Rethinking PnP CRPG Design

[SagaDC]

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

To speculate potential aspects of the upcoming Wasteland 2 video game, talk about what me might like to see or not see, discuss what we've liked about the previous game or other similar cRPGs, and other things of that ilk. There's even a few areas for the discussion of personal experiences, whether in regard to Wasteland 2 specifically, or to things that might be related to it (or that can be compared to it).

If you meant the "What to Include" thread, I'd say that it's specifically to discuss what concepts we might like to see actualized in the upcoming Wasteland 2 project and then to discuss or criticize those ideas in a constructive fashion.

The reason I suggest that you might be approaching this in the wrong way is because some of your statements have been riddled with profanity (sometimes to add emphasis, sometimes deriding something that you don't like), and you've quickly descended into childish name-calling. Neither is constructive, and neither is likely to ever get someone to agree with the point you're trying to make (unless they were on your side to begin with). Your opening post on the topic was somewhat hostile, but communicated your intent fairly well. Your second post was overtly hostile, riddled with insulting inferences, and the sweeping statement that the topics being discussed were not worth discussing.

I appreciate the point that you're trying to get across, but I'm somewhat critical of the way that you've tried to communicate it to others.

[deus]

Hey! Genius! Before we continue this enlightened discussion, would you kindly try to keep the concepts level design and overall game design SEPARATE!

To continue:

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.

Right...so if i programmed you a keypad that takes in 4 digits ...I should be able to predict your input..

There are plenty of permutation to be made with a wide array of skill classes, the skills used will have different strengths(skillpoints)...which may have different effectiveness in a given situation and added to that...different outcome depending on the die.
The best moments in an RPG is when you stretch the abilities you have to the limit, using a multitude of skills to affect the environment to your advantage. Ergo what the Quest/Level designer should just focus on is creating the ecology, environment and encounters... whether its fair or not is up to the game mechanics and the player.

TL'DR balancing quests in RPG's is overated pop-a-mole.

You think your methodology is better then the tried and true way of giving the module\map\quest\whatever-writer the building blocks from the setting, monster compendiums, sourcebooks and player mechanics. Well i think its a ridiculous awkward process which will only result in the character mechanics being end specific and dull.

I've allready seen examples of that with Biowares recent shitfests, what little variety they had in their games have been cordoned of and deprecated to the point that it may as well be tic-tac-toe, and for all the effort they put in their quest...all it results in is a glorified DIY-adventure.

Ok...from what I can decipher from your post, this isnt what you want...but this is what you get when you overdesign, namely you risk leaving the fundamentals in the dust.

My motto regarding quest and content creation is thus simple, quantity over quality...

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.

I didn't say emergent gameplay! What Im talking about here is in the confine of the mechanics, where the player finds one of hundreds different approaches to a problem in a given situation thanks to a set common underlying templates designed beforehand.


All i can gather from this is that you are EXTREMELY confused! A fleshed out RPG system with existing interaction and setting mechanics, does not limit the quest writers nor level designers...IT AIDS THEM! Relying on existing framework means that they are free to add much more depth in their design that will still be consistent in terms of the world and game mechanics.

[Balls Out 3]

Game_Exile, you're going to have to excuse some of us if it's hard to get into your head space, because it's a very, shall we say, different perspective. Your position has become more clear over your last couple of posts, as they've been the most concise things you've typed in this thread yet. Plus you did some shit talking about role playing a character and that threw me off. Part of why hearing such a thing is obnoxious is because there are a lot of people here who want RPGs that return to their roots. Those older games tended to support role playing to a larger extent than their modern counterparts, and we want that to return.

