Should the player char be able to become more powerful than the most powerful NPCs?

Click here and disable ads!

That's who.

Basically this.

Let's consider a simple example. We have our level 12 warrior in a magical full plate armour fighting 20 lvl 1 goblins. In your typical AD&D cRPG the fight would be trivial and boring - 20 goblins rushing at you and failing to scratch you, because you have too high AC while your slaughter them left and right. Bad combat design through and through - you becoming unbeatable for a contrived reason creates the sense of tedium in player.

What should happen is this: 20 goblins attack you from all directions. Instead of thwacking you with what amounts to sticks, they attempt to immoblilize you - they jump onto your back, grip you limbs and finally pull you to the ground. Then they use spears and pitchforks to pierce every gap and hole in your armour - all is just like peasants would do on medieval battlefield. Congrats - you are dead. This way even the most mundane enemies remain threatening throughout the game even though you could easily win 1-on-1 combat with them.

Naturally, even in this scenario there should be a chance of winning by acting smart. The player could secure his back by having a wall, or a tree behind him - so no attack from this direction. Then he could use polearm-like weapon to keep the goblins at distance. If he has bombs or nets - now's the time to use them. The combat doesn't have to end with death of all enemies - the goblins may decide they bit more than they could chew and retreat. This would be something that would give the player a sense of accomplishment and power - not slaughtering mooks that might as well be pieces of cardboard.

No. RPGs are power fantasies. Gleefully roflstomping shit you were terrified of just a few evenings before is the whole purpose of them. If all opposition is custom-tailored to be threatening no matter your power, there is no purpose in increasing that power in the first place.

That much is obvious. Even reusing the same graphical assets with none or insignificant changes is incredibly cheap and disappointing. I want to meet and kill new shit behind every corner, not the green-tinted shit, then the same but purple-tinted, then the blue-tinted variety.

Well, that's the entire reason level-scaling was put into motion. So a TES player (back in the days of Arena and Daggerfall, mind you) could beam down anywhere on the continent and have about the same chance of survival. When there is only one (at best, 2 or 3) places you start at, and only 4 directions to choose from, there is no reason to bother with level-scaling whatsoever. If you get too far ahead, your problem. If you overgrind, why, good for you, lucky bastard.

That's pretty cheap, that's what. Unless the adversaries can put their newly gained uber power into motion actually do shit in the world, strategic way - then the world is a playground of me alone, and the mobs don't have to pretend they aren't twiddling their thumbs waiting for me to show up and harvest them for xp, when that's precisely what they are doing.

Also, I expect a (monster name) to fully conform to the Monster Manual Compendium Annual 7, or whatever lists it.

This is the key to understanding Mondblut.

Here, you may enjoy this ar pee gee:
http://www.sophiehoulden.com/games/thelinearrpg/

That's a jrpg, you silly sod.

Ironically, this is a bit like how it felt when fighting large numbers of goblins in Oblivion. The sheer number of them meant my character got "staggered" all the time, and it took a long time to kill all the goblins even at high levels.
I was annoyed that I couldn't just walz over the little buggers now that I had reached a decent level, and I wished I had access to the "sweeping" attack of the AD&D Gold Box games, instead of having to fight the little runts one by one. I used the FCOM mod, so there was only partial level scaling.

Getting swarmed by hordes of low level enemies when you are a 10 to 20th level knight in armour may be more realistic, but sweeping through them is just more fun.

Depends on the game. In a high fantasy game, like various D&D games or Elder Scrolls, definately no. Not even a "chosen one" should be able to become as powerful in mere weeks as say an ancient vampire, a demilich or a dragon. Only by using clever tricks and very powerful combinations of magic should such an adversary ever be killable.

I am not convinced about fun factor here - I mean the fun is of the mindless type - here are the goblin cardboards, go and destroy them - what a great fun!

Besides, what you described in Oblivion was the very opposite of what I had in mind. The reason why you were annoyed was because
1) killing the buggers was no problem at all - it was just tedious.
2) goblins presented no real threat to you - there was no tension, so there was no real gameplay.
3) you wanted to get over with the hassle - that's why that kamehameha attack would come in handy here.

