RPGs where good loot takes exploration/risk?

[Clockwork Knight]

Hm, maybe having some equipment be randomly destroyed, since it was a badass battle between badasses. Being bombarded by explosive fireballs should ruin that finely crafted robe, and being ripped in half by machineguns would probably cause some damage to your own weapon.

 

[Angthoron]

Risen also has some very good exploration going for it, lots of ruins/caves/ruined caves and other such things that often contain fairly overpowered loot that you can get right at level one, in theory... except the way is guarded by things like Ogres, skeletons and very angry packs of wolves. I had lots of fun exploring the island. It's a pity the endgame is so meh, but as long as the open-air sections are going, it's lots of fun.

 

[nomask7]

I'm talking about a point where the PC IS a rare badass, and hence goes to places with other rare badasses, and has it out with them..

You've been playing too many linear player-centered RPGs. I guess I can't blame you, since that's pretty much all there is. But rare is rare. It doesn't suddenly become common when you reach lvl 15. By lvl 15, if we're talking about D&D, the game will be over anyway. You've reached the point where you start taking care of your own castle and kingdom, including fucking pretty bitches 24/7, and leave that adventuring business to those who need it.

 

[Selenti]

I'm talking about a point where the PC IS a rare badass, and hence goes to places with other rare badasses, and has it out with them..

You've been playing too many linear player-centered RPGs. I guess I can't blame you, since that's pretty much all there is. But rare is rare. It doesn't suddenly become common when you reach lvl 15. By lvl 15, if we're talking about D&D, the game will be over anyway. You've reached the point where you start taking care of your own castle and kingdom, including fucking pretty bitches 24/7, and leave that adventuring business to those who need it.

Why would the game be over? The world does not suddenly end because the character is strong. If anything, that's really fucking annoying. I admit that "the player is high level, so now he faces endless hordes of demigods" is annoying, but it's not like the player is the only badass in the world. It only makes sense he would find other badasses and cooperate with them or take their power (whether that be political or otherwise).

I guess I just find this whole line of thought disingenous. I mean, sure, some people are going to settle down, but all the skills that characters build up in the course of adventuring are mostly good for, well, killing shit. Some people will transfer over into an administrative role. Some won't.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

 

[Selenti]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

 

[TNO]

A mix of making it a fucking pain to sell stuff and some sanity with equipment in general would sort this out, I reckon.

 

[Zomg]

I really hate it when anything tactically or strategically sound is just a pain and not actually unsound. Just make it impossible instead of incentivizing boring or annoying shit if you can't make the game robust enough to make it a choice instead of a no-brainer.

Does no one else get off on gameplay where you never intentionally make a strategic error? Just in some weird aesthetic sense it disappoints me. I thought it was a universal feeling.

 

[nomask7]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

Shouldn't epic heroes have epic collections of epic shit in their castles? What was the problem again? It seems to me you can't hold more than one thought in your mind at the same time. (BTW, did anyone mention rare badasses can sometimes steal YOUR shit? The game would automatically update all of your related save games, so you couldn't reload. You could try to hunt the badasses down tho.)

 

[roll-a-die]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

Shouldn't epic heroes have epic collections of epic shit in their castles? What was the problem again? It seems to me you can't hold more than one thought in your mind at the same time. (BTW, did anyone mention rare badasses can sometimes steal YOUR shit? The game would automatically update all of your related save games, so you couldn't reload. You could try to hunt the badasses down tho.)

Nomask, quit posting while you're high. He's saying exactly what you said. High level characters should have high level items, they just shouldn't face masses of other high level enemies. Honestly after about 20 I grew out of that style DMing, and instead moved to giving my players more choice in ways to affect the world and more difficult skill checks. And if they came up against some opposition, have it be hordes of low - mid level enemies with rare high level creeps/groups as bosses. It's actually quite a bit more enjoyable at epic levels than, "Your opponents are 22 lesser liches, an archmage and 10 giant Diamond Golems, also 2 rust monsters" every encounter.

