How important is player knowledge of game mechanics?

[thekdawg21]

I very much enjoy a crpg that rewards player knowledge and the paying attention of the game mechanics. And I also very much enjoy when a crpg allows a difficulty level that still keeps the game difficult once I've figured out good strategies based on the mechanics. Wizardry 7 was easy on the hardest level to me. I played semi-ironman (I deleted a character if they perished three times to a non instant-death spell) and I would have enjoyed if my knowledge of the game mechanics didn't break the game.

A good example of a game that is difficult no matter how well you know the system is X-com: EU and X-com TFTD.

I love to feel like I've accomplished something when I finished a game. Might and Magic V had a slip you could mail to the publisher (New World Computing) and they'd send you a certificate if you could prove you beat the game. I still have mine, and I am still proud of the accomplishment.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Might and Magic V had a slip you could mail to the publisher (New World Computing) and they'd send you a certificate if you could prove you beat the game. I still have mine, and I am still proud of the accomplishment.

I envy you.

Finishing a game like that is like the end of a long-term commitment, wherein the 18 year olds you started with in Clouds Of Xeen are now 30 years old in the end of the Dark Side, and have magically aged even more because of the endless adventuring they did.

The feeling that you crossed the largest seas, trekked the deepest dungeons, soemtimes were left clueless, but then found some key to some tower in an obscure area, and still went on, and finished the whole thing - it is incredible.

 

[mondblut]

Wizardry 7 was easy on the hardest level to me.

Wizardry 7 is easiest on hardest level for everybody really. More encounters > more xp > faster levelling > quicker class changes > skyrocketing character development.

Unlike any other game, soloing Wizardry 7 with a lone faerie on hardest difficulty is not an ultimate challenge, but rather an exploit, if you know the game Once you survive a first dozen or so of combats, that is. Bard -> thief -> bard -> thief -> bard -> thief -> ninja -> cane of corpus -> everybody dies.

 

[Thrasher]

Games have rules. The rules should be apparent to the player. period.

 

[Serus]

In theory i agree with many things DraQ said but in reality it doesn't work well. The best CRPGs i played and enjoyed had more or less clear rules: Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum, BG2, BaK. I also strongly disliked Ultima 7 (considered by many a very good rpg) for exemple - the mechanics are hidden there.
One of my all times favourite rpg is Darklands. I think this game makes a good compromise between clear rules and exact formulas being hidden. Still not knowing what is the penalty for carrying too much (very easy when wearing a full plate armor) is a major pain. I never found any explanation, not in game, not in the manual.

 

[zenbitz]

Games have rules. The rules should be apparent to the player. period.

Many games have rules that are changed mid game. Such as "quarters". I have played many a rpg where I did not know the rules. Hell, there are RPGs which don't even really have rules beyond "conflict resolution"

 

[Thrasher]

Those would be "games" that I don't like.

 

[Cabazone]

In silent hill, you don't know how powerfull your weapons are, how strong your ennemies are. in fact, you don't even know how much life you have, you just can see a little indication when you're almost dead. And this is awesome, because that strengthen immersion, you're in the game, you don't just play it.
In pure gameplay game like starcraft, doom, dongeon RPG, know the rule are important, because you don't play for the story, for the setting, for live something, you just play to beat the game (or other opposents). But in story driven game, in simulationnist rpg, in all this games where be in it is important to enjoy it, know the rule sucks, that is just Rubber patch for bad design choice.

 

[Thrasher]

It's perfect for survival horror, but that's a different vibe, than a standard RPG. If I want to be constantly on edge becase of lots of unknowns then I don't play an RPG.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Again. What many people in this thread basically say is that RPG is a game where you have fun increasing your stats. Diablo II is more of an RPG than Lands of Lore I, if that is true, because in Diablo you have dozens of skills with exact numbers, but in LoL there are just three bars for fighter/rogue/mage skill levels. Diablo II has complete description of every item, in LoL you know nothing except the name and picture.

