Informal Market Research Questions

[Ellef]

1. Definitely the latter. Don't think I could be bothered with another game where you start with no skills for 10+ hours killing rats.

2. Requires specific examples and to see it in action, really.

 

[Bubbles]

I dont even understand where this comes from. All casual titles have you starting with a badass with perfect accuracy, best training in the world, etc. Perhaps you could take your troll mask off and discuss it like you actually give a fuck.

All casual games, eh? Well, then it shouldn't be hard to come up with, say, 15 examples. Tell me the games, and I promise we can have an in-depth discussion about whether a) your qualifiers actually apply and b) to which extent they result from or contribute to the games' casual nature.

 

[Lhynn]

All casual games, eh? Well, then it shouldn't be hard to come up with, say, 15 examples. Tell me the games, and I promise we can have an in-depth discussion about whether a) your qualifiers actually apply and b) to which extent they result from or contribute to the games' casual nature.

Fair point, casual games as the tag implies are games that are easy to start up or put down, stuff like puzzles games or other crap that doesnt really do any storytelling. In the context in which i meant it i was refering to AAA easy as shit games that come out every day all the time.

As for 15, unno how many it would make taking into account sequels, so ill go one example per franchise and mostly to the latest entry. metal gear, mass effects, gear of wars, hitman, shadow of mordor, god of war, uncharted, assasins creed, dishonored, star wars the force unleashed, call of duty (and the bazillion modern military shooters), resident evil, devil may cry, diablo 3, watchdogs, borderlands. Also im not very knowledgeable of AAA games as i havent played one in at least 2 years, i simply stopped caring.

As to why they start you up with a badass, its simple, it saves time, allows them to put you right in the action, with a character that is almost perfect at what it does. Makes sense in an action game.

Why i dont really like the idea of a character that gets slightly better by the end of the game in an rpg? because you dont need an indepth character progression for that, whats the point? I believe what is done in stalker is much more elegant that what is done on borderlands for example, in terms of statistical character development (and narrative as well i guess).

I do not mind flat progression, said time and time again that im a fan of it, but i also believe zero to hero is a far more interesting as a premise than skilled to more skilled if you are planning on making an indepth character system for it. Theres a reason most games that start with an already developed character have what amounts to poorly tacked on rpg elements.

 

[stray]

I care more about the progression of main plot and hero's story more than how it reflects in their levels. A "zero to hero" story is shit. I think they need to run through the crucible before any heroism comes about (and more games do this than not).

I never want to feel truly badass, but that takes better boss design. And again, this has nothing to do with leveling per se.. but setting up clever patterns and tactics for how the fights are won.

 

[JamesDixon]

One reason for the prevalence of "Zero to Hero" is that CRPG enemies are often incapable of providing serious challenge to anybody who isn't a zero. Ask yourself how challenging and dynamic you want to/can make your game's enemies, then base your curve on that.

I disagree since there are plenty of challenging enemies at any level. The zero to hero progression is perpetuated because companies don't want to take a risk on a different paradigm. Although, Ultima subverted many of the D&D tropes like zero to hero progression.

A high "level" enemy will always be more challenging than a low "level" enemy. This is due to the higher the level the more attacks and the attacks are varied vs. the low level enemies.

 

[Infinitron]

I disagree since there are plenty of challenging enemies at any level. The zero to hero progression is perpetuated because companies don't want to take a risk on a different paradigm. Although, Ultima subverted many of the D&D tropes like zero to hero progression.

???

A high "level" enemy will always be more challenging than a low "level" enemy. This is due to the higher the level the more attacks and the attacks are varied vs. the low level enemies.

Not if the enemy AI has no idea how to use those attacks or isn't aggressive enough about using them.

Also, sometimes they're not more varied. Sometimes high level enemies are just like lower-level enemies except that they hit harder, while the player's characters gets all sorts of abilities and items that let them basically run circles around them.

Basically, if you have a "zero to hero" progression that ensures that at least the first half of the game is challenging because even dumb meatshield enemies can challenge a zero.

 

[Infinitron]

P.S. I suspect the reason some people in this thread are opposed to "Zero to Hero" is because they associate it with stereotypical high fantasy narrative tropes where you start as a "farm boy", rather than for purely game mechanical reasons.

Not that I'm particularly pro-Zero to Hero myself.

 

[JamesDixon]

???



Not if the enemy AI has no idea how to use those attacks or isn't aggressive enough about using them.

