Sunday, April 22, 2007
The RPG Commandments
This is an oldie but goodie from Warren Spector, written back in the day when computer RPGs were just "rising from the dead" in late '98 (the article is dated '99, but he talks about the hotly-anticipated Baldur's Gate not yet released, which came out at the end of '98).
Although he's talking about "recent" games that are now "classics" to us, many of the issues he cited still hold true today. Have we progressed so little in the last decade?
Remodeling RPGs for the New Millenium
In particular, Spector lists five "RPG Commandments." They are:
The RPG Commandments
- Each player's path through the story must be unique. This doesn't mean a branching-tree structure with winning and losing paths but, rather, that players will have the freedom to decide how they'll overcome game obstacles. A world simulation must be deep enough so that each game problem is open to a variety of solution strategies, from the most thoughtful and low-key to the most obvious and violent. And the solution you choose to any given problem must have clear consequences, both immediate (killing a guard sets off an alarm, attracting more guards) and long-term (killing a guard may result in "wanted" posters being posted, causing civilians to fear you and be less cooperative).
- Players must always have clear goals. Though free to stray from the storyline at will, players must know what they're supposed to be doing, minute to minute and, if appropriate, mission to mission. The fun of the game is in overcoming obstacles and solving problems; the fun is in how you solve a problem, not in guessing what problem you're supposed to solve.
- The level of interactivity must be high, with NPCs about whom you really care and with a densely populated, object-rich world that looks and behaves like the real world (or, at least, a believable, internally consistent world of your own creation). A big, empty world is boring. Players must be free to explore a cool and instantly understandable world.
- The central character must grow and change in ways that matter to players in an obvious and personal way. During the course of play, you'll become more powerful, acquire more items, and develop new skills, of course. However, you'll also make unique friends and enemies, accomplish tasks and missions differently, overhear different conversations, and see different events unfold. By game's end, each player must control an alter ego that is distinct from that of all other players.
- The game must be about something more than killing things, solving puzzles, and maxing out a character's statistics. Remember all those hours you spent in school analyzing the underlying meaning of novels, poems, and movies? Guess what: RPGs lend themselves to the same kind of analysis. Games can and must have an impact on players. That impact may be the simple adrenaline rush of DIABLO, fleeting and soon forgotten (nothing wrong with that), or it may be the never-to-be-forgotten (and, in some cases, life-changing) experience of becoming the Avatar in ULTIMA IV. If all you're doing is throwing wave after wave of monsters at players so that they can kill lots of stuff so that they can increase some arbitrary statistics so that they can feel powerful, you're doing yourself, your players and your medium a disservice.
(Vaguely) related stuff slightly more interesting than a remedial calculus lecture:
* The Evolution of Computer RPGs
* RPG Combat Design
* But Is It An RPG?
* Innovation in RPGs
.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 9:00 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I mostly agree with his analysis, and I love the fact that Oblivion (my current favorite RPG) fulfills all five of those commandments.
I wouldn't call Oblivion my favorite, but most of my beefs with Oblivion are based on what it isn't, not what it is. What it does, it does pretty dang well. And I had an awesome time playing it for over 100 hours, which I can't say of many games.
And yeah, it fulfilled every commandment pretty well. One of the things I liked the most about it was how you could just set off and explore at random, and stumble across ancient ruins or daedric shrines or other interesting locations almost everywhere (the same was true, to a lesser degree of Morrowind). You'd find adventure and something to do no matter what you did.
And yeah, it fulfilled every commandment pretty well. One of the things I liked the most about it was how you could just set off and explore at random, and stumble across ancient ruins or daedric shrines or other interesting locations almost everywhere (the same was true, to a lesser degree of Morrowind). You'd find adventure and something to do no matter what you did.
Your point about being able to name your character brings up a good point concerning RPG's. I guess this would largely be determined by "who's role" are you playing. I think there should be two classifications, and I would buy both, I like both.
One would be the Story Book RPG. You would be playing the role of one or several people, and you would feel involvement much like you would reading a book. This is what Final Fantasy has done for years.
The other would be the Bio RPG. Not bio as in, well, you know, but bio as in biography. This RPG would be your story, your character. This is more along the lines of Balders Gate and others.
#2 is my main focus for my game. The final fantasy series is my limit for putting up with linear game play. They do leave you with optional quests, and you do have to find your destination some times.
The Dungeon Siege series by Chris Taylor bored me to tears. The graphics were great, but there were no options. You played the game like you read a book. The first one I played quite a ways into, and the second I only got about 3 hours into it when I decided enough was enough. I could have bought the book for $10, saved $40, and got the same experience.
#1 can go either way depending on the player. On one hand, I want to do the bad thing just for fun, yet I have to load back up and do the right thing so the game goes the way I want it too. Then I start to think about how much more fun it would if I would have played off of the mistake, and the entire game begins to revolve around one truly insignificant event and I get frustrated. At this point I am irritated with the game for making me face a moral delema with consequences when all I wanted to do was play a game. Like the old 2 on 2 basketball games, fouling had little consequence, and some of the games kept up with player injuries so you were rewarded for fouling. :-)
#3 is good. I don't like an overpopulation of NPC's, but I do like there to be several. Each town needs a manageable amount to the point where each one can truly have a personality, some even weaving their way into the story. The most memorable NPC in Balders Gate was that idiot down south who everyone threw rocks at. It was my third trip through that town when I realized you get experience by patiently waiting him out. I did kill him once and reload though, he isn't worth much experience. :-)
#4 seems to be a must, otherwise, 100 hours of game play is going to feel meaningless.