This is really funny. "RPG Codex. Putting 'role' back to RPG" But try to propose something to enhance roleplaying and reduce powergaming, and look! Everyone bashes the idea, because the characters are NOT some fictional beings whose life you expeience. They are tools for beating challenges (at least you are honest, mondblut ). This reminds me more of a SPORT.

 

[DraQ]

Hell, I can't keep just lurking here anymore...

Another fairly intelligent (by the looks of it) poster sucked into the swirling cesspool of the (ever declining) Codex.

I think I see the point of hidden game mechanics. First there were PnP RPGs, which needed some rules to simulate reality to some extent. The game itself isn't about the rules, the numbers, the dice. Rules stand for some natural and social laws, the dice stand for some random, or better, non-player controlled influence. Sure, a puzzle can be solved by the player himself, but simulating a sword attack angainst an orc, that would be harder. That's wy the rules were made.

Some players use the rules as the tool so that the game world could work. But some revel in the rules, in raising their stats, having higher rolls... And our axe wielding warrior changes into 150 HP, AC 14, Attack roll 21 etc. Great, isn't it?

But let's continue our little story. Some time later, CRPGs were born. They either used PnP rules or came with their own. By the time, rules were taken as a core part of roleplaying. The meaning of RPG basically changed into "a game with statistics you can increase". Hell, by that formula you can call a racing game with car tuning a RPG! All right, I'm taking it to the extreme, but the principle is there.

What I mean is that some necessary stuff became essential for the whole genre, while in the case of CRPGs any transparent rules are cartainly NOT necessary, the player doesn't need them to play the game, only the computer does.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy many games in a munchkin way - calculating the best builds, finding the best possible gear. But the best moments in a RPG for me are those when I throw that shit away and get carried away by whatever happens >in the game<, not in the game mechanics. "To hell with a possible skill boost, I won't let that treacherous snake live!" Stuff like that, you know...

Also I have DMed many sessions in various rulesets and settings, and the best experience often came from playing without any rules.

Atmosphere, immersion, and no burden of calculations.

In before mondblut and his, fairly amusing, misconception that very basic calculations performed in PnP RPGs are high math.

I'm not trying to say that rules in RPG are necessary evil, just that the abbreviation shouldn't mean "RULE PLAYING GAME". After all, the RPG Codex should all be about the "role" thing.

I lol'd, thumbs up.

 

[Theodyn]

I was never obsessed with min-maxing my characters, so I prefer when some of it is hidden (not all, of course). If done right it can be very fulfilling. Perfect example is magic in Arx Fatalis. For me, it is one of the most interesting implementations of magic I seen. Half of the fun was in playing with runes and discovering new combinations that produce new (undocumented) spells, whether with positive or negative effect.

In ideal case, the game should give you info about the mechanics appropriate for your character – by looking at two swords mage shouldn’t be able to know much about the differences between them (of course, apart from “Hmm, that silver one looks sharper and meaner” ). Inexperienced fighter would be able to tell immediately that sword X is obviously better than sword Y, and the experienced fighter will know that sword X does Z amount of damage more than sword Y. That basically means that the designer needs to write separate descriptions for every type of character. True, lot of additional work, but I think that it would be worth it.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

In ideal case, the game should give you info about the mechanics appropriate for your character – by looking at two swords mage shouldn’t be able to know much about the differences between them (of course, apart from “Hmm, that silver one looks sharper and meaner” ). Inexperienced fighter would be able to tell immediately that sword X is obviously better than sword Y, and the experienced fighter will know that sword X does Z amount of damage more than sword Y. That basically means that the designer needs to write separate descriptions for every type of character. True, lot of additional work, but I think that it would be worth it.

Well, that's an interesting idea. This could work nicely with some complex magic system, giving you more information on actually how the spells and magic works as your character gains that information, until you attain such mastery that you know that, say, a summoning spell has roughly 25% chance of summoning a hostile demon from the underworld because of how 1/4 of magic energy in the world comes from there.

