Thursday, December 07, 2006
RPG Design: The "Brute Force" Problem
I remember reading an article by Gary Gygax (the co-inventor of roleplaying games...) where, at a gaming convention in 1999 or so, he ran one of his classic modules, and was aghast at how horribly and quickly parties were wiping out. Some veteran players (who had even played through the module before) came up to him later and asked what they had done wrong.
His response (as I recall) basically came down to the fact that they were trying to "brute force" the dungeon. He then launched into something of a gentle tirade against modern adventure design (and the influence of computer games on them). "Old school" adventures didn't expect the party to "clear out the level." That didn't really start until the late 80's or so.
That kinda stuck with me.
Let's face it - the actual game rules for old-school D&D were pretty simplistic. The fighter was the "beginner" class for the game, and the hard decisions of the combat system for fighters consisted of "Who do I try to hit this round?" You could pretty much predict the mathematical probabilities of an all-fighter combat (for higher-level characters, at least, where lucky / unlucky rolls weren't a make-or-break situation) with a pretty high degree of accuracy. All those combined dice rolls resulted in one heck of a bell curve. You could break down combats into pretty much a damage-per-turn calculation on both sides, a race to zero hitpoints, and the conclusion could be determined before the first blow struck.
Hmmm.... sorta how most MMORPGs work these days. What's the DPS of that sword, again?
Now, apologists for the "old-school" RPG systems (specifically Dungeons & Dragons) maintain that the lack of rules for doing anything else aside from swinging at your opponent are a virtue. The intention was for players to be creative with their characters actions, and the human game master ("Dungeon Master") would then make a ruling on the results. Anything goes.
To a point, I think they are correct. One of the differentiating factors between skilled and unskilled players was how creatively they delt with the challenges of the games. The old "tournament modules" would outfit groups of players with exactly the same characters, and they'd score points based on how effectively they played those characters and used the weaknesses and strengths of those characters, as well as the features and limitations of the environment, to "win" the adventure. You couldn't just leave a tough encounter for after you'd gained a level or two and could crush it with ease. You couldn't get some edge in gameplay mechanics over other tournament players. You had to think your way around the challenge.
That, to me, is the essence of RPG gameplay. Well, okay, that and melodrama (spiky-haired angsty teenagers optional).
The melodrama is well-handled in many RPGs. But avoid brute-force solutions and requiring a lot of thought and player skill going into potential combat encounters? Not so much. Especially now that "action RPGs" have started dominating the genre on PC... player skill is too often limited to rapid mouse clicking, being fast on the healing potion selection, and practicing your circle-straffing and aim techniques from FPS games.
Some of this is the limitation of the medium. Without human moderation, it's very difficult to enable a player to "think outside the box" - both from an interface perspective, and by allowing the game to properly react to a unique situation. Note that while I say, "difficult," I don't mean impossible. While I'm not a cheerleader for "realistic physics" in games, the biggest value it can add is enabling the player to use the complexity of the physics systems to, say, build a booby-trap for a monster. Or work out some other advantages.
Some of it is player expectations. Such as in Gary Gygax's tabletop game. Especially in computer RPGs, where the game lets the player proceed at his own pace, even though it may taunt him (or her) with promises of impending doom and warnings that time is running out. Players are encouraged to simply leave off the difficult encounters until they've gained more power and can effectively "brute force" the solution and clear the dungeon. I'm terrible at this, myself. I let Kvatch burn and the survivors hide inside the church in the ruins for WEEKS of game-time while I leveled up from 7 to 18 or so in Oblivion. Not that it helped me, much... Oblivion leveled up the opposition for me. Though by that time, thanks to all my hopping and skipping through meadows picking flowers, my assassin skills were actually useful, and I was able to close the gate.
How do you solve these dilemmas?
* I mentioned physics systems. But it takes more than just physics - it takes an entire organic game system designed to react to unusual developments in the game. I think one of the best examples of this is the non-RPG "Thief" games. Cons: This is hard, and the decision to do this WILL drive your entire design. It can't be bolted on later and have an effect, like the nearly useless physics systems in Oblivion and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.
* You could level up the challenges so they always match the player level, like they did in Oblvion. But that sucks, and it actually encourages a brute-force approach (though discourages saving tough encounters for later)
* You can award the player based on solving "missions" rather than body count. This eliminates the XP penalty for avoiding direct combat (one of the big points of encouragement for pursuing the "brute force" solution). I am only familiar with a couple of games that did this: Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and some first-party modules by Bioware for Neverwinter Nights. And due to player expectations, this can irritate players. Some games, like the Elder Scrolls series, don't directly award you for killing monsters, but that's still a principle source of loot and battle practice.
* You could actually follow through on your time-limit threats. In practice, though, this sucks, and players will probably hate your game for it. Not a great trade-off.
So... are there better solutions to this problem? Is it even a problem? RPG fans, sound off and let me know what you think!
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:37 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
One problem is that this doesn't feel as heroic. Killing a few orcs and leaving the bodies around to scare off other orc raiders isn't as "cool" as going to the orc camp and killing every single one of them, even if you don't get an individual xp tally for every single orc killed. For this reason, I think heroic fantasy games are probably doomed to be brute-forced.
Maybe. But the idea of outsmarting the opponents is a staple of fantasy and science fiction literature. Even Conan, the archetypical "mighty-thewed" hack-and-slasher, relied upon his wits to overcome superior challenges. So while it's an unfamiliar trope in fantasy RPG *games*, we have a rich library of precedents.