The reason for your tedium was not the combat/level-scaling system I advocate. It was the mechanics of Oblivion that prevented you from getting any enjoyment from the skirmish. If the goblins were a substantial challenge in the game, using different modes of attack, and you'd feel you were fighting for your skin this encounter would be much more memorable (in positive way).

Granted in your case the example I used - goblins bullrushing and swarming on you kinda sucks in first person RPGs - when I was describing the bullrush mechanics I had ToEE in mind.

You see, while RPG players see their stats and upgrades as tools to define their characters, you only care about rewards and power wankery. In other words, you're not that different from a JRPG player, you just don't like animu.

Well you can play Risen. When you encounter these goblins, and you hit them, they fly to long distance. Which should give you a reasonable experience about what happens in a real combat.

BTW will not they use poisoned arrows, try to lure you into trap, or something similar? If all falls to hand to hand combat DnD 3.5 edition critical is 1/20 which is enough to ruin your day.

So I take it you think the combat in baldur's gate is flawless at all points in the game then? And every elder scrolls game? Difficulty settings, after all. There's you dream games Draq, I'm glad you finally discovered Bethesda is your one true love.

Sorry I just find the concept of an rpg without progression too awful to not make a joke about. You realize it would essentially be cutscenes: the game, right? Whatever. Discussion for another topic.

This is my line, you keep bringing up examples of daedric bandits nobody is trying to defend and using them as reasoning why all scaling is bad.

Why?

Explain to me why a character in power armor with a rocket launcher should feel threatened by a swarm of hobos with shotguns. Besides the amazingly stupid copout of 'he should never get that much stronger than when he started.' There simply reaches a point where the difference in combat ability of two entitites is too extreme for them to interact in any way but a one sided massacre. No quantity of lions is going to be a threat to a tank, even though a single one could easily kill the pilot if he exited the vehicle. These differences in power level are just as easy to create in a fantasy setting, and there is no good reason not to allow the player immense amounts of growth if it suits the setting and plot.

Here is the problem. The example you used is not about the difference in ability i.e. character progression, but about the difference in gear, which is another facet of RPG mechanics altogether. Let's strip your level 100 hero off the power armour and see how he fares now. What we are arguing here is that two level 1 hobos with shotguns should easily kill off a level 100 heroe - because it just makes sense gameplaywise and it's just pure common sense.

We also identify the problem with overpowered equipment which practically destroys the balance of the gameworld and affects the gameplay adversely. This undermines the whole settings and plots, causing all sorts of problems - from world economy, through your enemies not having access to the same resources, just because, to the sudden disappearance of races/factions that were threatening at level 1 and are no match for you at level 20... or magically level scalling everyone - yay, setting consistency.

The tank from your example is a very circumstantial weapon - granted you will destroy a lot of things with it, but there are times when it can work against you - try killing a trooper with big arse canon, or spot an anti-tank mine when within it... also the question of resources (gas, ammo) and their availability...

However, in your average RPG you see nothing like that - the best armour in the game is the best armour in the game - no reason to change it for something "weaker". So you get the nonsense when you can kill hundreds mooks with no sweat because using particular set entails only benefits, no penalties. And this is kinda wrong because it destroys credibility of the setting - it becomes just a power fantasy of peculiar kind - you essentially start enjoying victory over cardboards that cannot pose any threat to you not because of your exquisite gameplay skills (haha, I outsmarted them!), but because no one can touch your character for some contrived reason.

Levels and new gear should allow you to do more stuff - true to that. But they should never allow the player to switch the brain off and win just because he has higher level. Otherwise there's no gameplay involved. It's one of the reasons why the combat in e.g. NWN 1 or in Diablo 3 sucks arse - it's just your level and equipment playing the game for you - not you.

"lso, I expect a (monster name) to fully conform to the Monster Manual Compendium Annual 7, or whatever lists it."

What an idiotic toolbag. You miss the entire point of D&D and other FANTASY games.