So more or less, you feel that older CRPGs have focused too much on character mechanics, and not enough on more complex world interaction, because of the rigid PnP systems that have served as their foundation. I tend to disagree, but if you want more complex systems, that's fine. I think it would serve you better to communicate this in a more clear and concise manner next time instead of doing so in such an inflammatory, verbose, and diffuse way. I don't see much of a point in arguing about your personal design philosophy anyway. It would be much more productive to talk about your proposals (not here, obviously, but in other threads).

edit: Chris Avellone (one of the devs working on WL2, in case you haven't been paying attention. He's also the best game designer ever, as far as I'm concerned) has posted a blog entry today that is very relevant to this discussion. Check it out: http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/1/entry-164-wasteland-1-and-that-old-school-skill-set-symphony/

[Lucius]

Wow so this thread makes a whole lotta sense....

Anyways, if the OP could provide some specific examples like say, in game X I couldn't Y because of character mechanic Z. Or because of the lack of character mechanics in game X I was able to do Y. I just don't think this is an issue at all.

Or maybe the OP just doesn't like RPG's and prefers action-adventure games.

[Game_Exile]

@Balls Out 3: I'm aware of Chris Avellone, thanks for posting the link.

Your second post was overtly hostile, riddled with insulting inferences, and the sweeping statement that the topics being discussed were not worth discussing.

My second post was my response to a reply post riddled with obscurity and misunderstanding. I brought up those topics trying to make my points more clear. If you read the discussion again and think it through, you might feel more generous toward the "sweeping statements" I made.

Right...so if i programmed you a keypad that takes in 4 digits ...I should be able to predict your input..

Yes. Every possible combination is predictable, and a game designer should try to predict all the meaningful combinations, or at least the most likely ones (in the case video games).

Ergo what the Quest/Level designer should just focus on is creating the ecology, environment and encounters... whether its fair or not is up to the game mechanics and the player.

How are you going to create levels and encounters without the core mechanics in mind? And you're calling me confused.

I didn't say emergent gameplay! What Im talking about here is in the confine of the mechanics, where the player finds one of hundreds different approaches to a problem in a given situation thanks to a set common underlying templates designed beforehand.

I don't have a problem with "templates". Only, I'd like to see "templates" that are more interesting, complex (with "interwoven" elements), and elegantly designed.

And I'm not sure what to make of the new thread title, which seems misleading to me. Rigid vs flexible? I am critical of the way some CRPGs have been designed in the past, but it's not because they were "rigid". Maybe the thread should be renamed to something like "Rethinking CRPG Mechanics Based on PnP Design".

[SagaDC]

Your second post was overtly hostile, riddled with insulting inferences, and the sweeping statement that the topics being discussed were not worth discussing.

My second post was my response to a reply post riddled with obscurity and misunderstanding. I brought up those topics trying to make my points more clear. If you read the discussion again and think it through, you might feel more generous toward the "sweeping statements" I made.

I glanced back at the discussion again, as you suggested, and what I see is you opening with a fairly strong-worded but reasonable comment (avoid tabletop mechanics like the plague, to paraphrase). Someone else responded with what looks to be a fairly reasonable post, with the strongest comment being to not put the cart before the horse. You then responded with a long, profanity-laced response that ended with comments like "try to make a good video game first instead of just trying to simulate pen and paper shit in a video game format" and "fuck the mod tools". I wouldn't really consider things like that to be conducive to an actual discussion .

At any rate, I'm not a moderator, and I'm not trying to chastise you. We're all adults. I was simply stating that you could have probably saved yourself a lot of sarcastic responses and deliberate misinterpretation if you had just tempered your writing, and refrained from directing profanity or name-calling at anyone simply because they didn't agree with you. That said, I'll leave you to it. I don't really have much desire to continue following this thread any longer.

[ffordesoon]

@Game_Exile:

I believe someone else already made this point, but did you ever consider that people keep "misinterpreting" your words because you have failed to communicate your nebulous ideas adequately? I mean, I actually agree that player interaction with the world doesn't disqualify something from being an RPG (games that attempt to replicate pen and paper mechanics should be referred to as "traditional" or "classical" cRPGs at this point, IMHO), but you've seemingly contradicted yourself so many times that I'll be damned if I grasp what you're trying to say beyond that.