Epic Characters should have more consequences for their actions, both good and bad. Consequently they should face high level opposition, but that opposition should be restricted to rare instances. High level characters should feel high level, when you facing other groups of high level enemies, you don't feel high level, it's more of a, "Same Mook Different Day," kind of thing. Remember how you complain about Oblivion's level scaling, it's exactly those reasons you can find in there, that you find in the high level mobs for high level characters DMing style.

 

[Achilles]

Morrowind has scaling and a compass though?

Even if it had scaling it was pretty well hidden.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Do you remember seeing those annoying flying dinosaurs until lvl 5 or so? After you reach that plank, you see them everywhere goddamnit! Is it "well hidden"?

I just love how people here are always polite . Anyway, to your point: You are correct. Cliff Racers were fucking annoying, but other than that I never found level scaling to be a problem with Morrowind. Plus the mod to remove them was one of the first to come out, so I don't think it was such a big deal.

 

[nomask7]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

Shouldn't epic heroes have epic collections of epic shit in their castles? What was the problem again? It seems to me you can't hold more than one thought in your mind at the same time. (BTW, did anyone mention rare badasses can sometimes steal YOUR shit? The game would automatically update all of your related save games, so you couldn't reload. You could try to hunt the badasses down tho.)

He's saying exactly what you said.

I know. That's why I asked sarcastically what the problem was. There was no problem, other than game publishers publishing unreal shit. Yet this guy spent a lot of time arguing against realistic loot, which to me seemed weird and counter-productive if he wanted to promote quality in RPGs.

 

[roll-a-die]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

Shouldn't epic heroes have epic collections of epic shit in their castles? What was the problem again? It seems to me you can't hold more than one thought in your mind at the same time. (BTW, did anyone mention rare badasses can sometimes steal YOUR shit? The game would automatically update all of your related save games, so you couldn't reload. You could try to hunt the badasses down tho.)

He's saying exactly what you said.

I know. That's why I asked sarcastically what the problem was. There was no problem, other than game publishers publishing unreal shit. Yet this guy spent a lot of time arguing against realistic loot, which to me seemed weird and counter-productive if he wanted to promote quality in RPGs.

Ah, OK, I didn't realize it was snark. It seemed like you were completely missing the point. Sorry.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

One thing about loot. At certain point, PC should be able to spend considerable amounts of money on real estate, military units, bribes, etc.
Similarly magic items could be used as rewards for PC lieutenants.

 

[Selenti]

Well, it's a game first and foremost. Even if not every skilled adventurer would just become a ruler or something, it's best to end it before the game devolves into "You meet 12 ancient red dragons and 30 elder vampires. Yawn".

I guess it's a better idea to have just NPCs acting as walking death machines.

Nah, I dislike it when there seem to be endless numbers of super-powerful monsters/npcs when you reach epic levels. I think the encounters at that point should be few, but really crazy.

Besides it seems that the monty haul tradition of epic levels is really just lazy (it's easier to just upgrade the monsters then think through how things would work at that level). You can not only have political and hack-and-slash gameplay coexist at epic levels, it makes more sense for them to do so. A dragonslayer turned baron may spend a lot of his time ruling, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still get out on the battlefield when shit hits the fan.

Shouldn't epic heroes have epic collections of epic shit in their castles? What was the problem again? It seems to me you can't hold more than one thought in your mind at the same time. (BTW, did anyone mention rare badasses can sometimes steal YOUR shit? The game would automatically update all of your related save games, so you couldn't reload. You could try to hunt the badasses down tho.)

He's saying exactly what you said.

I know. That's why I asked sarcastically what the problem was. There was no problem, other than game publishers publishing unreal shit. Yet this guy spent a lot of time arguing against realistic loot, which to me seemed weird and counter-productive if he wanted to promote quality in RPGs.

I was about to say "we all seem to agree on major points", but I think a lot of people here underestimate some of the issues. It's like there's this general trend of "this is that's wrong," then hand-waving and "fix it" instead of *how* to fix it, I already pointed out some obvious alternative problems with various fixes.