Also, sometimes they're not more varied. Sometimes high level enemies are just like lower-level enemies except that they hit harder, while the player's characters gets all sorts of abilities that let them basically run circles around them.

Basically if you have a "zero to hero" progression that ensures that at least the first half of the game is challenging because even dumb meatshield enemies can challenge a zero.

In Ultima levels aren't important from what I've been told.

That would be due to bad AI. A good AI should be able to use all of their abilities.

I understand your point, but I hope you can understand mine. Thank you for the input.

 

[JamesDixon]

P.S. I suspect the reason some people in this thread are opposed to "Zero to Hero" is because they associate it with stereotypical high fantasy narrative tropes where you start as a "farm boy", rather than for purely game mechanical reasons.

Not that I'm particularly pro-Zero to Hero myself.

It could be that or they're just sick of it as many commentators said they are.

How I design worlds is that the mechanics mesh with the world to make sure that nothing impossible happens that violates the mechanics. Thus, the mechanics do impact the story and starting of that story. Personally, I hate killing rats at low levels and I definitely hate levels. I prefer a point based system like I proposed in the OP where the character is actually competent and knows which end of the sword to use.

 

[Lhynn]

The zero to hero progression is perpetuated because companies don't want to take a risk on a different paradigm.

I think both are roads well traveled, companies make you start as a badass because its both easier on the storytelling and the mechanics parts of things, as the effectiveness of a young upstart isnt the same as the one of a top professional and this should be reflected on gameplay.

A high "level" enemy will always be more challenging than a low "level" enemy. This is due to the higher the level the more attacks and the attacks are varied vs. the low level enemies.

Challenge is relative to the power of the player at that particular stage, most rpgs have a problem where the game gets easier and easier.

I prefer a point based system like I proposed in the OP where the character is actually competent and knows which end of the sword to use.

Then you dont need to ask, you already know what you want to do.

 

[stray]

P.S. I suspect the reason some people in this thread are opposed to "Zero to Hero" is because they associate it with stereotypical high fantasy narrative tropes where you start as a "farm boy", rather than for purely game mechanical reasons.

Not that I'm particularly pro-Zero to Hero myself.

Not really. Because then, the farmboy becomes extremely heroic/messiah like in those stories then. Being a hero is not enough.

See Luke Skywalker.

 

[AetherVagrant]

This reminds me of my favorite part of Darklands -- creating characters, and having the options to make them zeroes, heroes, old veterans, or a mix, though all at some sort of cost/benefit tradeoff.

To give an example of character creation, I'll use Fantasy Hero since it's what I know.

Player decides that he wants to have his character be an Elf, so he picks the Elf package.

Due to the cheapness of the package we'll give the player another 18 points to customize the stats which brings the total to 40 points spent.

Now the player decides that the background is a criminal underworld culture, so he picks that. *note that not all the skills may be in the game so the package will look different.

We can give him an additional 6 points to add more skills or increase the ones he gets from the background he selected. The total for the background will be 20 points.

Next step is picking profession/class archetype, so he decides that he wants an Assassin.

Total Cost Of Template Abilities: 37

We'll give him 13 points to spend on additional skills or increase the current ones. The Assassin will cost 50 points and bring the total up to 110 points spent.

 

[Aeschylus]

1. Do you prefer zero to hero level based paradigm or competent to very competent points based system?

Depends heavily on execution. A good example of a contrast between a zero-to-hero and competent-to-elite approach within a single game series was Gothic 1+2 (zero-to-hero) vs 3 (competent-to-elite). I'd argue that the character building in 1+2 was a lot more satisfying in this case because you were really presented as a zero towards the beginning, and came into real improvement as you leveled. It just wasn't quite the same in 3 when you were slaughtering orcs from the outset. Really, your character advancement system should be closely tied into both your narrative and gameplay design, and be whatever you think would support both the best.

2. What are your thoughts about using a point buy system that character creation points are broken up and spent as follows: Racial package, Background (Culture)+additional points for customization, and profession/class archetype+a few points to customize?

Honestly, any system can work if it's carefully designed and tweaked through playtesting. What you're describing is a lot like the Radiance RPG system, which you might want to check out.

 

[Neanderthal]

To be honest i'm sick and tired of the hero with a thousand faces, for one thing I don't want to play a fucking brat, I want my characters to have some experience of life, some background and resources to draw upon. They've lived in the world and not in a void. You can still have character progression here, nobody ever stops learning, but all that fucking grinding and padding can be jettisoned like so much bilge water. So you're a match for most men, and a force to be reckoned with, that means you're competent but it don't mean that you've stopped developing at all.

