Rethinking PnP CRPG Design

[Game_Exile]

Avoid the way CRPGs have been designed like pen and paper games. Wasteland 2 is a video game, and advancements in the CRPG genre will move away from character creation rules and into more complex "quest" system rules. Focus first on what the player will be doing in the game world instead of making a character ruleset that attempts to simulate everything and the kitchen sink (and then haphazardly throwing a bunch of arbitrary scenarios at these character rules). To reiterate, devs should think about overall game "world" and "quest" mechanics first, and then the (specific) character rules to complement and flesh out these mechanics.

Edits: Changed the post so I am no longer bashing pen and paper. This should cut down on some of the confusion. Also changed the Title.

[BubbaBrown]

Avoid pen and paper like the plague. Wasteland 2 is a video game, and advancements in the CRPG genre will move away from pen and paper rules (i.e. character creation rules) and into more complex "quest" system rules. Focus first on what the player will be doing in the game world instead of making a character ruleset that attempts to simulate everything and the kitchen sink (and then haphazardly throwing a bunch of arbitrary scenarios at these character rules). To reiterate, devs should think about overall game "world" and "quest" mechanics first, and then character rules to complement and flesh out these mechanics.

I get the feeling you have never actually played a good pen and paper game. Most accomplished computer RPG's of the past are actually based off of many pen and paper systems: Temple of Elemental Evil (DnD 3.0), Baldur's Gate (2nd Ed. DnD), Planescape: Torment (2nd Ed. DnD), NeverWinter Nights (DnD 3.0), Wasteland (MSPE), and even Fallout 1 and 2 (First it was GURPS, then SPECIAL).

A good pen and paper system covers the gambit of character, world, and quest control. If you look into the Dungeon's Master's guide in DnD, it covers the whole range of what you need to be familiar with. Not strictly characters composition, but what they do, what their goals are, how their quests should be made and presented, and how the world should react to their actions. How do you think many developers model systems before they code them? With pen and paper. If you start coding first and then design later, you are setting yourself up for disaster.

And your focus on the world and quest mechanics first is putting the carriage before the horse. It is really hard to model the world and quests if you don't have a good idea of what the actors will be. It is like trying to setup a theatrical play, but you have no idea who or where the audience will be. You can't motivate a player's character if the player doesn't know what actually motivates the character. You also need to figure out how the character can interact with the world before you completely figure out how the world should be presented and how quests are made.

I'd suggest taking time and really looking into a few pen and paper RPG's out there to really see what it actually encompasses. You may have not seen the entire range they actually do cover.

[Game_Exile]

And your focus on the world and quest mechanics first is putting the carriage before the horse. It is really hard to model the world and quests if you don't have a good idea of what the actors will be. It is like trying to setup a theatrical play, but you have no idea who or where the audience will be. You can't motivate a player's character if the player doesn't know what actually motivates the character.

Of course you have to have some idea about what the game will look like, for fucks' sake. It is obviously more complicated than "carriage" and "horse", and I'm not really asking for a radical departure from past CRPG mechanics (maybe a radical departure from a lazy design philosophy). All I'm saying is that you should leave the details of the character rules alone until you
1) know what your game systems will be (game systems which should be at least one step forward in complexity from previous CRPGs) and
2) have an idea how these game systems must be balanced (i.e., making sure that they are actually complex to play).
Why would you design a (more or less) turn based game where all the long term thinking and planning the player does can be done from reading the instruction manual?

You also need to figure out how the character can interact with the world before you completely figure out how the world should be presented and how quests are made...--->>>Edit:and what your character rules are going to be like.

Replace the word "character" with the word player and you get my point. Like I said in my last post, focus first on what the player will be doing in the game world.

I'd suggest taking time and really looking into a few pen and paper RPG's out there to really see what it actually encompasses. You may have not seen the entire range they actually do cover.

The pen and paper systems are not games by themselves. You need a dungeon master or a board game designer or whoever to make games to play with the rulebook. These rulebooks were designed so that every dungeon master or designer wouldn't have to make up his own set of rules every time he wanted to make a game (and also so there would be some "continuity" between the different games and players, because some role players pathetically wish to feel as if they are somebody else half the time). There will be no dungeon masters in Wasteland 2 and it will be only ONE game, so the devs should design as much of it as they can from the ground up, in a way that makes better sense than what dungeon masters do.

