J.E. Sawyer's five hard lessons on RPG design

[Threepwood]

Stop making fps rpgs.

this

FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

His five rules are definitely good for single-player RPGs.

He does have a point on the notion of rolls, though. Many players will reload and try again if they fail, which suggests a broken mechanic. I actually like the static skill requirement in FONV. If the locks/terminal difficulty had progressed in steps of 5 (instead of 25), and a lockpicking/hacking attempt were an activate, play some animation, followed by a message success or failure, it would have been a lot more enjoyable to me.

It's not a broken mechanic but it is a bad mechanic. Honestly most PnP games have poorly designed dice mechanics anyway as you end up with a skill check that is impossible for some characters to fail and for others to succeed. Sawyer nailed the problem with a lot of games which is that the skill increases are too incremental, especially in cRPGs (the Fallout series is a good example).

What he said is a sorrowful truth, but then the companies (looking at today RPG experiences) went to the other extremes. Create whatever you like, the game is too easy and you will win anyway. That's dumbing down, trying to make player like the game more because he's a "god" in it.
IW at least thought people to think broadly about their gameplay and not rush it mindlessly, but that lesson was painful.
Rarely a medium is found.

Ideally you shouldn't be able to make a character which is unplayable and ideally all possible characters should be equal. Of course this is really difficult to pair with a variety of choices.

Well, but the point is, that if it is possible to open a lock by luck, you can do save-scumming and most people will do this. Just because they can.

The game will be worse for it. It makes build choices less important and the game more frustrating for the player.

Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.

Exactly. Online games are also the only genre in which true role-playing occurs as well. It's another reason why single-player RPGs shouldn't try to mimic most PnP mechanics, merely use it as a base.

 

[Wastewander]

Stop making fps rpgs.

this

FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.

I don't see it that way. Although I agree that to some extent, FPS/RPGs mixes player skill vs character skill really well (if the mechanics are done correctly and even then), it ends up being an annoyance most of the time.

 

[Brother None]

FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.

RPG lends itself well to blend into many other genres and has created some great sub-genres that way. Adventure/RPGs, FPS/RPGs and RTS/RPGs are all good examples.

That said, there's no more reason to desire the total halt of FPS/RPGs (which mobucks wasn't saying) than there is to want FPS/RPGs to remain the dominant genre they are now.

 

[Gizmojunk]

But why is this a problem? If
Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.

A defensive game is the answer (I would want).

You can't (or shouldn't) stop a determined cheater/Hex&RAM editor; but a general discouragement is a good thing IMO.

I have played games that hash the save game to discourage tinkering with it, and you can design a game to anticipate [and make moot] any reload spamming.

Ideally you shouldn't be able to make a character which is unplayable and ideally all possible characters should be equal.

I would not want all possible characters to be equal ~except in a very broad technical sense; as if they were all some kind of 40 point build; Not with STATS, but with in game "value" and access. I would want a PC that had minimum combat skills traded for a maxed out lock pick skill (for example), to be considered equal (despite the cripplingly low combat ability) due to them being the only PC's with any chance of accessing certain locked areas in the game.

 

[Surf Solar]

But why is this a problem? If
Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.

A defensive game is the answer (I would want).

You can't (or shouldn't) stop a determined cheater/Hex&RAM editor; but a general discouragement is a good thing IMO.

I have played games that hash the save game to discourage tinkering with it, and you can design a game to anticipate [and make moot] any reload spamming.

Yes, this is pretty similar to the "delay consequences from immediate to late ones" I mentionend earlier. I personally don't savescum since it'd just ruin the playflow, but I can understand why people think it's an issue.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.

Exactly. Online games are also the only genre in which true role-playing occurs as well. It's another reason why single-player RPGs shouldn't try to mimic most PnP mechanics, merely use it as a base.

That is some kind of sarcasm here right ?

 

[Surf Solar]

Just because in reality people in online role playing games do quite the opposite, Lexx' quote is far from being sarcastic or wrong.

 

[Flick]

He was referring to what UncannyGarlic said, and Crni Vuk I think he meant more they role play as in they pick a role as warrior or mage and play only that instead of making a character that can do little bit of everything.

 

[Artisticspaz]

lesson # 6:

Stop making fps rpgs.

I like them don't get me wrong, but I think its time.

But games like the Deus Ex series, System shock series and Fallout 3 are my favorite type of game. It combines the fun of shooting at things with the depth of an rpg into a nice simple package. Also there aren't a whole lot of fps rpgs I can name other than Deus Ex 3, Bioshock Infinite, and Rage.

Why can't people make mistakes in games, what's wrong with starting the game afresh - if that game is truly enjoyable then it's not an issue. Working your way around the games flaws is apart of gaming. Who wants a perfect game anyway.

