Though I'm not a fan of every addition in Assassin's Creed 2, it is a lot of fun overall. In the beginning, it felt slow and confined. I knew that it would pick up and set me free eventually, but it definitely kept me on training wheels for far too long and held back much of what ultimately makes it a great game.
Learning curves make sense. It also makes sense that more complex games need longer learning curves.
But when your game has a lot to learn, the answer is not to restrict players to a little bit at a time. Rather, offer the player many options at any given time and restrict only how much is expected of the player by challenges he or she faces. Offer elite challenges, but only in such a way that they are clearly bonuses and not necessary to progress in core areas.
It's like teaching students. If one student is already somewhat familiar with a topic or picks it up quicker than other students, the solution is not to silence that student and prevent him from offering what he can, so that other students don't feel pressured. Instead, the solution is to allow that student to surpass normal requirements and provide special challenges that other students can happily skip and forget.
Players should never feel like they're held back... that they're offered too few options and opportunities. Players should never feel like they're waiting for "the real fun" to begin.
Making learning curves malleable enough to suit multiple playstyles and levels of experience should involve more tweaking of challenges and expectations than of opportunities.
Showing posts with label skills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skills. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
progression through failure
I just want to emphasize a point I made the other day. Players can, and generally should, progress even as they fail.
You can see this in games like Diablo 2 and Borderlands. When you die, you don't lose the experience points you gained on the way to your goal (such as killing a boss mob).
That ensures, in a natural way, that players will eventually overcome any challenge. Failure doesn't mean reset. You're always progressing.
The frustration a player feels in response to failure is nothing compared to the frustration of being stuck. The player must always feel like he or she is making progress... even when that player is performing poorly.
You can see this in games like Diablo 2 and Borderlands. When you die, you don't lose the experience points you gained on the way to your goal (such as killing a boss mob).
That ensures, in a natural way, that players will eventually overcome any challenge. Failure doesn't mean reset. You're always progressing.
The frustration a player feels in response to failure is nothing compared to the frustration of being stuck. The player must always feel like he or she is making progress... even when that player is performing poorly.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
incongruent pauses
I'm loving Borderlands so far, but it does run into a problem that affects all co-op RPGs. Each player must pause from time to time to select a new skill or compare items in inventory and switch equipment. The problem is that all the players in a group don't share that pause. One player is kept waiting while another makes choices.
One player levels up before or after another player. Because they don't level simultaneously, one player is waiting patiently (or impatiently) while the other looking at skills and considering which to select next.
One player loots a weapon that compares favorably to something already equipped. The other plays waits patiently (or impatiently) while he or she is comparing items and deciding what, if anything, to switch.
How big a problem this is depends largely on the personalities of individual players and the degree of familiarity between them. Some players think nothing of it because they're used to it. But it generally is a barrier to fun.
So what are some possible solutions?
One option, which I seem to remember experiencing once or twice before (in Gauntlet: Seven Sorrows?), is to set intervals at which all players receive their rewards (new levels, skills, and such) simultaneously. An advantage of such a system is that developers can keep the action flowing and the experience unbroken until a bit of respite would be ideal for players. Another advantage is that players do not feel pressured while making their skills/equipment selections and are likely to discuss their options with their fellow players.
A second option is to pool the experience points and loot in such a way that co-op players necessarily reach their goals (such as a new level) simultaneously. I'm not sure how most players would react to such a system in regard to leveling, but achieving this would a loot system would certainly be difficult.
Your thoughts?
One player levels up before or after another player. Because they don't level simultaneously, one player is waiting patiently (or impatiently) while the other looking at skills and considering which to select next.
One player loots a weapon that compares favorably to something already equipped. The other plays waits patiently (or impatiently) while he or she is comparing items and deciding what, if anything, to switch.
How big a problem this is depends largely on the personalities of individual players and the degree of familiarity between them. Some players think nothing of it because they're used to it. But it generally is a barrier to fun.
So what are some possible solutions?