I definitely have more of a "mechanic" tendency when I come across these kinds of issues, immediately thinking of gameplay rewards. But maybe that's neglecting a potentially more powerful reward --- the contextual reward within the fiction of the game universe. The challenge of THIS, of course, is that the game itself has to recognize what the player did to overcome the challenge, and then parrot the response through NPCs. Having common people cheer the Hero of Strontium in the streets with generic congratulatory messages is one thing... but it might be far more satisfying to have the player be met with more detailed comments from his "closest" NPC acquiantances.
"I don't know how you were able to change the Duke's mind about invading Strontium. You'll have to tell me the whole story some day, my friend."
Of course, this only works for larger-scale quests and so forth. It still doesn't necessarily apply to individual encounters inside a dungeon. Though... perhaps this could be answered as well by borrowing from other games.
F.E.A.R. had solid AI to begin with, but the AI was enhanced by you overhearing their communication with each other. One of the best parts of the game was hearing one of the enemy soldiers yell, "Oh, sh**!" when you lobbed a grenade at them, and they couldn't get out of the way in time.
Even if the grenade wasn't an incredibly effective weapon (though it was!), I would have used them as often as possible just to hear the AI's shock and horror.
Links to this post:
<< Home
You are totally right this is a problem. It is so easy for developers to just through in some fights. Case in point a side quest in the Neverwinter Nights 2 campaign. I'll be generic to avoid ruining the side quest
MINOR SPOILERS BELOW
I'm supposed to SNEAK into a house and steal something. I'm all excited about SNEAKING in. Sounds great, so far the game has been kill everything in your path. I get in, disarm a trap and unlock a door when I discover that the interior rooms are filled with generic bad guys that I'm supposed to just kill my way through. Once I've killed enough generic bad guys and get to the treasure room I get the thing I need. Lo and behold comes a cut scene extolling how STEALTHILY i managed to steal that thing. I imagine the 20 or 30 corpses (if they didn't go poof) could have been a hint that maybe someone broke into the house to steal something. XP for doing the quest - minimal. XP for killing tons of generic bad guys - plenty.
It was a total cop out on the game designers part. They could have actually had a stealthy way of doing this but instead they just went on ahead and loaded up each room with it's complement of cannon fodder so that I'm properly rewarded with XP for doing the quest.
It would have been much more fullfilling and satisfying to have the game actually reward me for doing what the plot said I was supposed to do instead. Oh well, cop out gaming may be the lasting legacy of Diablo and Action/RPG games.
Drake Tungsten
MINOR SPOILERS BELOW
I'm supposed to SNEAK into a house and steal something. I'm all excited about SNEAKING in. Sounds great, so far the game has been kill everything in your path. I get in, disarm a trap and unlock a door when I discover that the interior rooms are filled with generic bad guys that I'm supposed to just kill my way through. Once I've killed enough generic bad guys and get to the treasure room I get the thing I need. Lo and behold comes a cut scene extolling how STEALTHILY i managed to steal that thing. I imagine the 20 or 30 corpses (if they didn't go poof) could have been a hint that maybe someone broke into the house to steal something. XP for doing the quest - minimal. XP for killing tons of generic bad guys - plenty.
It was a total cop out on the game designers part. They could have actually had a stealthy way of doing this but instead they just went on ahead and loaded up each room with it's complement of cannon fodder so that I'm properly rewarded with XP for doing the quest.
It would have been much more fullfilling and satisfying to have the game actually reward me for doing what the plot said I was supposed to do instead. Oh well, cop out gaming may be the lasting legacy of Diablo and Action/RPG games.
Drake Tungsten
# posted by 
: December 07, 2006 11:58 AM
: December 07, 2006 11:58 AM
"Do-everything" games generally do a lot of things poorly. Here's a crappy puzzle. Here's a trick you're supposed to figure out, even though we haven't set it up at all. Here's our confusing, inconsistent language for communicating challenges and solutions to the player.
The need to focus on a couple core systems only gets stronger with higher production costs. You can't just "throw something in" without serious art and tech time.
In general, you can't sell a game to hard core gamers without strong combat. So that core system is a given.
Your second core system can be dialog (see: Bioware, Black Isle). It can be puzzles (see: Dungeons and Dragons Online). It can be physics puzzles (not an RPG, but see: Half-Life 2). It can be stealth (see: er... poorly implemented in most modern RPGs, but Oblivion gave it a go).
The need to focus on a couple core systems only gets stronger with higher production costs. You can't just "throw something in" without serious art and tech time.
In general, you can't sell a game to hard core gamers without strong combat. So that core system is a given.
Your second core system can be dialog (see: Bioware, Black Isle). It can be puzzles (see: Dungeons and Dragons Online). It can be physics puzzles (not an RPG, but see: Half-Life 2). It can be stealth (see: er... poorly implemented in most modern RPGs, but Oblivion gave it a go).
You mean players should actually have to "think" their way through games? How novel!
Personally, I think that's why we see genres like "action-RPG" or "action-adventure". Or anything with "action" in the name. They were originally called "minimal-thought-required" games, but then someone decided "action" sounded a bit better.
People like action, that's why action movies sell so well. But people do like to be provoked to thought, too. It's just harder.
The problem, at least as I see it superficially, is that it's tough to really implement thought problems or puzzles well given the wide range of solutions people are bound to come up with. It's really hard to design a game system that can account for a wide range of solutions. Combat is easy because you design a combat system, and then create combat "puzzles" which are solved (and only solvable) within the system that is set forth by the game.
But "thought puzzles" are a little trickier in that regard. In many cases, players can come up with many different solutions for a thought puzzle you throw at them, but if your game system doesn't account for that solution, it just frustrates the player. That's one reason sophisticated physics systems are intriguing, at least to developers; it allows for come creativity in solving problems. If you have deformable structures, then if the enemy is hiding behind a wall just blow it up and watch the carnage instead of having to face him head on. But too often we see nice physics systems in games that don't go the next step to take advantage of it; it's just mostly for cool visuals.
