Design lessons I've learned from games.

[K]

Any player of RPGs has played a lot of RPGs both in tabletop and video game form.

Here are some the lessons I've learned:

DnD-style “stat-only” fighters are viable only if magic users can't get armor (or armor-like defenses) and they can't summon monsters. (DnD Basic set)

If stores have magic items and they can be robbed, they will be robbed (Morrowind).

Magic items made from a list qualities are fine if sold in stores, but people only care about unique items (Diablo II).

If everyone in party can't sneak, then no one can (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games).

Playing “gotta catch 'em all” is fun with powers, but not fun with items for creation or quests . (Blue Mages from various versions of Final Fantasy, DnD Wizards, Pokemon, Everquest).

Once you know what an enemy can do in combat, actual combat is just a grind and not exciting (every game, evar.)

Dying is dramatic; afterlives are not (DnD cosmology).

Small bonuses are not the same as real abilities (DnD 3rd edition).

If settings are low power enough, they don't have to make sense (Shadowrun).

Rock-paper-scissors game design makes adventure design a pain in the ass (DnD 3rd edition).

Realistic game distances only works in video games, and not on battlemats (every tabletop RPG vs, every video game RPG).

If you reward people for killing a monster, they will always seek to kill monsters, even if those monsters are waving a flag of peace (Every monster-death=XP system ever).

People want to customize ... a lot.... with everything from character abilities to equipment to race (every RPG ever).

There is no way to avoid game mastery without removing all consequences of choice (DnD 4th edition).

There is a demon lord or dark god at the end of almost every adventure path (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games, Paizo adventures).

Buffing routines that involve more than 2-3 spells get boring really fast. (Neverwinter Nights games, Final Fantasy XI).

People don't actually use maps of cities, but they will use maps of countries (Forgotten Realms).

People really enjoy “playing house” with their stronghold, even if it has no game effect (Final Fantasy XI, my DnD games).

Heroes don't feel like heroes if they hunt rats (every MMO).

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

People like to get abilities from adventures that are outside the level system (Paizo's adventures).

Randomly created dungeons are as good as meticulously designed ones when you do hack-n-slash (every nethack clone ever, original Diablo).

[Maxus]

Any player of RPGs has played a lot of RPGs both in tabletop and video game form.

Here are some the lessons I've learned:

DnD-style “stat-only” fighters are viable only if magic users can't get armor (or armor-like defenses) and they can't summon monsters. (DnD Basic set)

If stores have magic items and they can be robbed, they will be robbed (Morrowind).

Magic items made from a list qualities are fine if sold in stores, but people only care about unique items (Diablo II).

If everyone in party can't sneak, then no one can (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games).

Playing “gotta catch 'em all” is fun with powers, but not fun with items for creation or quests . (Blue Mages from various versions of Final Fantasy, DnD Wizards, Pokemon, Everquest).

Once you know what an enemy can do in combat, actual combat is just a grind and not exciting (every game, evar.)

Dying is dramatic; afterlives are not (DnD cosmology).

Small bonuses are not the same as real abilities (DnD 3rd edition).

If settings are low power enough, they don't have to make sense (Shadowrun).

Rock-paper-scissors game design makes adventure design a pain in the ass (DnD 3rd edition).

Realistic game distances only works in video games, and not on battlemats (every tabletop RPG vs, every video game RPG).

If you reward people for killing a monster, they will always seek to kill monsters, even if those monsters are waving a flag of peace (Every monster-death=XP system ever).

People want to customize ... a lot.... with everything from character abilities to equipment to race (every RPG ever).

There is no way to avoid game mastery without removing all consequences of choice (DnD 4th edition).

There is a demon lord or dark god at the end of almost every adventure path (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games, Paizo adventures).

Buffing routines that involve more than 2-3 spells get boring really fast. (Neverwinter Nights games, Final Fantasy XI).

People don't actually use maps of cities, but they will use maps of countries (Forgotten Realms).

People really enjoy “playing house” with their stronghold, even if it has no game effect (Final Fantasy XI, my DnD games).

Heroes don't feel like heroes if they hunt rats (every MMO).

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

People like to get abilities from adventures that are outside the level system (Paizo's adventures).

Randomly created dungeons are as good as meticulously designed ones when you do hack-n-slash (every nethack clone ever, original Diablo).