One option, which I seem to remember experiencing once or twice before (in Gauntlet: Seven Sorrows?), is to set intervals at which all players receive their rewards (new levels, skills, and such) simultaneously. An advantage of such a system is that developers can keep the action flowing and the experience unbroken until a bit of respite would be ideal for players. Another advantage is that players do not feel pressured while making their skills/equipment selections and are likely to discuss their options with their fellow players.
A second option is to pool the experience points and loot in such a way that co-op players necessarily reach their goals (such as a new level) simultaneously. I'm not sure how most players would react to such a system in regard to leveling, but achieving this would a loot system would certainly be difficult.
Your thoughts?
Friday, October 02, 2009
immunity
Many games over the years have given particular enemies immunities to particular player attacks. In some games (often MMOs), this means the player must choose the right gear to take to battle. In other games (like Bioshock), the player must switch weapons, ammo, or combat stances on-the-fly; typically with a delay between one and four seconds. In still other games, the player can immediately respond with multiple options.
The first scenario is only good for games that strongly favor strategy over tactics, because you're screwed if you take the wrong gear. The second scenario can be annoying, but it does lead to tense moments while players slowly reload or adjust while bullets whiz by their heads.
The last scenario is my preference. Two games which act as examples are Batman: Arkham Asylum and Diablo 2.
In Arkham, knife-fighters are immune to regular hits until stunned. Flare-fighters must be jumped over and attacked from behind unless taken down with a grab. Crazies are immune to grab moves. These immunities make for fun tactical dynamics largely because countering them can be done instantaneously and in a variety of ways. For example, crazies can be taken out with a Ground Pound move, knocked down with a batarang, or knocked down by throwing other enemies into them.
In Diablo 2, enemies can be immune to elements (fire, ice, poison, lightning) or even to all physical or magic damage. Again, these immunities can be countered instantly and in a variety of ways. By the time the player encounters these enemies, he has acquired many skills. Whatever the immunity, the player has multiple skills which can get around it.
It's not a one-size-fits-all design strategy, but it has always felt more fun to me.
The first scenario is only good for games that strongly favor strategy over tactics, because you're screwed if you take the wrong gear. The second scenario can be annoying, but it does lead to tense moments while players slowly reload or adjust while bullets whiz by their heads.
The last scenario is my preference. Two games which act as examples are Batman: Arkham Asylum and Diablo 2.
In Arkham, knife-fighters are immune to regular hits until stunned. Flare-fighters must be jumped over and attacked from behind unless taken down with a grab. Crazies are immune to grab moves. These immunities make for fun tactical dynamics largely because countering them can be done instantaneously and in a variety of ways. For example, crazies can be taken out with a Ground Pound move, knocked down with a batarang, or knocked down by throwing other enemies into them.
In Diablo 2, enemies can be immune to elements (fire, ice, poison, lightning) or even to all physical or magic damage. Again, these immunities can be countered instantly and in a variety of ways. By the time the player encounters these enemies, he has acquired many skills. Whatever the immunity, the player has multiple skills which can get around it.
It's not a one-size-fits-all design strategy, but it has always felt more fun to me.
Friday, September 18, 2009
skills and appreciation
I mentioned to someone the other day that I think the fiery boulder spell in Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction is one of the best skills ever. It's great watching the boulder roll into enemies and knock them back.
The boulder lasts more than just a second, and I think that's a large part of what makes the skill so much fun. It's rare for players to be able to pause for a moment and appreciate an action they just performed.
The tranquilizer gun in Perfect Dark 64 is another example with lasting effect. I can recall laughing hysterically with friends as one of us loaded up the other on tranquilizer and watched his screen go blurry. It could get annoying. But, again, you had a second or two to appreciate your action.
The boulder lasts more than just a second, and I think that's a large part of what makes the skill so much fun. It's rare for players to be able to pause for a moment and appreciate an action they just performed.
The tranquilizer gun in Perfect Dark 64 is another example with lasting effect. I can recall laughing hysterically with friends as one of us loaded up the other on tranquilizer and watched his screen go blurry. It could get annoying. But, again, you had a second or two to appreciate your action.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
separating skills and loot
A question came up while I was thinking about Borderlands. In a loot-driven game, must skills and loot be related?