The devs should put more emphasis on what the overall game mechanics will look like, instead of designing everything around a rulebook. Make the specifics about the rules after you know what the game is going to look like, and try to make a good video game first instead of just trying to simulate pen and paper shit in a video game format. Some people are asking for an inferior video game because they don't have the imagination to see anything better than past CRPGs, or anything much different from pen and paper style rules. Also, fuck the mod tools.

How do you think many developers model systems before they code them? With pen and paper. If you start coding first and then design later, you are setting yourself up for disaster.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying, lol. As if I want people to just write code willy-nilly. Like I'm opposed to writing and drawing on paper with pens. LOL.

[Balls Out 3]

Game_Exile, what you're asking for sounds like a departure from the "role" in "roleplaying". There are (roughly) two camps when it comes to RPGs; the camp that wants to get in character, and the other that wants to imagine themselves as their character. You seem to be firmly in the latter camp, and you want the rules to reflect that by dismantling the ones that define who your character is. Indeed, you've said things like:

Replace the word "character" with the word player and you get my point. Like I said in my last post, focus first on what the player will be doing in the game world.

and

because some role players pathetically wish to feel as if they are somebody else half the time

I hate to break it to you, but there are still lots of people who like to roleplay. I'm not heavy into it myself, but I do like having a sense of character in an RPG. This is why I lamented the lack of a character screen and stats in Skyrim, among other things. Perhaps you see this as innovation, but I see it as detriment.

Anyway, a PnP version of Wasteland would be welcome. Perhaps it could even be a good way for the modding community to come up with scenerios to build with the toolset, just like the devs do.

[BubbaBrown]

Replace the word "character" with the word player and you get my point. Like I said in my last post, focus first on what the player will be doing in the game world.

Ah. You are from a more recent gaming generation. You are thinking along the lines similar to many first person perspective RPGs where the lines between character and player are very blurred.

There will be no dungeon masters in Wasteland 2 and it will be only ONE game, so the devs should design as much of it as they can from the ground up, in a way that makes better sense than what dungeon masters do.

There will be a game master of sorts in Wasteland 2. It's a bit more impersonal than the more commonly thought of one. It's the collection of art, scripts, and writing made by the development team presented by the game's engine. In a tabletop RPG, what a game master does is relay all the information to the player, listens to what the players want to do, and then figures out what happens next.

The devs should put more emphasis on what the overall game mechanics will look like, instead of designing everything around a rulebook.

You seem to be arguing that the presentation should come first before the content the presentation is on. All games worth mentioning were designed around rulebooks and master reference documents. Many games are mostly planned out before the programming department and art department are even pestered with any materials that'll go into the game. They do concept art and test code mechanics for feasibility... but those don't make a game.

Make the specifics about the rules after you know what the game is going to look like, and try to make a good video game first instead of just trying to simulate pen and paper shit in a video game format.

That is actually backwards in comparison to previous design mentality. Your mentality for game design is why we have over-glorified movies with terrible gameplay, that while visually impressive, are very shallow and sometimes hollow experiences. Publishers and the developers using this mindset are often too focused on making everything look nice and shiny... to put forth appropriate effort for gameplay. If you want your game to be more than a rental curiousity that has to rely upon multiplayer to give it any long term merit, you need to figure out what the actual game is before even considering how it is going to look.

Some people are asking for an inferior video game because they don't have the imagination to see anything better than past CRPGs, or anything much different from pen and paper style rules.

You'd be surprised how much imagination you have to have to play many older games. You really don't need that much for many of today's AAA title. You have never played a tabletop game. The amount of imagination you need for those kinds of games is exponential to playing many of today's video games.

Also, fuck the mod tools.

. . . You know what, could just go back to your gaming console leave the rest of us alone. There's plenty of games out there and plenty coming this year that match what you want and follow your ideals for game design. Chances are you aren't going to like Wasteland 2. Just accept it and please move on. I wish there was something I could relay that make you understand the difference of perspective that your 1980's PC era gamer generation has versus the 2000's console era gamer, but I'm pretty sure you really don't care... since anything anyone would suggest you play would disgust your overwhelming need for visual fidelity.

[BubbaBrown]

I thought this thread was about releasing the PnP version of the game they're going to be creating anyway. I'm not sure I get Game Exile's point.

*shrug* I've given up at this point. I just chalk it up to the gaming generational gap and not knowing what pen and paper games are all about.

Anyway, I hope they do at least release some beta versions of the tabletop Wasteland 2 bits. I'll be nice to have a little knowledge ahead of time to get familiar with all the fiddly mechanical bits. That way one can have a few characters ready to put into the game when it comes out.

