What Makes a Great RPG - Mechanics
We've talked about setting, story, characters, interactivity, immersion, putting the player into a role as aspects of a great computer RPG. But we're missing a key ingredient... the actual mechanics. Or "gameplay." What that means is that, when you boil it all down and you strip away all that groovy context and story and all those other cool things that make a great RPG, is it still interesting and fun to play?

If not, you've got mechanics that might cripple an otherwise stellar RPG. Arguably, more than any other element, the gameplay mechanics must stand on their own. However, I've got at least one counter-example in the "Examples" section that might indicate that mechanics might not be as important as I think.

So what makes good RPG mechanics? Much of that is a matter of taste. As much as the holders of the D20 license would like it to be otherwise, there's no "one, true" RPG system. In general, the desirable features include:

The system should provide "interesting decisions:" The system should be hard to min / max down to a single "winning strategy." The player's choice of actions shouldn't be obvious.

The system should provide a "reasonable" simulation of the genre: A gritty Cyberpunk adventure shouldn't have rules that allow the player to take on a dozen lesser opponents at a time through his martial skill, nor should a bronze-era Superheroic adventure deal with gory details of maiming and instant-death shots.

The system should provide rewards to the player at appropriate intervals: The definition of "appropriate" varies by flavor and genre, but in the game system should provide some sort of regular schedule of player improvements that are neither too long and frustrating nor too short and meaningless.

The system should be easy to learn, hard to master: This mantra is the holy grail of all gaming systems. But it remains true - the best game systems are ones that anybody can figure out and feel like they are playing competently within a few short minutes, but have the depth that allows hardcore players to still improve their performance even after investing dozens of hours into it.

The UI should be clear, easy to use, and provide useful feedback: The goal of all UI's.

The system should be balanced in risk versus reward: Measuring that balance is, of course, the real trick. This is a major factor leading to "interesting decisions," but is worthy of note by itself.

Some more contoversial elements of mechanics seem to be more of a matter of player or designer taste and appropriateness to the story:

• Random versus fixed loot / reward distribution
• Skill-based versus class-based systems
• Skill growth by deliberate advancement versus "natural" improvement by activity
• Turn-Based versus Real-Time
• Player Skill versus Character Skill balance of importance
• NPC parties versus Solo characters

Examples:
Unfortunately, the nuts and bolts behind the mechanics of many RPGs are rarely very transparent. This isn't actually bad thing in general, but it makes talking about the details more difficult.

Early RPGs were frequently based on the original Dungeons & Dragons game. The core rules were very simple. Unfortunately, they also lacked depth. A later version of the rules, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, was used in many officially licensed titles, particularly the so-called "Gold Box" games by SSI. While the rules themselves were a little deeper (and harder to understand by new players), the most interesting challenge came from the tactical combat game. Positioning of characters, hit locations of area-effect spells, and use of terrain features all came into play during combat. It was a hardcore RPG fan's dream. The otherwise straightforward (and, dare I say it, uninteresting) combat of the Dungeons & Dragons game came alive when returned to its natural element - a virtual "miniatures table."

Final Fantasy X used the series' traditional abstract positioning of characters in turn-based combat. There were no terrain features or movement (other than swapping members in and out) to worry about, but the game did offer some interesting rock-scissors-paper challenges for the player. The challenge came in identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and patterns of new monsters, and then adapting your strategy to fit. Sure, several monsters could be brute-forced to death without much in the way of tactics, but it would lead to a slower game with lots more time spent running back to a save node to heal up. Unfortunately, the twentieth time or so you encounter an identical grouping of monsters, the battle had become pretty mechanical and tedious. But as in all Final Fantasy games (that I have played, at least), there was a tremendous variety of monsters throughout the game to keep things interesting from chapter to chapter.

At some point, Richard "Lord British" Garriott opted to vastly simplify the rules system of the Ultima games. While computers could crunch numbers much better than a human player or DM, he opted for simplicity. In fact, it is rumored that the "Dexterity" attribute in Ultima VII didn't actually do anything - it remained in the game for legacy purposes. However, in spite of the lobotomized game mechanics in terms of actual character attributes, there was still an interesting interplay between spells and melee, and control of the party members (even in real-time combat). But while I consider it to have weaker mechanics than many of its predecessors, it remains my favorite. Does this mean I overrate the importance of solid gameplay mechanics? Maybe.

However, in direct counterpoint, the Virtue system of Ultima IV pretty much made that game. While the virtue system had no impact on combat, it had a huge impact on the non-combat parts of the game.

Most people don't mention the game mechanics much when describing their favorite RPG, but Fallout is an exception. Many players bring up the SPECIAL system. As a system, it never struck me as anything - pardon the pun - that special. But it was one of the more transparent systems for the players, spelling out in numerical format exactly the chances and percentages were. And you had that one trait that allowed you to always see the goriest death, which seemed very popular...

