fun and simulation

This article by Ysharros got me thinking. Sometimes it's difficult to find the right balance between fun and simulation in an RPG, where both are at play.

Case in point: crafting.

Should being a beginner/apprentice and learning the basics of the trade be more difficult than being a master? or vis versa?

Yes, masters do crazy-hard stuff, but they’ve also naturalized most habits and strategies. Masters are more likely than beginners to feel flow. Beginners have to think about what they’re doing, rather than what they’re making. In general, masters of any craft think less about technique than about the product ideal they're pursuing.

Thus, as a simulation, the beginning levels of crafting should be harder. But, as a game, the early levels should be easier. Right?



How fun and simulation are balanced depends largely on the specific game's goals. I think it's worth resurrecting such basic questions during every design process, regardless of how many times you've considered and debated it before.

fasting

Games don't have to choose between making resources either plentiful or scarce. No resource has to be supplied in steady stream throughout the game -- be it ammo, mana, health, gear, or other.

My religion, like others, includes an annual time of fasting. For forty days, we make especially difficult sacrifices to remind ourselves of our reliance on God. A game's players can similarly be called to fast; to go without something they normally have access to. The fast can be forced, encouraged, or merely suggested. The player might even be given the choice of what to sacrifice. There's a variety of possible benefits.

The general idea of a fast has been implemented many times before, but I believe there's still plenty of room for innovation.

The most common form of fasting in games is temporarily forcing the player to use a particular weapon or category of weapons. Bioshock, for example, occasionally removes the player's guns so that plasmids must be relied on exclusively. Many shooter games remove players' preferred weapons from time to time.

Another form is lack of aid resources. Left 4 Dead's AI director sometimes makes first aid kits unavailable to increase difficulty.

The form of fasting I find most compelling is reliance on persons or characters. This might be more common in games than I can recall right now, but I'm sure much more exploration is possible.

As in my religious example, such reliance might be constant throughout one's experience but reinforced in a particular moment. People tend to ignore what they are used to, so the momentary emphasis is important. For example, the player in Deus Ex is constantly dependent on NPCs to understand the what's going on (the plot), but it's not until the player realizes he has been lied to or manipulated that he becomes actively aware of that dependence.

A couple shooter games I've played included moments when the player's wounded character is firing at enemies while being dragged by an NPC ally. Left 4 Dead is fully of dependency caused by temporary inability (such as being pinned beneath a Hunter).

What other forms might fasting take in games? and to what purposes?

don't ignore player success

In the Call of Duty: World at War single-player/co-op campaign, enemies spawn in an infinite stream until the player pushes forward to seize the objective. That means that how many you kill is irrelevant. They keep coming until your player stands in the targeted location.

Medal of Honor: Airborne does it differently. If you stand in one place and keep shooting enemies, they'll continue to spawn for a while, prolonging the experience. But the game eventually rewards you for your kills by ceasing to spawn new enemies for that location.

These are different kinds of games -- one involves pushing forward on a linear path, while the other lets the player parachute onto any location of the battlefield and approach objectives from many angles. But regardless of that difference, I'd say Airborne's spawn method is better. Even if reaching locations or destroying AA guns (or whatever) is the main goal, kills should be rewarded.

Every activity central to gameplay should be rewarded. No accomplishment should be completed overshadowed by another.

balance vs customization in Diablo 3

Damion Schubert gave a good talk at the Austin conference one year in which he spoke of how the game aspect, world aspect, and social aspect of any MMO often interfere with each other. He presented a triangle with those three points and argued that a good designer is conscious of where within that triangle lies the focus of the game.

Of course, tensions like this exist among many other aspects of design. One such tension is between "balance" and customization. The more influence designers offer players over direction of their experiences, the less they are able to predict and control the gameplay overall. I prefer more emphasis on customization in the games I play.

One of the most successful games that favored customization over balance is Diablo 2. It offered unprecedented freedom in skill selection, gear selection, item customization, attribute distribution, and even pacing. Because the world repopulates with each play-session, the player could choose to replay old areas rather than push forward (thereby providing excellent control of the gameplay's difficulty to the player).

Each character was not only capable of being unique and personal, but likely to be so. Through both choice and luck, five characters of the same class and level were likely to all have different degrees, and types, of power. Customization and dynamics go hand-in-hand, and that's why I and many others are still able to enjoy Diablo 2 over seven years after its release.



So I'm wary of the news that character attribute points will be distributed automatically and not by player choice in Diablo 3. Blizzard says this allows them to go even further with items, but it seems at first glance like a step back from customization and toward the more common emphasis on power balancing.

