Thursday, November 06, 2008
RPG Design: Learning the Scales
I was going to make another post on Wizardry 8 today. I took about a week off from playing it, and jumped back in, only to find the "random" encounters were once again consuming a good deal of my time. I've been running around Rapax Rift for a while now, and found an interesting situation - the random encounters seem to be much harder (and longer) than the "fixed" encounters at my level (pushing level 20).
When I open a door, I'm often faced with four to six monsters at or below my character level. The patrols, on the other hand, consist of eight to sixteen creatures around my level, and I'm frequently running out of spell points by the time the battle is over. So - resting and returning, I'm facing the same encounters again immediately. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's a relief to hit some rooms, because I can fight four or five of these semi-fixed encounters in a row.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it feels like gaining higher levels is actually penalized... things get harder, instead of easier, as you improve.
You know, EverQuest was pretty popular when this game was released. Maybe the developers were taking design notes from that MMORPG? In EverQuest, monsters of your level were easy to solo by any class at low levels, but at higher levels it would take an entire group to bring down an equal-leveled monster for many classes.
Too Weak To Be Interesting
For many years, our pen-and-paper gaming group played the Hero system as our gaming system of choice --- primarily Fantasy Hero. Some folks here might recognize the gaming system as the core of the Champions RPG (now being made into an MMO by the original creators of City of Heroes - recently joined by Bill Roper). It was a great, ultra-flexible system that was adapted to several genres.
One of the problems with the Hero system - which was the compelling reason for me embracing D20 in 2000 - was that there was only a fairly small "window" of interesting number space within the rules. Combat was only interesting if your attack and defense values were within about 3 or 4 points of your opponent's. Beyond that, and the bell curve for 3d6 was so huge that hitting or missing was almost automatic. This wasn't a problem at low level, where those values were all within a nice, comfortable range. But as characters (and their opponents) gained power, you'd end up with balance problems. For example, a magic user in the party might be at risk of being taken out in a single hit by a high-level monster, but if they could bring their mental attacks to bear right off the bat, they were indominatable.
Another issue with the system was that - for the most part - you'd fully heal up between battles. There was very little resource management necessary between battles. So if an encounter wasn't dangerous enough to provide a significant lethal threat to the party, it would make no difference in the game. (There were SOME poorly-written, optional rules for Long-Term Endurance, but I don't know anybody who actually used them).
So, during one Fantasy Hero campaign, we joked about how much things had scaled with us. Orcs and ogres, which once dotted the landscape everywhere, were nowhere to be found. Like we'd exterminated the entire race. For some reason, we just encountered higher-level monsters everywhere we went. (Not too unlike 3rd edition D&D campaigns. Or Oblivion. ) But we also felt like we were running in place. No matter how much power we gained, the combats pretty much fell within a certain range of us, went the same number of turns, and had similar outcomes. Sure, we had to battle different kinds of powers to keep things interesting, but there wasn't much feeling of progress.
Sorta like I how I felt about Wizardry 8 and Oblivion. And most MMORPGs.
He tried to throw a large group of ogres against us once late in the campaign. We didn't bother finishing the battle, because it wasn't even fun, except to measure how much we'd improved. The dice were almost superfluous, and it was just a waste of time. Since there was no need for conserving resources, these encounters weren't even valuable as "speed bumps" on our way to a climactic final encounter. If an encounter didn't have a very real chance of defeating the party - which is to say, its numbers didn't fall within that narrow window of range - there was simply no point in playing it out. In the future, the GM would sometimes just mention in passing, "Oh, and you defeat some groups of orcs" or something if anything at all.
And so the monsters scaled with us.
As a side note, we also had the economy scale on us, too. The game master also had started with the world's economy on some kind of iron standard - where a copper piece was actually quite valuable, silver was a small fortune, and a single gold piece was a princely sum that the average commoners was unlikely to even see in his lifetimes. By the time the campaign ended, stays at an average inn were costing us a couple of gold pieces a night. I guess all our treasure hunting had caused inflation. Once again, keeping track of those smaller denominations were no longer interesting to us at our level.
Weak But Dangerous
A lot of what constitutes scaling depends on the system. In the earlier editions of D&D, damage output and armor class didn't increase much as players and monsters increased in power. A group of bugbears might hit less often and not survive as many rounds against your 14th level party as against your 4th level party, but would otherwise do the same damage. The biggest difference - besides their shortened survival window - is that the level of attrition represented by that numerical value would be significantly less at higher level. The magic-user might survive three rounds instead of just one. And the second-level spell he casts to thin out the bugbear ranks represents a much smaller consumption of his resources.
Consequently, you had high-level modules in D&D that were still flooded by low-level monsters. Lolth, in Queen of the Demonweb Pits, was in an alternate demon dimension but still surrounded herself with the same orcs, hobgoblins, and bugbears that the party had been fighting since level 1. Fortunately, these were supplemented by nasty telekinetic demons and and stuff, but it was still an amusing mix.
