Friday, November 23, 2007
RPG Design: The Same Ol' Grind
On the RPG.net forums the other day, I came across this discussion on how much time it would take to "honestly" get a character up to high level in 1st edition D&D. One player noted that based on the XP from killing monsters, players would have to kill 960 goblins (for a party of 4) to earn second level.
This brought up a fairly ancient argument about the rule from D&D where experience points were given out for treasure. In fact, the argument was old when Gary Gygax penned the defense of the practice in the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide. I always followed that rule, and my players went up to third level or so fairly quickly. But apparently not only was it not universal, I might have even been in the minority.
Effectively, the experience points (abbreviated "XP") for treasure thing was an early attempt at codifying quest-based XP. One participant in games with Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz, Old Geezer, commented in the thread that not only was the XP for gold integral to the original "vision" of D&D, without it you were best off to just sit in the middle of the dungeon and ring cowbells for wandering monster encounters. Those unplanned, "grinding" types of encounters were intended to be obstacles and challenges, not "XP on the hoof," as he puts it.
Embracing The Grind
Yet computer RPGs, descended from Dungeons & Dragons, have traditionally emphasized the "grind" as not only the principle source of character progression, but in many cases the sole source of character-building experience. Killing monsters over and over again, "grinding" away on the body count until a new level was achieved. It is only recently that CRPGs have attempted to abandon grinding - in this case defined as experience through body count - behind. I'm thinking specifically of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and some Neverwinter Nights premium modules. There are certainly others, but those come to mind.
Curiously, even 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons departed significantly from the vision, suggesting quest-based XP as an option, and then generously announcing that experience points could be earned by merely defeating or bypassing an opponent. And D&D Online had to a grinding of a different sort - repeating the same adventure over and over again.
There was one nice thing about the "grind" mechanic in single-player RPGs. If you found yourself overpowered by a particular section of the game, you could back off, go fight some monsters, and get an extra level or two (not to mention gold and supplies) before trying again. As a player who often prefers often-underpowered rogue classes, I appreciate this. After all, I remember all too well my talking-and-sneaking character in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines being dropped into multiple boss-fights where talking and sneaking were rendered useless.
Alternatives to Experience Points
Of course, we also have some totally different systems like the Elder Scrolls games (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion) which eschew the experience-point system altogether, and simply let highly exploitable (not to mention WEIRD) "practicing" take place.
Call of Cthulhu used a similar system for leveling up back in... what was it... 1980? It led to players frantically trying to use every single skill on their character sheet at least once during an adventure. But half the characters were dead or permanently insane at the end of each adventure, anyway, so it didn't really matter so much.
Call of Cthulhu D20, by Monte Cook, just suggests the characters gain a level every two adventures. That makes bookkeeping simple, but again locks the players to a particular power level, and doesn't take into account the difficulty of any one adventure.
A Balanced Approach
I'm personally a fan of the experience point system. Seeing the points accumulate and measuring progress towards your next increase provides a good, positive feedback.
In my opinion, a good computer RPG should strike something of a balance. The principle source of experience points is best based on non-tedious, non-repeating criteria that helps measure progress through the game. Quest-based and story-based stuff. And points for taking unique risks (like disarming a trap, or dealing with a difficult radiation-filled environment).
But I'm fond of using repeatable risks as a source of experience points. Maybe this can be limited in some way (like not being able to earn more than N experience points this way per level or something... though that kind of rule can be confusing to players). But it needs to be there. This allows players some freedom and a feeling of non-linearity... they can abandon their quest and just go out monster-bashing ( *cough*grinding*cough* ) any time they want, for as long as they want (though it could have detrimental effects on their quest status... )
Though I kinda miss giving out XP for gold...
(Vaguely) related inane mutterings:
* RPG Design: The Brute Force Problem
* RPG Design: Scaling Encounters
* Why Do RPGs Suck Now?
.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:00 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
My gaming group did experience points for a while, but we ended up just going with increasing levels every few adventures. The biggest reasons, in my view, that we ended up with this system is:
1) adding up XP takes a lot of time that is better spent by the DM working on the next quest.
2) Carefully designed adventures resulted in a steady rate of advancement anyways
3) Punishing a player for not being into roleplaying on a particular night (if they had a bad day or whatever) is counter productive to getting people to come out again.
1) adding up XP takes a lot of time that is better spent by the DM working on the next quest.
2) Carefully designed adventures resulted in a steady rate of advancement anyways
3) Punishing a player for not being into roleplaying on a particular night (if they had a bad day or whatever) is counter productive to getting people to come out again.
# posted by 
: November 23, 2007 11:25 AM
: November 23, 2007 11:25 AM
We have been fooling around with a collection of OD&D box sets found in a charity shop, and one player did sulk a bit at the pitifully low XP received by killing monsters, until I reminded about the whole XP-for-gold thing... "I've read the end of the module! You get a reward and you'll all level up! Honest!" :)
players would have to kill 960 goblins each to earn second level.
And that's just for 2nd level? This has pretty stunning implications for either the scarcity of 2nd level fighters, or the population growth rate for goblins.
And that's just for 2nd level? This has pretty stunning implications for either the scarcity of 2nd level fighters, or the population growth rate for goblins.