This is one of the big challenges to interactive fiction, if I am allowed to sway the conversation away from RPGs for a moment. IF is all about creative thought puzzles, but too often they are designed with one or maybe two possible solutions in mind. But far too frequently, IF games are designed in a way that would seem to present many different possible solutions given complete freedom -- but most of the time, the author didn't create a game world that truly allows the level of freedom required for that solution. The proposed solution isn't implemented either because it was too much to consider, or it wasn't considered at all. But what it does is give the player a sense of being cheated: hey, I thought of a perfectly valid solution in this context, but I can't do it because the author didn't think of it. Not fair!
But that's part of the big challenge in game design, whether it's IF or an RPG.
What it boils down to, I think, is not necessarily the inclusion or exclusion of thought-provoking puzzles per se, but rather the creation of a game system which has intrinsic properties that, when combined, create "emergent" behavior in the game "world" that allows for creative solutions to problems. The physics example is something along these lines: create a game system that has advanced physics properties, and the puzzles may have solutions the designers never thought of.
Something tells me I've gotten off track here, but what the heck.
Personally, I think that's why we see genres like "action-RPG" or "action-adventure". Or anything with "action" in the name. They were originally called "minimal-thought-required" games, but then someone decided "action" sounded a bit better.
People like action, that's why action movies sell so well. But people do like to be provoked to thought, too. It's just harder.
The problem, at least as I see it superficially, is that it's tough to really implement thought problems or puzzles well given the wide range of solutions people are bound to come up with. It's really hard to design a game system that can account for a wide range of solutions. Combat is easy because you design a combat system, and then create combat "puzzles" which are solved (and only solvable) within the system that is set forth by the game.
But "thought puzzles" are a little trickier in that regard. In many cases, players can come up with many different solutions for a thought puzzle you throw at them, but if your game system doesn't account for that solution, it just frustrates the player. That's one reason sophisticated physics systems are intriguing, at least to developers; it allows for come creativity in solving problems. If you have deformable structures, then if the enemy is hiding behind a wall just blow it up and watch the carnage instead of having to face him head on. But too often we see nice physics systems in games that don't go the next step to take advantage of it; it's just mostly for cool visuals.
This is one of the big challenges to interactive fiction, if I am allowed to sway the conversation away from RPGs for a moment. IF is all about creative thought puzzles, but too often they are designed with one or maybe two possible solutions in mind. But far too frequently, IF games are designed in a way that would seem to present many different possible solutions given complete freedom -- but most of the time, the author didn't create a game world that truly allows the level of freedom required for that solution. The proposed solution isn't implemented either because it was too much to consider, or it wasn't considered at all. But what it does is give the player a sense of being cheated: hey, I thought of a perfectly valid solution in this context, but I can't do it because the author didn't think of it. Not fair!
But that's part of the big challenge in game design, whether it's IF or an RPG.
What it boils down to, I think, is not necessarily the inclusion or exclusion of thought-provoking puzzles per se, but rather the creation of a game system which has intrinsic properties that, when combined, create "emergent" behavior in the game "world" that allows for creative solutions to problems. The physics example is something along these lines: create a game system that has advanced physics properties, and the puzzles may have solutions the designers never thought of.
Something tells me I've gotten off track here, but what the heck.
I don't expect a computer RPG to ever replace pen-and-paper RPG's. Never will they come close. You seem to dislike Oblivion, but I'll argue that it is the closest CRPG to come to real role-playing that I've seen, and it's still a long way off. You can sneak through situations, using skills like Sneak and Illusion, and get "experience" in those skills for doing so. You can gain levels just as fast by sneaking past bad guys in a dungeon, rather than killing them all. The physics system doesn't allow you to set up elaborate traps (which I never did when I played D&D either), but you can still use carefully timed power attacks to knock enemies off cliffs or walkways, or push them into dungeon traps. Best of all, you're not railroaded to follow one storyline like Bioware games. There are many ways to play the game, even when faced with a dungeon full of cannon fodder. Creativity is rewarded.
What else can CRPGs do to compete with pen-and-paper RPGs? Better physics systems, better dialog, better stealth, better AI? It will never be enough to satisfy our desire for limitless role-playing choices.
Oblivion made valiant attempts to address many of RPG fans' desires, unlike MMORPGs and games like NWN. In World of Warcraft, you can get banned from the game if you use a rogue to stealth to the end of an instance to get some loot! You can be punished for thinking outside the box! Worse, I have never encountered anyone role-playing in WoW. It's more like an action-MMOG, not an MMORPG.
I guess I'm saying I have lowered my expectations for computer games? But it's a shame that action-RPGs have influenced the way people play pen-and-paper RPGs.
What else can CRPGs do to compete with pen-and-paper RPGs? Better physics systems, better dialog, better stealth, better AI? It will never be enough to satisfy our desire for limitless role-playing choices.
Oblivion made valiant attempts to address many of RPG fans' desires, unlike MMORPGs and games like NWN. In World of Warcraft, you can get banned from the game if you use a rogue to stealth to the end of an instance to get some loot! You can be punished for thinking outside the box! Worse, I have never encountered anyone role-playing in WoW. It's more like an action-MMOG, not an MMORPG.
I guess I'm saying I have lowered my expectations for computer games? But it's a shame that action-RPGs have influenced the way people play pen-and-paper RPGs.
I think that games that tie rewards to clever play are more common than you think, they just don't telegraph it so much.
