Monday, November 17, 2008
RPG Design: D&D and Mudflation
In the MUD and MMO space, there is a term called "MUDflation." This is an inflation of the power of characters and equipment in a long-standing persistent role-playing game.
It makes sense when you think about it. After all, lets say you have a world where the most powerful magic item in existence is a +3 sword. You introduce a new expansion or some brand new content to make your long-standing players happy (the newer players are still fresh enough to enjoy the old stuff). A lot of these players already have +3 swords. Are they going to be happy with the introduction of a new +2.5 sword? Of course not. They are going to want some new, cooler, more awesome items and powers for their characters!
So the new content includes an uber +4 sword! Very awesome! The players cheer! They upgrade! But now there's a whole bunch of now-useless +3 swords that USED to be the awesome sword of the game. But now they are junk. So the high-level players sell / give these swords to all the lower-level players who are struggling to kill vorpal bunnies with rusty knives. So now the vorpal bunnies are no longer a challenge, which means players are able to level up through all these challenges that were never designed for "twinked" characters very quickly.
Repeat this a few times for a mature world, and you get an economy and a power-level that speed of progress that was unimaginable to the original players. Another element of MUDflation is that adjustments almost always favor the player characters... "nerfs" are dreaded by both designers and the players. This means that, over time, characters naturally gravitate towards becoming more powerful than originally intended.
A few months ago, Mike Hensley discovered that this was not limited to online computer games. Performing a simulation across multiple editions of Dungeons & Dragons, he compared the performance of a first level fighter against a series of goblins in one-on-one fights to see how they'd fare.
His discovery was - at least by one method of measurement - that the system has enjoyed a significant inflation of player character power since its inception in 1974. While not exactly the same as the the changes that occur in a persistent world, the pen-and-paper world has nevertheless experienced some similar forces from its fanbase. Additional options, higher level ranges, and a conscious effort to provide a gentler "introductory experience" has definitely changed the game across editions, building upon and increasing player expectations.
Goblins are pretty much the quintessential D&D low-level "grunt" for D&D. Sure, there are orcs and kobolds as well, but orcs were always pretty deadly for first level characters (especially in edition 3.0, where many first-level player characters got one-shotted by orcs with great axes), and kobolds were intended to be more of a "swarm" encounter, along with the ubiquitous giant rats. But goblins in D&D have always been dead-center in the "sweet spot" of first-level encounters, where a party could fight equal their number with a high likelihood of victory, but also a very real chance of a loss among their ranks.
Mike discovered that the first-level fighter has been subjected to an inflationary cycle as well. That, or they just don't make first-level encounters like they used to. In original D&D, a first level fighter could take out 2.7 goblins before it was time for the player to roll up a new character. In first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the body count rose to 4.3, owing primarily to improved hit points, damage, and stat bonuses (though the goblin received a slight boost as well). He includes the Moldvay Basic D&D game in his list, where the count was 4.1, but the Moldvay version came out after the core Advanced D&D books were released, making this a step down relative to time. In second edition AD&D, the first-level fighter's goblin-clobbering ability skyrocketed up to 7.3, attributed to weapon specialization bonuses and the fighter's ability to get multiple attacks every two rounds.
In third edition (3.0, which probably counts for 3.5 as well), the fighter enjoyed a more moderate boost in slayage potential, now averaging 10.1 goblins before becoming yet another DM victim. The fighter feats and improved bonuses accounted for the improvements this time around. The toughness feat probably gave the fighter an extra kill or two, yet I doubt any self-respecting player would take THAT particular feat. It's value is almost exclusive to surviving first level - except for wizards and sorcerers, I guess, who may find it useful for the first two or three levels.
Although this was not taken into consideration for the purpose of the simulation, THEORETICALLY on the 10th kill, the fighter could "ding" second level, gaining more hit points and better fighting ability as the goblin with his name on its blade took the field. That would really have made things way too complicated. We'll just assume the DM was a jerk like me and wouldn't allow level-up in the middle of a combat.
Then comes Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition - which many feel is pretty much a totally different game that just happens to bear the D&D brand. Even figuring out what monster constituted a "goblin" was a challenge, as there was simply no apples-to-apples equivalent. A rank-and-file "minion" was selected as being the best comparison. In the simulation, our first-level fighter was now able to down 23.4 goblins before meeting his demise.
