Wednesday, July 16, 2008
RPG Design: What Does It Con?
Our pen-and-paper RPG playing group has an annoying tendency to try and fight impossible odds.
We left poor John dazed and confused when our group of 4th level characters managed to wipe out an elder werewolf. Improved Trip, plus some Enlarged wolves summoned with a wand in tight quarters managed to give us some pretty amazing advantages and pull off the impossible.
On the other hand, I've had the players try and go toe-to-toe against a giant ape demon that they've had no business trying to fight. By the time they realized they were way out of their league, it was too late to avoid casualties. I had to frantically figure out how to give them a plausible escape route to avoid a total wipeout.
This is hardly unique to us. I remember, as a kid, trying to take some non-verbal cues from the Dungeon Master to try and figure out if we were facing a combat encounter, or an "Oh, time to pretend to be blown away by epic coolness of our enemy" encounter. You really didn't want to guess wrong on those. Sometimes it would be obvious, if you knew the game. When you encountered a huge red dragon or a beholder at level three, you knew that it was time to negotiate, not fight.
Single-player computer RPGs kept it pretty simple. There were really four situations:
#1 - You could kill it. No guarantee that you WOULD, but it was designed to be smacked down.
#2 - You were over your head and would die, but you could re-load a saved game.
#3 - You were watching a cut scene or dialog sequence.
#4 - Said creature was unable to be targeted in an attack.
Later, some multiplayer computer RPGs (AKA "MUDs" or other flavors of "Multi User..." something-or-another) instituted a command to gauge the danger of a monster called "Consider", or "Con" for short. It was made even more popular in EverQuest, but in modern MMORPGs, enemies are frequently color-coded automatically for your convenience.
Few things pissed off players more than seeing a "mob" under-conned. Meaning, they are much, much harder than their color-coding suggests. Except, maybe, in a single-player game, being forced into a whiny, sniveling dialog sequence or cut-scene with a bad guy they figure they are powerful enough to take down.
Assuming there is a point to be found here, it might be this:
I like the idea of having things beyond the characters' (current) capabilities to take down, which requires some other strategy than just "brute force." Like, oh, I don't know... avoidance. Or negotiation. Or treachery. Or... well, something other than a stand-up fight.
However, too often, such a thing really comes across as little more than smacking the player upside the head with the plot hammer. Like my young D&D playing, searching for clues from the DM that we were facing his pet NPC that he really didn't want us killing. The problem is that the players are supposed to be heroic, and dealing with "impossible" enemies is what heroes do. So simply having a peasant warn the player, "Oh, beware the dragon, who has killed a hundred men this year!" is more like an invitation.
I've talked about "brute force" problem before, in general. But specifically - assuming you are taking the approach that not everything the players encounter is designed to be easy enough to take down in due course. Assume, secondly, that you are trying to be all non-plot-hammer-esque, and you want to preserve the option for the player to TRY and take down said uber-foe. They can give it a shot, and maybe even come back later (after they've leveled up a bit) and take him down. But what you don't want to do is let the players think they are supposed to fight.
What's the best way to do it? And while I'm looking specifically at computer RPGs here, some suggestions for pen & paper to avoid future total party wipeouts that would be similarly applicable would be nice.
Should enemies be color-coded, to represent some practiced calculation on the part of wary characters? This is the simplest solution, but it also takes out a few elements of surprise. Like the bunny rabbit from Monty Python.
Should it be an active skill for the characters? Sort of like an "appraise" skill for item value, but for enemy difficulty?
Maybe a dramatic cut-scene the player sees when he or she gets close? The bad guy wiping out another group of adventurers? Okay, I hate this idea as a general rule, though done once in a while for dramatic effect, it's cool.
Or should we just stick with the tried-and-true "oops-reload-saved-game" system?
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:02 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Why not use in-game indications to reflect party evaluations? I'm thinking of the older Might and Magic games, where a hit on an opponent resulted in a variable sized "blood splash" depending on the damage done. Make use of visual or audible signals to let the player know just how deep in it he is.
Just tossed a bolt of fire at your opponent? If his evasion is high, have him lean to the side so the bolt missed. High resistance to fire? Maybe you get the normal "splash" from a hit, but instead of seeing him engulfed in flames, you get a few wisps of smoke... and he *laughs* at you. High HTH combat skill relative to you? Then maybe his hits not only do damage... but also cause the player's view to shudder momentarily; the more violent the shudder, the tougher the opponent.