I think ultimately it comes down to good (and time-consuming) design, and most single-player developers have no reason to spend time on truly great design when they can spend it on art or other assets. Blizzard is the only devhouse that consistently designs things well that I can think of, no matter what you think of their style.

 

[Coyote]

My concern with that as an armchair designer is not that it gives the player that loot for *wearing*, but if they don't want it, it just adds a ton of easy money into the game, provided they can sell it and it's worth a lot (which both make sense).

Well obviously when you go that route (or any route) you'd have to balance the design choice with other choices. So perhaps a more "realistic" weight limit.

To me, that creates two possible results:

a) the person is just so annoyed they only grab one or two things, never come back

b) the person keeps coming back to get it all, and we're back at square one. The only solution I see there is to make the items just not worth much (which I think makes the world less compelling) or merchants just don't have enough money to buy much (which is just plain annoying, again).

I personally liked how The Witcher handled this: you could only carry what a person would realistically be able to carry while fighting monsters, running across the countryside, and doing other adventurer-style activities. You could hold the armor on your back and three or four weapons, but that was it in terms of equipment. One addition to this might be to make drops in populated areas quickly disappear, while stuff you find in deep, mostly-unexplored dungeons would take a longer time to go.

Another possibility, depending on the nature of the game, would be to limit a player's ability to sell based on in-game factions, reputations, etc. For example, if you were carrying a bunch of valuable armor, you might become a more tempting target for bandits - who, ideally, could quickly overwhelm even a powerful player through numbers and tactical ambushes, leaving him no choice but to drop the goods and run. Or perhaps it would be difficult to sell, with honorable vendors rejecting it because they suspect foul play must have been involved in acquiring it, and shadier vendors wearing down the player and forcing him to accept a low price. (PC: "15 gold for the lot? Do you take me for a fool?" NPC: "You should be grateful that I'm paying you at all. This armor bears the markings of House Valenti. How about I stroll on down to Lord Botswood's manor and let him know that you've been robbing the corpses of his liege lord's knights, maybe even doing them in yourself? No, I think you'll accept whatever price I offer.")

Or armor could rapidly decrease in value with damage, forcing the player to hire an expensive, high-end smith to repair expensive, high-end arms and armor in order to make any profit (presumably high-end foes would require additional resources to defeat). This would require very little effort on the part of the devs, and also encourage hard decisions on the part of the player when it comes to allocating resources, since getting your equipment repaired to 100% whenever restocking in town would no longer be a given.

TL;DR: There's plenty of ways to deal with the issue; it only requires a bit of creativity. The problem isn't coming up with a way to keep the game's economy in check, it's that companies aren't willing to put effort into something that will please (some) hardcore gamers at the expense of most likely frustrating the majority of their customers.

 

[AnalogKid]

Think about the facts of your typical fantasy adventurer gameworld:

- Lots of high-level "badasses" that will steal anything they want, or kill for it. (incl. the player)
- Presumably a limited amount of bad-ass loot (else not rare -> cheap)
- Merchants would _never_ buy such rare items, because the badasses would just come kill them or steal from them!

Thus, you have two economies, one with gold and items that your typical badass doesn't want to spend time hauling around (e.g. 100's of suits of chainmail), and a second one of quite literally "priceless" rare items that no one will buy because it would be the worst investment ever (probably leading to their death). The player would basically have to barter with other bad-ass groups to trade rare loot that they can't use for something they can. If the player tries to hoard rare loot in their keep, or the floor of their inn room (ala morrowind), it should get stolen!

This would allow the gameworld to have consistent, believable high-level opponents with good gear that is completely available after their defeat without having the player hoard it to break the normal economy. No point in hauling it around if no one'll buy it, and no point in trying to stash it if you're a world-renowned treasure hunter with 100's of "ambulance chasers" following you waiting for you to go to sleep so they can steal your unguarded shit. Why do you think the lost foo of bar was left behind in a cave in the first place? Anything the player does to NPCs in the gameworld, NPCs should be doing to the player.