The "Playing House" one is disturbingly accurate. I spent an hour or two scouting out locations for my secret base in Ruby version, and even longer getting the stuff to outfit The Perfect Base.

Also, I can testify that people on the Star Wars MMORPG maintain and decorate elaborate houses and bars and stuff. I know. I visited my cousin while he was putting stuff up in his basement.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I agree with most of what was said. I'll just list the ones I didn't agree with.

Once you know what an enemy can do in combat, actual combat is just a grind and not exciting (every game, evar.)

Buffing routines that involve more than 2-3 spells get boring really fast. (Neverwinter Nights games, Final Fantasy XI).

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

Randomly created dungeons are as good as meticulously designed ones when you do hack-n-slash (every nethack clone ever, original Diablo).

By your standards, every game of Chess ever has been a grind, and not exciting. If you don't know what an enemy can do, you can't have tactics or strategy. That is not desirable in an Rp combat game. If you know what an enemy can do, there is still excitement in reacting to what he will do. Even if you know what he will do, it is still exciting to see if he succeeds.

Any buffing at all is boring.

Once a society can't hurt a character, they lose their fear of that society. Respect is different. Dependant upon ideologies, alliances, disagreements, etc, respect may or may not exist.

I'm not sure about randomly created dungeons being the equal of designed ones. Certainly this is not true when some types of designed dungeons cannot be replicated by your generator. Given a tabletop Rpg, it seems nearly impossible to create a dungeon generator that can create as many situations as a human mind.

[Koumei]

The main one I disagree with is the respect for society:

In my experience, players tend to only respect/care about those far weaker than them. They have a sense of "If it can't kick my arse, I should protect it, or vaguely look after it. At the very least they might beg me to do a quest for them. If it CAN kick my arse, then that sounds like the chime of XP."

Which is why they never agree to join/serve the dark lord and instead throw a sock full of half-brick at him, whereas they do go into the forest to find the magical mushrooms of disease curing for the poor sick peasant family.

[Talisman]

If everyone in party can't sneak, then no one can (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games).

Only if the goal is to sneak past something. Single-character sneakery works great for recon.

Once you know what an enemy can do in combat, actual combat is just a grind and not exciting (every game, evar.)

I'm going to have to disgree with you here. Battles are made of terrain, tactics and power; enemy special abilities are a factor, but not the only one...otherwise you could only ever fight a given type of enemy once.

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

Both true and untrue; it depends heavily on the player. Koumei's post is certainly valid here.

I have one player who wants his PC to be "cool." He refers to NPCs (unless they're obviously in a superior position) as "peons" and talks about how "there's literally nothing they can do to stop us" until I want to have a mob of commoners grapple him and throw him down a hole. He also refuses to respect an enemy, ever, for any reason.

The rest of my game crew tends to respect the in-game society appropriate to their character's view (i.e., very respectful for the noble paladin, not so much for the outcast thief).

Aside from that, I agree with most of what you say.

[K]

If everyone in party can't sneak, then no one can (Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights games).

Only if the goal is to sneak past something. Single-character sneakery works great for recon.

Yeh, that usually involves a dead rogue.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but I've seen it too many times.

Once you know what an enemy can do in combat, actual combat is just a grind and not exciting (every game, evar.)

I'm going to have to disgree with you here. Battles are made of terrain, tactics and power; enemy special abilities are a factor, but not the only one...otherwise you could only ever fight a given type of enemy once.

Right. Exactly.

Play through Neverwinter Nights. Except for a few endurance grinds where you are invading a building or an area is designed with regenerating grind areas to keep you from resting, you really don't face the same things twice.

Every area has a new monsters because monsters are not tactically interesting, so once the surprise is over the fun is over. Sure, some monsters have save or dies or something super-dangerous like energy drain so they are always exciting even if they aren't tactically interesting, but that get's old. Even new terrain gets old.

Basically, Chess is boring which is why old men in the park play it and gamers don't. Games like card cames add random card choices to add tactical choices, but RPGs use huge variety of monsters so that you can't remember what any particular thing does (see the huge number of monsters in Monster Manuals in every edition of the game, and tacked onto almost every adventure and sourcebook published).

