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

[Per]

Also see the legendary "indigo child" debate. Well, it may not be legendary but it is at least mythical.

 

[Surf Solar]

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.

I am pretty sure there are people who like surprises and don't want to predict the entire game through obvious dialog nodes. Ofcourse the player wants some control over what he does, everyone wants that and not being some baseball constantly crushed back and forth by the game, but there's gotta be some balance between boring choices/paths and debatively "bad" choices who later turn to surprises in the gameplay.

I am not sure if you even get what I mean, I am not talking about giving an instant Game Over screen everytime something goes wrong (even though those older games which did that really rock and have some certain charme), but paths not always leading to "teh bestest" way of solving quests are way more interesting to me than the usual "I am the player and I must always get the best thing" to me, especially when it's an RPG I can play in many different ways with different characters taking different routes.

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.

Yes, surely all RPGs can be broken down to a system where you just take stuff XY or not without different shades inbetween!

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.

Putting rocks in the way or not is ofcourse not the only thing what makes them, but it's part of it. I find games only rewarding but never punishing me for certain things incredibly boring. But since you're throwing rolleyes smileys around I don't think that you're interested in a discussion at all and I'll just leave it right there.

 

[Lexx]

Yes, surely all RPGs can be broken down to a system where you just take stuff XY or not without different shades inbetween!

Well, you are the one who tries to explain to me that uneven choices are good, with the example of an alternative ending in Fallout 1.

I don't see a reason to discuss this anyway. It should be obvious that choices from which you earn nothing of value are bullshit choices. You don't have to get a million dollar with each choice or terminator perks or lesbian romances regardless of what choice you make, but there should be *something* of at least the same value.

It's the same thing with XP for certain actions. If I get more XP with killing everyone than with sneaking around, why should I sneak around at all? Killing is much more rewarding and (I am very sure) easier.

but paths not always leading to "teh bestest" way of solving quests are way more interesting to me than the usual

I'll never wrote that every quest path must be "the bestest" way. I am writing about rewards for choices, which means xp, items, perks, ... If you are a good guy and save little Timmy you get money and fame for this, it is a good reward. But if you are a bad guy and don't save Timmy, you might just get some fancy hunting rifle as reward. Both can be of the same abstract value and are very different at the same time.

You can do the same with story paths. Save a village and have big friends in the end of the game or kill everyone in a village and have much less enemies in the end of the game. Two different paths, both have a different long-time reward and both pan out different. Hey, a third way: Stay neutral to them, maybe you'll get some supplies instead.

In this cases, "the bestest" reward is defined by the player, not by the game designer.

 

[Crni Vuk]

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.

You're a munchink ? - not that I am serious.

I think Gizmo nailed it anyway. It is maybe not the best approach to think about "gimped" characters. That a bard is not as effective like a dual wielding sword/mage/thief combination does not mean I should not play it. A certain path might be more difficult then others or block you from a certain outcome. But I think it adds something to the game. And a sense of authenticity. Something of which many RPGs today completely lack. Knight ? Wizard ? Good karma or bad karma ? Who cares. All slay the evil dragon and safe the princess when the day is over ...

In the end. I think it was a nice move that Fallout had no "classes". boy I am so bored from modern RPGs today ...

 

[Lexx]

Yes, this is totally valid and true. But my posts have been about rewards for your choices. I am not saying that as a bard, you should be able to hack yourself conan-like through the game. You should do what a bard would do-- but get a reward for this in the same value as a knight would get for hacking himself conan-like through the game.

Somehow I get the feeling that everyone in here has his own version of this discussion.

 

[Crni Vuk]

hmm. Yeah if they do accomplish the same task they should get more or less the same reward of course. With that I totally agree.

With what I dont agree is that all characters feel alike in the end. Like with Biowhore games (recently ...).

It doesnt matter which character you play or which choice you follow trough the game. It all leads to the same situation more or less. Fighting the bad guy and being the good guy. Though the wish I have might go a bit deeper anyway. I would love a game giving me a REAL chance of playing a "bad" guy for once. Its like you never get the chance to exploit that role in a realistic way. You seem to always end with the "anti-hero". Bad ass yeah. But a hero nontheless. Why do I end as either as Cyclops (the good guy) or as Wolverine (the bad guy which is actually good as well) all the time in the game ? Why cant I be Magneto for once.


*Edit
For example if Fallout 3 would have allowed you to side with Col. Autumn (or what ever his name was ...) and maybe enve have here some real option to continue the game with them. Just saying. Not that it would make Fallout 3 a better game. It would still suck in writting ...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

With what I dont agree is that all characters feel alike in the end. Like with Biowhore games (recently ...).

Agreed. Different builds should result in different paths through the game but those different paths should offer more or less equal rewards. As Lexx said, the rewards do not and usually should not be the same but should be of equal gameplay value. If anything, the rewards should be tailored to the skill(s) required to get them, meaning that you don't get a big bad gun for sneaking your way through a situation and a Stealth Boy for killing everyone in the same situation.

 

[Gizmojunk]

If anything, the rewards should be tailored to the skill(s) required to get them, meaning that you don't get a big bad gun for sneaking your way through a situation and a Stealth Boy for killing everyone in the same situation.

Good so long as you don't get custom loot though. I would not like it if my stealth character defeated a boss and found a poison dagger in his effects, but on a second play, my explosives/heavy weapons PC did the same and found C-4 or a grenade launcher instead ~Same dude, same place, same inventory, and dynamic loot based on class of developed skills.

To me that's a bit like Oblivion's leveled loot ; not exactly, but enough to annoy. I would not want an NPC's inventory to dynamically include contents tailored to my PC build.

Better IMO, to have the PC build lead to quests (and Bosses) with items my PC would find useful.

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.

Nothing wrong with first person RPGs... Only First person Fallout sequel RPGs.