 

[felicity]

Rules are gameplay, it's not metagaming - players are supposed to know the rules. Imagine you play a game with your friends in which each player is given a number of option. Each round every player picks their action and then immediately the result is shown, without explaination of rules. Now this is one boring game. No thanks.

 

[Cabazone]

But in a lot of game (solo game), immersion is a hell more important than gameplay. The gameplay must be good, for make the immersion better and the game more enjoyable overall, but it's rarely the reason who make you play it. Personnally, when i want pure gameplay, i play a multiplayer game, and here, rules are everything. In solo game, that's just another tool.

 

[Joe Krow]

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

 

[felicity]

But in a lot of game (solo game), immersion is a hell more important than gameplay. The gameplay must be good, for make the immersion better and the game more enjoyable overall, but it's rarely the reason who make you play it. Personnally, when i want pure gameplay, i play a multiplayer game, and here, rules are everything. In solo game, that's just another tool.

This

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

and...

Ruleset is the core of immersion. It is the abstraction and representation of how reality works. cRPG is not simulation - we player cannot know how fast or strong a swing of sword really means in the game. In game everything works in their own logic. Fire in game isn't the fire we know in RL. In RL fire is lethal and there is no fire protection magic. In game we have this fire and fire resistance that each game has their own mechanic. In one game fire damage is trivial, in another it can be deadly. So how do you immerse? It is through the ruleset that we can interpret and interact with the gameworld.

How skillful is Sir Bangalot on swordmanship? How fast can he swing? How strong? He missed that swing, is his target too good at evading or is he just plain sucks he should just give up? Should he pull another trick instead? A good abstraction of combat need to convey these information to player and a simple hit/miss message just isn't descriptive enough.

In cRPG I want to make out the meaning of the gameworld, like what does this mean to have a spellcraft rank of 16 and what effect will it has if I do this and that action. They're important not only to make combat tactical, but also give your gameworld some logic behind it. It's good that computer can handle the dice roll part, now the only limitation is how complex we player can/want to handle.

 

[Theodyn]

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

and...

Ruleset is the core of immersion. It is the abstraction and representation of how reality works. cRPG is not simulation - we player cannot know how fast or strong a swing of sword really means in the game. In game everything works in their own logic. Fire in game isn't the fire we know in RL. In RL fire is lethal and there is no fire protection magic. In game we have this fire and fire resistance that each game has their own mechanic. In one game fire damage is trivial, in another it can be deadly. So how do you immerse? It is through the ruleset that we can interpret and interact with the gameworld.

I got the impression that nobody in this thread is actually proposing to have a cRPG without strict rules (and it would be a challenge to write such game). The question is how much information about the rules you need to present to the player to maintain a fun experience.

I guess that there are two types of players:

1. Tactically oriented ones who need to know all the numbers, formulas, spells … in advance – they will know which skills they will select before they actually start to play. They will spend countless hours studying the rules to devise an optimal development of their character, because they find the mere thought that they played the game in suboptimal way unbearable.

and the other extreme

2. Role-players - they couldn’t care less about the knowledge of all rules – in fact, in they feel that their character isn’t supposed to know it, they will happily ignore it. They will always choose abilities that are appropriate for their character, not the ones that bring the most benefits. In this context, too much information even spoils the fun – when, for instance, a fighter finds deep in the dungeon a glowing ring, how on earth he can know that it makes 25 fire damage over 3 second in the 2 square meters area directly in front of the caster with the maximum range of 50 meters. More appropriate message would be something along the line: “Today I found a strange, red glowing ring. It looks really valuable. I should seek someone initiated to the ways of magic, to find out more about it”. On the other hand, if the same ring is found by experienced mage the first message is more appropriate.

It is very hard to make happy both type of players in one game, so I guess that it is a design decision which camp you want to cater more.

 

[mondblut]

First there were PnP RPGs, which needed some rules to simulate reality to some extent. The game itself isn't about the rules, the numbers, the dice.

Wrong. First there were tactical wargames, which were all about rules and tactics. Then they morphed into D&D, which was called "roleplaying game" because a guy controlling a fighter was "playing the role of a fighter" and the guy controlling a wizard was "playing the role of a wizard".