A dread demon from the pit roars into being in a conflagration of hellfire, you're still gonna shit yourself. A Lovecraftian horror gibbers and mouths as it manifests into this reality, you're still gonna be freaked out and traumatised by the otherness of a thing that defies sane description. You might find a way to stop these things, or utilise some means of doing so but they're still going to be a challenge. That's why I prefer a flatter difficulty curve, where a street thug with a knife has to be wached lest he slit your throat, and this danger never goes away. (Ha d4 damage, i've pissed more blood than youll draw ponce!) You start off just as dangerous as that thug, but equipped with experience and the right tools and knowledge, you eventually become a legendary arse kicker, not an immortal superman as most protagonists are now but fucking dangerous and a deadly opponent.

I suppose i'm saying that danger should never go away, you should get fucked if you take your eyes off an enemy no matter who they are or what level. With more experience and skill though you can do the fucking, and those three muggers that rolled you at first level are gonna get kerbed, because you're the daddy now.

 

[Lhynn]

To be honest i'm sick and tired of the hero with a thousand faces, for one thing I don't want to play a fucking brat, I want my characters to have some experience of life, some background and resources to draw upon. They've lived in the world and not in a void. You can still have character progression here, nobody ever stops learning, but all that fucking grinding and padding can be jettisoned like so much bilge water. So you're a match for most men, and a force to be reckoned with, that means you're competent but it don't mean that you've stopped developing at all.

Welp, you can grind in flat progression games and go zero to hero in other games without ever really needing to fight. A lot of interactive books are a good example of this.

A dread demon from the pit roars into being in a conflagration of hellfire, you're still gonna shit yourself. A Lovecraftian horror gibbers and mouths as it manifests into this reality, you're still gonna be freaked out and traumatised by the otherness of a thing that defies sane description. You might find a way to stop these things, or utilise some means of doing so but they're still going to be a challenge. That's why I prefer a flatter difficulty curve, where a street thug with a knife has to be wached lest he slit your throat, and this danger never goes away. (Ha d4 damage, i've pissed more blood than youll draw ponce!) You start off just as dangerous as that thug, but equipped with experience and the right tools and knowledge, you eventually become a legendary arse kicker, not an immortal superman as most protagonists are now but fucking dangerous and a deadly opponent.

But you can have zero to hero and flat progression curves. All that matters is the starting point and the things youve achieved by the end of the game. zero to hero means you started as a nobody and got to be an acomplished person, it does not mean you are immune to the attacks of a goblin. the level vs point based system dixon is proposing doesnt really imply either.

I suppose i'm saying that danger should never go away, you should get fucked if you take your eyes off an enemy no matter who they are or what level. With more experience and skill though you can do the fucking, and those three muggers that rolled you at first level are gonna get kerbed, because you're the daddy now.

Yeah but you gotta remember this is not action based combat, the focus and attention of the character is abstracted, and its assumed he always fights shit without understimating them, otherwise tons of penalties would be in order.
You are facing the lone xvart with the same caution as the horde of trolls in principle. Shit, have you ever heard of tucker kobolds?

 

[MRY]

So you're a match for most men, and a force to be reckoned with, that means you're competent but it don't mean that you've stopped developing at all. . . . a street thug with a knife has to be wached lest he slit your throat, and this danger never goes away.

Given the background expectations of the player, it might be very difficult to pull this off. Typically, the PC in a "prophesied farmboy" scenario is able to easily defeat "a street thug with a knife" at level 1. So I think it would be quite difficult to simultaneously say (1) narratively, you're better than a farmboy and (2) mechanically, you're worse than a farmboy. Indeed, I suspect that part of the challenge AOD has faced grows from this gap.

You start off just as dangerous as that thug, but equipped with experience and the right tools and knowledge, you eventually become a legendary arse kicker

Street thug to legend sounds like a zero-to-hero scenario, just a picaresque one rather than a pastoral one.

I think RPGs have really sort of boxed themselves in with Monty Hall-ism, and I don't think this is a uniquely modern problem. In fact, it's remarkable reading CRPG Addict's accounts of classic RPGs, where you're routinely fighting platoons of Medusas or dozens of vampires backed up by dragoliches -- not even as final encounters. Creatures that were once apex opponents (Medusa, Dracula, etc.) are now mid-level trash mobs. "The heroes face a giant floating head that can turn you to stone with one eye, disintegrate with another, etc., etc." would not ever appear in any work of fantasy by even the schlockiest pulp author prior to AD&D's Monty Halling. (Now I know someone will find an example that disproves my point: chimaera maybe, or perhaps the Revelations dragon.)