[BentSea]

There will be no dungeon masters in Wasteland 2 and it will be only ONE game, so the devs should design as much of it as they can from the ground up, in a way that makes better sense than what dungeon masters do.

This is where you are 100% wrong and where your whole argument falls apart. inXile is the dungeong master and the story tellers, and their entire game has to conform to a predetermined set of rules. That's the point of a CRPG.. it's a paper and pencil game that the players don't have to do the legwork of tracking the stats for. There are a few reasons why they might not publish those rules, but not a single one of those reasons is anything like any of your arguments.

[cmagruder]

All "avoid pen and paper" aside, they've already said they plan on starting that way. If you're so set against it you should make a thread in the Must Avoid category.

[Game_Exile]

All "avoid pen and paper" aside, they've already said they plan on starting that way. If you're so set against it you should make a thread in the Must Avoid category.

Good idea. I might do that some time soon.

That's the point of a CRPG.. it's a paper and pencil game that the players don't have to do the legwork of tracking the stats for.

We'll just have to disagree on whether any new games, including Wasteland 2, should be designed this way.

I hate to break it to you, but there are still lots of people who like to roleplay. I'm not heavy into it myself, but I do like having a sense of character in an RPG.

What creates a better sense of character: allocating stat points or doing things [edit]closer to what[/edit] your characters are doing? Is it better to gain a strategic advantage by gaining the favor of a certain faction's VIPs? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to manipulate the economic systems in the region to make your stronghold more powerful? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to think about how to fend off enemies at strategically important locations in order to keep them from reaching their goals? Or is it better to just collect XP? You don't need to have all these things, but it is better to start implementing more complex mechanics. That is the way forward.

You seem to be arguing that the presentation should come first before the content the presentation is on.

Bullshit. I never said anything of the sort; you just hallucinated it. I'll respond to your other stuff later.

[deus]

What creates a better sense of character: allocating stat points or doing the things that your characters are doing? Is it better to gain a strategic advantage by gaining the favor of a certain faction's VIPs? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to manipulate the economic systems in the region to make your stronghold more powerful? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to think about how to fend off enemies at strategically important locations in order to keep them from reaching their goals? Or is it better to just collect XP? You don't need to have all these things, but it is better to start implementing more complex mechanics. That is the way forward.

"Is it better to gain a strategic advantage by gaining the favor of a certain faction's VIPs?"

How would your character do this, and is he capable do it?

"Is it better to manipulate the economic systems in the region to make your stronghold more powerful?"

How would your character do this, and is he capable do it?

Is it better to think about how to fend off enemies at strategically important locations in order to keep them from reaching their goals?

Even if he holds the pass is he still capable of fending of said enemies?

You seem to want the a complete world and setting dynamic without any of the interactions that actually makes it a game.
The character is your game piece, knowing what he can and can't do is the essence of an RPG.


But really, I don't think this as anything todo with your banal point where character mechanics gets in the way of World Dynamics(which is...a fucking weird argument to make since you can't create those without defining what interactions exists to begin with)
It seems you are just sour that the game won't be streamlined for ease of use, well guess what...distancing players from the gameplay rules is not a conditional for video games.

[Zombra]

I agree it could be awesome, I but I would definitely against producing such a spin-off game during the main game production time and/or using an original game budget. It's quite a large task to create such game, and while nice in theory, it see it totally out of scope of the current project.

Sounds like something to do when WL2 is finished and selling well...

Just wanted to jump in and agree with these guys. Putting the paper rules into a "retail ready" format would be a lot of work, and I don't want any labor hours repurposed from making the game I pledged for.

[Balls Out 3]

Game_Exile, I don't know why you continue to insist that character mechanics and world mechanics are at odds. It's not either/or, they work together. You're just coming up with all sorts of strange arguments to try and justify your taste in RPGs. If you don't like character mechanics, that's fine. But just say so and quit trying to convince everyone that your way is better. It's another area where you're going to have to agree to disagree.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity and masochistic insanity, I wonder what your ideal "RPG" would be like. How much character creation would there be? Perhaps none whatsoever? You are also against leveling? Maybe there would be no character mechanics at all?

[Game_Exile]

"Is it better to gain a strategic advantage by gaining the favor of a certain faction's VIPs?"

How would your character do this, and is he capable do it?

This is why the devs have to design the video game instead of worrying about some pen and paper rulebook. Because your character's actions are defined by the effect they have on the game world (as well as vice versa), i.e. character mechanics in the video game sense.