Case in point - in the legend of zelda games, you earn new abilities by clearing half a dungeon, and you get heart containers by defeating a boss (usually by using some mild form of cleverness). Zelda never explicitly deals in experience points or levels - but the rewards for good player (more health, better damage, new player verbs) are pretty much the same. They just never let you grind to earn the rewards.
To be fair, Zelda games are really the antithesis of open ended problem solving - they basically FORCE you to make use of whatever clever solutions they provide for you. Still, it is one way to avoid letting gameplay devolve into highly repetitive brute-forcing...
Case in point - in the legend of zelda games, you earn new abilities by clearing half a dungeon, and you get heart containers by defeating a boss (usually by using some mild form of cleverness). Zelda never explicitly deals in experience points or levels - but the rewards for good player (more health, better damage, new player verbs) are pretty much the same. They just never let you grind to earn the rewards.
To be fair, Zelda games are really the antithesis of open ended problem solving - they basically FORCE you to make use of whatever clever solutions they provide for you. Still, it is one way to avoid letting gameplay devolve into highly repetitive brute-forcing...
# posted by : December 07, 2006 2:07 PM
: December 07, 2006 2:07 PM
Agree w/Rubes: designing for emergent gameplay is the way to go.
Designing a dungeon in D&D or a game level for a CRPG should be done with scaled expectations.
I think the "brute force" approach is totally acceptable, as a player option, not only because it's viscerally satisfying, but for a lot of gamers it's their only choice (limited imaginations, catering to certain personality types, etc.)
But if you can design layers of play, with "kill 'em all and let the XP sort them out" being the lowest tier of achievement, and building-in systems that reward creative solutions, you've really succeeded at making a dynamic experience for the player.
In the end, though, I think elimination of the brute-force approach would kill off most of your target market. And I don't mean the teens who like swinging epic-level swords, I'm talking about humans in general...
Designing a dungeon in D&D or a game level for a CRPG should be done with scaled expectations.
I think the "brute force" approach is totally acceptable, as a player option, not only because it's viscerally satisfying, but for a lot of gamers it's their only choice (limited imaginations, catering to certain personality types, etc.)
But if you can design layers of play, with "kill 'em all and let the XP sort them out" being the lowest tier of achievement, and building-in systems that reward creative solutions, you've really succeeded at making a dynamic experience for the player.
In the end, though, I think elimination of the brute-force approach would kill off most of your target market. And I don't mean the teens who like swinging epic-level swords, I'm talking about humans in general...
I actually really liked Oblivion. I've enjoyed every game in the series since Daggerfall. But there were some parts that really bugged me, and many parts that spoiled the immersion for me.
But I had a blast playing it. Go open-ended RPGS!
I think Rubes makes a very good point concerning emergent gameplay. That's definitely a goal. I remember Richard Garriott (Lord British) talking about how he worked towards it in the Ultima games (specifically Ultima V or VI, I think) - he would create ONE solution to a puzzle, but he'd not disallow others. And it worked - without complex physics systems. (I remember using a cannon to blow up a magically locked door... I don't know if that was the "correct" solution or not).
Noah Falstein had an excellent article in Game Developer magazine a few months back about "Emergent Complexity." Well worth reading. (It's in his master rules, Number 102).
But I had a blast playing it. Go open-ended RPGS!
I think Rubes makes a very good point concerning emergent gameplay. That's definitely a goal. I remember Richard Garriott (Lord British) talking about how he worked towards it in the Ultima games (specifically Ultima V or VI, I think) - he would create ONE solution to a puzzle, but he'd not disallow others. And it worked - without complex physics systems. (I remember using a cannon to blow up a magically locked door... I don't know if that was the "correct" solution or not).
Noah Falstein had an excellent article in Game Developer magazine a few months back about "Emergent Complexity." Well worth reading. (It's in his master rules, Number 102).
Okay, so lets say you leave the brute-force options in. How do you present to the player the possibility of further options? And how do you balance the gameplay at this point.
I am thinking of the Final Fantasy series here, where they often make a point of you using certain spells against monsters with specific weaknesses, or using special items against them --- but those tricks are ONLY useful against monsters that are so easy you don't need to bother. Anything truly dangerous and challenging seems to be immune to everything BUT brute-force. They don't want the players one-shotting their big boss, I guess.
I am thinking of the Final Fantasy series here, where they often make a point of you using certain spells against monsters with specific weaknesses, or using special items against them --- but those tricks are ONLY useful against monsters that are so easy you don't need to bother. Anything truly dangerous and challenging seems to be immune to everything BUT brute-force. They don't want the players one-shotting their big boss, I guess.
I'd suggest taking a look at games like Black and White and its sequel. Although the game had many flaws, it did allow multiple possible methods of solving individual problems.
Most of the time in the sequel, it wasn't even a good choice to use brute force. Not only did taking your enemies by force require significant supplies and micromanagement, but also enemies were typically much better situated and offensives were generally penalized.
The reason this worked so well in that game is that each Map had one major requirement - a SuperGoal or simply a Problem if you will - and several different (and reasonable) methods of reaching it, with no penalties for taking the 'wrong' method.
This is a significantly different than Oblivion or even Vamp:Bloodlines, where you are required to fulfill each individual subgoal (get past door A with key from NPC C, find item B in haunted manor, get item B to NPC C, talk to NPC D). You automatically get more choices - you might find a side path around door A, or find a copy of item B, or even decide you don't need to talk to NPC D and might as well call the whole damn thing off!