After all this, give the party the option to disengage cleanly... a "run away" capability. Move them out of the encounter area and knock down their health, mana, stamina, whatever to reflect that they managed to escape, but not without a price.
Just tossed a bolt of fire at your opponent? If his evasion is high, have him lean to the side so the bolt missed. High resistance to fire? Maybe you get the normal "splash" from a hit, but instead of seeing him engulfed in flames, you get a few wisps of smoke... and he *laughs* at you. High HTH combat skill relative to you? Then maybe his hits not only do damage... but also cause the player's view to shudder momentarily; the more violent the shudder, the tougher the opponent.
After all this, give the party the option to disengage cleanly... a "run away" capability. Move them out of the encounter area and knock down their health, mana, stamina, whatever to reflect that they managed to escape, but not without a price.
samrobb, once you engage, there are plenty of things you can do to indicate whether or not the party has a chance of winning. The difficult part is in coming up with a decent way of letting the player figure out whether he should engage.
I think this determination is complex enough that it can't be solved with one model -- you've got to apply multiple models. As a player, I'd like to know:
1) what does my character think about the danger? I don't know what my character knows -- so color code it for me, and leave it grey if my character doesn't know anything.
2) what has my character heard about the danger from the locals or legends? This isn't always accurate, so we can't really use the same indicator -- but again I'd like it color coded.
3) Failing the previous two bits of information, does my character think it looks scary? If so, let me know -- either with some kind of cue.
For example, I'm a halfling who's just run into an orc for the first time: I don't know it's dangerous, but all of the locals have been saying "Wow, a halfling your size could never take on an orc." -- so the inner color coding ring is grey and the outer color coding ring is red.
Or, I'm a halfling who's just run into a Ring Wraith for the first time: I don't know it's dangerous, nobody's told me about them, but it looks darn scary. Both color coding rings are grey, but it has a dark aura (or the model just looks really scary).
Or, I'm a halfling who has come across a bunny: I've eaten these all my life, I know exactly what it is and the danger is nil. A single green ring is shown around the bunny.
Now we have all three states: I don't know what it is so I don't know how dangerous, but it looks really scary (or cuddly); I don't know what it is but I've heard rumors about it so my information is quite possibly inaccurate; or, I know exactly what it is and I've tussled with them before.
The more difficult problem, however, is getting the player to realize he doesn't need to kill everything he sees. In most games, you kill what you see because it gives you experience. In most games, if something moves and it looks like you, you can probably talk to it; if something moves and it doesn't look like you (or it has a mask on) then you should probably kill it. You've got to desensitize the player to moving things -- not every moving thing should be killed or talked to.
I think this determination is complex enough that it can't be solved with one model -- you've got to apply multiple models. As a player, I'd like to know:
1) what does my character think about the danger? I don't know what my character knows -- so color code it for me, and leave it grey if my character doesn't know anything.
2) what has my character heard about the danger from the locals or legends? This isn't always accurate, so we can't really use the same indicator -- but again I'd like it color coded.
3) Failing the previous two bits of information, does my character think it looks scary? If so, let me know -- either with some kind of cue.
For example, I'm a halfling who's just run into an orc for the first time: I don't know it's dangerous, but all of the locals have been saying "Wow, a halfling your size could never take on an orc." -- so the inner color coding ring is grey and the outer color coding ring is red.
Or, I'm a halfling who's just run into a Ring Wraith for the first time: I don't know it's dangerous, nobody's told me about them, but it looks darn scary. Both color coding rings are grey, but it has a dark aura (or the model just looks really scary).
Or, I'm a halfling who has come across a bunny: I've eaten these all my life, I know exactly what it is and the danger is nil. A single green ring is shown around the bunny.
Now we have all three states: I don't know what it is so I don't know how dangerous, but it looks really scary (or cuddly); I don't know what it is but I've heard rumors about it so my information is quite possibly inaccurate; or, I know exactly what it is and I've tussled with them before.
The more difficult problem, however, is getting the player to realize he doesn't need to kill everything he sees. In most games, you kill what you see because it gives you experience. In most games, if something moves and it looks like you, you can probably talk to it; if something moves and it doesn't look like you (or it has a mask on) then you should probably kill it. You've got to desensitize the player to moving things -- not every moving thing should be killed or talked to.