You seem to want the a complete world and setting dynamic without any of the interactions that actually makes it a game.

You people just love to imagine that I want things I actually don't want, in an attempt to convince yourselves that what I'm saying makes no sense.

But really, I don't think this as anything todo with your banal point where character mechanics gets in the way of World Dynamics(which is...a fucking weird argument to make since you can't create those without defining what interactions exists to begin with)

You can't create anything without "defining what interactions exist to begin with". Character rules like the ones you flesh out in "pen and paper" rule books (i.e., character STATS+calculations), are secondary and complementary elements to how a player interacts with a CRPG. You should be writing the character rules (and all other stats, calculations, etc.) around these "interactions" instead of the other way around, and in a way that makes these"interactions" more complex and interesting, for fuck's sake.

Where did I say character mechanics "get in the way" of the overall game systems ("World Dynamics"?) They are a fucking part of them. That does NOT necessarily mean that they should be the central and defining part from a game design standpoint. You know why? Because so called "character mechanics" (i.e. character stats/rules) will be relatively EASY TO CHANGE compared to game "world" and "quest" systems when you need to balance everything to make sure the game is challenging and interesting. That is, unless you have a game that is willy-nilly, piss-simple, and retarded. One where you can play like an imbecile and still come out with a "King of the World" story and ending (or a game that is almost completely based on luck). Is that what you want in every CRPG?

Game_Exile, I don't know why you continue to insist that character mechanics and world mechanics are at odds. It's not either/or, they work together.

I DON'T think that they are at odds. Where did I "continue" insisting this? I just think the devs shouldn't jump the gun on some pen and paper rulebook until they know what they want Wasteland 2 be like( and I want there to be more complex mechanics in Wasteland 2 than in previous CRPGs). The rulebook should be based on the video game and not the other way around. And to all you stupid heads, I do NOT mean that they should just start drawing pictures, writing stories, and writing code, for no good reason, before they've actually DESIGNED the fucking game. So stop fucking accusing me of wanting this.

All the utterly stupid misunderstanding in this thread just proves this point below:

Some people are asking for an inferior video game because they don't have the imagination to see anything better than past CRPGs, or anything much different from pen and paper style rules.

And like I said before:

Why would you design a (more or less) turn based game where all the long term thinking and planning the player does, can be done from [just] reading the instruction manual?

You're just coming up with all sorts of strange arguments to try and justify your taste in RPGs. If you don't like character mechanics, that's fine. But just say so and quit trying to convince everyone that your way is better. It's another area where you're going to have to agree to disagree.

The "character mechanics" (or actually character stats) are an important part of the game (ONE game, Wasteland 2). The devs should figure out what the most important and interesting mechanics in their game will be like, and design everything else around them. The way games have been centered around character stats in past CRPGs is, imo, just not that interesting. I just want a game where you have to think hard about your choices. And I mean carefully think and calculate(no, I don't mean counting numbers, morons) most of the time, before you guess.

I want more complex systems, and I am not necessarily opposed to complex character stat sheets. It's just that complexity doesn't work unless the the player is making decisions that are important, and character stats in CRPGs often work out to be bloated and largely unnecessary rather than complex (when they are not designed around player "interactions"). I don't want a bunch of arbitrary one-off scenarios loosely strung together by some idiotic plotline in a static world where everything is just waiting around for you to knock one pin down after the other. And all of this formed around character systems that can be completely planned out before you even start up the game (an exaggeration in some cases, but you get my point).

This is why I say the devs should focus more on a "quest" system and "world" mechanics than they have in previous CRPGs. Can you see why it is not good design, to make how a player allocates stat points the most complex and important player decisions in the game?

And I have not made "all sorts of strange arguments". You are just misinterpreting everything I write.

[BubbaBrown]

I have not made "all sorts of strange arguments". You are just misinterpreting everything I write.

If a majority of people are having trouble figuring out where you are coming from and haven't been able to properly ascertain what exact you are trying to present in your arguments... Maybe you are not writing in a manner that can be properly interpreted. Maybe it's you having the problem of misinterpretation. From what I can sort from the dismissive and ad homihem commentary is this...

You seem to want the developers to design from the point how a player interacts to the game in a "video game" sense. Define "video game" sense. That is a very ambiguous term. What defines design from a "video game" perspective in contrast to other perspectives? This could be the UI, graphics, sounds, layout, etc... This is basically the presentation layer of the system. The only difference between Pong and Air Hockey is the presentation of game, they both operate on the same theory.