Even if it is a step towards balance, the gameplay of Diablo 3 is still likely to be more customizable than that in most games. But Blizzard has also replaced the health potion system with health globes which cannot be stored in inventory (they can only be used automatically when running over them). I like the idea, but again choice seems to be taken from the player. Will players be able to control the pace and difficulty as much as in Diablo 2?

Two similar changes does not equal a trend. But if I see a third change of this kind, I might wonder if Blizzard is bringing Diablo 3 in line with the dominant design culture of balance obsession. Will Blizzard emphasize uniform difficulty and predictability over player choice? If so, I doubt I'll enjoy it as long and as much as I enjoyed Diablo 2.

classes vs roles (response to Warhammer news)

If you're interested in Warhammer Online at all, you've probably read about Mythic's decision to drop four classes before their imminent launch. I respect that they're willing to abandon or postpone so much content for the sake of quality, but I'm not sure yet if this specific move was a smart idea.

Questions arise only because they removed the tank of two factions and the barbarian (melee DPS) of two factions... while leaving other factions with both tanks and barbarians. Jacobs has said they don't expect a balance issue, despite the uneven role distribution. I think whether or not they're right depends on the fundamental nature of classes in Warhammer Online.

It's possible for the removal of classes (on one side but not the other) to not upset balance... but only if the classes are designed more in the style of Diablo 2 than in the style of typical MMOs.

• In a typical MMO, each class is designed primarily to fulfill a specific role in group combat. The class's efficiency outside a group or outside that specific role in the group is secondary and generally suffers in some way(s).
• In Diablo 2, on the other hand, each class is designed to be a damage-dealing powerhouse in itself, and any class can be tailored to a variety of roles in group combat. The specific skills, open skill selection and upgrade system, open stat selection, and mostly-open item system make this possible. Even the barbarian can be made into a ranged support role through skill and stat selection.

I prefer Diablo 2's system. There was no need to nerf one class and empower another after release, because every character is so unique and optimization is subjective in that game. Also, it's possible to have a very effective group comprised of any class combination... including all characters of one or two classes. Any choice can be both fun and efficient in that game.

I know that WAR is abandoning many ridiculous MMO traditions. And I know they want every class to be capable of soloing. So it's possible that Jacobs is right, and there's really not a severe balance issue caused by this recent move by Mythic. We'll just have to wait and see, right?

In any case, I recommend Diablo 2 as a model for anyone working on a skill or class system.

PaP (Player-among-Players)

Tipa over at West Karana got me thinking about the relationship between PvE and PvP. Like I said there, I think the best designs smartly combine the two. You can read my full comment there if you're interested.

But she also got me thinking that there's another type content that I'm a little surprised doesn't have its own term. It's a vice of mine that I enjoy making up terms and definitions, so here's a new term that may aid future discussions.

Or it will just make me look like "a sad little king on a sad little hill". 10 points to the person who can identify that quote! ;)

I made up the term as I was trying to describe one of my most memorable MMO experiences, something from Star Wars: Galaxies. In SWG, my ranger was able to slowly crawl through a lair of narglatches (like red-scaled lions with some serious bloodlust). I reached the very bottom before they finally saw me and chased me out (killed me too, I think). It sounds simple, but the whole thing lasted about 20-30 minutes. It was a purely PvE experience, but it was also an experience which was mine alone.

It was something personal, individual; which is why I say it was also PaP content; Player-among-Players.

To say an experience is personal is to compare it with the experiences of others, to reference the community. Hence, it's a way of defining your place among that community.

Competition isn't the only way that sharing the game with other players enhances our gameplay experience. One can only be unique if there are others to compare to. And comparisons are not always about thoughts like, "I'm better than you". That's usually a quantitative difference. There are also qualitative differences. One person is blonde while another is brunette. One person is Japanese while another is Chinese. One girl smells like flowers and another smells like onions.

These differences are important because we identify ourselves by them, and others identify us by them. PaP content is about enabling that sense of self. It's about moving beyond mere archetypes and creating a personal space in the virtual society. At its deepest, it's about taking players from "What is my character? Well, he's an orc shaman." to "Who is my character? Well, where to begin...?"

Luck in RPGs and MMOs

I'll get back to crafting later this week. For now, I want to continue a discussion from Heather's site about how we can relax the necessity of power balancing and open the field to a wider variety of skills and characters.


SHEER POWER VS LUCK
In a typical MMORPG, skills are confined mostly to the realm of power (more specifically, to some sort of hit-point system, ala D&D) because of linear progression and a disqualification of luck or chance. Skills with less than optimum damage/healing/etc are discouraged because progression, in the form of new skills and opportunities, is possible only through brute-force combat. There's strong pressure to take on the toughest enemies, because that's what gets you the best loot and best xp.

