Editorial Jeff Vogel's rants at RPG Vault

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Spiderweb Software

Jeff Vogel decided to turn <a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com>RPG Vault</a> into his <a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/763/763050p1.html>blog</a>. Today's rant is dedicated to fantasy RPGs and Jeff's failure to understand what they are about.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The first horrible thing. Fantasy role-playing games are unique among computer games in one thing: they are fundamentally about starting out weak and learning to be strong. And that learning process generally involves a lot of tedium.
<br>
<br>
Consider other sorts of games. In Doom or Quake, you start out weak. How do you get strong? You pick up a big gun, and suddenly, you're hardcore. Sure. In Madden, you start out a good football team, and you play some football for an hour, and then you get on with your life. When you play Tetris, you don't have to rotate the L-shaped pieces for three hours before you're good enough to handle the straight ones.
<br>
<br>
But the fundamental, unifying quality of pretty much all fantasy RPGs is that you start out as a puny loser, barely able to flush a toilet with both hands, and then you train and practice and work until you are a certifiable badass. And how does the game simulate this learning process? By reaching out and grabbing a gigantic, triple helping of your time.
<br>
...
<br>
And the games I write are no better. They do exactly the same thing. Sure, it might be cool to make a game where your character starts out a level 50 badass and then just trashes bozos. But it just wouldn't sell as well. The addictive, statistic-increasing, time-eating quality isn't the problem with these games. It's the point.
<br>
<br>
I'm tired of starting a new game and being a loser. I'm tired of running the same errands to prove myself. The next time I enter my fantasy world, I want it to not assume that I'm a jackass. </blockquote>Then why don't you make a different game instead of churning out "more of the same" sequels? Just a thought.
<br>

<br>

 

[Zomg]

Maybe Vogel should cast out the beam in his own eye here, but otherwise, Fuckin' A. You can defend generic character growth on a gameplay basis with some effort and a few cherry picked games, but in return you get served up endless, indefensible schlock like NWN2 or MMOs.

 

[Claw]

Funny how we're just now having a thread about an RPG without leveling on the Codex. Maybe Jeff ought to read it sometime.
Anyway, he's not entirely wrong but being a developer himself, just ranting about it is pathetic, embarrassingly so.

Besides, it's not entirely impossible to have levelling and avoid feeling like a weakling at level one. Dare I cite Realms of Arkania as prime example for good design yet again? Of course I do.

 

[Ismaul]

I agree with him, tedium/grinding is bad/soulless, but it's not the genre that is at fault there.
The solution is so simple (but hard to execute): Kill the leveling system!
And there will be place for actual roleplaying.

 

[LCJr.]

Mid-life crisis? Makes you wonder if he still going to keep churning out his combat overloaded sequels or switch to casual games.

Besides, it's not entirely impossible to have levelling and avoid feeling like a weakling at level one. Dare I cite Realms of Arkania as prime example for good design yet again? Of course I do.

Or skip the leveling altogether and start with a skilled character that's already lived part of their life like the majority of GDW's PnP RPG's.

And I agree it's interesting timing. Although I think this is at least the second round here on the leveling thing.

 

[Jed]

The problem with this is that "weak" in cRPG terms is a relative term. Your character is only as weak as the enemies that he faces. Look at BG2, for example: you start at either level 7 or 8, and as soon as you're out of the starting dungeon you could possibly be facing gaggles of trolls at the fighter's keep quest or even a red dragon for the paladin's quest.

From my own experience, low level (i.e., "weakling") adventuring is a hell of a lot more fun. Maybe the problem is less with leveling and starting out weak than it is with nearly every RPG game being overloaded with combat.

Maybe there's an opportunity to look at how other genre's can create challenge or a compelling game experience with out it, i.e., adventure games or sims. Not that I'm advocating for no combat, but it is tiresome that it is the focus of every cRPG ...