Protip: calling people morons and fuckwits because you failed to articulate your points in a lucid and rational way is not exactly a good way to win friends and influence people.

[b0rsuk]

I think he wants game mechanics to be built around the story ("make rules as you go"), rather than start with mechanics and "let's see what we can do with this."

Exhibit A: DooM.
DooM is a FPS game where story was secondary at best to the gameplay. Levels are seen as challenges. You can play a level at one of 5 difficulties, you can even use a cheat to start it without weapons - and every level is solvable this way. They created some building blocks and tried different combinations of it.

Exhibit B: Half Life (1)

The first FPS game that felt like everything was made to serve the story. Headcrabs are typical horror movie accessory, they have a strong (perceived) relationship with NPCs. You find appropriate weapons in appropriate places. A crowbar because it was the easiest to come by makeshift weapon, it could as well be a metal pipe. A pistol, because that's what security guards carry. A machinegun, because you are attacked by soldiers. A rocket launcher, because there's a helicopter chasing you thourough the whole chapter, and it's the only reasonable weapon against it. Some sort of experimental weapon - the game is full of scientists. Booby traps are first introduced by soldiers when they came to clean up. Contrast this with DooM - weapons are introduced only because they're cool to shoot. No reason except to have fun.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it should do. I'm not a fan of "make rules as you go" - it's too similar to design by accident, can end up with poorly thought out systems. It would probably not be very flexible - it's been built to serve 1 game only. Movies belong in theaters, not on my PC. I don't want another Mass Effect. I'm also fed up with Half Life-ish games - Half Life started a paradigm shift, but it was a game that did it right. There have been many failed attempts to imitate it. Half Life WAS an enjoyable shooter at the same time.

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

If I haven't guessed... It's not my problem to articulate his point. He sounds like RetreatToLove - very passionate about something but seemingly incapable of communicating it. A mystic ?

[tuluse]

I was really curious what this thread was going to be about, and I'm not sure I fully understand.

You have to have a system of rules in place before you can start doing quest/level design. Now obviously, you're going to have an idea of what you want to do before you start making the system. IE, we want to let the player talk the Master into committing suicide, or we want a complex and tactical combat system, or want to let the player recover his characters past memories using wisdom. Then once you have that general idea or theme, you make the system, then you starting building the world.

[b0rsuk]

I was really curious what this thread was going to be about, and I'm not sure I fully understand.

Technically, you could make a game which has lots of conversation trees and various minigames, and call that an RPG. You can have each battle as a minigame with different rules. That way, you don't have to set up anything important. All in the name of story.

I wouldn't play that.

Pen&Paper RPG games are actually the opposite of rigid. You have a Game Master, a human who has the last word over anything. He can say "Rocks fall and you all die", and players are free to not play with him anymore, too. That's an extreme case, but the GM can introduce stuff and adapt it for the party. Good GM's are known for going off the track and handling unexpected player invention gracefully. Computers can barely do that, unless the program is general enough so emergence can occur.

In contrast, computer programs must be strict because computers are absolutely strict. It takes effort to emulate something like convincing random numbers. By default, everything is pre-determined.

[Mandemon]

Yeah, problem with CRPG is that to have true freedom, game developers would need an actual thinking AI to run the game.

In reality, best the developers can do is to create scenarios and rules and hope they create enough fall-back scenarios and plucked enough holes so that player does not break the game.

[tuluse]

Yeah, problem with CRPG is that to have true freedom, game developers would need an actual thinking AI to run the game.

In reality, best the developers can do is to create scenarios and rules and hope they create enough fall-back scenarios and plucked enough holes so that player does not break the game.

Actually, they can create systems and use pseudo-random numbers to create freedom. Not complete freedom, but some. Take combat in Fallout. It wasn't a scenario that was hard coded in, and every time you played each opportunity for combat was slightly different. There is some theoretical number of permutations that could actually happen, but no player would ever play enough to have the exact same combat scenarios play out.