The difference between gear and innate character growth is completely arbitrary. Replace the shotgun hobos with midgets carrying clubs, and the tank with a 7 foot warrior that can run faster than a cheetah all day long and throttle mountain lions. No quantity of weaklings will overcome him. Never mind when you bring magic into the mix (which would probably be necessary for the above if the warrior in question is remotely human.)

There is NO difference between gauntlets that add 5 strength and adding 5 strength from gaining levels, aside from fluff. They should be equally difficult to acquire, and provide exactly the same effect. If the town guards can't get one they shouldn't get the other, and if they could, it causes all the same problems as the other. Town guards that can kill the guy who killed the ogre tribe should have been able to kill the ogre tribe themselves, whether they killed the guy with their giant muscles or giant swords. The sole exception to this are static defenses (i.e. murder holes and such), which are almost never used in games against the player by the guards.

But hey, I look forward to your exciting game about the hero that stayed at the inn until it burnt to the ground, cowering in terror of the dragon ruling the world that he never could have done anything about. At least it won't be totally ruined by the fact that if I backtrack to an area I haven't seen in 20 hours I can win fights really easily.

You are missing the point here. You are thinking only in terms of raw power. Yopur idea is: if one level 10 warrior was enough to slaughter an Ogre tribe, it stands to reason that the guys who hired him to do so should stand no chance against him. To you it's just a dude having kicks arse sword standing there and killing things dead, with no account for things that make up combat. IRL you can hardly be in the middle of a group flail your sword and hope you'd win, regardless of how awesome the sword is or how good you are at swordplay. Fights are circumstantial - an entire range of factors affects combat: the combat arena, the kinds of weapons used, the element of surprise, etc.

There are all sorts of reasons why a guy who handled an entire ogre tribe cannot defeat three town-guards armed with grapling hooks, ropes and nets, however strong he may be. Accounting for this is a good game design - because it allows for gameplay. Shrugging this off and saying that you win, because you have 3 times higher level is bad game design - there's no real gameplay involved, other than you clicking things and them dropping dead.

You miss the point, again. I have no idea where you got the heroe and dragon from, and what purpose your example serves.

No one said player character should be static. In fact, he should gain new abilities and equipment necessary to surmount one challenge after the next. However, it is your intelligent use of those abilities and equipment should be the decisive factor in combat regardless of the enemy type - not the fact that "rofl, I am level 20, so 100 goblins can't do jack shit to me. lmao, I am so awesome".

If the grappling hooks and nets are so awesome, why can't they use them on the ogres? These things aren't magical artifacts that automically hit and trap someone regardless of their strength or skill. You act like the only thing that changes about someone more skilled in combat is the lethality of their attacks. If you can manage not to get crushed to death by fucking ogres, it stands to reason you can avoid a fucking net, or break free from it. You can also probably move more quickly than the town guards, so they're unlikely to have any sort of terrain advantage over you, especially given that you're far more experienced than they are and can pick better places to fight in than they would in your position. If the character isn't advantaged in these ways, how the fuck did he kill anything the guards couldn't in the first place?

By your (incredibly shitty) logic, levels would be entirely meaningless because whichever side has a numbers advantage wins anyways. They can just send a mob of children to defeat everything in the game while the hero sits at home. As long as they have nets!

There doesn't need to be meaningful combat with every fucking entity in the game. If a crippled old lady attacks you, she should be fucking harmless, not some relevant threat 'because otherwise there'd be no gameplay'. Likewise with people who hire you to defeat enemies far more powerful than them. You cannot reconcile the fact that the people guarding the town can defeat you but not enemies you can defeat yourself because it makes no fucking sense. A group is either stronger than another group or it is not. The rock/paper/scissors crap is irrelevant because it would go both ways; if there are guards that can kill heroes who slay ogres, logically there are PCs that would get raped by the ogres but massacre the guards.

If he's the best fighter than why...

A: Did he let himself get surrounded to begin with?
B: Is he leaving his back to the guy with the bow instead of the guys who can't outrun him?
C: Isn't he using the bandits as cover against the archer?