Working around flaws is one thing, but having to restart a game from the beginning after 15-30 hours? That's different. Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.

Some people don't have the time, either because of work or alot of other games they'd like to get to, to replay the game another 15 or so hours just to get back to where they were.

 

[Lexx]

Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.

Well, this would be the fault of the game designers. Ultimately, every choice you can have in a game should not give you disadvantages.

 

[Artisticspaz]

Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.

Well, this would be the fault of the game designers. Ultimately, every choice you can have in a game should not give you disadvantages.

Yeah, I wanna say an Ultima game or 2 pulled some kind of BS that ruined a game of mine. The person I was quoting seemed to put off the designers responsibility and saying it doesn't matter should such an error occur.

 

[Gizmojunk]

lesson # 6:
Working around flaws is one thing, but having to restart a game from the beginning after 15-30 hours? That's different. Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.

Why is it about them?

In an RPG its about the character. If you make a character ~use Fallout as the example: The Overseer makes the assumption that his guy is dead (or not returning), so he picks another name out of the hat and your PC gets sent to go fetch the waterchip. You design a PURE diplomat with no chance at defending themselves effectively. Your PC ventures out into the world; stumbles into junktown with 5 caps, wins 1500 caps at Gizmo's, then strikes off to the West (to see whats out there). He walks out of the wastes and sees the Military base, guarded by supermutants. Intrigued (not too bright) he talks his way in and explores the 1st floor, and a bit of the 2nd floor. The mutant grunts leave him alone as he must be some sort of agent for the commander.

If he gets killed at any point... the Overseer makes the assumption that his guy is dead (or not returning), so he picks another name out of the hat and your PC gets sent to go fetch the waterchip. You design the next guy sent into the wastes ~someone completely new, with different skills and attitude ~and see how they fare at it. Does it matter if you make 20 PCs before ever finding Necropolis? (and another five before ever making it back with the Chip in time?)

*BTW... The Diplomat was named Norbert, and he left the Base and went back to Junktown.

I think he stands a good chance of talking the Master out of it through introduction by Morpheus.
Though... Without friends, he stands no chance of making it to the Cathedral. *But he's good at making friends.

Some people don't have the time, either because of work or alot of other games they'd like to get to, to replay the game another 15 or so hours just to get back to where they were.

I Finished Fallout, but I have several RPG that I have owned for years without completing them to the end. Arx, Bloodlines, ToEE, Arcanum, Menzobaranzan, Stone Prophet, Lands of Lore 2 & 3; Pool of Radiance 2. I play them when I can, and do not need to invest 15 hours a sitting ~(but that's not what you meant...); Still, why retrace your steps? (unless the RPG kind of demands it. ). You are talking about something like making a diplomat PC, getting to the Master, and finding yourself in a combat situation with no recourse but to fight (and die); due to choices made days before (that the player considers bad in hindsight) ~right? I see it as 'you get what you picked', and your choice does not include 'winning' (or has very slim odds of it), but it likely included some events that you were a lot less likely to have happen otherwise, and its just how that PC's life played out. They don't succeed; but its really great when you finally do beat the game and see the end with a PC that did succeed. IMO, not every sort of PC could (or should) logically succeed; To ensure it to be so is to devalue all of the various build possibilities by making your choices effectively moot, as any and every choice leads to success.
*Reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode with Sebastian Cabot called, "Nice Place To Visit".

** Many players seem to take the PC's failure as a reflection on themselves, I've never really understood this point of view; but I have noticed that it seems more common in players posting about first person RPGs.

 

[Crni Vuk]

He was referring to what UncannyGarlic said, and Crni Vuk I think he meant more they role play as in they pick a role as warrior or mage and play only that instead of making a character that can do little bit of everything.

Maybe. But just because you can chose a "role" does not mean that you are playing it.

You can chose a "paladin" as clas in Diablo and Oblivion - I am aware that those are single player I am just saying. Does it mean you play the role of the "paladin" ? I am not saying that MMORPGs can not be good role playing games. But it is a bit more then just picking a paladin class because it can use a sword and a cleric for the undeath. Regarding MMORGPS I have yet to find one where it really matters that you are playing either a wizard or knight. At least in a game like Fallout you have the choice of violance or diplomacy (and much more). And that game has not even clear "classes". Hell if you wanted you could even play a mentaly "handicaped" character in Fallout 1.

** Many players seem to take the PC's failure as a reflection on themselves, I've never really understood this point of view; but I have noticed that it seems more common in players posting about first person RPGs.