Stealth was another system in Fallout that didn't require specific hard coding of things.

You can't really apply this to dialog because you can't generate human speech on the fly, at least not yet.

[Mandemon]

Combat and stealth operate inside the framework supplied by the coding. They are rules, not scenarios.

However, storylines, quest, dialogue, etc. are scenarios. Scenarios like:

Bob wants you to defend farm.

Scenario 1: Bob asks help
Scenario 2: Bob alive, raiders dead.
Scenario 3: Bob dead, raiders alive

Option 1) Agree (Scenario 2)
Option 2) Agree, betray him (Scenario 3)
Option 3) Agree, seek out attackers, betray them and help Bob (Scenario 2)
Option 4) Refuse (Cancel Scenario 1, possibly cause Bob to enter Scenario 3)


Each scenario leads to conclusion or new scenario. You can add more and more scenarios, but you must always rail road player into one. To be truly free, none of these should be hard coded into the game and AI should generate and control on the fly players action and such. AI should on the fly adapt to whatever player speaks or types into game. However, this is not possible. Game can only hold certain amount of scenarios, player picks correct choice or types correct keyword and game moves to next scenario. Otherwise it remains in loop or moves to "back-up scenario"

[tuluse]

Ok, I agree with you to a degree.

It would be theoretically possible to generate quests on the fly (I'm somewhat surprised MMOs don't use this for the quests of the kill 10 grumpkins variety). However, that's not a game that I want to play, as I doubt a computer could create a well crafted story.

My main point however, was that you can create somewhat generic systems and quest goals, and then the player can interact with the systems to create unique experiences. If the goal is just to acquire some item and bring it back, then the player is free to use combat/stealth/whatever mechanics you've set up to accomplish the goal. You can even make it a non-unique item so the player has even more freedom.

A story based RPG will never be truly free though, I agree, and I don't think we want that.

Edit: Just thinking about the quest you set up here are other things that could happen

The player scares off the raiders
The player pays off the raiders
The player convinces the raiders that Jim's farm is better pickings
The player convinces Bob he never wanted to be a farmer and should move to the city
The player brokers a deal where by the raiders use Bob's farm as a base and over time a city develops there and Bob becomes a wealthy politician.

Now a lot of these would be hard to implement, but the first two have actually been done in a fairly popular game using a generic system rather than hard coding. In Sid Meier's Civilization you can intimidate and payoff other civs to do things (attack/stop attacking/trade/stop trading/etc).

[Mandemon]

Like I said, you can expand in to more and more scenarios, creating illusion of freedom and adapting world, but in the end, games world is hard coded. There is limited set of results and limited ways to achieve it.

It all depends on writer. How many scenarios and paths he can come up and how many of them are implemented. More paths and results create better illusion of freedom.

In 4X games AI have limited amount of actions they can perform based on pre-determined conditions.

To give first-hand example, here is a AI routine(which I never implemented, since I ran out of time) for one my programming assignments:

Action 1: Colonize first free planet
Action 2: Colonize first free moon
Action 3: Move to star system

Scenario 1) Check if star fully colonized.
Yes: Action 1
No: Scenario 2)

Scenario 2) Check if all moons colonized.
Yes: Action 2.
No: Scenario 3.

Scenario 3) Select random star system and check if can move there
Yes: Action 3.
No: Repeat Scenario 3.

Ok, not exactly the smartest and needed checks and balance to make sure it doesn't end up in infinite loop, but you get the gist. You can only set certain conditions and what to do if conditions are fulfilled. You can add more and more conditions to fulfill, but in the end, game can only proceed into limited number of directions.

That is for story based missions.

However, even with generated quest problem is that sooner or later they start to repeat themselves. Oh goodie, another "Kill raiders" quest.