That aside, dwarf fortress' combat has ranged from spinning vomit thrown by children decapitating dragons or dwarven champions to invincible grand master fighters fighting in dozens of seiges against dozens of archers without ever getting a single wound (until you meet some demons and they tear him apart like nothing.) I generally prefer when it works the second way.

The difference between a normal fighter and a hero fighting with supernatural beasts on even terms should be much much bigger than the difference between a normal person and an olympic athlete. More tactical options doesn't mean the guy that is 50 times more skilled than you is going to be screwed over by superior numbers. He has tactical options as well, and better ones at that.

As an obvious (but dull) example, kiting an enemy with a ranged weapon is a perfect example of what a vastly superior fighter can do to weaker enemies. Thankfully most games either make this unnecessary against overwhelming numbers or abstract it away through other benefits. Similar things include morale (you'd kind of expect the guards to give up after losing a dozen guys even if they are slowly wearing the guy down technically) and chokepoints.

I don't like being railroaded to begin with.

There seems to be the opinion that RPGs should accurately simulate what real combat should be like. While there should be some games like this, I don't see why every games needs to do this.

Art is not required, or even advised, to emulate life.

While I do agree that not all rpgs need to be heavilly tactical, I don't think challenges should be arbitrary either. Challenges should be necessarilly more complex than a do you want to win or just turn away without consequence situation (the mentioned old lady, a lock you can keep pressing the Jimmy button on until you win, etc.).

What you described is actually the reason for games with even good combat mechanics starting to suck arse at later point. ToEE comes into my mind. Initially everything is fine and dandy - you get challenging fights, nice rewards, there's the depth to system, which allows you to do various tactical maneouvres. The thing is, once you reach level 7 or so everything becomes trivial - there are really few enemies that can pose you any threat at this point - fighting foes in the temple itself becomes a chore of sorts. Enemies that previously presented impossible challenge (e.g. Ogres) die like flies, and it really does not give me the sense of power - merely tedium, and the impression that the conworld is just a plastic pulp without any consistency. All because the game/system allows the player to become all-powerful and because the encounter design is done mechanically as opposed to being tailored in each and every instance. That's the reason I abandoned my ToEE LP.

From my PnP experience I know that planning combat encounters is an art in itself. It's GM's job to come up with something that will present substantial threat to his players. Inexperienced GM's often just take the Monster Manual book, check levels and throw anything that fits player gear/level. This usually results in tedious combat, where all the player does is rolling dice - "I hit him with the sword for 1d12+5 damage - It bites you for 5 damage". Gripping stuff. Unless GM got the numbers wrong the is very little threat of deafet, and even if he got them wrong it doesn't mean the combat will be enjoyable.

Experienced GMs, on the other hand play on players' expectations. They are less likely to concentrate on monster types/levels - they focus on the circumstances of the encounter and the location. For example, they will make sure that the goblins will ambush you where they will have an edge over you e.g. a canyon after throwing some huge rocks over you. Furthermore they will reward the players for creative use of abilities (e.g. using "Stone Wall" spell to protect yourself from the falling rocks, or using grappling hooks to trap a dragon) and penalise for typical metagamey thinking ("I have the sword +5 and the Armor of kickarse so I charge at the dragon").

Long story short, cRPGs need less metagamey bits nad more common sense in them for various reasons:

1). It allows for gameplay. No, clicking on enemies and waiting for them to die while jugging one potion after the next, because your level is high enough is not gameplay... nor clicking at the same spells after cooldowns in succession.
2). It supports the coherence of the gameworld.
3). It is more varied and stimulating.
4). Contrary to popular belief it doesn't threaten the character progression - in fact it makes it even more meaningful as you are given actual tools you can use in creative way instead of arbitrary stats increase which has adverse affect on pretty much every facet of the game - gameplay and setting.

To me the following are pretty much the only advantages of linear stat progression system: it is easy to implement, easy to understand and nothing else. It kinda works with very simple tactical games where the focus on survival of one unit is not critical, which are stage based (like Fire Emblem series) but in RPG focused productions with a small party or a single character its disadvantages become apparent very quickly (ToEE) resulting in huge boredom.