The virtue of a system like this is that encounters on the lower end of the scale - even those with little chance of defeating the party - remain interesting. Players can enjoy making short work of a monster that gave them so much grief at lower level, but they still can't take it for granted or sleep through the encounter. Blowing it away with a Finger of Death spell might feel good, but it might make the upcoming encounter with the witch-queen and her minions a bit harder without another use of that spell.
And then you also get possibilities like Roger E. Moore's notorious editorial about "Tucker's Kobolds" - intelligent, crafty, cunning, but otherwise weak monsters making life way too interesting for high-level parties.
Too Much, Not Enough
So we've got two extremes here - too much scaling, and perhaps not enough scaling. A lot depends upon the game system, and the kind of results the designers were trying to achieve.
Flirtations with "auto-scaling" in several CRPG titles over the last decade (or more) have had some pretty unsatisfactory results in the minds of several gamers. But - lacking that - many of us have encountered side quests in games that we hit late or early and found them to be pretty frustrating (or boring) experiences.
I think we're still trying to discover a happy medium in the world of computer RPGs.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 9:43 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
The only RPG that I can remember that did this perfectly for me was the old Dragon Wars from Interplay.
I couldn't really say why (and would probably fail miserably if I tried), but I remember feeling real progress and pride in the power of my party, without any feeling of contrivance or cheesiness whatsoever. When I was consciously careful in exploring it was manageable, when I hung around the same place I got a cakewalk eventually, and if I ran on ahead it got hard, all through to the end of the game.
Then again, maybe it's nostalgia speaking, who knows.
I couldn't really say why (and would probably fail miserably if I tried), but I remember feeling real progress and pride in the power of my party, without any feeling of contrivance or cheesiness whatsoever. When I was consciously careful in exploring it was manageable, when I hung around the same place I got a cakewalk eventually, and if I ran on ahead it got hard, all through to the end of the game.
Then again, maybe it's nostalgia speaking, who knows.
# posted by 
: November 06, 2008 6:37 PM
: November 06, 2008 6:37 PM
Oh, and yeah I would classify the random encounters in W8 along with how much time one spends in them as one MAJOR "thing to improve" on that game :)
# posted by : November 06, 2008 6:46 PM
: November 06, 2008 6:46 PM
I second the comment on Dragon Wars. I thought of it too when I read this post.
One thing I sort of recall about D.W. was that you never advanced by leaps and bounds. The range of progress seemed less than in other games - you were always scrabbling for every small advantage you could get. Because gaining a level didn't make you 10 times stronger, it meant that you rarely completely outclassed even weak badguys, and prevented things from getting too boring.
Jay, I'd love to get your opinion on the merits of having a slower advancement rate, instead of the usual RPG arc of starting out as a tiny weakling and ending as a titan. Do you think that is a viable approach to solving some of these balance issues? Or will today's player get "bored" by the lack of fast-moving progress?
One thing I sort of recall about D.W. was that you never advanced by leaps and bounds. The range of progress seemed less than in other games - you were always scrabbling for every small advantage you could get. Because gaining a level didn't make you 10 times stronger, it meant that you rarely completely outclassed even weak badguys, and prevented things from getting too boring.
Jay, I'd love to get your opinion on the merits of having a slower advancement rate, instead of the usual RPG arc of starting out as a tiny weakling and ending as a titan. Do you think that is a viable approach to solving some of these balance issues? Or will today's player get "bored" by the lack of fast-moving progress?
IMHO, too much scaling means that you don't improve. Which is kind of pointless in an RPG, isn't it?
I'm not a pen&paper guy but I can imagine that it's very difficult to cope with that problem there but a CRPG could and should offer other possibilities. At least in a single-player campaign.
To stay in your economy example: What the hell is wrong with offering the same low-cost goods and services as before?
It would accentuate the new status the party/player reached if he doesn't have to worry any longer how expensive his stay at the inn or a reanimation at the temple would be.
The same goes for weapons and armor - only that the low-cost items wouldn't help him in the bigger fights and he needs the "bigger guns" anyway.
All of this can be solved in a game by giving the player new conditions and different goals.
Let him enter "The City of Gold" where gold is everywhere and practically worthless.
What about spells letting the player conjure up lots of money - and then taking this ability away? Let him cope with that!
The problem is: Games are often treadmills and don't surprise the player anymore.
Part of the reason is that players expect the game to act uniformly - but afterwards they'll complain that it was all the same, all the time.
I'm not a pen&paper guy but I can imagine that it's very difficult to cope with that problem there but a CRPG could and should offer other possibilities. At least in a single-player campaign.
To stay in your economy example: What the hell is wrong with offering the same low-cost goods and services as before?
It would accentuate the new status the party/player reached if he doesn't have to worry any longer how expensive his stay at the inn or a reanimation at the temple would be.