Best I can see is to create a set of quest, possible outcomes, possible characters and then have game generate quest by picking from them.

Like say this:

Quest:
Defend

Giver (choose one)
Farmer
Merchant
Mayor

Target (check precious table)
Farm
Caravan
Town

Antagonist (choose one)
Raiders
Bandits
Opposing town

Mutations (Choose 0-3)
Join Antagonist
Settle peace (Forward to new table for requirements)'
Antagonist actually "good guys"
Betrayal by Quest Giver
Convince Antagonist to give up
Convince Antagonist to move elsewhere

Game can pick up from given tables and mutate the quest based on those. Of course there must be checks to prevent conflicting mutations/premises, but you get the idea.

Of course, these types of quest need lots of thinking and coding to make sure they don't implode into themselves, like Farmer asking to Defend Town from Bandits who you convince to Settle Peace only to be Betrayed by Quest Giver. Which makes little to no sense...

[tuluse]

Well like I said, I wouldn't want a generated RPG or a completely open RPG because I enjoy the stories, but you could do it. I think Mount and Blade is a game that comes pretty close to a generated RPG.

I was just pointing out when you create systems for doing things in the game, you create differences in the game play without doing much more work. Even if you solve quest 1 with combat every time and you make all your characters exactly the same, sometimes you roll a 6 for damage and sometimes a 10. That's a not a big difference, but it is a difference. Get enough of those over time and it forces the player to use new strategies, and creates new experiences.

Now wrapping this back into the original topic. You have to create the systems first in order to makes quests that can be solved by them. Once you've created the combat system then you can make sure the quest you make is appropriately difficult, so for forth with each system you've made, and you don't have to hard code specific solutions. Going back to Fallout 2 for a moment, one solution to the nuclear plant leaking is to kill every person in Vault City. I don't think this was an intended solution by the designers, but because they made their systems generic enough, it is a possibility.

My final thought, is that the game isn't about complete freedom, but limited freedom so it feels like the game is a real place you are interacting with rather than a series of if/else clauses.

[deus]

You are good at at misrepresenting yourself! You know that? My reasoning is written down right there to understand if you have some good faith and stop being obtuse.

Stupid analogy to tie up the confusion:
Module writers(level designers, quest writers, etc) does not provide the game, merely provide the obstacle court.

And I'm not sure what to make of the new thread title, which seems misleading to me. Rigid vs flexible? I am critical of the way some CRPGs have been designed in the past, but it's not because they were "rigid". Maybe the thread should be renamed to something like "Rethinking CRPG Mechanics Based on PnP Design".

The header is not your sole problem .


A
|
|

Tuluse has the LEAD!

[Mandemon]

I'm sorry but who are you referring to?

Cause I am answering to using procedural created quest and how creating such is difficult without them starting to be repeating.

EDIT

Also I was referring how cRPG is always rigid, only able to provide what developer (GM) could think up in advance.

[Proton Axeman]

Pen&Paper RPG games are actually the opposite of rigid. You have a Game Master, a human who has the last word over anything. He can say "Rocks fall and you all die", and players are free to not play with him anymore, too. That's an extreme case, but the GM can introduce stuff and adapt it for the party. Good GM's are known for going off the track and handling unexpected player invention gracefully. Computers can barely do that, unless the program is general enough so emergence can occur.\

Yup. Many years ago I used to run some campaigns and play in others.

I've had a player decide that he wanted an armored chicken as a pet.
I've had a player decide that his character would walk up to an NPC and proclaim himself a god for no apparent reason at all.
I've had a player decide that his character would start wearing a lampshade on his head.
I've had a players decide to secretly run evil characters betraying the rest of the party.
I've seen a player decide that, upon interrupting a summoning ritual, the right thing to start reading all the literature the cultists left behind.
Mission-relevant NPCs have been killed, traps that a GM thought obvious were not avoided, local lords and other powerful types were sometimes gratuitously and deliberately offended...
Hell, I've even played a character with a severe split-personality disorder, split between a relatively inoffensive type and an intensely irritable, anti-social, pro-violence sort.