And then some actor school dropouts attracted to a familiar four-letter buzzword decided we're playing *our* game wrong. Yeah, right.

The meaning of RPG basically changed into "a game with statistics you can increase".

Just like back in 1973 in the original D&D first print.

Hell, by that formula you can call a racing game with car tuning a RPG! All right, I'm taking it to the extreme, but the principle is there.

A racing game where you drive "in character" is much more of an "RPG", yeah.

I'm not trying to say that rules in RPG are necessary evil, just that the abbreviation shouldn't mean "RULE PLAYING GAME".

Roll-playing game sounds better to my ears.

After all, the RPG Codex should all be about the "role" thing.

Just because Codex was founded by Black Isle fanboys doesn't mean everyone here is

 

[Joe Krow]

If the game mechanics were hidden then determining the relative value of a statistic would devolve into an annoying meta-game. We would still use stats, I'm assuming, we just wouldn't know what affect they have. How many players would enjoy all the trial and error this "blind" system would require? Most player's wouldn't take the time to determine a relative value and would just guess instead. How nex-gen. The fighter should guess which armor offers better protection? Is that a better system? More immersive? I have no problem with some gray area at the margins but generally speaking an rpgs numeric stats represent information the character would have. In the end it wouldn't matter anyway; inside of a week there would be "item/stat guides' that anyone who played the game would refer to. The alternative would be either too painful or virtually arbitrary.

 

[Theodyn]

If the game mechanics were hidden then determining the relative value of a statistic would devolve into an annoying meta-game. We would still use stats, I'm assuming, we just wouldn't know what affect they have. How many players would enjoy all the trial and error this "blind" system would require? Most player's wouldn't take the time to determine a relative value and would just guess instead. How nex-gen. The fighter should guess which armor offers better protection? Is that a better system? More immersive? I have no problem with some gray area at the margins but generally speaking an rpgs numeric stats represent information the character would have. In the end it wouldn't matter anyway; inside of a week there would be "item/stat guides' that anyone who played the game would refer to. The alternative would be either too painful or virtually arbitrary.

Not necessarily. My view is that you should be able to know about game mechanics only as much as your character knows. An experienced mage could recognize the enhancement on the ring without any problem. A young apprentice could only guess the basic type (is it fire or electric damage), and he could try to use it, but it would be dangerous (his chance of success would be low, and possibly there would be some side effects). On the other hand, a fighter could meditate for whole week, and he still would be on the beginning, without any idea what his magic ring does or how to use its power.

Same goes for weapons, there would difference between the master fighter and the beginner in assessing the properties of the weapon. If you like, you can think in uncertainty intervals: when your are beginning using long blades, you know that the exact damage you make with silver sword is somewhere in the interval [10, 30]. As you get proficient with the blade, your understanding of the properties of the weapon can narrow the interval to [25, 30]. And if you really master it, you would be able to know the exact value. Extend this to the other properties of the weapon (speed of the weapon, disarming possibility … and other bonuses) and add nice description for each proficiency level, and you will have one system where you don’t know all the details of the underlying mechanics at the beginning, but you are gradually made aware of the details as you progress through the game.

*Of course, this should not include the stuff that is widely known in the game world – you should know beforehand everything that typical inhabitant should know.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

If the game mechanics were hidden then determining the relative value of a statistic would devolve into an annoying meta-game. We would still use stats, I'm assuming, we just wouldn't know what affect they have. How many players would enjoy all the trial and error this "blind" system would require?

In fact, CRPGs were played in this way. Eye of the Beholder, Dungeon Master, Lands of Lore... These games rarely told you an exact number. But of course, only strange crazy people played games, they were not meant for the masses, nobody expected them to satisfy an ordinary Joe. Often they had no automapping, often you even had find out how to solve a puzzle, because no miraculous NPC or diary page told you what to do. Those times it was no shame not to finish a game - they were REALLY hard, not just by (customizable) combat difficulty.