I really get the feeling your are trying to argue against something you really don't know much about with theory you don't fully grasp. If you took some time to learn more about the topics at hand, you'd see why everyone is having such a hard time figuring out what it exactly is that you are trying to point out. If you are arguing that designers should consider what the player does to actually play the game, you are trying to attack the wrong thing. If you are arguing that designers should consider what the player does in the game, that is included in the whole "pen and paper" rulebook concept. Pen and paper isn't simply characters stats and such, that is actually a VERY small aspect. It an important aspect, which is why a lot of books go into some detail about it, but is really only the first step of many. You need to sit down and read some pen and paper games. (Not just DnD.) Look at Cyberpunk 2020, Deadlands, Deadlands: Hell On Earth, White Wolf products, Shadowrun, Rifts, Warhammer, many Indie titles, etc... While each one does cover character creation and talks about stats and calculations, that's because the player's proxy into the game universe is the character. The books cover... so much more. The details of the world, histories, stories, quest structures, and how to interact with the world.

Don't know what more to say. I've spent more time than I should have on this topic.

[Game_Exile]

From what I can sort from the dismissive and ad homihem commentary is this...

Ad Hominem, in a debate, is when you paint your opponent in a light that causes readers/listeners to become prejudiced against your opponent's arguments. If anything, all my insults have had the complete opposite effect. So people need to stop fucking accusing me of making ad hominem attacks when I have done no such thing. "Insult" does not equal "Ad Hominem", get it? People are making ad hominem attacks at me, by accusing me of making ad hominem attacks, lol. Jesus Fucking Christ the Irony, every time someone does this.

What defines design from a "video game" perspective in contrast to other perspectives? This could be the UI, graphics, sounds, layout, etc... This is basically the presentation layer of the system. The only difference between Pong and Air Hockey is the presentation of game, they both operate on the same theory.

You are totally confused. For fuck's sake, the only real similarities between Pong and real life Air Hockey is in "presentation". And lol at "theory".

I really get the feeling your are trying to argue against something you really don't know much about with theory you don't fully grasp.

I grasp what I'm saying just fine and well enough, thank you. I'm (truly) sorry that I am unable to say it in a way that any idiot can immediately understand without thinking. "Theory", lol.

If you are arguing that designers should consider what the player does in the game, that is included in the whole "pen and paper" rulebook concept.

What the player does in a video game is defined by the game engine. You base your rules and design on what you want and are able to do in the game engine. For elaboration on what you "want" to do, see my previous posts in this thread.

You may be right about my treating "pen and paper" a bit unjustly, and this is probably a reason why people in this thread have been dead set on misunderstanding everything I say. Still, my criticism was about how past CRPGs were designed, not about the contents of pen and paper games.

[BentSea]

What creates a better sense of character: allocating stat points or doing the things that your characters are doing? Is it better to gain a strategic advantage by gaining the favor of a certain faction's VIPs? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to manipulate the economic systems in the region to make your stronghold more powerful? Or is it better to just collect XP? Is it better to think about how to fend off enemies at strategically important locations in order to keep them from reaching their goals? Or is it better to just collect XP? You don't need to have all these things, but it is better to start implementing more complex mechanics. That is the way forward.

The fundamental problem with this logic that makes its core philosophy wrong is that a COMPUTER game is always a simulation. Any gameplay is based on rules and statistics. Your health, your speed, how high you can jump, how low you can duck, how much damage your shots do, and the same for every other object in the world. Things like how heavy crates are, and how characters react differently. It's all simulation based on stats and numbers and built into a machine that puts it out in response to your input.. your "actions" in a game are only the cumulative result of your various input, and the "actions" of NPCs is exactly the same. Every GAME needs a core set of rules running under the hood, unless it is a 100% pure adventure game, and that is even MORE important when it comes to ROLEPLAYING GAMES.

It's just patently SILLY that you would argue that a computer roleplaying game not have a solid and functional system working under the hood when you program it and design it so that players can interact with it.

Not that there aren't good reasons not to publish the rules... I could think of a couple of good ones... to publish rules, they need to be written down and formatted in a way that players can use without word of mouth explanation. It's a publishing endeavor, they need to be edited, etc.

When you're making a game system for a game, it only needs to function inside the confines of the Game master's world(the developers) and their story, but when you release it on its own, it needs to stand up to players having much much more freedom. The game can't tell them that they can't do something because the developers didn't program for you to be able to.