It's an extremely low self-esteem among some RPG gamers >_>

Oh. by the way. hello there

 

[Surf Solar]

Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.

Ultimately, every choice you can have in a game should not give you disadvantages.

I mildly disagree. This thinking brought us fake consequences like the BioWare people often pull. What difference is there when each choice I take is some handholding into better stuff/better stats/the npc being my friend or simply nothing? The game becomes an auto fellatio simulator, just like every modern game where the player is bombed with awesome and never given a disadvantage. I want the game to screw me over if I do very bad choices, even if this brings me a Game Over screen. Did you feel the same way "holy shit this game sucks!" when you got dipped in the VATS in FO1 after following some "bad" choices? I did not, I found it good what the game allowed me to do and what could happen to me if I wasn't cautious enough.

 

[Lexx]

What difference is there when each choice I take is some handholding into better stuff/better stats/the npc being my friend or simply nothing?

Why should I chose the path that gives me disadvantages? To gimp myself? What if I don't want to gimp myself? Giving the player a different reward based on his choice, that's what you should do, not punishing him.

This has absolutely nothing to do with yer fancy "hand holding, fellatio, let me masturbate this for you"-mantra. Just because a player is rewarded in the same amount regardless of what he chooses, it doesn't mean you are handholding him in whatever way.

And your Fallout 1 example is flawed. It's a possible game ending, not a way to continue playing.

 

[Surf Solar]

What difference is there when each choice I take is some handholding into better stuff/better stats/the npc being my friend or simply nothing?

Why should I chose the path that gives me disadvantages? To gimp myself? What if I don't want to gimp myself? Giving the player a different reward based on his choice, that's what you should do, not punishing him.

The player would only notice that the option he chooses may be a flaw for his later adventure if it is punched in his face in the most obvious way.

This has absolutely nothing to do with yer fancy "hand holding, fellatio, let me masturbate this for you"-mantra. Just because a player is rewarded in the same amount regardless of what he chooses, it doesn't mean you are handholding him in whatever way.

But it is? If I can choose from different shades of awesome, the entire point of the "choice" is flawed. I'd much rather have choices which fuck me over in one way, but may benefit the particular playstyle I have for this character than to have a "choice" between 4 different items, because, you know, I am the player and therefore I must get the awesome!

And your Fallout 1 example is flawed. It's a possible game ending, not a way to continue playing.

And? It doesn't matter if the game ends that way, it's still a path I can choose to take, an outcome of a previous choice I made.

 

[Lexx]

The player would only notice that the option he chooses may be a flaw for his later adventure if it is punched in his face in the most obvious way.

Yeah and later in his adventure he says "fuck you, you gave me a bullshit choice" and will not take the path again in a next playthrough.

Another example: Imagine BioShock. Imagine you are saving every child in the game and you get Adam for it as a gift. Woo! Now imagine you kill every child instead and you get less Adam for it. Yeah, it's your choice, but the choice is bullshit, because the later one is gimping you in the longer run.

But it is? If I can choose from different shades of awesome, the entire point of the "choice" is flawed.

You get a different reward and a different quest / story / world outcome. Why do you want the player to be punished?... Choice is not about putting stones in my way or not putting stones in my way.

And? It doesn't matter if the game ends that way, it's still a path I can choose to take, an outcome of a previous choice I made.

With the difference that it doesn't matter, because you reload after that anyway, because the game ended. This is nothing that happens 10 hours later, it happens right after you click the dialogue option, when you are deep in the enemies base, talking to a very important character.

 

[Ilosar]

Agree with Lexx here. I prefer a variety of (almost) equally good choices to one that is, ultimately, just better, the Bioshock example is spot on. ''Punishing'' the player is not good game design, unless s/he does something really, explicitly idiotic, like [spoiler:b610fc1a53] sleeping with Morinth in ME2 [/spoiler:b610fc1a53].

The player is supposed to feel compelled to continue playing, as a designer it's your job to ensure that, and you can't do it if some choices are just arbitrarily better than others, unless said best choice takes more effort or special conditions to reach. Spitting in the face of the player because s/he makes some decisions the game doesn't like is definitely not my idea of good design, either give a reasonably fair choice or don't.

 

[Walpknut]

One thing I didn't like about Dead Money was that Dog/God's ending was reduced to a speech check, while I love the new found focus on Speech in New Vegas, I don't like it when the only way to get something is a Speech Check, I was nice to God trying to nurture him as the dominant voice inside the Mutant's mind, but then I had to kill him because my speech skill was low, I can get Dean's good ending with low Speech if I acted in certain ways toward him, same with Christine, but God/Dog I need to have high speech skill or else I can just forcefully stuff him in the cage with the switches, it wont change a thing.