For extra fun, Hensley made a chart of relative power levels as a summary to his series of articles:
The Evolution of the Fighter: Summary
Power inflation for a pen-and-paper game? Catering to munchkins? A bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing? To be honest, I don't know if this is truly significant in any way but a purely academic exercise, or if this trend is good or bad. There are two major parts of the "fun" factor in an RPG like Dungeons & Dragons at work here. Part is the thrill of victory over difficult challenges. The other part is the feeling of empowerment over the environment.
Obviously, the power escalation favors the latter over the former. But is the former (challenge) an objective element, or simply a subjective measure of what kind of challenge a player perceives? If the players beat a monster so quickly that they never even realize that it had a really nasty instant-death breath attack, are they robbed of a challenge? If they know it, and come up with a very clever tactic that negates the threat with little exposure to risk, should they be rewarded just as fully as if they only used brute force? What about if they face said risk with far superior powers due to this inflationary force over time?
It's interesting (if esoteric) to think about. What do you think?
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:19 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
For online RPG's, game designers have tried to lessen the hand-me-down item inflation by having items require a minimum level to equip and by making items bound to the character when they're first acquired or equipped. That does lead to some immersion-breaking results, though, like having to be level 10 to drink a glass of milk or something. I think it works better with items that are related to skill use (like a weapon or magic wand) where you could realistically have to have a certain level of competence to make use of them.
The thing I've noticed the most, having started playing World of Warcraft again after a two year hiatus, is the gold inflation caused by higher level characters passing money down to their low-level alts, but I suppose that's another post.
For pen-and-paper D&D, power inflation would seem to be less of a problem as long as the DM is aware of it and can compensate by scaling up low-level encounters.
The thing I've noticed the most, having started playing World of Warcraft again after a two year hiatus, is the gold inflation caused by higher level characters passing money down to their low-level alts, but I suppose that's another post.
For pen-and-paper D&D, power inflation would seem to be less of a problem as long as the DM is aware of it and can compensate by scaling up low-level encounters.
As long as the DM is aware of it - there's also the option to ignore the scaling up and play it as is. This is a problem when converting older edition modules over, but I actually preferred the survivability of first level characters in 3rd edition over that of 1st edition (I kinda skipped 2E). Back in the 1E days, I was thrilled when the PCs finally hit around level 4 or so, because they became less subject to purely random DEATH around then. I liked that in 3E this occurred closer to second level (first level is still a little bit of a crap shoot).
It's worth noting that power creep happens in the real world too, thanks to technological advancement. When was the last time you found yourself wanting a typewriter instead of a word processor, or a horse-and-buggy instead of a car?
And why can't the bad guys benefit as well?
And why can't the bad guys benefit as well?
An interesting statistical analysis, but he's already drawing a lot of flak from 4E players, who (correctly) point out that using goblin minions for his comparison is unsound.
The fact is, encounters in 4E are NOT THE SAME as earlier editions. They're far more complex. A direct comparison of power is difficult to do, because you'd have to take into account the party, environment, minions and non-minion make-up, etc.
I'm playing World of Warcraft myself, and yeah, the inflation is definitely noticeable. It can really be nice for the starting players, though, when people buy low-level materials for huge sums. And the really special gear can't be bought with gold, so that prevents money from having too much power in the game.
The fact is, encounters in 4E are NOT THE SAME as earlier editions. They're far more complex. A direct comparison of power is difficult to do, because you'd have to take into account the party, environment, minions and non-minion make-up, etc.
I'm playing World of Warcraft myself, and yeah, the inflation is definitely noticeable. It can really be nice for the starting players, though, when people buy low-level materials for huge sums. And the really special gear can't be bought with gold, so that prevents money from having too much power in the game.
@Adamantyr - Yeah, it's difficult to compare apples to apples with 4E - it really isn't the same game. I think he did the best he could, overall.
DGM - in theory, though, both sides would escalate at the same rate, nullifying their differences. So mainly we're talking about relative power levels. In the earliest editions of the game, your party started out as nobodies with a high mortality rate who - assuming they managed to survive long enough - eventually became heroes. The newer editions started you as increasingly more heroic entities relative to the rest of the world.
DGM - in theory, though, both sides would escalate at the same rate, nullifying their differences. So mainly we're talking about relative power levels. In the earliest editions of the game, your party started out as nobodies with a high mortality rate who - assuming they managed to survive long enough - eventually became heroes. The newer editions started you as increasingly more heroic entities relative to the rest of the world.