Sadly, the game of plot ticket tag is a useful crutch for too many designers (for example, the last paragraph would be the Haunted Manor and Janus 'twins' sequence from Vamp:Bloodlines, a very well written plot point). There are problems from a technical viewpoint, as well. For example, for stealth to be a valid choice, brute force must either be as costly as the benefits of fighting, or stealth must get similar benefits. You can do this by having all the enemy drops already existing in the world ready to be stolen, but then you're creating dozens of times the random items scattered about (and the stealthy character must be roughly equal in difficulty to the brute force one, after you factor in the added risk of enemies being alarmed and thus being inefficient for a stealthy character to kill).
We do this, automatically, in pen-and-paper games or writing (usually even the worst DMs don't tell you "And now you need to find the key to this locked door"), but after much time messing around with AI scripts, you really start focusing deep on the subgoals rather than the supergoals.
There are potential fixes. For a quick example I've been pseudocoding in my head for a while (inspired around an old Werewolf:The Apocalypse game) :
The local normal wolves and werewolves are being poisoned by the water supply. There would of course be the brute force method - kill anyone near the water until you found out who was poisoning everyone, then kill him. Or you could find and persuade/torture people adding the poison to the water supply carefully, then use information earned from them for blackmail. Or the wolves could be talked into overrunning most of the bad guy central, leaving (partly damaged) weapons and a couple rooms that could either be taken out or simply ignored. Or the hero could watch the water supply sneakily, then break into the bad guy hut at night (meeting fewer enemies who required higher stealth abilities and had a roughly equal value of dropped or found items).
Or, if the 'hero' wanted to be evil, he or she could simply ignore the problem (at the cost of needing bottled water) or even join the bad guys for that plot sector.
This isn't difficult - it's just time-consuming, to the point where no reasonable individual would be willing to attempt it. Particularly since most people want to have their story arcs connected and for a single run-through to involve as many story arcs as possible.
Most of the time in the sequel, it wasn't even a good choice to use brute force. Not only did taking your enemies by force require significant supplies and micromanagement, but also enemies were typically much better situated and offensives were generally penalized.
The reason this worked so well in that game is that each Map had one major requirement - a SuperGoal or simply a Problem if you will - and several different (and reasonable) methods of reaching it, with no penalties for taking the 'wrong' method.
This is a significantly different than Oblivion or even Vamp:Bloodlines, where you are required to fulfill each individual subgoal (get past door A with key from NPC C, find item B in haunted manor, get item B to NPC C, talk to NPC D). You automatically get more choices - you might find a side path around door A, or find a copy of item B, or even decide you don't need to talk to NPC D and might as well call the whole damn thing off!
Sadly, the game of plot ticket tag is a useful crutch for too many designers (for example, the last paragraph would be the Haunted Manor and Janus 'twins' sequence from Vamp:Bloodlines, a very well written plot point). There are problems from a technical viewpoint, as well. For example, for stealth to be a valid choice, brute force must either be as costly as the benefits of fighting, or stealth must get similar benefits. You can do this by having all the enemy drops already existing in the world ready to be stolen, but then you're creating dozens of times the random items scattered about (and the stealthy character must be roughly equal in difficulty to the brute force one, after you factor in the added risk of enemies being alarmed and thus being inefficient for a stealthy character to kill).
We do this, automatically, in pen-and-paper games or writing (usually even the worst DMs don't tell you "And now you need to find the key to this locked door"), but after much time messing around with AI scripts, you really start focusing deep on the subgoals rather than the supergoals.
There are potential fixes. For a quick example I've been pseudocoding in my head for a while (inspired around an old Werewolf:The Apocalypse game) :
The local normal wolves and werewolves are being poisoned by the water supply. There would of course be the brute force method - kill anyone near the water until you found out who was poisoning everyone, then kill him. Or you could find and persuade/torture people adding the poison to the water supply carefully, then use information earned from them for blackmail. Or the wolves could be talked into overrunning most of the bad guy central, leaving (partly damaged) weapons and a couple rooms that could either be taken out or simply ignored. Or the hero could watch the water supply sneakily, then break into the bad guy hut at night (meeting fewer enemies who required higher stealth abilities and had a roughly equal value of dropped or found items).
Or, if the 'hero' wanted to be evil, he or she could simply ignore the problem (at the cost of needing bottled water) or even join the bad guys for that plot sector.
This isn't difficult - it's just time-consuming, to the point where no reasonable individual would be willing to attempt it. Particularly since most people want to have their story arcs connected and for a single run-through to involve as many story arcs as possible.
Well, it's a question of what is rewarded in the game. We have established conventions for handling combat and the defeat of enemies, so it's really easy to have the game reward you for killing masses of enemies. It's not a surprise that people go through and murder everything systematically when that's the best way to get ahead.
The problem is that it's much harder to do anything else because we don't have established conventions. People always point out that most people don't understand RPG combat, and they are right; it's filled with assumptions and information that we take for granted. Getting poked with a sword hurts, but that D&D fighter keeps going strong! But, add in a fatigue system and things get cumbersome and even more confusing.
The first step to getting people to stop brute forcing things is to stop rewarding them for doing so. In the "action" games where I don't get rewards for killing monsters, I'll often skip past monsters instead of taking time to kill them. So, one thing you can do is to get rid of the "monsters as walking bags of xp and loot" mentality. Maybe monsters don't drop gold when you kill them. Maybe you're trying to do something more complex than just wiping out a few enemies: slaughtering a few of them might make the rest think twice before continuing to do what they are doing.
One problem is that this doesn't feel as heroic. Killing a few orcs and leaving the bodies around to scare off other orc raiders isn't as "cool" as going to the orc camp and killing every single one of them, even if you don't get an individual xp tally for every single orc killed. For this reason, I think heroic fantasy games are probably doomed to be brute-forced.