The "oops-reload" system only really works if it's still obvious somehow that you're not going to succeed -- games like Final Fantasy tend to show this off with a large HP bar and having your attacks do about 1 damage. (Of course that only helps if this kind of info is presented to the player; if you're trying to be more immersive and less game-y, then you'd probably need to do something like what samrobb was suggesting.)
If you don't make it obvious to the player that they're overmatched then some people will keep trying over and over again ("maybe I just need a different strategy" or "maybe I need to level a little"), or worse, give up in disgust ("this game is impossible!").
I like jglover13's suggestion, though. Having some sort of danger indication based on in-game experience sounds quite cool. Might be a bit tricky to implement, though. (The "what others have told me" side is easy, but it can be hard to judge whether the PC would think a given fight is easy or hard.)
If you don't make it obvious to the player that they're overmatched then some people will keep trying over and over again ("maybe I just need a different strategy" or "maybe I need to level a little"), or worse, give up in disgust ("this game is impossible!").
I like jglover13's suggestion, though. Having some sort of danger indication based on in-game experience sounds quite cool. Might be a bit tricky to implement, though. (The "what others have told me" side is easy, but it can be hard to judge whether the PC would think a given fight is easy or hard.)
You're supposed to be the PC. What do *you* think of taking your 3 foot slighty puffy frame up against what appears to be a hulking green brute? Does your character have a big enough ego to think he can take it?
An indicator for local lore is a great idea, but I expect it to get out of date quite quickly as the PC levels beyond the local militia. Which is fine, as long as the player becomes aware of this effect early in the game. We wouldn't want them to freeze at the sight of an orc 30 minutes after they took down a dragon simply because 'the lore ring is red!' :)
An indicator for local lore is a great idea, but I expect it to get out of date quite quickly as the PC levels beyond the local militia. Which is fine, as long as the player becomes aware of this effect early in the game. We wouldn't want them to freeze at the sight of an orc 30 minutes after they took down a dragon simply because 'the lore ring is red!' :)
I've found that, unless the opening comment is "DIE DIE DIE, FOOLISH MORTALS", tabletop players at least will pay a lot more attention to monsters that talk.
How would that work in games?
...well, what I want is a speech system that doesn't completely take over the game when you're using it. Maybe have little pop-ups (that you could ignore or respond to) when someone talks to you.
How would that work in games?
...well, what I want is a speech system that doesn't completely take over the game when you're using it. Maybe have little pop-ups (that you could ignore or respond to) when someone talks to you.
# posted by 
: July 18, 2008 8:07 AM
: July 18, 2008 8:07 AM
delve, maybe I was not so clear.
I happen to be a mortal human from earth, and I don't know what a hefawumpalumpus is. But, the character I am playing is a elph from norphus and learned about hefawumpalumpuses as a child, so he knows that even though they look like cuddly bunnies, their poop explodes when an elph gets too close -- so he knows they are more dangerous than I would think a bunny is.
When I talk about an indicator of how dangerous the character thinks the encounter is, that's what I mean. The character likely has some idea of the danger even if the player does not. If the character does not. I guess its really similar to the local lore bit, but I draw a distinction because it's information the character knows, not something he heard on the street in the last town -- and he probably heard from some trusted mentor.
So in my mind it breaks down to: trusted information, not-yet-trusted information, and what-I-can-infer-from-big-teeth information.
As always, the decision is the player's.
I happen to be a mortal human from earth, and I don't know what a hefawumpalumpus is. But, the character I am playing is a elph from norphus and learned about hefawumpalumpuses as a child, so he knows that even though they look like cuddly bunnies, their poop explodes when an elph gets too close -- so he knows they are more dangerous than I would think a bunny is.
When I talk about an indicator of how dangerous the character thinks the encounter is, that's what I mean. The character likely has some idea of the danger even if the player does not. If the character does not. I guess its really similar to the local lore bit, but I draw a distinction because it's information the character knows, not something he heard on the street in the last town -- and he probably heard from some trusted mentor.
So in my mind it breaks down to: trusted information, not-yet-trusted information, and what-I-can-infer-from-big-teeth information.