That said, Vogel's rant puts a spin on the new Geneforge game. After playing the last three, I was shocked to find my character forced to use The Geneforge at the beginning of the game ...

 

[Greatatlantic]

All I have to say is take out "character progress" and you remove one of the big things that make RPGs fun for me. I like having to choose between different ways of improving a character and see these choices reflected in the gameworld. Do you have to start out weak? No, not particularly. I'll admit alot of implementation of this mechanic in the past has been weak, but it really is at the heart of what makes RPGs difference then say adventure games.

 

[no]

I think Darklands nailed it pretty much perfectly. You could start off as a weak youngster or a seasoned veteran. A young character had potential for becoming more powerful than older but the beginning was usually tough going picking fights against the weaker gangs of thugs/bandits and running like hell from pretty much anything else (especially if you didn't start with a balanced party & played with ironman rules).

 

[enchanted_eyeball]

I think he actually hit the nail head on. I have been thinking of the same (for a very long time, no kidding) , with the difference of that I'm not a developer.

He basically just says of his thoughts and I guess he is sick now making games in the same manner.

I as well tire of starting out as a peasant/criminal/low life/scum of the earth/ person, who can't even wipe his ass without getting tired.

It's time to get some new ideas rolling. What about being a bad-ass , ass-kicking overlord at the beginning, and instead of changing into a stronger character, you only change morally- through the game?

Instead of the same dead horse of a "nobody" starting out and becomes the shiny knight, why not have some powerful wizard as the start and as you play, you might start to change your views on the (game) world and get stronger inside and perhaps change the storyline around (same stuff about consequences , branching story etc) but you are already strong and capable, except you learn different experiences, compare to yours?

 

[Bradylama]

Howabout creating starting points which provide an understandable context for the player character being inexperienced, then designing a system that allows the player to hold his own at early levels instead of having to be level 12 just to hit something?

Sounds to me like Vogel's having a hissy fit because his "dumb" customers didn't buy the last game he made that wasn't a fantasy title.

The Doom and Quake comparisons are also precious. It's a wonder he designs RPGs.

 

[Crichton]

Howabout creating starting points which provide an understandable context for the player character being inexperienced, then designing a system that allows the player to hold his own at early levels instead of having to be level 12 just to hit something?

Well JRPGs frequently start with 14 year old faggots as main characters, so it's no surprise when they can't hit anything, but if the character can "hold his own" without level grinding, what's the motivation to grind? A game can include character progression but keep it from screwing up the game by making it meaningless (GTA: SA), but at that point is it good design or pandering treadmill porn to draw in a few suckers?

 

[Veracity]

Mid-life crisis?

Could be, but it's scarily extended, if so. Vogel's been bitching about this, in one form or another, at least since Nethergate (which, incidentally, managed to feel rather dungeon-crawly and grind-oriented, despite its interesting premise), possibly even longer, for all I know. True, though, that you can't but wonder why he doesn't just switch to desktop widgets and phone games and abandon the sub-Tolkien treadmill dreck, if he's so sick of it.

Instead of the same dead horse of a "nobody" starting out and becomes the shiny knight

I wants me a player character that starts out as a badass archmage in a story revolving around the inescapable loss of all their über powahz. That's just contrariness born of exhaustion with the usual zero to hero shite, though; I'm not even certain it'd make for much of a game.

 

[Bradylama]

but if the character can "hold his own" without level grinding, what's the motivation to grind?

There shouldn't be a motivation to grind is precisely the point. Levelling enabling skill progression, ala Fallout. When you're playing a game where levelling is rare, and the player is given absolute control over how his character develops, then you've nullified a lot of the impetus for levelling.

Linear dungeon grinders like JRPGs, and Class systems with D&D are going to get old when they're the only fucking things on the market.

 

[Crichton]

There shouldn't be a motivation to grind is precisely the point. Levelling enabling skill progression, ala Fallout. When you're playing a game where levelling is rare, and the player is given absolute control over how his character develops, then you've nullified a lot of the impetus for levelling.