I'd say no, they don't have to be. Yet they usually are, aren't they?
Weapon specialization skills are common. I've never been sure if I like them. On the one hand, specialization can give a character personality. In Diablo 2, I imagined my Barbarian differently depending on whether he fought with swords or with giant two-handed mauls. On the other hand, it deters players from using items they aren't specialized in, thereby reducing the fun value of other loot.
Overall, I think I prefer no specialization skills. That reduces the likelihood that I'll loot something I can't comfortably use. But a few games, like Diablo 2, do offer enough skill options that one can avoid those of specialization entirely.
The regular bond between loot and skills isn't limited to specialization, though. Magic users are often limited to staffs, wands and "focus" items. Incidentally, why must magic classes always be intellectual pansies who lob spells from afar?
Melee characters get skills that involve spinning, slamming, or jabbing. Ranged-style characters get skills for accuracy, long shots, and reload time. Many, if not most, skills in games rely heavily on whether a character is a melee or ranged fighter.
Anyway, I'd like to see some games consciously separate skills and loot... meaning any character can use any weapon or other item, and character types are divided by skills unrelated to what they're using.
I'd say no, they don't have to be. Yet they usually are, aren't they?
Weapon specialization skills are common. I've never been sure if I like them. On the one hand, specialization can give a character personality. In Diablo 2, I imagined my Barbarian differently depending on whether he fought with swords or with giant two-handed mauls. On the other hand, it deters players from using items they aren't specialized in, thereby reducing the fun value of other loot.
Overall, I think I prefer no specialization skills. That reduces the likelihood that I'll loot something I can't comfortably use. But a few games, like Diablo 2, do offer enough skill options that one can avoid those of specialization entirely.
The regular bond between loot and skills isn't limited to specialization, though. Magic users are often limited to staffs, wands and "focus" items. Incidentally, why must magic classes always be intellectual pansies who lob spells from afar?
Melee characters get skills that involve spinning, slamming, or jabbing. Ranged-style characters get skills for accuracy, long shots, and reload time. Many, if not most, skills in games rely heavily on whether a character is a melee or ranged fighter.
Anyway, I'd like to see some games consciously separate skills and loot... meaning any character can use any weapon or other item, and character types are divided by skills unrelated to what they're using.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
tactical skills
Having more than one use for a skill can make that skill so much more enjoyable.
Case in point: My WAR sorcerer had an area-of-effect root spell. It doesn't always root every enemy around me to their position, but it has a good chance to. Anyway, I found three uses for that one skill just within an hour of RvR.
Case in point: My WAR sorcerer had an area-of-effect root spell. It doesn't always root every enemy around me to their position, but it has a good chance to. Anyway, I found three uses for that one skill just within an hour of RvR.
- stop an injured enemy from retreating to safety
- save an ally from pursuing enemies
- delay a group of enemies just long enough for my allies to regroup or reach a more defensible position
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
one skill, ever expanding
Cameron brings up the question of whether or not RPGs, particularly MMOs, must have such a prolonged learning curve. It's great to not overwhelm players with too much at a game's beginning, but not so great to drag advanced gamers through slow and tedious skill-building before they can really let loose and fully enjoy the game.
One idea is that the skills a player starts with can have an increasing variety of uses as gameplay progresses. This way, you can start a player off with a full repertoire, yet the gameplay still begins simply and becomes increasingly complex.
For example: Start a player with a fireball spell, but nothing to burn besides enemies. Next, provide flammable objects. Then provide flammable + collapsable objects (i.e., start a fire to cause something to collapse on the enemy). Then, provide enemies with AI that causes them to run into their allies when aflame. It's just one skill (fireball), but that skill has an ever-expanding number of possibilities.
One idea is that the skills a player starts with can have an increasing variety of uses as gameplay progresses. This way, you can start a player off with a full repertoire, yet the gameplay still begins simply and becomes increasingly complex.