As always, the decision is the player's.
jglover13 - I understand your point, and it's an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure that I'd like the "all in one" type indicator. I'd rather have a variety of clues, visual, audible, and motion related. Not because they're better, mind you - I think you can accomplish the same thing with whatever indicators you want to use in a game. I just think it would be more immersive and more fun to process the clues myself than to have the PC hand it to me on a plate.
samrobb -- I guess it all depends on what kind of game we are talking about. If it's a game where you, the player, know everything then in the best case (great engine, great art team, great sound-effects) you can get all your information through in-game non-indicator type cues (the guy looks scary and growls); but if its a game where you, the player, don't know everything the character might know then I don't think it's possible to express what you, the player, need to know to make a decision without indicators of some kind.
Perhaps I'm just a lazy gamer; I don't like it when the game makes me search for a secret code word, then makes me write it down on a piece of paper so that I can remember it later to enter into the secret code pad. I'd much rather the character tuck the code away in his head and pull it out automatically when he needs it. Indicators of encounter danger, to me, are just an extension of that idea.
Perhaps I'm just a lazy gamer; I don't like it when the game makes me search for a secret code word, then makes me write it down on a piece of paper so that I can remember it later to enter into the secret code pad. I'd much rather the character tuck the code away in his head and pull it out automatically when he needs it. Indicators of encounter danger, to me, are just an extension of that idea.
I think there's four options: Trial and error, just let the player crush everything, color code the enemies or make an "appraise" option. Options one and two we're trying to avoid; that's the premise of this discussion. Now personally, while it works (especially in online games), option three (color coding) feels a little. . . too easy. At least for turn based; I think it's an acceptable break from reality if you're entirely real-time and can't pause, but if it's turn based I want more. Why does your character know that this is a level 27 bandit rather than the level 13 bandits in the other hideout? The lore thing sounds like a cheap excuse, a thin explanation that doubles as an excuse for not trusting it to be accurate, which we never want. I think that the appraise command, available to the player before or during combat/avoidance of combat, is a more elegant option, with the minor drawback that some people might not want to use it. I'm partial to the idea of a "scry" spell that tells you about your opponent--His level, his name again and maybe any special attacks/abilities he has (like, if this guy breathes fire or will summon three minor demons as soon as you initiate combat). Then make the scry spell as close as you can justify to free and make it so that you can talk to as many enemies as possible, and have the ability to cast the scry spell while talking and to break off conversation and attack at almost any point in the game (except in towns, and maybe one or two situations where, say, you're tied up hanging over a pit of lava). Probably with a confirmation box, and the warning that you might screw up the main quest if you kill the wrong guy.
Again, almost everybody should try to talk to you, and you should try and see if you can't work in occasional rewards for talking even if you could take them--outclassed goblins and bandits giving you information or the gold currently on them in exchange for not kiilling them, not that you can't then change your mind and kill most of them anyways. Also sort of demands a system besides "kill everything in sight"--aka don't reward only killing. Replace looting the goblins by stripping them bare with looting the gold from their pockets so that they can give you the same ammount of treasure if you spare them, and give the same XP as well as long as you don't turn around and backstab. Or just do away with looting and XP for kills altogether--make the players soldiers and as such anything they might try to loot off corpses is government property anyways, so you gotta rely on quest rewards, a salary and a cut of any special loot stashes or magical artifacts you find. Or just say everything the mooks are holding is worthless and has no resale value unless you're a government-approved merchant or smith, which is probably the better option as the previous one I mentioned limited some of your options as a developer (Why would the government let you keep the money those goblins gave you to spare their life but not the money from their corpses? How would they know?)
Post a Comment
Again, almost everybody should try to talk to you, and you should try and see if you can't work in occasional rewards for talking even if you could take them--outclassed goblins and bandits giving you information or the gold currently on them in exchange for not kiilling them, not that you can't then change your mind and kill most of them anyways. Also sort of demands a system besides "kill everything in sight"--aka don't reward only killing. Replace looting the goblins by stripping them bare with looting the gold from their pockets so that they can give you the same ammount of treasure if you spare them, and give the same XP as well as long as you don't turn around and backstab. Or just do away with looting and XP for kills altogether--make the players soldiers and as such anything they might try to loot off corpses is government property anyways, so you gotta rely on quest rewards, a salary and a cut of any special loot stashes or magical artifacts you find. Or just say everything the mooks are holding is worthless and has no resale value unless you're a government-approved merchant or smith, which is probably the better option as the previous one I mentioned limited some of your options as a developer (Why would the government let you keep the money those goblins gave you to spare their life but not the money from their corpses? How would they know?)
# posted by : August 12, 2008 1:50 PM
: August 12, 2008 1:50 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