You also have the problem of curiosity. If you pass by that locked room in the dungeon on your way to kill the boss, you might regret it. What if the boss is a lich and that room had a longsword, +5 vs. undead? Boy, you really missed a chance there! Again, I think the fantasy tropes really work against trying to get players not to brute-force the system.
There's a few of my thoughts. An interesting suggestion! Something that will give me pause for thought in my upcoming projects.
Have fun.
The problem is that it's much harder to do anything else because we don't have established conventions. People always point out that most people don't understand RPG combat, and they are right; it's filled with assumptions and information that we take for granted. Getting poked with a sword hurts, but that D&D fighter keeps going strong! But, add in a fatigue system and things get cumbersome and even more confusing.
The first step to getting people to stop brute forcing things is to stop rewarding them for doing so. In the "action" games where I don't get rewards for killing monsters, I'll often skip past monsters instead of taking time to kill them. So, one thing you can do is to get rid of the "monsters as walking bags of xp and loot" mentality. Maybe monsters don't drop gold when you kill them. Maybe you're trying to do something more complex than just wiping out a few enemies: slaughtering a few of them might make the rest think twice before continuing to do what they are doing.
One problem is that this doesn't feel as heroic. Killing a few orcs and leaving the bodies around to scare off other orc raiders isn't as "cool" as going to the orc camp and killing every single one of them, even if you don't get an individual xp tally for every single orc killed. For this reason, I think heroic fantasy games are probably doomed to be brute-forced.
You also have the problem of curiosity. If you pass by that locked room in the dungeon on your way to kill the boss, you might regret it. What if the boss is a lich and that room had a longsword, +5 vs. undead? Boy, you really missed a chance there! Again, I think the fantasy tropes really work against trying to get players not to brute-force the system.
There's a few of my thoughts. An interesting suggestion! Something that will give me pause for thought in my upcoming projects.
Have fun.
aw man, NWN2 does that moronic Evil House Guard thing too? I *hated* that in NWN1. I haven't played 2 yet (my machine's in need of upgrade right now).
I think it was just 'catering to (perceived) stupid players' more than lazy design, because at least in NWN1 it was NOT difficult at ALL to make guards that you could really sneak by, that killing *might* piss off the village, and give proper quest XP. Giving the player some (*gasp*) choice in how to solve the stupid mission.
OTOH at least with NWN you get player-build modules so that people like me can design stealth quests and proper uses for the bard class :)
I think it was just 'catering to (perceived) stupid players' more than lazy design, because at least in NWN1 it was NOT difficult at ALL to make guards that you could really sneak by, that killing *might* piss off the village, and give proper quest XP. Giving the player some (*gasp*) choice in how to solve the stupid mission.
OTOH at least with NWN you get player-build modules so that people like me can design stealth quests and proper uses for the bard class :)
One problem is that this doesn't feel as heroic. Killing a few orcs and leaving the bodies around to scare off other orc raiders isn't as "cool" as going to the orc camp and killing every single one of them, even if you don't get an individual xp tally for every single orc killed. For this reason, I think heroic fantasy games are probably doomed to be brute-forced.
Maybe. But the idea of outsmarting the opponents is a staple of fantasy and science fiction literature. Even Conan, the archetypical "mighty-thewed" hack-and-slasher, relied upon his wits to overcome superior challenges. So while it's an unfamiliar trope in fantasy RPG *games*, we have a rich library of precedents.
I definitely have more of a "mechanic" tendency when I come across these kinds of issues, immediately thinking of gameplay rewards. But maybe that's neglecting a potentially more powerful reward --- the contextual reward within the fiction of the game universe. The challenge of THIS, of course, is that the game itself has to recognize what the player did to overcome the challenge, and then parrot the response through NPCs. Having common people cheer the Hero of Strontium in the streets with generic congratulatory messages is one thing... but it might be far more satisfying to have the player be met with more detailed comments from his "closest" NPC acquiantances.
"I don't know how you were able to change the Duke's mind about invading Strontium. You'll have to tell me the whole story some day, my friend."
Of course, this only works for larger-scale quests and so forth. It still doesn't necessarily apply to individual encounters inside a dungeon. Though... perhaps this could be answered as well by borrowing from other games.
F.E.A.R. had solid AI to begin with, but the AI was enhanced by you overhearing their communication with each other. One of the best parts of the game was hearing one of the enemy soldiers yell, "Oh, sh**!" when you lobbed a grenade at them, and they couldn't get out of the way in time.
Even if the grenade wasn't an incredibly effective weapon (though it was!), I would have used them as often as possible just to hear the AI's shock and horror.
The thing that killed Oblivion for me was the leveled loot / leveled opponents.
The problem is that you never encounter anything outside of your range of skill. Not only do you never feel particularly strong, you never feel particularly weak either.
I WANT to be able to enter a cave or a dungeon and have an "oh crap" moment and turn around and flee from a powerful enemy who I wasn't expecting.
I WANT there to be places in the world where I would be foolish to go until I was stronger.
I WANT the sense of danger when walking around the wilderness... the excitement of the unknown. As it stands now, any 1st level character can walk the lengths of Cyrodil and at most have to deal with a wolf / mudcrab / and the occasional bandit.
I WANT the option of securing a powerful weapon / item, even though my death might be all but guaranteed, or the lock may be too strong to pick at the moment.
I really dislike the idea of leveled loot. By the time you're in the mid 20s all of the bandits in the wilderness are walking around in full sets of ebony or daedric gear, yet they still guard a chest that contains 9 gp and a potato. If everyone has these supposedly rare and powerful items, then what's the point or reward for the player?