Bottom line is that rare items circulate amongst powerful individuals. They don't get bought by pawn shops so the player can steal them back! I wouldn't even mind an encounter where some serious kick-ass dude comes and threatens the player: "I heard you found the lost foo of bar, if you give it to me now I'll let you live." This would allow the player to use the foo for a while and taste its power, but then lose it which would restore game balance and also create an obvious motivation for revenge, which would further involve the player in the game.

I also believe that merchants should have limited money, and it should have weight. Even if you were willing to go back and forth and lug the 100 suits of chain from your last battlefield to the local smithy (without anyone else scavanging along with you), then what? He can only buy so many, and when he pays you, you then have to lug all the gold around or else stash it and come back later to find out you've been the subject of an NPC's "hidden stash" quest! If you don't want to limit merchant money, then limit their inventory space, so the smith will only buy 10 suits of armor before saying "sorry, I've got more than I think I can sell right now, I don't want to buy any more".

Of course the game fiction would have to be clear about all this so it's not a surprise to the player (especially shit getting stolen!). But nothing about it would be annoying to me, personally, as long as I understood that's how the world works. And it _is_ how any such world _should_ work!

All of the "that's not fun" arguments are just the result of today's dumbass players who've mis-spent their youths sucking the teat of hampster-wheel MMO grind mechanics. The enemy is the bullshit mantra of "no betrayals", and "players don't like bad things to happen". 11-year olds don't like to lose their lolipops, but all good stories are based on loss and overcoming obstacles. Arbitrary penalties that the player can't see coming suck, but when you're 2nd level and walking around with a full set of glass armor in a world of mercenaries, thieves, and assassins, the fact that nobody mugs you for your shit is actually a game-breaking non-event!

Overcoming challenges is what's fun, and that can only be done if there are challenges in the first place! That's why all forms of continuous level-scaling are crap. Stop designing games for pre-teen dumbfucks, build a self-consistent gameworld, educate the player about how it works, and he will stop being anal about loot-hoarding and start actually playing the game and having fun (assuming the game is worth playing).

 

[nomask7]

it's that companies aren't willing to put effort into something that will please (some) hardcore gamers at the expense of most likely frustrating the majority of their customers.

It's not that. It's that the top positions of such companies usually go to people whose brains have been eaten by money and cliches about money.

How do you know, how does anyone know, that something approaching a consistent, sane loot system and economy would frustrate the majority of the audience? No one has attempted to sell such stuff to the mass market accompanied by the appropriate hype and bribe.

And didn't Oblivion's level-scaling of loot frustrate the majority? I think it did; otherwise, Bethesda wouldn't have scrapped it as soon as they could in Fallout 3. How about the camera of NWN2 or the performance of Gothic 3? Right. The companies are quite capable of frustrating the majority of their customers whenever they THINK it doesn't get in the way of business.

Hype and sell. Make crap. Hype and sell. Why not make something that's not crap? Then hype and sell. That was the problem with MotB, not that it was too intelligent for its audience, but that it wasn't hyped enough so that it would've sold more.

(As the examples I brought up show: doesn't matter if the customers are annoyed AFTER they have bought the product. I mean, as long as you follow their wishes in your next game. Then you can fuck them in the ass in the next one after that. Then repeat. Just make the ass-raping enjoyable to watch and we're on the same page.)

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Conceptually, money is just a measure of players success in game. Money in games isn't subjected to economy as we know it because it's an abstract value - it's basically player's score.
It's just like collecting coins in platformers for higher score. You can keep the gold, therefore increasing your score or spend it on items that help you to lower the difficulty of the game, therefore decreasing the score.

It's a game. Creating a game where you can't sell all loot and can't carry unlimited amounts of money would be a bad design. Money is just the players score, it shouldn't weight anything.
Merchants should have unlimited amount of money, otherwise players wouldn't be able to convert the unwanted items into a higher score, which would be frustrating for every player.

 

[nomask7]

Conceptually, money is just a measure of players success in game. Money in games isn't subjected to economy as we know it because it's an abstract value - it's basically player's score.
It's just like collecting coins in platformers for higher score. You can keep the gold, therefore increasing your score or spend it on items that help you to lower the difficulty of the game, therefore decreasing the score.