If leveling is going to be rare and unnecessary, why include it at all except to screw up game balance? The player can choose what sort of character he wants to play at the chargen screen, there's no need for "development".

 

[LCJr.]

but if the character can "hold his own" without level grinding, what's the motivation to grind?

There shouldn't be a motivation to grind is precisely the point. Levelling enabling skill progression, ala Fallout. When you're playing a game where levelling is rare, and the player is given absolute control over how his character develops, then you've nullified a lot of the impetus for levelling.

Linear dungeon grinders like JRPGs, and Class systems with D&D are going to get old when they're the only fucking things on the market.

As much as I enjoy Fallout it isn't such a good example. People learned pretty quick the only way to get to Lvl16+ was to not all kill all the deathclaws in the Boneyard and to keep leaving and coming back. And in Fallout your grinding for perks as well as skill points so the motivation is still there.

 

[merry andrew]

As much as I enjoy Fallout it isn't such a good example. People learned pretty quick the only way to get to Lvl16+ was to not all kill all the deathclaws in the Boneyard and to keep leaving and coming back. And in Fallout your grinding for perks as well as skill points so the motivation is still there.

Blah, I don't remember caring what level I was when I played Fallout. That's the type of game I like, where leveling is just there to note experience and allow character diversity. When leveling becomes a main objective, it craps all over the rest of the game. I can understand not being developed enough to complete a mission, but please redirect me to some that'll help me grow... don't just leave me to repeat the same tasks ad nauseum until I'm ready to progress.

 

[galsiah]

If leveling is going to be rare and unnecessary, why include it at all except to screw up game balance? The player can choose what sort of character he wants to play at the chargen screen, there's no need for "development".

I don't like conventional levelling, and I'm not overly keen on progression/development in general - but it is one way to keep things fresh.
If progression means gaining genuinely new and different options, then it is serving some purpose. If it's just getting higher scores without significantly changing the way the game plays, then it's pretty stupid.

I do think it's possible to provide interesting choices, leading to a range of fresh gameplay options, without using stat progression to do it. However, I also quite like open RPGs, rather than a linear series of areas. The obvious way to keep things fresh without requiring that the player progress through a series of levels, is to change the capabilities of the character. That way he gets the extra variety of options whether or not he's running off to the next stage. [IIRC you've used Hitman as an example before of good non-progression, but that relies on a progression through a series of well designed game levels - it's not an open world.]

The other way to keep things fresh in an open world is to make sure that as much of the world as possible changes in interesting ways over the course of the game - preferably dependent on player action. I'd much prefer this approach, but it's clearly much harder to get right than just throwing occasional power-ups at the player.

[Many people do like the treadmill porn aspect of progression though. There are just a depressing number of imbeciles in the world. I guess the simplest way to avoid this ludicrous expectation is not to write "RPG" on the box ]

 

[Jasede]

Mass Effect! Mass Effect! Mass Effect!
Badass Shephard!

But for real: I think he's walking a narrow plank. The improvement of stats and your character is one of the things that made RPGs fun in the first place. Play Gothic! Be raped by prisoners at the beginning! Learn to slowly rise in strength physically and socially in a rather realistic pace. The advancement in Gothic never struck me as tedium or grind. Same for Realms of Arkania or Baldur's Gate. In RoA, the difference between level 5 and 1 characters is /hauntingly/ small but still very noticable. In BG, the large world allowed you to never feel like you suck. Dangerous area? Well, don't go there. Moron.

I do not want to start as a powerful guy in an RPG and get even stronger, unless we're talking about that hypotethical no levelling social-advancement only RPG. Exception: a game built completely around that concept where you can create your character with a lot of freedom. It would make a lot of sense that if you're going to play, say, an inquisitor, you already have a lot of experience and social influence. Still, even that game should give you an option to create a far weaker character who'll have to go through the so-called "grind".