Ugh.
Virtual worlds should be fairly realistic in certain ways. When I run a D&D campaign, the powerful monsters in the world do not go into seclusion while the goblins and kobolds remain. A party of 1st level characters who decide to venture out into the world are in real danger if they veer off the roads and go hiking through bogs and swamps. At the same time, high level characters walking through the same bogs and swamps will have an easy time with it. I wouldn't suddenly place a black dragon in there simply for the sake of challenge. My players understand this and thank me for it. It makes them think carefully when they are low level, yet it also rewards them when they make it to higher levels.
As I am on the topic of realism, I would really love for certain core mechanics of RPGs to change. I believe in 2nd edition AD&D they described the gaining of hit points as the character's ability to avoid mortal wounds -- in other words, the higher level character isn't healthier per se, he merely knows how to twist at the last moment so the sword of his enemy doesn't cut quite as deep.
This is a decent explanation, yet obviously it is not how most RPGs think of hit points. I was never able to buy it that a wizard, even a high level one, could take more physical punishment than even a 1st level warrior. It simply does not make sense to me. And at the same time, a sword plunging into your stomach should do as much damage to you regardless of how much "experience" you have. A goblin getting a surprise attack on a high level warrior can't possibly kill him?
I'll take it a step further -- a warrior should not more HP than a mage simply because of class! What, extremely hardy individuals in fantasy worlds do not become mages? Relatively weak individuals do not concentrate on weapon skills?
There is much more to say on these topics, but suffice it to say I'd be happy to see a system address these problems.
The problem is that you never encounter anything outside of your range of skill. Not only do you never feel particularly strong, you never feel particularly weak either.
I WANT to be able to enter a cave or a dungeon and have an "oh crap" moment and turn around and flee from a powerful enemy who I wasn't expecting.
I WANT there to be places in the world where I would be foolish to go until I was stronger.
I WANT the sense of danger when walking around the wilderness... the excitement of the unknown. As it stands now, any 1st level character can walk the lengths of Cyrodil and at most have to deal with a wolf / mudcrab / and the occasional bandit.
I WANT the option of securing a powerful weapon / item, even though my death might be all but guaranteed, or the lock may be too strong to pick at the moment.
I really dislike the idea of leveled loot. By the time you're in the mid 20s all of the bandits in the wilderness are walking around in full sets of ebony or daedric gear, yet they still guard a chest that contains 9 gp and a potato. If everyone has these supposedly rare and powerful items, then what's the point or reward for the player?
Ugh.
Virtual worlds should be fairly realistic in certain ways. When I run a D&D campaign, the powerful monsters in the world do not go into seclusion while the goblins and kobolds remain. A party of 1st level characters who decide to venture out into the world are in real danger if they veer off the roads and go hiking through bogs and swamps. At the same time, high level characters walking through the same bogs and swamps will have an easy time with it. I wouldn't suddenly place a black dragon in there simply for the sake of challenge. My players understand this and thank me for it. It makes them think carefully when they are low level, yet it also rewards them when they make it to higher levels.
As I am on the topic of realism, I would really love for certain core mechanics of RPGs to change. I believe in 2nd edition AD&D they described the gaining of hit points as the character's ability to avoid mortal wounds -- in other words, the higher level character isn't healthier per se, he merely knows how to twist at the last moment so the sword of his enemy doesn't cut quite as deep.
This is a decent explanation, yet obviously it is not how most RPGs think of hit points. I was never able to buy it that a wizard, even a high level one, could take more physical punishment than even a 1st level warrior. It simply does not make sense to me. And at the same time, a sword plunging into your stomach should do as much damage to you regardless of how much "experience" you have. A goblin getting a surprise attack on a high level warrior can't possibly kill him?
I'll take it a step further -- a warrior should not more HP than a mage simply because of class! What, extremely hardy individuals in fantasy worlds do not become mages? Relatively weak individuals do not concentrate on weapon skills?
There is much more to say on these topics, but suffice it to say I'd be happy to see a system address these problems.
# posted by : December 08, 2006 9:44 AM
: December 08, 2006 9:44 AM
This post inspired me to post up a related question on one of my "Weekend Design Challenges" on my blog. It's at http://www.psychochild.org/?p=241.
Just doing a manual trackback for those interested in more discussion.
Just doing a manual trackback for those interested in more discussion.
Chris S -- the type of system you're looking for is "skill-based". =) It doesn't address the larger brute-force problem being considered, but it does address the class issue.
# posted by : December 10, 2006 7:18 PM
: December 10, 2006 7:18 PM
I'm a programmer, so I fully appreciate the complexities of providing alternatives to killing. Nonetheless, technology is definitely not the only thing holding us back. I constantly see situations where designers are actively working against allowing players to solve problems in alternative ways, because alternatives are somehow seen as "too easy."
I looooove playing stealthy characters. I love the challenge of sneaking into extremely dangerous places, where I might get eviscerated if anyone spots me. Also, I love making a clean getaway, and leaving as little evidence as possible. For me, all this sneaking around is more fun than killing things. So, you can imagine how pissed off I get, when I get a quest like:
STEAL THE CROWN OF FOODLENORK
* Kill 20 Foozles
* Return Crown of Foodlenork to Jorn Bridgehand
Excuse me, but doesn't that seem a bit ham-handed and unprofessional for a sneaky character? What is this, a Tarantino film? Let me play my class, already, would you?
Simulationist games do provide more opportunities for emergent solutions, though they also provide more opportunities for the game to get messy and broken. (This happens a lot in Oblivion.) In a single player game, this is just annoying. In an MMO, it can be absolutely chaotic.