I'm a fan of "x% advancement per session".
In our last couple of RM campaigns (now years past), we eschewed XP for straight dev point rewards - every session got you 5+ dev points, which meant that every character progressed at roughly the same rate, regardless of what went on in the game. There were extra dev point awards for fine role playing, impressive feats, etc. - but pretty much, you went up a level every 6-8 sessions.
In AD&D, you could adopt a similar mechnaic - say, 2 skill points every session. When you have enough skill points to have advanced a level, you bump up your level by one (and deal with feats, etc.)
This has the advantage of smoothing out skill progression. Instead of having this uber-bump where all of a sudden your characters are suddenly more capable, the end of each session offers the opportunity to increase your skills in a logical way. In a combat-heavy scenario? Bump up your weapons or defensive skills. An informatoin finding point in the plot? Increase diplomacy, contacts or interrogation skills. And so on.
All in all, it seemed to work well. There was a constant sense of advancement (similar to XP awards), without all the bookkeeping. Most of all, it encouraged us to *role play* - to do what was appropriate for the adventure, instead of seeking out whatever course of action (i.e., combat + looting) would maximize our character's advancement potential.
In our last couple of RM campaigns (now years past), we eschewed XP for straight dev point rewards - every session got you 5+ dev points, which meant that every character progressed at roughly the same rate, regardless of what went on in the game. There were extra dev point awards for fine role playing, impressive feats, etc. - but pretty much, you went up a level every 6-8 sessions.
In AD&D, you could adopt a similar mechnaic - say, 2 skill points every session. When you have enough skill points to have advanced a level, you bump up your level by one (and deal with feats, etc.)
This has the advantage of smoothing out skill progression. Instead of having this uber-bump where all of a sudden your characters are suddenly more capable, the end of each session offers the opportunity to increase your skills in a logical way. In a combat-heavy scenario? Bump up your weapons or defensive skills. An informatoin finding point in the plot? Increase diplomacy, contacts or interrogation skills. And so on.
All in all, it seemed to work well. There was a constant sense of advancement (similar to XP awards), without all the bookkeeping. Most of all, it encouraged us to *role play* - to do what was appropriate for the adventure, instead of seeking out whatever course of action (i.e., combat + looting) would maximize our character's advancement potential.
# posted by : November 23, 2007 7:24 PM
: November 23, 2007 7:24 PM
I had to correct my quote somewhat there - it was 960 goblins for a party of 4. So "only" 240 goblins each to get to 2nd level.
But yeah. That's a serious environmental impact on goblins, one might think...
The problem with the straight, semi-linear "dev point" reward (which WAS my favorite until a few years ago) is that if your progression is too gradually, it ceases to feel like improvement. While getting the sudden "bump" of a level is pretty unrealistic, it also serves a nice psychological reward.
OD&D - wow, Whiner... that one actually had a pretty simple XP system. The treasure you found was multiplied by the guardian monster's hit dice, or by the dungeon level if it had no guardian. Then it was divided by your level. But I guess they learned that players really don't like to do division.
But yeah. That's a serious environmental impact on goblins, one might think...
The problem with the straight, semi-linear "dev point" reward (which WAS my favorite until a few years ago) is that if your progression is too gradually, it ceases to feel like improvement. While getting the sudden "bump" of a level is pretty unrealistic, it also serves a nice psychological reward.
OD&D - wow, Whiner... that one actually had a pretty simple XP system. The treasure you found was multiplied by the guardian monster's hit dice, or by the dungeon level if it had no guardian. Then it was divided by your level. But I guess they learned that players really don't like to do division.
I always liked Earthdawn's XP system. You got XP (LP, for Legend Points, actually), and then spent that XP to increase your skills and abilities. When you advanced enough skills to a certain point, you could advance a "circle" (read: level), opening up more advanced skills/abilities to learn.
Retains the variable size of XP rewards with the constant advancement of other systems.
Retains the variable size of XP rewards with the constant advancement of other systems.
The World of Darkness system (well, the old one... I have no familiarity of or desire for the new one) had something similar, which worked pretty well. You got experience points at a fixed rate, which you could spend to increase attributes and skills directly. But the cost increased as it did so, so it became pretty expensive to raise something to its top level.
On the negative side, unless it was the (most expensive) supernatural abilities, an increase of one point in an attribute wasn't extraordinarily noticeable.
On the negative side, unless it was the (most expensive) supernatural abilities, an increase of one point in an attribute wasn't extraordinarily noticeable.
The Earthdawn system sounds a bit like Mage. You earn points, and spend them to increase things. It leads to highly customized and specialized characters. There are no levels, but certain skills and abilities put caps on others.
For a skill-based system, it works great to decide where to spend your points instead of forcing arbitrary practice to advance a skill. Need more hit points, or new spells, or higher strength? Buy what you need most with your XP. For a level-based system it doesn't make much sense to buy skills with XP.
Post a Comment
For a skill-based system, it works great to decide where to spend your points instead of forcing arbitrary practice to advance a skill. Need more hit points, or new spells, or higher strength? Buy what you need most with your XP. For a level-based system it doesn't make much sense to buy skills with XP.
Links to this post:
<< Home