Not that they were perfect, they were far from perfect, but they had something today's games lack. The feeling of a dark, dangerous, unknown underground in EotB 1 - not even Arx Fatalis could work the same for me.




I think I have a suspicion. The need of exact stats is because the need of hoarding. In real life, we hoard money, then we sit in front of a computer and in fantastic strange worlds we hoard experience and equipment. And of course, we often ask ourselves a question :"HOW MUCH DO I HAVE?" How could we get any satisfying answer without our precious numbers?

Heh, just an idea I got today. And I am accusing myself too, right now I have minimized Wizardry 8, freshly started over because of some wrong character choices (nothing fatal though, could have finishd the previous run).

 

[Joe Krow]

So we are doubling back now? Your awareness of the stats would be dependent on your stats. Thats not quite the same argument as "numbers break immersion" which, unless I misunderstood, amounts to "ignorance is realistic." I think we agree that stats should determine success and that knowing their values and impact is an essential aspect of the genre.

What I don't agree with is that a nice description will ever be a viable substitute for hard numbers. We could substitute "crude"/"passable"/"fine", etcetera, but this new vocabulary would ultimately just be a substitute for the numbers. Once a certain level of complexity is reached these substitutions would loose meaning and make for arbitrary decisions. "Does my 8th level warrior fight better with his fine chain mail/passable two handed ax or the crude shield/crude platemail/fine bastard sword?" An 8th level warrior should know the answer. The player is left to guess.

 

[zenbitz]

Inexperienced fighter would be able to tell immediately that sword X is obviously better than sword Y, and the experienced fighter will know that sword X does Z amount of damage more than sword Y.

This is only relevant in the somewhat fantastical (if overused) case where X *IS* actually substantially better than Y. It's a piece of sharp metal. The skill of the user is vastly more important than it's intrinsic qualities (unless it's magical - in which case, part of it's magic could be to look like crap but sting like the devil... so your point is moot)

Tactics rely on the ruleset. The queen takes the rook sometimes? No thanks. Ambiguity in the ruleset causes a tactical dumbing down.

MADNESS! Every tactical game since Panzerblitz has some randomization of "Queen vs. Rook". Are they dumb?

cRPG is not simulation - we player cannot know how fast or strong a swing of sword really means in the game. In game everything works in their own logic. Fire in game isn't the fire we know in RL. In RL fire is lethal and there is no fire protection magic. In game we have this fire and fire resistance that each game has their own mechanic.

INSANITY. You are saying that we need to "know" the rules because it improves simulation value? Did Rommel know what the odds were at El Alamein? - War - and we are talking about war and combat simulations here for the most part - is all about chaos and imperfect information. Knowing all the odds all the time lets players make perfect decisions when RL counter parts would make mistakes sometimes. It actually destroys simulation value, albeit at the expense (sometimes) of improved gamesmenship.

 

[masterridley]

Not that they were perfect, they were far from perfect, but they had something today's games lack. The feeling of a dark, dangerous, unknown underground in EotB 1 - not even Arx Fatalis could work the same for me.

I agree that this is the premier argument for concealing (not removing!) SOME of the stats. When you get used to the rules so much that they seem to be a burden you go the narrativist way
and indeed that's what MOST RPG veterans do. That's not to say that you don't want the challenge of the gameplay, rather that you want something MORE than that!

I think I have a suspicion. The need of exact stats is because the need of hoarding. In real life, we hoard money, then we sit in front of a computer and in fantastic strange worlds we hoard experience and equipment. And of course, we often ask ourselves a question :"HOW MUCH DO I HAVE?" How could we get any satisfying answer without our precious numbers

I don't think that's true. That's just one of the reasons. The other is that as mondblut and joekrow have pointed out there's also a chess-like quality to RPGs, the gamist angle which is also good.
If it was just what you say then they'd also worship the MMOs.

But in general I agree with you. Sometimes RPGs veer dangerously close to Diabloization/mathematical masturbation and a little information hiding is in order just to keep the mystery!