It's too bad he didn't take the comparisons beyond 1st level. One of the key things I got excited about with fourth edition is that you start tougher, but don't grow as quickly. It was always absurd that you're roughly twice as tough at 2nd level than 1st in the older games. I'd be really interested to see how the growth curves compared.
That does lead to some immersion-breaking results, though, like having to be level 10 to drink a glass of milk or something.
A possible solution that I don't think most people have bothered with is to have items that WORK at low level, but you don't get to use their coolest features.
So if someone hands you a Sword of Uber Magic and you're a newbie, it's just a sword. You don't know how to activate it yet (or, in settings with sentient magic items, it hasn't yet judged you worthy). It's still a cool sword that will be useful to you when you reach the appropriate level, but it doesn't unbalance your early game.
A possible solution that I don't think most people have bothered with is to have items that WORK at low level, but you don't get to use their coolest features.
So if someone hands you a Sword of Uber Magic and you're a newbie, it's just a sword. You don't know how to activate it yet (or, in settings with sentient magic items, it hasn't yet judged you worthy). It's still a cool sword that will be useful to you when you reach the appropriate level, but it doesn't unbalance your early game.
My problem with that is that it has nothing to do with mudflation. Mudflation assumes expansions of content to the same persistent space.
Comparing editions of D&D, on the other hand, is comparing different games, with totally different rules and balance mechanics.
There is definite mudflation in D&D, but you have to look at it within a single edition. Compare characters in 2nd-edition AD&D before and after the release of the Skills & Powers rulebook, or the general power of 3.5-edition characters as more and more splatbooks were released.
Comparing editions of D&D, on the other hand, is comparing different games, with totally different rules and balance mechanics.
There is definite mudflation in D&D, but you have to look at it within a single edition. Compare characters in 2nd-edition AD&D before and after the release of the Skills & Powers rulebook, or the general power of 3.5-edition characters as more and more splatbooks were released.
@whiner - They actually had something like that in 3.5, with Weapons of Legacy. But I agree it's an interesting mechanic. I'm not sure how well it plays out long-term though. While from a story perspective, I think they whole "trading up" to new equipment thing is kinda lame, it's also very fun. What happens if that aspect of the game is removed? It's only about levels, which is kinda boring and one-dimensional.
Have some CRPGs done anything like that? I know it is done in non-RPG games all the time.
@kadeton - Yes and no. I knew it was a weak parallel at the beginning, but I think many of the same forces are at work both ways. Pathfinder is actually probably the ultimate example of the "mudflation" approach with 3.5, adjusting the original core classes to make them comparable to the new classes and prestige classes introduced later in 3.5's lifecycle.
But in other cases - without really hitting the "reset" button (which I guess in some ways 4E did), you'll want to keep the legacy - the backwards compatibility - working throughout all the editions. This means you can supplement easily enough, but you must be very careful taking away. Whatever a 6th level magic-user could do in 1st edition, you want the 6th level magic-user to be able to do in a later edition.
Thus you get some of the mudflationary forces at work. You can beef up, but you must be very careful to limit the nerf.
Have some CRPGs done anything like that? I know it is done in non-RPG games all the time.
@kadeton - Yes and no. I knew it was a weak parallel at the beginning, but I think many of the same forces are at work both ways. Pathfinder is actually probably the ultimate example of the "mudflation" approach with 3.5, adjusting the original core classes to make them comparable to the new classes and prestige classes introduced later in 3.5's lifecycle.
But in other cases - without really hitting the "reset" button (which I guess in some ways 4E did), you'll want to keep the legacy - the backwards compatibility - working throughout all the editions. This means you can supplement easily enough, but you must be very careful taking away. Whatever a 6th level magic-user could do in 1st edition, you want the 6th level magic-user to be able to do in a later edition.
Thus you get some of the mudflationary forces at work. You can beef up, but you must be very careful to limit the nerf.
MMORPGs have been working against this for a long time.
Dark Age of Camelot let you use any equipment you wanted. You just couldn't use its full power as it was basically scaled down to your level and it would degrade faster.