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines inherited (and highly modified) then pen-and-paper system from its license. The "Humanity" and "Masquerade" attributes are very interesting additions to the game. Both offered soft restrictions to player behavior, much as the Virtue system of Ultima. As a blood-sucking monster in a game where it is always night-time, your potential actions are pretty unrestricted. However, if you decide to choose the path of monster, you'll find your humanity rating dropping very quickly. As humanity drops, so does your control over your character (the beast takes charge). Going into such a frenzied state is bad news where caution and careful tactical approaches is best. And it can also cause you to lose control in public, where you can be seen. This impacts your Masquerade score.

Vampires survive by making their presence secret, and pretending to be humans. Your efforts to maintain this pretense is represented by the Masquerade score. As it drops, Bad Things happen to you, particularly in the form of Vampire hunters - and will eventually result in losing the game. The game would be VERY different without Humanity and Masquerade, as simple and subtle as they they are.

What Players Say
"I’m a mechanics guy... I find bad mechanics interrupt my immersion the most. Examples of bad mechanics include instagibs, universal strategies and poorly scaling abilities." - Alexis, at Twenty-Sided

"I remember the first time I found the Cruisader's Ax in Wizardry 7, what a reward for exploration. In my opinion, constant exploration rewards water down the effect, while a handfull of well placed "killer finds" is much more preferable. NWN really burnt me out quick with the whole one or two treasure chests or desks per room. I wound up wasting all my time picking locks based on a stat roll. After I killed my second dragon in that game I called it quits, I was tired of the camera, and tired of locks and traps (overkill)." - drslinky1500, Rampant Games Forums

"Since most RPGs are characterized by character growth/advancement, you have to feel like your development is meaningful and worthwhile. If your character doesn’t acquire awesome powers, significant stat changes, or fantastic equipment, then there’s no reason to bother with such matters. Alternatively, if the only way to achieve such uber-pwnage is to level grind for 200 hours, then the sense of accomplishment is also somewhat diminished. Goals should be palpable but not require a commitment that forgoes real-life." - Hal, at Twenty-Sided

"Great games don't have repetitive elements and introduce lots of new ideas. Combat/Gameplay systems need to constantly introduce new elements throughout the game. Great games always are always dangling the next reward in front of you. This also means letting the player know where to go or how to get them (a steady supply of quests are good for this). Great games allow multiple approaches to a problem. Great games are the appropriate difficulty for the person playing them so that rewards aren't trivial but are still possible to obtain." - Ezin, Rampant Games Forums

"To make a game more real, I would much prefer a system that allows my character to learn anything no matter his trade or profession. This seems more real to me than an enforced set of skills with the inability to even dabble in anything else. In any adventure setting the ability to defend ones self to physical attack is common sense in my mind and I think anyone should be able to learn basic self defense, and how to use the more common weapons. The classic 1st lvl wizard out of D$D would lose a fight against a house cat 3 out of 4 times if they couldn’t use their magic. That doesn’t make sense to me." - Leopardeternal, at Twenty-Sided

"In all reality a player should not have to worry with saving the game constantly, they should be able to trust that the developers are not out to get them, and that a loss might loose them some ground in much the same way as Ultima 7, you are not going to loose your shirt. What I am getting at is that the game should help out the player so more focus is on the game, not on deciding whether or not to save." - drslinky1500, Rampant Games forums

"With the class/skill discussion, I think that is tied to solo/party. If your solo, you need to be a generalist, so a skill system allows you to survive. If your in a party, then each member can specialize to become more than the sum of the parts. Random loot is good, but needs to be sensible. Personally, I would randomize everything (plot included) and have the loot fall out of that, but thats just me." - Primogenitor, at Twenty-Sided

"Randomized worlds are very good. If you can’t have random scenery, then at least the loot should be randomized. Having the exact same items in the exact same locations every time though the game just kills the replay value... Skill-based leveling system. This Rampant Coyote post talks about skill-based vs. class-based systems. I’m a big fan of classless systems for sure. For me the ideal system was the one used in Fallout." - Shamus Young, Twenty-Sided

"With (Diablo 2) Blizzard created a almost perfect balance of giving players rewards and then make them want and struggle for more. It's one of the most addictive games if one likes to get and improve equipment." - Hajo, Rampant Games Forums

Links:
* What Makes a Great RPG?
* What Makes a Great RPG - The Answer?
* What Makes a Great RPG - The World
* What Makes a Great RPG - Playing a Role
* What Makes a Great RPG - The Story
* What Makes a Great RPG - Everything Else
* What Makes a Great RPG (Twenty-Sided)
* What Makes a Great RPG, Part II (Twenty-Sided)
* What Makes a Great RPG, Part III (Twenty-Sided)

Discussion on the Forum! Woot!

Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:00 AM (Permalink)