I'd suggest, rather, thinking about how people play their characters -- and the classes you have in the game, specifically. Do you have healers? Is there a way a healer can use her talents to solve this problem? What about a rogue? Or an illusionist? Let people play their classes. We're not all just warriors in different outfits.
I looooove playing stealthy characters. I love the challenge of sneaking into extremely dangerous places, where I might get eviscerated if anyone spots me. Also, I love making a clean getaway, and leaving as little evidence as possible. For me, all this sneaking around is more fun than killing things. So, you can imagine how pissed off I get, when I get a quest like:
STEAL THE CROWN OF FOODLENORK
* Kill 20 Foozles
* Return Crown of Foodlenork to Jorn Bridgehand
Excuse me, but doesn't that seem a bit ham-handed and unprofessional for a sneaky character? What is this, a Tarantino film? Let me play my class, already, would you?
Simulationist games do provide more opportunities for emergent solutions, though they also provide more opportunities for the game to get messy and broken. (This happens a lot in Oblivion.) In a single player game, this is just annoying. In an MMO, it can be absolutely chaotic.
I'd suggest, rather, thinking about how people play their characters -- and the classes you have in the game, specifically. Do you have healers? Is there a way a healer can use her talents to solve this problem? What about a rogue? Or an illusionist? Let people play their classes. We're not all just warriors in different outfits.
Tess: Agreed. I tend towards simulationist myself, which gets me in trouble sometimes in game development. I mean, we programmers are trained to solve problems, not to fake the solutions :)
While it's ostensibly a problem in MMOs, I don't think anything is as satisfying as feeling that you somehow out-clevered the game (or designer, or DM). Those are the moments players remember! So what if they bypassed your 1,000 orcs that were supposed to add an extra two hours to the game? Instead of remembering the grueling, boring three hours, they remember how they lured all the orcs outside the castle, snuck back inside, and shut the gate on them! And their daring escape afterwards! That's what gets people talking about your game, telling other people about it, and reminiscing about it fondly years later. Not that the game was only 50 hours long instead of 52.
Going back to Oblivion for a moment - I hear people who have "gamed the system" horribly by actually creating a custom class that emphasizes all the skills they DO NOT intend to use or raise. The end result? They are running around at 3rd level, taking on 3rd level challenges, which a whole bunch of combat skills in the 80's and 90's! The game is horribly easy for them!
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. I mean, it gives me more ammunition on how skill-based systems are a little... well, wonky... but I don't think that it's bad enough that it actually encourages players to rob themselves of fun. It's more metagamey than what I'm really talking about here, but it serves as an example.
I was one of those nutcases who figured out you could lure Lord British outside his castle in one of the earlier Ultima games and shoot him with a cannon from your ship, too. It's actually fun to play with those rules and behaviors.
While it's ostensibly a problem in MMOs, I don't think anything is as satisfying as feeling that you somehow out-clevered the game (or designer, or DM). Those are the moments players remember! So what if they bypassed your 1,000 orcs that were supposed to add an extra two hours to the game? Instead of remembering the grueling, boring three hours, they remember how they lured all the orcs outside the castle, snuck back inside, and shut the gate on them! And their daring escape afterwards! That's what gets people talking about your game, telling other people about it, and reminiscing about it fondly years later. Not that the game was only 50 hours long instead of 52.
Going back to Oblivion for a moment - I hear people who have "gamed the system" horribly by actually creating a custom class that emphasizes all the skills they DO NOT intend to use or raise. The end result? They are running around at 3rd level, taking on 3rd level challenges, which a whole bunch of combat skills in the 80's and 90's! The game is horribly easy for them!
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. I mean, it gives me more ammunition on how skill-based systems are a little... well, wonky... but I don't think that it's bad enough that it actually encourages players to rob themselves of fun. It's more metagamey than what I'm really talking about here, but it serves as an example.
I was one of those nutcases who figured out you could lure Lord British outside his castle in one of the earlier Ultima games and shoot him with a cannon from your ship, too. It's actually fun to play with those rules and behaviors.
I loved "Bloodlines" for that. Some vampire clans are really good at sneaking around, and I never had to kill anyone (although I would often do it to protect my back, it was nice to know I didn't have to). I was frustrated by the Museum quest where you're specifically required to be sneaky, and yet are set up to fail, probably because they never animated a "Good job, you succeeded" cut scene.
The downside is that the XP count was a bit low for my taste, and I felt like I had to do every damn side-quest to explore the innate possibilities of my characters (i.e. get the disciplines/skills high enough for fun, plus surviving the end).
Since we're talking design, the werewolf part of "bloodlines" sucked ass big time. Depending on your disciplines, it could be easy (celerity 5) or really hard (sees/smells through obfuscate) and frustrating (ventrue the first time around!). But the bad design point is that you're railroaded into this encounter for which you're not prepared and which plays so unlike the rest of the game that it feels like you're being arbitrarily punished. I understand where it comes from, but I still think it was bad design on their part.
Post a Comment
The downside is that the XP count was a bit low for my taste, and I felt like I had to do every damn side-quest to explore the innate possibilities of my characters (i.e. get the disciplines/skills high enough for fun, plus surviving the end).
Since we're talking design, the werewolf part of "bloodlines" sucked ass big time. Depending on your disciplines, it could be easy (celerity 5) or really hard (sees/smells through obfuscate) and frustrating (ventrue the first time around!). But the bad design point is that you're railroaded into this encounter for which you're not prepared and which plays so unlike the rest of the game that it feels like you're being arbitrarily punished. I understand where it comes from, but I still think it was bad design on their part.
# posted by : January 23, 2008 11:54 AM
: January 23, 2008 11:54 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