For example: Start a player with a fireball spell, but nothing to burn besides enemies. Next, provide flammable objects. Then provide flammable + collapsable objects (i.e., start a fire to cause something to collapse on the enemy). Then, provide enemies with AI that causes them to run into their allies when aflame. It's just one skill (fireball), but that skill has an ever-expanding number of possibilities.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
solo-based classing
As I said over at Cameron's article, I think the reason soloing has become empowered in MMOs is not because developers think more people want to solo, but because it's easier to make both soloing and grouping viable option by beginning production with solo gameplay.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
Friday, June 27, 2008
contextual powers
One of the great movements in design right now is contextual powers.
Assassin's Creed is a great example. A single player-command during combat (block + timed prevention strike = counterattack) can result in one of at least half-a-dozen moves. Which counterattack is seen depends on the relative position of defender-to-attacker and perhaps timing as well. Climbing is also contextual in Assassin's Creed. Simply direct Altair's movement and he'll use whatever actions are necessary to climb or leap that way. It's simple, fun, and occasionally surprising.
Fable 2 apparently makes spell-casting and ranged combat contextual as well. I'm anxious to see how that will work, but it also has me looking ahead to games of next year and beyond. How else might contextual powers be applied?
STORY
Game events are often activated by invisible triggers placed in the environment. When the player crosses a particular threshold or interacts with a particular object, a scripted event is set in motion. Triggers could also be used to activate variations in AI. When an AI character witnesses a particular event, crosses a particular threshold or such, then a change in personality occurs.
In Neverwinter Nights, child NPCs are invincible. If you attack one, the child will follow and attack your character relentlessly, eventually killing him. That's the closest thing I've seen to what I'm talking about, but that's still not it. That's basically a scripted event, a simple action command ("Kill the PC"). If it had been a change in AI, the children's perception of your character would change, but a number of subsequent events would be possible due to different personalities, different environmental circumstances, and other variables which combine on-the-fly.
ITEMS
I've long waited for contextual items. Item reward systems can be a lot of fun. I think they can be even more fun if some items are not what they appear to be, and if some items receive bonus powers in particular situations.
A broad item reward system has never been combined with a contextual combat system. It would be ridiculous to attempt as many attack animations as Assassin's Creed had for every weapon in a Diablo-type game. But breaking weapons down into a small number of classes (sword, axe, blunt, etc) would make this combo possible. In MMOs, it can be fun seeing how different characters' combat actions mix, but how much more so if there was significant variety within each character's optimal repertoire?
We've seen weapons and armor with effects or resistances that make them optimal for engagement with particular enemies. That's not the sort of contextual variety I'm praising here. In those cases, each item offers a single animation and three degrees of difficulty dependent on the enemy (ineffectual, average effect, superior effect). What I hope to see is different animations and other visible/audible effect variations independent of enemy type. Beyond mere show, I'm hoping for variety in type within one weapon.
When a player uses a "Frostbane" flaming sword against arctic inhabitants, he expects the sword to be more effectual and, though he might take some mild pleasure from pride in being smartly equipped, the experience is basically the same as using the weapon in any other scenario. On the other hand, imagine that the sword exhibits an effect type when fighting those arctic creatures that it doesn't exhibit elsewhere. What if the sword looked rather plain most of the time, but it glows hot as the player journeys further into the cold setting? What if fire suddenly erupted from the blade and was hurled at the enemy the blade was destined to fight?
Experiences like that don't just make players grin and think "cool...". Experiences like that make us wide-eyed, exhilirated, and we tell our friends about it days or even weeks later. It's more impressive, and it's feasible.
SKILLS
One of the cooler concepts I've ever read was something the Darkfall devs suggested about their Alfar race early in production (I don't know if the game still includes this scenario). The Alfar are ruled their god in physical form as a king, and that god is literally insane. All of their magic comes from him. So the spellcasters of that race have unpredictable magic. As the god's mood and sanity shift from one moment to the next, so does the potency of their spells. Sometimes their magic will sputter and fail, while at other times it is excessively powerful and brilliant.
