and reason defying deaths of those we care about, the last place we need more is in a game we pay to escape reality in.

Edited June 2, 2013 by hairyscotsman2