It's a game. Creating a game where you can't sell all loot and can't carry unlimited amounts of money would be a bad design. Money is just the players score, it shouldn't weight anything.
Merchants should have unlimited amount of money, otherwise players wouldn't be able to convert the unwanted items into a higher score, which would be frustrating for every player.

If that's what the designers intended, then sure. But how the fuck does that apply to RPGs where money isn't just a player score?

 

[GarfunkeL]

One thing about loot. At certain point, PC should be able to spend considerable amounts of money on real estate, military units, bribes, etc.
Similarly magic items could be used as rewards for PC lieutenants.

YES! Epic levels should transform the game from dungeon-crawling/saving the maiden/slaying the dragon into political intrigue/strategy game where the PC just cannot be everywhere so he has to build up a network of spies, a stronghold, an army, trusted allies and henchmen and equip them out.

Now those +1 swords you found earlier but had no use for are really useful!

But no, instead it's just fucked up, like in F3 with its beefed-up super-dupermutants and albino deathclaws etc.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Conceptually, money is just a measure of players success in game. Money in games isn't subjected to economy as we know it because it's an abstract value - it's basically player's score.
It's just like collecting coins in platformers for higher score. You can keep the gold, therefore increasing your score or spend it on items that help you to lower the difficulty of the game, therefore decreasing the score.

It's a game. Creating a game where you can't sell all loot and can't carry unlimited amounts of money would be a bad design. Money is just the players score, it shouldn't weight anything.
Merchants should have unlimited amount of money, otherwise players wouldn't be able to convert the unwanted items into a higher score, which would be frustrating for every player.

If that's what the designers intended, then sure. But how the fuck does that apply to RPGs where money isn't just a player score?

Money is always just a player score because cRPGs are games. If money isn't just a player score, then it's a bad design because it's not abstract enough and can be frustrating to players and may lead to situations where they can't accumulate a lot of loot and a very high score despite progressing in the game. Why punish players?

 

[Gerrard]

Conceptually, money is just a measure of players success in game. Money in games isn't subjected to economy as we know it because it's an abstract value - it's basically player's score.
It's just like collecting coins in platformers for higher score. You can keep the gold, therefore increasing your score or spend it on items that help you to lower the difficulty of the game, therefore decreasing the score.

It's a game. Creating a game where you can't sell all loot and can't carry unlimited amounts of money would be a bad design. Money is just the players score, it shouldn't weight anything.
Merchants should have unlimited amount of money, otherwise players wouldn't be able to convert the unwanted items into a higher score, which would be frustrating for every player.

Popamole.

 

[visions]

but when you're 2nd level and walking around with a full set of glass armor in a world of mercenaries, thieves, and assassins, the fact that nobody mugs you for your shit is actually a game-breaking non-event!

This would only make sense if the npc's knew that the pc is relatively green. Otherwise, I think the opposite should be true; if some petty thugs who don't know you see you walking around in glass armour, they won't want to mess with you, thinking that you are probably some kind of badass.

It annoyed me to no end in Morrowind that my high level character in full glass armour was constantly attacked by random low level thugs. Shouldn't the equipment give away that the pc is someone they probably do not want to mess with, lest they end up dead? And even if you wouldn't actually be high level, low-level thugs could be intimidated by your high-end equipment, thinking that you are tougher than you really are.

 

[nomask7]

CRPGs are in their infancy, and I'm worried they will never become adults. I'm young enough and easily-bored enough to have a lot of investment in their future. Let's forget the popamole shit, and instead focus on promoting interesting CRPG design, which can include implementing a realistic economy. Compared with what is possible in the future, the CRPGs so far published are embarrassing crap. To game designers and publishers: take a wider view of your working lives and your lives in general. I know you get a boner from scamming young idiots by selling them crap, but you can get an even better boner by tricking them into buying something that's too intelligent for them, if only because variety is the spice of life and it takes a little bit of talent to make anyone buy intelligent stuff. Prove to yourselves you have talent unlike 99.999% of humanity. Nothing gives you a boner bigger than that. Trust me. I know.