While that's an extreme example, I think there's a lot of hope for similar variety within any particular skill. Variety can keep games fresh and replayable. It would be great if a skill gained early in a game could still surprise its user near the end.
How else might context be used to make games more fun?
Assassin's Creed is a great example. A single player-command during combat (block + timed prevention strike = counterattack) can result in one of at least half-a-dozen moves. Which counterattack is seen depends on the relative position of defender-to-attacker and perhaps timing as well. Climbing is also contextual in Assassin's Creed. Simply direct Altair's movement and he'll use whatever actions are necessary to climb or leap that way. It's simple, fun, and occasionally surprising.
Fable 2 apparently makes spell-casting and ranged combat contextual as well. I'm anxious to see how that will work, but it also has me looking ahead to games of next year and beyond. How else might contextual powers be applied?
STORY
Game events are often activated by invisible triggers placed in the environment. When the player crosses a particular threshold or interacts with a particular object, a scripted event is set in motion. Triggers could also be used to activate variations in AI. When an AI character witnesses a particular event, crosses a particular threshold or such, then a change in personality occurs.
In Neverwinter Nights, child NPCs are invincible. If you attack one, the child will follow and attack your character relentlessly, eventually killing him. That's the closest thing I've seen to what I'm talking about, but that's still not it. That's basically a scripted event, a simple action command ("Kill the PC"). If it had been a change in AI, the children's perception of your character would change, but a number of subsequent events would be possible due to different personalities, different environmental circumstances, and other variables which combine on-the-fly.
ITEMS
I've long waited for contextual items. Item reward systems can be a lot of fun. I think they can be even more fun if some items are not what they appear to be, and if some items receive bonus powers in particular situations.
A broad item reward system has never been combined with a contextual combat system. It would be ridiculous to attempt as many attack animations as Assassin's Creed had for every weapon in a Diablo-type game. But breaking weapons down into a small number of classes (sword, axe, blunt, etc) would make this combo possible. In MMOs, it can be fun seeing how different characters' combat actions mix, but how much more so if there was significant variety within each character's optimal repertoire?
We've seen weapons and armor with effects or resistances that make them optimal for engagement with particular enemies. That's not the sort of contextual variety I'm praising here. In those cases, each item offers a single animation and three degrees of difficulty dependent on the enemy (ineffectual, average effect, superior effect). What I hope to see is different animations and other visible/audible effect variations independent of enemy type. Beyond mere show, I'm hoping for variety in type within one weapon.
When a player uses a "Frostbane" flaming sword against arctic inhabitants, he expects the sword to be more effectual and, though he might take some mild pleasure from pride in being smartly equipped, the experience is basically the same as using the weapon in any other scenario. On the other hand, imagine that the sword exhibits an effect type when fighting those arctic creatures that it doesn't exhibit elsewhere. What if the sword looked rather plain most of the time, but it glows hot as the player journeys further into the cold setting? What if fire suddenly erupted from the blade and was hurled at the enemy the blade was destined to fight?
Experiences like that don't just make players grin and think "cool...". Experiences like that make us wide-eyed, exhilirated, and we tell our friends about it days or even weeks later. It's more impressive, and it's feasible.
SKILLS
One of the cooler concepts I've ever read was something the Darkfall devs suggested about their Alfar race early in production (I don't know if the game still includes this scenario). The Alfar are ruled their god in physical form as a king, and that god is literally insane. All of their magic comes from him. So the spellcasters of that race have unpredictable magic. As the god's mood and sanity shift from one moment to the next, so does the potency of their spells. Sometimes their magic will sputter and fail, while at other times it is excessively powerful and brilliant.
While that's an extreme example, I think there's a lot of hope for similar variety within any particular skill. Variety can keep games fresh and replayable. It would be great if a skill gained early in a game could still surprise its user near the end.
How else might context be used to make games more fun?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
More than numbers
I've mentioned before how the whole "Shortword +1, Shortsword +2" design leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh sure, we're way beyond that now. Now it's "Shortsword: 1-11 damage, Shortsword: 5-16 damage" and such.