Everquest 2 requires has minimum levels on equipment and it requires you to attune items so they cannot be reused. Also the best items are always only no-trade and have to be aquired yourself
Then again mudflation is still an issue because new expansions add new powers or ways to improve equipment. In the case of EQ2 this is often accompanied by nerfs, so you make one step back and with enough time and new equipment/abilities make 1.5 steps forward again.
Dark Age of Camelot let you use any equipment you wanted. You just couldn't use its full power as it was basically scaled down to your level and it would degrade faster.
Everquest 2 requires has minimum levels on equipment and it requires you to attune items so they cannot be reused. Also the best items are always only no-trade and have to be aquired yourself
Then again mudflation is still an issue because new expansions add new powers or ways to improve equipment. In the case of EQ2 this is often accompanied by nerfs, so you make one step back and with enough time and new equipment/abilities make 1.5 steps forward again.
# posted by 
: November 18, 2008 1:13 AM
: November 18, 2008 1:13 AM
The math isn't entirely sound. You say specifically you avoid swarm type baddies, not using kobolds. Except you go into 4e and then take the one template type specifically designed for weak swarms, minions out of at least 3 other level 1 goblin types. Those minions are there so now a gm can throw some swarms that are not kobolds at you. Conversly, he can also throw kobolds at you that are not swarm types.
There's a whole bunch of goblins in the 4e monster manual, and at least 4 different level 1 goblins. If you used any of the other non-minion goblin it'd be far less a fighter could take. 1 minion goblin = 1 minion kobold = 1 minion orc of the same level. Then again, by inverse, 4e has given us some rather diesel kobolds. First encounter I was in in 4e was something like 8 kobolds. We charge in expecting an easy fight and staggered back with a bloody lip. You throw a class and solo template on one of those goblins and look out, it will rip a party apart single handedly.
A level 1 goblin warrior has 29 hp and 17 ac. It attacks at +6 for d8+2 damage, or an average of 6.5 damage. A sword+shield fighter has 19 ac and 30ish hp and he can surge once a fight for 15 more. about and assuming 18 str he'll be swinging +8 for d8+4 damage or average 8.5 damage. The fighter'll hit on a 10 or better or 55% the time so let's say about 4.67 damage per round. A goblin will hit on a 13 or better, so 40% hit rate so an average of 2.6 damage a round. Assuming the fighter fights goblins back to back with no rest he can drop 1 goblin every 6 rounds. He can survive 17 rounds about if he burns 1 healing surge. So that's about 3 level 1 goblin warriors. He does have 1 one/day move that can drop tripple weapon damage, so let's give him 2 free rounds, I'm being over generous on damage here, but I'm fudging my math in favor of fighter kills. That's only the figures though for fighting goblins one after another without a rest. In 4e, you can recoup some by resting for 5 minutes, if the fighter can do that, then he can take 75 such goblins, but ONLY if he kills one goblin, rests 5 minutes, kills another goblin, rests 5 minutes... and so on. This figure is significantly reduced though if the fighter gets swarmed in these fights, as many as 3 level 1 goblin warriors simultaneously against a single level 1 4e fighter would be life threatening, especially if they flank.
There's a whole bunch of goblins in the 4e monster manual, and at least 4 different level 1 goblins. If you used any of the other non-minion goblin it'd be far less a fighter could take. 1 minion goblin = 1 minion kobold = 1 minion orc of the same level. Then again, by inverse, 4e has given us some rather diesel kobolds. First encounter I was in in 4e was something like 8 kobolds. We charge in expecting an easy fight and staggered back with a bloody lip. You throw a class and solo template on one of those goblins and look out, it will rip a party apart single handedly.
A level 1 goblin warrior has 29 hp and 17 ac. It attacks at +6 for d8+2 damage, or an average of 6.5 damage. A sword+shield fighter has 19 ac and 30ish hp and he can surge once a fight for 15 more. about and assuming 18 str he'll be swinging +8 for d8+4 damage or average 8.5 damage. The fighter'll hit on a 10 or better or 55% the time so let's say about 4.67 damage per round. A goblin will hit on a 13 or better, so 40% hit rate so an average of 2.6 damage a round. Assuming the fighter fights goblins back to back with no rest he can drop 1 goblin every 6 rounds. He can survive 17 rounds about if he burns 1 healing surge. So that's about 3 level 1 goblin warriors. He does have 1 one/day move that can drop tripple weapon damage, so let's give him 2 free rounds, I'm being over generous on damage here, but I'm fudging my math in favor of fighter kills. That's only the figures though for fighting goblins one after another without a rest. In 4e, you can recoup some by resting for 5 minutes, if the fighter can do that, then he can take 75 such goblins, but ONLY if he kills one goblin, rests 5 minutes, kills another goblin, rests 5 minutes... and so on. This figure is significantly reduced though if the fighter gets swarmed in these fights, as many as 3 level 1 goblin warriors simultaneously against a single level 1 4e fighter would be life threatening, especially if they flank.