In other types of games, luck and chance acceptably play a much greater role. Boardgames which use dice are great examples. In Monopoly, a hugely successful game, the player's progress relies more on uncontrollable factors (your dice rolls, others' dice rolls, order of rolls, and card draws) than on player decisions. Tetris is another example of a wildly popular game with tremendous emphasis on chance.


RPG EXPECTATIONS
So why is chance so often eschewed in RPGs?

I think it goes back to the genre's D&D roots. In the tabletop roleplaying game, the set system, the game's fixed mechanics, are mostly linear. Dice rolls decide your character's stats (a merciful DM may let you reroll one or two) and are continually used in "saving throws", but skill progression generally occurs according to xp gained from killing monsters. D&D includes a great deal more chance and lateral gameplay than that, but that element is introduced through the Dungeon Master... the human, creative storyteller. Human imagination rounds out what would otherwise be a more linear game.

If you never played D&D, I doubt I could adequately describe how vital the DM is to any D&D adventure. The game will succeed or fail depending on how good the DM is.

As RPGs evolved from the tabletop setting to text adventures to video games, the balance tables were increasingly emphasized as the DM's dynamic and rounding role was left behind. RPGs gradually became more about increasing power than about dynamic and unpredictable adventures. They became more about fulfilling a predetermined skillset and gearset than about shaping one's character into something unique and personal.


ANOTHER ROAD
It doesn't have to be this way. The limitless imagination of a human narrator and designer (the DM) can't be replaced, but we can adjust the fundamental elements of the game to counteract that loss to some degree.

One way is to award skills and other forms of progression by ways other than combat and combat-related quests, ways involving factors beyond the player's control (chance/luck). The player might attain a new skill by happening across a particular NPC ("happening across" anything is only possible when NPCs are more dynamic than stationary quest-dispensers), by looting a scroll, by equipping an item (which must be equipped for the skill to be maintained), by researching in a library and deciphering old texts, by quest, by alchemical accident, by perceiving an NPC perform the skill and learning, by being bitten or stung by a particular creature, by being near a magical source (skills limited to particular environments could really refresh adventures), by winning contests... and on and on.

The skill system might mimick D&D spellcasters in that you can only know so many, but the ones you know can be swapped out periodically for new ones. The player's number of skill slots might grow as the player progresses. Rather than strict grouping of skills, perhaps attunement to one skill makes another less effective while making others more effective. Perhaps one skill may even alter the type of effect of another.

An alternate reward system, as I've discussed before, is essential. Rather than award xp and loot for every encounter, reward some with loot, some with money, some with faction, some with reknown, some with access, some with skills, some with knowledge, some with titles, etc (or with combinations). Some upward growth in power is good, but that doesn't have to be the emphasis. In SWG, players didn't become exponentially more powerful as they progressed through the game, or even gain many more hit-points. It worked. Most of a player's growth was in faction and ownership.

Allow for different player roles to compliment one another without having to experience the same content. Even solo players can benefit player societies if you enable them (as I like to point out, what great epic tale doesn't include a compelling loner?). Players can work together on quests without even meeting each other, by completing different parts of communal projects. If players are allowed to have unique experiences, ones that other players can't track down on a fansite and repeat step-for-step, then players can excite each other with intriguing tales and enticing screenshots. If one player can possess an item, skill, or title that sheer work will not award to another, then there is a stronger sense of individuality and personal pride.


I can't help but feel that the RPG genre in general is stuck in a rut. It's not that there are not admirable systems already in place, but there is much more potential for diversity than most developers seem willing to believe. Yes, current games are designed the way they are for a reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't other viable ways.

Routine and an illusion of fate

INTRO
If any two philosophers would have been excellent game designers, they would be Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aristotle called something virtuous when it performed the purpose of its design well. A knife, for example, is virtuous if it cuts well. You could choose to use a knife as a hammer, but it probably wouldn't perform that function well. There are limitations inherent in the design, though few designs are absolutely limited. A knife may sometimes act as a pretty good flat-head screwdriver, for example.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that there are three things any person must know in order to be happy and fulfilled: (1) he must know the world for what it is; (2) he must know his own place, his role, in the world's design; and (3) he must know how to fulfill that role through momentary actions. If a person does not know how to translate his knowledge of the role into definite actions, his ability to experience the joy of fulfillment is stunted.