The same goes for weapons and armor - only that the low-cost items wouldn't help him in the bigger fights and he needs the "bigger guns" anyway.
All of this can be solved in a game by giving the player new conditions and different goals.
Let him enter "The City of Gold" where gold is everywhere and practically worthless.
What about spells letting the player conjure up lots of money - and then taking this ability away? Let him cope with that!
The problem is: Games are often treadmills and don't surprise the player anymore.
Part of the reason is that players expect the game to act uniformly - but afterwards they'll complain that it was all the same, all the time.
I spent an undue amount of time tweaking my own pen&paper rules system to avoid this problem.
Instead of basing things on the actual stat numbers, it's based on how your opponents stats compare relative to yours.
So, if you have 55 accuracy and your opponent has 110 evade, you'll hit just as much as if you had 3,142 accuracy and your opponent had 6,284 evade.
Of course the numbers would be unlikely to get over a couple hundred, but the fact is they'd work. Like if you wanted some battle of the titans or clash of the gods kind of campaign, you could do it with those insance stats.
Instead of basing things on the actual stat numbers, it's based on how your opponents stats compare relative to yours.
So, if you have 55 accuracy and your opponent has 110 evade, you'll hit just as much as if you had 3,142 accuracy and your opponent had 6,284 evade.
Of course the numbers would be unlikely to get over a couple hundred, but the fact is they'd work. Like if you wanted some battle of the titans or clash of the gods kind of campaign, you could do it with those insance stats.
I actually prefer it when things are slanted towards "easy" -- combat should seem exciting but should be very unlikely to kill me off if I'm even slightly paying attention (I loathe the "game over"/"reload" screens with a firey passion). And it definitely is still fun to encounter monsters that gave you grief at lower levels and beat the tar out of them -- as long as it doesn't happen often enough to become a chore.
But then again, I tend to favour story in games over gameplay -- there does have to be *some* gameplay, of course, and it has to be good, but if it becomes difficult enough to get me stuck then it annoys me (basically turning into what Shamus calls DIAS).
But then again, I tend to favour story in games over gameplay -- there does have to be *some* gameplay, of course, and it has to be good, but if it becomes difficult enough to get me stuck then it annoys me (basically turning into what Shamus calls DIAS).
miras: "I tend to favour story in games over gameplay -- there does have to be *some* gameplay, of course, and it has to be good, but if it becomes difficult enough to get me stuck then it annoys me (basically turning into what Shamus calls DIAS)."
Couldn't agree more. I think difficulty is one of the biggest challenges games face as a medium: too many gamers seem to think that interactive art should be a virtual obstacle course, while the rest of us are exasperated by the same idea. Personally I think "challenge" is best relegated to the multiplayer realm, where competition is focused on skill and strategy as opposed to pattern-recognition and muscle memory. Single-player "obstacle course" games are just annoying and archaic IMO.
But I think this only really applies to linear games, where there's no "Plan B" for the player to level up/get gold and buy better gear, etc. In RPGs I think having to divert to "Plan B" on occasion truly reinforces the illusion of danger, provides guideposts for advancement, and gives the player more genuine satisfaction when the ultimately victory rolls around. But like you say, too many "Plan Bs" in an RPG just feels taxing. The best gauge is, as always, the player: if the player is annoyed, then your game is too difficult, no question. Legitimate challenge excites -- not exacerbates -- an interested gamer.
Re: the scaling thing, I'm kind of amazed anyone ever thought scaling was a good idea. It's a solution to a non-problem. I remember when my 10-year-old brother found out that Oblivion scaled the enemies to the player's level: he said, "Then what's the point of leveling up?" If a kid can figure this stuff out, then serious designers should too.
Post a Comment
Couldn't agree more. I think difficulty is one of the biggest challenges games face as a medium: too many gamers seem to think that interactive art should be a virtual obstacle course, while the rest of us are exasperated by the same idea. Personally I think "challenge" is best relegated to the multiplayer realm, where competition is focused on skill and strategy as opposed to pattern-recognition and muscle memory. Single-player "obstacle course" games are just annoying and archaic IMO.
But I think this only really applies to linear games, where there's no "Plan B" for the player to level up/get gold and buy better gear, etc. In RPGs I think having to divert to "Plan B" on occasion truly reinforces the illusion of danger, provides guideposts for advancement, and gives the player more genuine satisfaction when the ultimately victory rolls around. But like you say, too many "Plan Bs" in an RPG just feels taxing. The best gauge is, as always, the player: if the player is annoyed, then your game is too difficult, no question. Legitimate challenge excites -- not exacerbates -- an interested gamer.
Re: the scaling thing, I'm kind of amazed anyone ever thought scaling was a good idea. It's a solution to a non-problem. I remember when my 10-year-old brother found out that Oblivion scaled the enemies to the player's level: he said, "Then what's the point of leveling up?" If a kid can figure this stuff out, then serious designers should too.
Links to this post:
<< Home