Players do funny things in PNP RPGs; they're not restrictive at all. But no CRPG author is going to have the time and resources to anticipate it all, let alone develop coherent responses.

[Game_Exile]

I think he wants game mechanics to be built around the story ("make rules as you go"), rather than start with mechanics and "let's see what we can do with this."

No, I don't see any reason at all why the mechanics should be built around the plot (if that is what you mean by "story"). Maybe a better way to say this is: I think that developers should balance their rules before, while, and after they design their game. I don't like having a pen-and-paper ruleset set in stone for a video game, when you don't even have a good idea what you want the player to be doing (as in actual game engine mechanics first, then onto basic mechanics from the player's perspective, etc.) for the duration of the game.

The general rules of what the player can and cannot do in the game engine should come first, and everything else (including specifics of character stats) should be measured out when you have a better idea of what the details are going to look like. There is nothing bizarre or strange about this. The devs just shouldn't try to make a PnP ruleset before they design a video game. I'm not trying to say they should design the video game badly, lol. This thread just keeps on proving the following statement:

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.

My main point however, was that you can create somewhat generic systems and quest goals, and then the player can interact with the systems to create unique experiences.

This is close to what I'm saying. Generic systems are a good way to accomplish complex game mechanics, but it's not necessarily what I'm after (though let me say, for people with low reading comprehension, that I am most definitely NOT opposed to generic systems).

In the end, the effect should be that you are making more interesting and complicated decisions in the game(and this is best done with solid and complex mechanics, NOT relying on a plot and a bunch of gags thrown up loosely around some pre-written character rules), and you shouldn't get the feeling that you're just knocking down one pin after the other . A "list of obligations" quest system is what we want to avoid, am I right?

More paths and results create better illusion of freedom... In 4X games AI have limited amount of actions they can perform based on pre-determined conditions.

Or to put what you said in a different way: Actions performed by the player are interesting because
1) they come from many possibilities based on many possible conditions.
2) more importantly, the actions will lead to many different possible actions based on many factors, which in turn are based on many other factors/conditions, etc.
Altogether, this gives the player a lot to think about when he is making his choices.

TL;DR In theory, if two games' engines are the same, then you will have about the same amount of "choices" any way the quest system, character rules, etc. are designed. What you want, is for the choices/actions to be meaningful and important. So this particular "illusion of freedom" is actually created by the way that the game restricts the ways that the player thinks about it (i.e. giving players ways to win and to lose), and therefore causing players to reflect more on their decisions. What I'm talking about here is the difference between games, like good 4x strategy games, which have the "illusion of freedom" Mandemon is talking about, and other games that are willy-nilly and boring, with a lot of choices/options that you just don't want to bother with.

Module writers(level designers, quest writers, etc) does not provide the game, merely provide the obstacle court.

You don't have a game without the obstacle course, smart guy. Try playing chess without a chess board. And then without opposing pieces or an opponent.

You then responded with a long, profanity-laced response that ended with comments like "try to make a good video game first instead of just trying to simulate pen and paper shit in a video game format" and "fuck the mod tools"

Here are all your profanities: one, count them, one "for fuck's sake" and one "fuck the mod tools" (which you already mentioned). And this in a pretty long post. This is what you call "profanity-laced"? You either DID NOT read the post carefully, or you are blatantly exaggerating due to butthurt. Probably a combination of both is what's happening with you.

but you've seemingly contradicted yourself so many times that I'll be damned if I grasp what you're trying to say beyond that

Man, I just keep "seemingly" doing things in this thread. If you've got a problem with contradictions, then juxtapose me some quotes where I've contradicted myself (with an objection or explanation of your confusion), so that I can clarify it, or someone else can. And if you just parse my posts for partial quotes that are easily misunderstood out of context, expect me to call you on it.