Those are good reasons not to do it. But that the main game shouldn't have a fundamentally fun and playtested engine running underneath the UI and for the devs to engineer the story on top of? Man. That is just silly.

[Game_Exile]

Every GAME needs a core set of rules running under the hood, unless it is a 100% pure adventure game, and that is even MORE important when it comes to ROLEPLAYING GAMES.

Where am I saying anything different from this? Do you not realize that you can envision what a game mechanic will look or "play" like, without having first made up all the stats and calculations on which it will function?

It's just patently SILLY that you would argue that a computer roleplaying game not have a solid and functional system working under the hood when you program it and design it so that players can interact with it.

How could you so completely misunderstand that paragraph you quoted? Where did I fucking say that you shouldn't design your game systems? I even explicitly said the opposite in this thread:

And to all you stupid heads, I do NOT mean that they should just start drawing pictures, writing stories, and writing code, for no good reason, before they've actually DESIGNED the fucking game.

When you're making a game system for a game, it only needs to function inside the confines of the Game master's world(the developers) and their story, but when you release it on its own, it needs to stand up to players having much much more freedom. The game can't tell them that they can't do something because the developers didn't program for you to be able to.

This is the obvious implication to an argument in my second post. Well, at least you are showing you understand THAT.

But that the main game shouldn't have a fundamentally fun and playtested engine running underneath the UI and for the devs to engineer the story on top of? Man. That is just silly.

I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I'm going to pick apart this (stupid) first sentence quoted here, to pay you back for all the fun you've had misrepresenting my arguments.
1) What is the "main game"? There is only ONE game, moron.
2) Nothing is "fundamentally" fun. A ruleset can only be fun or not fun in the context of a game.
3) How do you "playtest" something before you have implemented the UI and, more importantly, the story (i.e., the fucking game)? Moron.

[deus]

Well here is the beauty of the RPG model which you don't seem to grasp.

When you have a well balanced character system...you don't NEED to balance the quest or levels, they should be set in stone.

The difficulty of the encounter and level design might be upped based on geographical locations and progression(that is the further you travel then you will meet harder opponents and challenges).
But nothing uniformly.

You should enter a quest, encounter or area with what you have...and if the designer isn't molly coddling you then he will make the level and challenges as fanciful as he can get away with, and let the players figure out how to survive (because the designer certainly can't predict what a player char with a multitude of skills can come up with).

Its the emergent solutions which you don't seem to appreciate, designing the gameplay from the level/quest design first is more reminiscent of an adventure game then anything else.

[SagaDC]

I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I'm going to pick apart this (stupid) first sentence quoted here, to pay you back for all the fun you've had misrepresenting my arguments.
1) What is the "main game"? There is only ONE game, moron.
2) Nothing is "fundamentally" fun. A ruleset can only be fun or not fun in the context of a game.
3) How do you "playtest" something before you have implemented the UI and, more importantly, the story (i.e., the fucking game)? Moron.

Most well-reasoned debates should not include profanity or name-calling. If it has gotten to that point, it is no longer a debate, but has instead become an internet flame-war. If this is really the direction you want to take things, then it's probably best just to drop the whole matter, because it goes against the intent of this forum.

[Game_Exile]

When you have a well balanced character system...you don't NEED to balance the quest or levels, they should be set in stone.

What is "set in stone" supposed to mean here?

The difficulty of the encounter and level design might be upped based on geographical locations and progression(that is the further you travel then you will meet harder opponents and challenges).
But nothing uniformly.

Once again, I have no clue what you are saying here ("nothing uniformly"?)

You should enter a quest, encounter or area with what you have...and if the designer isn't molly coddling you then he will make the level and challenges as fanciful as he can get away with, and let the players figure out how to survive (because the designer certainly can't predict what a player char with a multitude of skills can come up with)

The hell he can't. If he designed the game and the multitude of skills the player can use in the game, then he can predict everything. Which isn't to say that he won't mess up in his predictions, but that's no reason to just throw game design to the wind.

Its the emergent solutions which you don't seem to appreciate, designing the gameplay from the level/quest design first is more reminiscent of an adventure game then anything else.

There is no such thing as an "emergent" solution. What you are talking about is loose elements of game design that come out better than imagined by sheer dumb luck. How many games have successfully been designed around "emergent" solutions? Only an idiot or a con artist would try to design a game by designing it as little as possible.

If this is really the direction you want to take things, then it's probably best just to drop the whole matter, because it goes against the intent of this forum.

You're probably right about dropping the matter. But, just out of curiosity, what do you think is the "intent" of this forum?