#5 is right. Diablo is a fun game, but it was pretty straight forward. I was pleased with Diablo 2 however, because I got to kill Griswold, that little jerk who always had something new in when I finally got up enough money to buy the item I wanted. At least they did give you power over your statistics. Even final fantasy aggravates me on this issue. I want to choose my increases, its my character, and my right. :)
One would be the Story Book RPG. You would be playing the role of one or several people, and you would feel involvement much like you would reading a book. This is what Final Fantasy has done for years.
The other would be the Bio RPG. Not bio as in, well, you know, but bio as in biography. This RPG would be your story, your character. This is more along the lines of Balders Gate and others.
#2 is my main focus for my game. The final fantasy series is my limit for putting up with linear game play. They do leave you with optional quests, and you do have to find your destination some times.
The Dungeon Siege series by Chris Taylor bored me to tears. The graphics were great, but there were no options. You played the game like you read a book. The first one I played quite a ways into, and the second I only got about 3 hours into it when I decided enough was enough. I could have bought the book for $10, saved $40, and got the same experience.
#1 can go either way depending on the player. On one hand, I want to do the bad thing just for fun, yet I have to load back up and do the right thing so the game goes the way I want it too. Then I start to think about how much more fun it would if I would have played off of the mistake, and the entire game begins to revolve around one truly insignificant event and I get frustrated. At this point I am irritated with the game for making me face a moral delema with consequences when all I wanted to do was play a game. Like the old 2 on 2 basketball games, fouling had little consequence, and some of the games kept up with player injuries so you were rewarded for fouling. :-)
#3 is good. I don't like an overpopulation of NPC's, but I do like there to be several. Each town needs a manageable amount to the point where each one can truly have a personality, some even weaving their way into the story. The most memorable NPC in Balders Gate was that idiot down south who everyone threw rocks at. It was my third trip through that town when I realized you get experience by patiently waiting him out. I did kill him once and reload though, he isn't worth much experience. :-)
#4 seems to be a must, otherwise, 100 hours of game play is going to feel meaningless.
#5 is right. Diablo is a fun game, but it was pretty straight forward. I was pleased with Diablo 2 however, because I got to kill Griswold, that little jerk who always had something new in when I finally got up enough money to buy the item I wanted. At least they did give you power over your statistics. Even final fantasy aggravates me on this issue. I want to choose my increases, its my character, and my right. :)
drslinky1500 did a fantastic job of bringing up some of the points I wanted to make. The Final Fantasy style roleplaying is a valid type that doesn't contain a lot of these factors. It's more like a novel (with lots of random fights in between). The player can't really affect the story but, at the end of the day, hopefully the story is told in such a way that it still captures the player.
At the same time the more freeform RPG can give you a character more the way you want to play it. Though Oblivion allows you a freeform exploration of the world your actions don't really affect the storyline. You can't get an ending (as far as I know) where the Daedra rule the world because you're evil or because you are lazy. Don't get me wrong; it's a fantastic game but it's maybe not that flexible.
As for Dungeon Siege and Diablo type games. I tend to only play these in multiplayer with friends where they become much more like an enjoyable hack and slash D&D adventure than anything else.
I think a lot of these games have outlined what they want to achieve and attained those goals. I think the Final Fantasy style has nothing wrong with it (I've very much enjoyed those games) but maybe is as much an RPG as the Resident Evil series; the only difference being a menu like structure with HP, Levels and other traits that we describe as RPG. I suppose that harks back to the question: What is an RPG?
At the same time the more freeform RPG can give you a character more the way you want to play it. Though Oblivion allows you a freeform exploration of the world your actions don't really affect the storyline. You can't get an ending (as far as I know) where the Daedra rule the world because you're evil or because you are lazy. Don't get me wrong; it's a fantastic game but it's maybe not that flexible.
As for Dungeon Siege and Diablo type games. I tend to only play these in multiplayer with friends where they become much more like an enjoyable hack and slash D&D adventure than anything else.
I think a lot of these games have outlined what they want to achieve and attained those goals. I think the Final Fantasy style has nothing wrong with it (I've very much enjoyed those games) but maybe is as much an RPG as the Resident Evil series; the only difference being a menu like structure with HP, Levels and other traits that we describe as RPG. I suppose that harks back to the question: What is an RPG?
No! Not the "What Is An RPG" question again! Fie! Fie!
Yes, the jRPGs tend to be really weak in commandments #1 and #3. And it makes me wonder who's wrong - the games that are repeatedly in the best-selling RPGs of all time (including the single best-selling RPG of any platform, any year)... or Warren Spector (who has been making RPGs - the dice & paper kind - since before some of the developers of Final Fantasy XII were out of diapers).
Yeah, I tend to agree with Spector. The Final Fantasy worlds make up for lack of popularion with lots of random encounters (or not-so-random but insignificant encounters in FF XII). And except for some optional side quests, or the option to wander about aimlessly killing random monsters for experience points, they are all very linear, choiceless games. All the significant choices occur in combat.
Post a Comment
Yes, the jRPGs tend to be really weak in commandments #1 and #3. And it makes me wonder who's wrong - the games that are repeatedly in the best-selling RPGs of all time (including the single best-selling RPG of any platform, any year)... or Warren Spector (who has been making RPGs - the dice & paper kind - since before some of the developers of Final Fantasy XII were out of diapers).
Yeah, I tend to agree with Spector. The Final Fantasy worlds make up for lack of popularion with lots of random encounters (or not-so-random but insignificant encounters in FF XII). And except for some optional side quests, or the option to wander about aimlessly killing random monsters for experience points, they are all very linear, choiceless games. All the significant choices occur in combat.
Links to this post:
<< Home