That's why (at least to me) there's a certain silliness to this entire discussion, since at the end of the day you're going to be fighting off packs of hydras and hordes of demons and gaggles of demigods -- whether you start as a farmboy or a war veteran, we're talking about going from zero to a trillion versus three to a trillion; the scale is so vast that the starting point doesn't matter.

 

[Prime Junta]

1 yes
2 depends on the system

About 2, it's all about how it's fleshed out. Arcanum f.ex. had a really good system where most of your stats were determined by your race, sex, and background, and only some of them by distributing points. Various DnD3 based games OTOH had really rich and enjoyable systems based on being able to distribute stats and other character creation resources as you want.

Put another way, either of the options you're presenting for either question can work very well, or fail completely. It all hangs on how the stuff that's supporting and surrounding them works, and how it fits into the bigger pattern of things. Zero to hero is a tried-and-true character development arc, but competent-to-very-competent can work well also. I'd need a lot more info to be able to give more specific answers than this.

 

[Neanderthal]

Yeah but you gotta remember this is not action based combat, the focus and attention of the character is abstracted, and its assumed he always fights shit without understimating them, otherwise tons of penalties would be in order.
You are facing the lone xvart with the same caution as the horde of trolls in principle. Shit, have you ever heard of tucker kobolds?

True, there'd need to be a new kind of combat engine to make what i'm thinking of, think it'd be manageable in turn based though. Kind of everybody is realistically vulnerable, so the object is not to get hit at all, rather than usual hit point stand there and take it mechanic.

Given the background expectations of the player, it might be very difficult to pull this off. Typically, the PC in a "prophesied farmboy" scenario is able to easily defeat "a street thug with a knife" at level 1. So I think it would be quite difficult to simultaneously say (1) narratively, you're better than a farmboy and (2) mechanically, you're worse than a farmboy. Indeed, I suspect that part of the challenge AOD has faced grows from this gap.

Street thug to legend sounds like a zero-to-hero scenario, just a picaresque one rather than a pastoral one.

I think RPGs have really sort of boxed themselves in with Monty Hall-ism, and I don't think this is a uniquely modern problem. In fact, it's remarkable reading CRPG Addict's accounts of classic RPGs, where you're routinely fighting platoons of Medusas or dozens of vampires backed up by dragoliches -- not even as final encounters. Creatures that were once apex opponents (Medusa, Dracula, etc.) are now mid-level trash mobs. "The heroes face a giant floating head that can turn you to stone with one eye, disintegrate with another, etc., etc." would not ever appear in any work of fantasy by even the schlockiest pulp author prior to AD&D's Monty Halling. (Now I know someone will find an example that disproves my point: chimaera maybe, or perhaps the Revelations dragon.)

That's why (at least to me) there's a certain silliness to this entire discussion, since at the end of the day you're going to be fighting off packs of hydras and hordes of demons and gaggles of demigods -- whether you start as a farmboy or a war veteran, we're talking about going from zero to a trillion versus three to a trillion; the scale is so vast that the starting point doesn't matter.

You see i'd say that street thug with a knife shouldn't be easy to beat, he knows his territory, he's desperate, he's tough from growing up hard and that knife he's holding only takes a few pounds of pressure to carve through flesh and make the protag dead as disco. Just because you're competent doesn't mean you're invulnerable in my eye. I actually think Torment got this about right at the beginning, the Hive Thugs were a fucking handful, okay for a combat Nameless it was far easier especially with using Morte, but still a good example to me.

I'd say it's just power levels gone off the chart, old AD&D used to be quite reasonable and most characters (except higher level spellslingers) weren't the superheroes we find in games now, you saw a Beholder and you fucking ran like a Nun seeing schlong. Problem is to me that devs have lost track of realism in their games, they think that just because you've got a hundred ton Dragon flying like an Eagle or a Wizard throwing lightning that there doesn't have to be any realism, internal consistency or rules. They've got it wrong at base, the Dragon and the Wizard are fantastic elements, governed by their own laws in game and with just as many restrictions and weaknesses as anythying else. Physics should still work normally, mortality should still be precious and folk should still act like folk do, but there's weird shit to react to and take into account, the fantastic.