The problem with this kind of design is that the difference between the two shortswords isn't felt or experienced as much as it's known. One shortsword plays just like the other. The upgrade in damage-dealing probably doesn't even mean that your foes are going down faster, but instead works as an access key to stronger foes (the same odds against tougher enemies, but the fights feel the same).
It's not enough for gear or skills to be diffferent; they must feel different to have a significant impact on gameplay.
The step after that one was to invent different types of damage. This sword and that sword do comparable damage, but this one adds fire damage while that one adds frost damage. If your lucky, that means the game creates a red or blue flash upon the weapon's impact, and maybe a sound effect to boot.
Diablo 2 took it a couple steps further.
First, the different elements actually equated different playstyles. If you prefer reliability, then you might choose weapons with fire damage for fire's predictable damage range (3-4 damage on a level 1 weapon). If you're a gambler or don't mind minimal damage sometimes if it means you can strike truly devastating blows at other times, then you might choose weapons with shock damage for it's wide range (1-8 damage on a level 1 weapon). Poison damage could be regularly devastating, but it takes time to work (say, 12 damage over 3 seconds). I admire this about the game, though I still don't like the number-crunching it promotes.
Second, Diablo 2 gave frost damage (and, oddly, only frost damage) both a significant visual bonus and a non-damage tactical advantage. If you kill an enemy with your frost coated-weapon, then there's a chance the enemy will turn to ice and shatter upon the final blow. That's a visual effect that is really noticed and actively enjoyed by the player. The tactical advantage is that an enemy chilled by your frozen weapon moves slower for a second or two. Again, this is something the player really noticed and actively enjoyed.
In most games, skills progress numerically in the same way as weapons and armor, but they tend to have more interesting visuals and tactical influence. M&M: Dark Messiah added interesting physical consequences to some skills, like letting enemies slip on the ice you just cast onto the floor. There are plenty of skills in various games that do things like trip up the enemy, but the interesting thing about the Dark Messiah example is that the skill could be used in multiple ways.
Could weapons and armor also be used in multiple ways?
Anyway, Craig's got an interesting discussion going on his site about equipment in RPGs. Honestly, I'm not sure yet how I would design my equipment system. But I can say that these are some of my goals:
There's probably something I'm forgetting, but how's that sound?
Oh sure, we're way beyond that now. Now it's "Shortsword: 1-11 damage, Shortsword: 5-16 damage" and such.
The problem with this kind of design is that the difference between the two shortswords isn't felt or experienced as much as it's known. One shortsword plays just like the other. The upgrade in damage-dealing probably doesn't even mean that your foes are going down faster, but instead works as an access key to stronger foes (the same odds against tougher enemies, but the fights feel the same).
It's not enough for gear or skills to be diffferent; they must feel different to have a significant impact on gameplay.
The step after that one was to invent different types of damage. This sword and that sword do comparable damage, but this one adds fire damage while that one adds frost damage. If your lucky, that means the game creates a red or blue flash upon the weapon's impact, and maybe a sound effect to boot.
Diablo 2 took it a couple steps further.
First, the different elements actually equated different playstyles. If you prefer reliability, then you might choose weapons with fire damage for fire's predictable damage range (3-4 damage on a level 1 weapon). If you're a gambler or don't mind minimal damage sometimes if it means you can strike truly devastating blows at other times, then you might choose weapons with shock damage for it's wide range (1-8 damage on a level 1 weapon). Poison damage could be regularly devastating, but it takes time to work (say, 12 damage over 3 seconds). I admire this about the game, though I still don't like the number-crunching it promotes.
Second, Diablo 2 gave frost damage (and, oddly, only frost damage) both a significant visual bonus and a non-damage tactical advantage. If you kill an enemy with your frost coated-weapon, then there's a chance the enemy will turn to ice and shatter upon the final blow. That's a visual effect that is really noticed and actively enjoyed by the player. The tactical advantage is that an enemy chilled by your frozen weapon moves slower for a second or two. Again, this is something the player really noticed and actively enjoyed.