Yeah, the old "it's not a simulation argument". The thing is No one demands realism, but everyone demands gameplay. It has been affirmed that in order to have any gameplay you can do one of two things: level-scale enemies (when you do so by improving stats, it destroys the setting conistency, and reduces the impact of character progression; you can also put different enemy types with differnt, more threatening abilities e.g. Vampires instead of skeletons in a crypt - that's a positive level-scalling IMO), or create the system when threats remain threatening throughut the game, only to a lesser degree as you level up/get new items (in this philosophy threats come from circumstances, not from mechanical stats). The second solution is more realistic - true - but it is also more practical in RPGs.

There's also one other way: you can make an extremly linear RPG consisting of stages, each stage being tailored to player and determining his maximal allowed level of progression. It is very easy to tailor encounters in it to player's level/gear because the game itself limits it. This is mistakenly labelled as jRPG school of design (there are plenty jRPGs with more freedom). It's major disadvantage is that due to its nature it fails in sandbox RPGs (Morrowind), story-driven RPGs (Planescape) and not stage-based RPGs (ToEE). It did work e.g. in Icewind Dale (but not BG2). Generally this method is is conworld destructive and frankly very primitive - you could achieve way more with the two positive methods highlighted above.

One more thing: Although I'd argue that games are yet to become art form, one thing I am certain of is that there's nothing farther from art is stat-driven combat focused games, because they are not about depicting anything but a bunch of stats rolled by a computer and satisfying one's power-wankery - not about higher calling or aesthetics.

Circumstances. Size of the damn things. If we assume that ogres are huge and strong they would require huge nets... which would be impossible to wield for town guards. It's not so difficult to use smaller nets on a single dude with a sword, especially if you ambush him (circumstances).

Circumstances. I'd argue that slaughtering the entire tribe of ogres is far-fatched power fantasy straight from Jackie Chan movies. If ogres are to be super powerful the only way the heroes hould be allowed to defeat them is by using trickery (picking enemies one by one, psychological warfare, poisoning their water supply etc.) or tools (riding over their village in a tank or something, poison). Otherwise it should not be possible for heore to win in all out battle with them. Here enters the equation Codex has been all-the-rage about since forever: C&C = interactivity = complexity.

Ironically, the tank example illutrates how despite the raw power of PC it would be very easy for the town guards to capture their "saviour" the moment he came back for reward.

My shitty logic, you say. Yeah... Neither JarlFrank nor I said anything like that. But I fear your logic failed in this example along with your common sense. You see, sending 100 children with AK-47s to fight a T34 tank may not be a good idea. However, sending those children against agent James Bond who just blew the tank up with a proximity mine may actually be effective, regardless of how many proximity mines he has left. Circumstances - think in those terms, not in terms of raw power of numbers. Thinking in stats is artificial and metagamey. Thinking in circumstances is human and rational.

Why not? What do you lose by having meanigful and logical combat with every entity in the game? I enumerated a broad range of advantages of this kind of character progression and illustrated disadvantages of your character progression/approach to combat. Now it's your turn: show me how mine view of things is inherently harmful to enjoyment, prove that your way actually improves gameplay.

You know, if she attacked me from behind with a pistol, this could be dangerous.

But you can - they don't have resources and/or know-how to deal with an entire Ogre tribe - poison, traps or a tank - so they hire you. They do have more than enough resources to overpower one man.

In what terms? In what circumstances? You can be the master of martial arts, but it will mean jack shit if you face a child armed with AK-47. It's that simple.

Ok, it is obvious to me that the only games you are interested in is heroic-epic settings - where you are the chosen one and you beat every shit with a stick, just because you are level 100. That's fine my friend - those games are fun as well. But there are plenty of them - wRPGs and jRPGs - one can get sick of them to be honest. What we are agreeing here with JarlFrank and DraQ is the idea for "toned-down" RPGs with more of realistic setting, when you shouldn't survive a bullet wound in the head just becuase your power is over 9000. It's the setting with less sensationalism, and pushing the AAAAAwesome button, and more about adventure, challenge and drama. We are just trying to think out of the box here, instead of sticking to old trite formula, which didn't really work that well to begin with.