Actually, I have no idea what Vogel is talking about, Even the grindcore jRPGs are moving away from hours spent training and improving your characters. Final Fantasy 10 or 12 could easily be beaten without much training or grinding as long as you took advantage of the many options of the skill and combat system.

Well, never liked that Vogel guy anyway.

 

[Shannow]

i'd actually like a game without levelling but with development. i was was thinking of an open world with a revamped jagged alliance development system. make combat quite hard and social development plentiful.
@jasede: i like the character development in gothic. i think it's good for an action game but mediocre at best for an rpg, not much better than d&d.

start as extreme, elite supercaptaincommander jack shepherd and become even more üborz0rs!

 

[Atrokkus]

Play Gothic! Be raped by prisoners at the beginning! Learn to slowly rise in strength physically and socially in a rather realistic pace. The advancement in Gothic never struck me as tedium or grind.

Fallout and Gothic are ones of those few games that have a nearly perfect world design: challenging and realistic. No level adjustments, no stupid monster placement with player's level progression in mind (cancer of most RPGs).

 

[dagorkan]

This is a typical problem we have known about with D&D since the 80's. Character 'progress'(*) in most RPGs is too fast and too dramatic. Especially in D&D which is deliberately designed to be the worst in this category - it is obvious that it is not designed for low level characters. 'Low-level' campaigns unless you dumb down the rules always rely seriously on luck. 90% of the D&D content is aimed at mid/high levels, say level 5 minimum, in other words already superhuman caricatures of real people.

Eg In D&D your hits points DOUBLE on going from level one to level two - level two which usually involves killing a dozen or so base enemies and can be done in a few days game-time. Next level your brute power increases maybe another 20%. But the distance between levels doubles between each level and rewards become progressively less. By level seven or so you almost have to kill a dragon or save the world from destruction to be able to advance in one go.

Summary: Game not designed for 'normal' characters, but for power-gamed freaks. Early level-up rewards are way too big and too sudden and then take forever to increase. Sadly the D&D influence is so deep.

Better RPGs include Arkania. I think you start pretty decent. Nothing special but at least your abilities have some relation to real-life. You can complete complex quests at level one and the gameplay is already very interesting. You are not constantly thinking of what a pathetic weakling you are and counting how many more kobolds you must kill before the magical 'level-up' screen appears. When you do level-up your increases are for sure worthwhile and you feel rewarded but your character is not a totally transformed person suddenly able to kick goblin ass. Hit points I think increase 20% or 25%. It's not perfect but for sure it is an improvement.

* Another, linked problem: the mentality of nearly all RPGs that 'progress' means rise in brute power - usually measured by the number of living creatures you've murdered. Why cannot your base attributes/skills stay about the same but you gain advantages in other ways? Useful knowledge about the gameworld, entry into factions, friends, favors you can call in etc. These should be the real measure of how good your character is. It's unfortunate that the lone psychopath who can hack his way through to any victory is so popular.

 

[Elwro]

I like his games, but this article seems to be a bit over the top. Maybe he played to much WoW or sth. There are RPGs in which you can do some interesting things while low-level, without feeling that you have to grind...

Anyway, his View #3 was about how his attempt to innovate tanked hard. And yet he's supposedly remaking the game now...

 

[Kraszu]

Also it builds great atmosphere sometimes like in gothic games.

 

[JrK]

All you idiots who agree with Vogel should go and play Oblivion. That's the kind of fun he propagates.

 

[enchanted_eyeball]

All you idiots who agree with Vogel should go and play Oblivion. That's the kind of fun he propagates.

Hardly. Actually the opposite. Playing Oblivion is as much fun as filling out brackets on an Excel sheet.

All you care is how to level and what to level to have a somewhat capable character (on the beginning), with the exception that, in Oblivion you will become a jack-of-all trades. A perfectly good hunter-mage-paladin who ownz everything with his destruction magic/blade/expert marksman in a big forest called Cyrodiil.