In most games, skills progress numerically in the same way as weapons and armor, but they tend to have more interesting visuals and tactical influence. M&M: Dark Messiah added interesting physical consequences to some skills, like letting enemies slip on the ice you just cast onto the floor. There are plenty of skills in various games that do things like trip up the enemy, but the interesting thing about the Dark Messiah example is that the skill could be used in multiple ways.
Could weapons and armor also be used in multiple ways?
Anyway, Craig's got an interesting discussion going on his site about equipment in RPGs. Honestly, I'm not sure yet how I would design my equipment system. But I can say that these are some of my goals:
- Each effect feels significantly different from others. If "Fireball" gets an upgrade, then the upgraded version will look different and do different things.
- Old gear will exhibit new qualities when in contact with certain dynamics. Your "Bow of Lycan Hate" might act as a normal bow against most enemies, but it lights up and deals extra damage against werewolves... and when you run into a "named" werewolf/lycanthrope, it unleashes a devastating power you never dreamed it might have.
- The number-crunching is entirely hidden from the player. The strength of gear is revealed in more general terms in the item description, and many items will have depth which can only be revealed through use. Combine that with the dynamics system mentioned above, and this means that one player might have a very different impression of an item than another player... before hearing stories about the item's capabilities. Like with other aspects of the game, a player's experiences with items will be somewhat unique and his or her stories will excite other players with hints at potential future experiences (similar to what Darren called the horizon).
- Some skills/abilities will be awarded only through particular items. Find abilities which few, if any, other players have. I might even tie items and skills together in a way similar to Craig's idea in his comment on that article of his. Perhaps players will be able to invest in skills which increase the efficiency or otherwise alter a particular group of item effects. So if you acquire an item that offers shielding against fire damage, your skill might improve the shielding and even eventually reflect some of that fire damage back at the assailant... or transmute the fire into something else (like health).
- Players may know where a particular item might be found, but loot will typically be a surprise. Generally, items cannot be sought out by players. As said before, my ideal game is one more about discovery than effort. Past MMO experience do not apply... this is a very different kind of game.
There's probably something I'm forgetting, but how's that sound?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Turtle classes
Intriguing title, no? =)
For those of you who don't play many RTS games, there's a playstyle called turtling. Like a turtle, the player hides in his shell (plays defense) until finally summoning the energy to bite your finger (hit the enemy with the massive army he's been building). Basically, it means holding off the enemy long enough so you can crush them with overwhelming force.
I'm a turtle player. Honestly, it's not the most effective strategy, but it works well enough against computer AI.
But where it really shines is as a support strategy when allied with another player. My brother, my cousin and I play Battle for Middle Earth 2 cooperatively. Usually, we play with just two of us in the war mode, but we sometimes play skirmishes with all three of us, too.
RPG turtle power
I've already seen two examples in MMOs. In EQ2, a berserker inflicts more damage as he takes damage (or something like that; it's been a while). In WoW, a warrior gains bonus damage the longer he fights continuously. It looks like Tabula Rasa will employ a similar mechanic for all classes.
In what other interesting ways might this sort of playstyle be applied to RPG classes (or in general)?
For those of you who don't play many RTS games, there's a playstyle called turtling. Like a turtle, the player hides in his shell (plays defense) until finally summoning the energy to bite your finger (hit the enemy with the massive army he's been building). Basically, it means holding off the enemy long enough so you can crush them with overwhelming force.
I'm a turtle player. Honestly, it's not the most effective strategy, but it works well enough against computer AI.
But where it really shines is as a support strategy when allied with another player. My brother, my cousin and I play Battle for Middle Earth 2 cooperatively. Usually, we play with just two of us in the war mode, but we sometimes play skirmishes with all three of us, too.
RPG turtle power
I've already seen two examples in MMOs. In EQ2, a berserker inflicts more damage as he takes damage (or something like that; it's been a while). In WoW, a warrior gains bonus damage the longer he fights continuously. It looks like Tabula Rasa will employ a similar mechanic for all classes.
In what other interesting ways might this sort of playstyle be applied to RPG classes (or in general)?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