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

Both true and untrue; it depends heavily on the player. Koumei's post is certainly valid here.

I have one player who wants his PC to be "cool." He refers to NPCs (unless they're obviously in a superior position) as "peons" and talks about how "there's literally nothing they can do to stop us" until I want to have a mob of commoners grapple him and throw him down a hole. He also refuses to respect an enemy, ever, for any reason.

The rest of my game crew tends to respect the in-game society appropriate to their character's view (i.e., very respectful for the noble paladin, not so much for the outcast thief).

I've seen enough characters go rogue, talk back to the quest giver, and decide that high treason was a good idea. Sure, they save small children because that's quest XP, but that's not the point.

Maybe my friends are douchebags. I know that there is documented evidence that I'm one.

[Koumei]

Maybe my friends are douchebags.

It's looking like that's the case.

I know that there is documented evidence that I'm one.

Pfft. The same can be said for nearly everyone here. Except me. I'm perfect.

[schpeelah]

If you reward people for killing a monster, they will always seek to kill monsters, even if those monsters are waving a flag of peace (Every monster-death=XP system ever).

Exept when you can expect an equal or greater reward for not killing someone that is not meant to be killed, or when the reward for such a kill is too small it's not worth your time (Planescape:Torment).

[Cynic]

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD)..

Am I the only one who agrees with this?

Sure there needs to be morality reasons why a character for some odd reason should have respect for society but some sense of 'nihilism' (possibly the wrong word -- it's 4AM) does take over and the player loses respect for the society within the game.

For example, I've been playing in a planescape game run by Virgileso for the last couple of months.

One of the party members got a faction quest (revolutionary league) to go upset the status quo in some society/government. We were level 9. The quest was basically so that we'd have a safe gate into and out of Carceri. This goal is obviously also accomplished with several thousand gold. Knowing all this, Virgileso assumed we'd tread this as a simple quest and take out some small king in some backwater prime plane. We didn't. At first we thought we'd try to take out a society of Neogi who were pretty damned powerful in that they were the trading hub on a prime and they dealt with illithids, aboleths, beholders, and two different borg collectives. So they were powerful. Granted they were also slave-traders and we had githzerai in the party. So with this in mind, we fucked with them because we didn't respect them. At first it was only because we thought them to be low people. But after a month of skirmishes of taking out their caravans of slaves and such. We realized that they couldn't harm us. This disdain became disrespect.
~

So, yes, I agree with K in the fact that once society as a whole seems unlikely to hurt the party, the party will stop respecting society.

Others have said that this isn't respect but fear. This could be different for each party or each situation, mind you. We could have the loss of fear, respect, or insert-other-obligatory-emotional-or-cultural-need.

[virgil]

Oh, I agree with this as well. This is human nature, as we are notorious for producing individuals who hold a total lack of respect when the institution/person holds no threat to them, both in fiction and RL.

The ability to rob merchants of their magic items is a part of this, as the players will quickly lose respect for the merchant once they can choose to obtain his wares through means other than the exchange of goods and services.

[Koumei]

This is human nature, as we are notorious for producing individuals who hold a total lack of respect when the institution/person holds no threat to them, both in fiction and RL.

I believe that is what we call a sociopath - one who does not form emotional bonds and only goes out of their way to obey a law when they can't get away with not doing so.

[Roy]

This is human nature, as we are notorious for producing individuals who hold a total lack of respect when the institution/person holds no threat to them, both in fiction and RL.

I believe that is what we call a sociopath - one who does not form emotional bonds and only goes out of their way to obey a law when they can't get away with not doing so.

And sociopath is a synonym for adventurer.

[virgil]

It doesn't have to be a pathological condition like sociopathy to make you a criminal where you don't respect an institution.

As for interpersonal relations, it's stupidly easy to fall into sociopathic behaviors in an RPG, because forming emotional bonds with characters in a game is unhealthy. The way to prevent that is to try to look at a game from a storytelling/acting perspective, and not everybody is into that (lack of interest/ability).

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Uh, yeah, D&D is full of said characters from both the players', GM's, and storytelling ends on both the hero and villain side of the fence who define the image of sociopath.

You confront creatures who are not restrained by normal laws and can't be dealt with by society. Their only motivations are morals or instincts. That's the whole point of the game. That's why you fight 'monsters' in this game. They're creatures who can't be controlled by society and do bad shit for survival or comfort.