Tolkien got this right in my opinion, yeah his world never moved on and other unrealistic shit but folk got hungry and thirsty, Hobbits took one wound and were fucked, men got downhearted during sieges, runners couldn't run forever and even greatest men weren't above corruption. Had a nice gritty feel to it, even though most folk cite it as the highest of fantasy. If he'd only told the Elves to fuck off...

As an old GM I never did any of the overpowered stuff though, one reason why I weren't a fan of Sword Coast and Realms were power level, strangely enough thought Dark Sun was much more reasonable there even though everbody began at third level.

 

[stray]

Funnily, for a company that's awash in infantile hero "tropes", Bioware had it's own farmboy story that was good: Loghain.

You just couldn't play something like that yourself. Although I guess you could say their Hawke character was another Loghain, depending on class.

I actually haven't finished Alpha Protocol, but I recall you could start as a "zero" or experienced type there. Whether you want to call it an RPG still is up to you.

 

[Neanderthal]

Ought to have been able to side with Loghain, though I thought that he were a bit more capable than that Hawke cunt, he just derped around in Berkwall cleaning up other folks messes, Loghain got shit done early on. Though he did turn into a useless bastard when facing protag, because that's standard Bioware shit, everybody's useless so player feels powerful.

Yeah I thought Recruit runthrough were bloody good in AP, though going Veteran afterwards is a must. Don't know whether RPG or not but there were some good design in there.

 

[JamesDixon]

You see i'd say that street thug with a knife shouldn't be easy to beat, he knows his territory, he's desperate, he's tough from growing up hard and that knife he's holding only takes a few pounds of pressure to carve through flesh and make the protag dead as disco. Just because you're competent doesn't mean you're invulnerable in my eye. I actually think Torment got this about right at the beginning, the Hive Thugs were a fucking handful, okay for a combat Nameless it was far easier especially with using Morte, but still a good example to me.

I'd say it's just power levels gone off the chart, old AD&D used to be quite reasonable and most characters (except higher level spellslingers) weren't the superheroes we find in games now, you saw a Beholder and you fucking ran like a Nun seeing schlong. Problem is to me that devs have lost track of realism in their games, they think that just because you've got a hundred ton Dragon flying like an Eagle or a Wizard throwing lightning that there doesn't have to be any realism, internal consistency or rules. They've got it wrong at base, the Dragon and the Wizard are fantastic elements, governed by their own laws in game and with just as many restrictions and weaknesses as anythying else. Physics should still work normally, mortality should still be precious and folk should still act like folk do, but there's weird shit to react to and take into account, the fantastic.

Tolkien got this right in my opinion, yeah his world never moved on and other unrealistic shit but folk got hungry and thirsty, Hobbits took one wound and were fucked, men got downhearted during sieges, runners couldn't run forever and even greatest men weren't above corruption. Had a nice gritty feel to it, even though most folk cite it as the highest of fantasy. If he'd only told the Elves to fuck off...

As an old GM I never did any of the overpowered stuff though, one reason why I weren't a fan of Sword Coast and Realms were power level, strangely enough thought Dark Sun was much more reasonable there even though everbody began at third level.

I will agree with this. Worlds definitely need to have some internal consistency and physics that makes sense. This is why I'm a bottom up world builder because I make sure that everything follows the internal consistency (game mechanics). When I wrote Inceptum Terminus: Chronicles of the New Confederation, I made it to where normal people were an actual threat to superheroes and if a superhero wasn't careful they could die. I'm taking the same approach with Myths. I don't want people going, "Oh, it's a dragon *yawn*." I want people to go, "OH MY GOD IT'S A DRAGON!".

 

[JamesDixon]

New marketing research question.

Do you think typing knowledge skills like knowledge of specific city to be tied to the map to show locations like shops etc.. is a good idea?

 

[Lhynn]

New marketing research question.

Do you think typing knowledge skills like knowledge of specific city to be tied to the map to show locations like shops etc.. is a good idea?

No, tying cartography to a skill is always shit.
As a rule try tot to make the player pick between convenience and other crap, because players will always drop convenience and will always have a shittier time playing your game for it.

 

[stray]

I think if the world is open and huge, then maybe the map skill would be cool. Either way, you win. Cartography would give you convenience, but on the other hand, not having it is still conducive to exploration and discovery. There's fun in that for some players. A lot of oldschool TES fans bitch about waypoints, for example.

It isn't worth the time if the world sucks though.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

1. I prefer zero to competent, or a static competent if there is a chance (no permanent stat increases after a detailed chargen). But don't make me fight rats, ffs, what I like is harsh worlds where i will never be able to steamroll entire orc camps alone.