On the other hand, nobody likes to feel like just a cog in the machine. In every MMO game I play (and I've played or tested almost a dozen now), I inevitably hear some players criticizing others for not knowing how to play a particular group role. If these criticisms were general, like asserting that a defender should be apt at protecting his allies, then I would agree. But they are more often suggestions that a very particular tactical blueprint should be followed without deviation; thereby ensuring, in combination with everyone else's particular blueprint, that the factory of combat produces the agreeable (if bland) result predicted.

THE GIST OF IT
For most gamers, fun is best achieved through a balance of predetermination and free will. What MMOs have shown me is that stale routines can lead to an illusion of predetermination and confinement.

Consider real warfare. A Roman swordsman knew what his initial actions must be in order to preserve the integrity of the group's strategy (a phalanx formation). In order for the formation to be effective, each soldier must move toward the enemy at an equal pace, maintaining a position in the battalion's order, until he the melee combat begins. But... once that combat begins, the soldier must respond to the spontaneous (though trained) actions of the enemy and to the progression of events surrounding his immediate opponent (like the allied soldier by his side falling to an enemy attack). Likewise, in modern warfare, the soldier has a general place in unit operations, but he must respond to spontaneous events in a fluid and often creative way (here, "creative" often means applying his training to an unfamiliar scenario).

If an encounter does not seem spontaneous in its unfolding, if the enemy does nothing that vaguely surprises the combatant, then the encounter leaves an impression of being fated, of unfolding as it was certain to unfold. Utter predictability acts as an adversary to a feeling of free will. If something always happens, then it must happen. This is a basic assumption of the empirical philosophy which popular culture has accepted from modern science.

The problem of the infamous "grind" isn't that the player must struggle through an endless series of encounters to grow and realize his or her goals. The problem is the predictability of these encounters, and the player's consequent impression that his actions were never truly his own, but rather just the fulfilling of an external plan.

Balance

Some thoughts in reaction to the discussion of balance on Green's site this past week:


MEASUREMENT
It's acceptable for one character template (class, skillset, etc) to be much more popular than another, provided the gameplay does not demand all templates to be present to conquer most encounters. Each template only has to be popular enough to justify its design cost. So half as many players might play necromancers as play knights, but that's alright if enough players enjoy necromancers to offset their design cost. It also must be acknowledged that templates can improve a player's gameplay without that player ever choosing to play that template himself. Just because one loves playing as a barbarian doesn't mean one doesn't appreciate the presence of clerics in the game.


HUES OR COLORS?
Players can vary more like colors than hues. Templates do not have to be equally complex or equally difficult/easy, if the game is designed so. That's a restriction when every template is expected to engage in PvP, but the mere presence of trade professions in MMOs demonstrates this is not a universal expectation. The main factor that limits dissimilarity is player expectations, including in regards to fairness. Even though my fellow player is contributing as much to our group as me, should he receive an equal reward if his gameplay his simpler and easier? On the one hand, it's possible to train players to think "yes".

But it's also possible to reward more complicated gameplay with a more complicated reward system. Should all characters be bound to the same system of punishments and rewards? Perhaps not. Thinking laterally, we should consider the possibility of separate and incongruent avenues of gameplay contributing to a great whole.

In the real world, countless systems which are seamingly separate combine to form larger systems and, ultimately, a unified whole. Gravity, the shifting of Earth's mantle and crust, and the sun's blasting rays are separate systems of very different designs that combine to create the weather system of Earth. Movements in the arts and philosophy combine with movements in scientific research to create culture systems. The same principle may be applied to MMO gameplay. They can have vastly different goals and process, even largely ignore each other, while still combining into a unified world.

Of course, that begs the question: Can players disagree about the ultimate nature and purpose of that world, like people do about the real world?


EVERYONE FITS?
It's acceptable for one template to be less popular among groups than others if the game is intentionally designed so. Grouping doesn't have to be a core, universal element of gameplay in an MMO. As I've pointed out before, there are a number of reasons solo players are often attracted to this genre, including the expansive worlds (which allow months-worth of exploration) and greater illusions of a living world (other players needn't interact directly with the solo player to improve his or her gameplay). Furthermore, the presence of solo players can improve the gameplay of group-oriented players. How many popular fantasies present one or more "lone wolf" characters as pivotal story figures? Games can be designed so that both types of players benefit more obviously from the presence of the other.

Look at it this way, an MMO is a virtual society. In real-world societies, loners benefit the masses without much social interaction, such as a web programmer or architect, on one extreme, and geniuses like Beethoven and Da Vinci, on the other. You don't have to interact with people directly to be a vital member of their society. As players are increasingly able to impact their gameworlds, the importance of soloers in virtual societies will become more obvious.


All of this is meant less as a critique of current MMOs than as recognition of some viable alternative methods.