# posted by : November 18, 2008 5:56 PM
: November 18, 2008 5:56 PM
I wish you you have mentioned that he chose a MINION at the start of the post, would have saved me the trouble of reading it. I least I don't have to click through now. Although I like how you try to just sort of slide it in there... "there was trouble figuring out which one to use, so a regular ol' minion was chosen" LOL. Like that somehow makes any sense whatsoever.
Yes, let's choose the monster that is designed from the start to die in one hit, rather than the one with equal amount of hit points to the fighter, or the one with twice the hit points of the fighter, or the one with FIVE TIMES as many hit points as the fighter.
Sorry, but it's a ridiculous conclusion based off of a ridiculous premise.
Yes, let's choose the monster that is designed from the start to die in one hit, rather than the one with equal amount of hit points to the fighter, or the one with twice the hit points of the fighter, or the one with FIVE TIMES as many hit points as the fighter.
Sorry, but it's a ridiculous conclusion based off of a ridiculous premise.
# posted by : November 20, 2008 4:11 AM
: November 20, 2008 4:11 AM
Well, that criticism is for Hensley's work (and he was criticized on his site for the same reasons), but I referenced it, and I'll take the designated apologist position here. :)
The thing is, your example with the level 1 warrior goblin is even further from an apples-to-apples comparison.
Kobolds and goblins in OD&D were designed to be more-or-less "one hit monsters". Well, goblins were closer to about 1.17 hit monsters, and kobolds about 1.05 hit monsters. Since you can't kill something in LESS than one hit, that skews the average up a little.:) For non-fighters in AD&D and Basic D&D, the kobolds were more of the 1-hit monsters and the goblins were more of a 2-hit monster (1 hit for fighters, on the average, 2 hits for about everybody else).
So the minions really are closer to the correct equivalent, IMO.
But - let's keep it closer to an apples-to-apples comparison, shall we? Let's use the original "swarm monster" - the lowly kobold. Goblins and kobolds in original D&D were designed to be the lowest-level threats in the game. Kobolds were exactly the same as goblins, stat-wise, in OD&D except for having fewer hitpoints (1-3 instead of 1-5).
I don't have the rules in front of me for handling THAC0 and everything (I'm at work, supposed to be working), so does anybody want to run with this? If not, I may run some numbers tonight. But at first blush, I'm guessing the numbers for OD&D are going to go up by about 10% - so up to about 3.2 kills.
Anybody wanna tag-team me on this one? Otherwise, I'll make it a project for a weekend blog. :)
Post a Comment
The thing is, your example with the level 1 warrior goblin is even further from an apples-to-apples comparison.
Kobolds and goblins in OD&D were designed to be more-or-less "one hit monsters". Well, goblins were closer to about 1.17 hit monsters, and kobolds about 1.05 hit monsters. Since you can't kill something in LESS than one hit, that skews the average up a little.:) For non-fighters in AD&D and Basic D&D, the kobolds were more of the 1-hit monsters and the goblins were more of a 2-hit monster (1 hit for fighters, on the average, 2 hits for about everybody else).
So the minions really are closer to the correct equivalent, IMO.
But - let's keep it closer to an apples-to-apples comparison, shall we? Let's use the original "swarm monster" - the lowly kobold. Goblins and kobolds in original D&D were designed to be the lowest-level threats in the game. Kobolds were exactly the same as goblins, stat-wise, in OD&D except for having fewer hitpoints (1-3 instead of 1-5).
I don't have the rules in front of me for handling THAC0 and everything (I'm at work, supposed to be working), so does anybody want to run with this? If not, I may run some numbers tonight. But at first blush, I'm guessing the numbers for OD&D are going to go up by about 10% - so up to about 3.2 kills.
Anybody wanna tag-team me on this one? Otherwise, I'll make it a project for a weekend blog. :)
Links to this post:
<< Home