Considering that the alternative is to either have a game where everyone is equal amounts of awesome and socially equitable for all time, which hasn't been invented yet and probably never will be, or to skulk around the shadows and pray society never notices you, this is where the game ends up.

Mind, I wish there was a goal (or at least an option) in D&D where you crush the forces of racial superiority and magic underneath your heel and start a stable society. But I'm not so sure what's so shocking or revolutionary or even novel about this thought.

[RandomCasualty2]

Basically, Chess is boring which is why old men in the park play it and gamers don't.

I play chess and I think it's a great game.

The idea that you constantly need lots of new abilities is just a crutch to cover up a system with low tactical depth. If your combat system is interesting and deep you should not need lots of extra abilities. Granted these things can make the game more interesting at times, but if your game is dull without them, then that says the game itself is pretty boring.

[Roy]

Ok then. So how do you deal with changing circumstances? For example, a D&D archer is useless without heavy specialization and certain specific builds. So if you're a melee guy, and the enemy is out of melee range... what? You fall back on your weak bow?

[baduin]

You play some other, better designed game?

[RandomCasualty2]

Ok then. So how do you deal with changing circumstances? For example, a D&D archer is useless without heavy specialization and certain specific builds. So if you're a melee guy, and the enemy is out of melee range... what? You fall back on your weak bow?

Well, this is an example of a poorly designed combat system (at least for fighters). You have one gimmick. Melee. If you can't melee you're basically stuck to either finding cover or just dying. As a fighter you don't have many great options, period. Even once you close in melee, generally it's just about hitting something with your biggest attack and hoping that it drops it.

[Roy]

Well, it's not just Fighters. It's anyone that lacks magic. But yeah.

[JonSetanta]

I agree with most except these:


Rock-paper-scissors game design makes adventure design a pain in the ass (DnD 3rd edition).


It can work if all characters have at least a 2 out of the 3 options, and 'winning' the match doesn't guarantee winning the encounter; you win just for that round and could possibly lose it the next (no Rock Monsters vs. Scizzors Players, for instance.. as Gygax would do it).
3e does similar with the (supposed) coin-toss mechanism of d20+# vs 10+3 although it never works out evenly thanks to bad implementation of all Paper Wizards and Rock Fighters.

People want to customize ... a lot.... with everything from character abilities to equipment to race (every RPG ever).

Not everyone. Some players are just... boring. Or conformist. Or diehard oldschool roleplayers screaming "Mary Sue!" at anyone giving their character blue hair and a giant sword.


Heroes don't feel like heroes if they hunt rats (every MMO).

Big rats.
Big Abyssal rats with acid drool and disease.


People like to get abilities from adventures that are outside the level system (Paizo's adventures).


Once again, not everyone. Personally I hate receiving that shit and giving it out as DM. Breaks the game, and that's no fun.

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

Well. That's a bit nihilistic. Some people are still altruistic even with extreme power simply because they chose to be.
Superman syndrome, and whatnot.
On average, though, I agree; many characters (and players) would quickly disintegrate a setting in to a matchup of Immortal vs. The People, becoming yet another dark overlord despot for new heroes to overthrow.
It's the cycle of RPG life.



And one suggestion:

"If everyone in party can't sneak, then no one can"
change to
"If any individual in a party can't sneak, no one can"

[MartinHarper]

I think a simple random dungeon generator can easily create all the situations you need from a hack-and-slash dungeon. Attacked on one side, attacked on two sides, surrounded, tight corridors, wide spaces, choke points, etc.

Both diablo and nethack had some non-random levels. At a guess, for nethack this was a limitation of the technology, and for diablo, this was to make boss difficulty less random.

[K]

I agree with most except these:


Rock-paper-scissors game design makes adventure design a pain in the ass (DnD 3rd edition).


It can work if all characters have at least a 2 out of the 3 options, and 'winning' the match doesn't guarantee winning the encounter; you win just for that round and could possibly lose it the next (no Rock Monsters vs. Scizzors Players, for instance.. as Gygax would do it).
3e does similar with the (supposed) coin-toss mechanism of d20+# vs 10+3 although it never works out evenly thanks to bad implementation of all Paper Wizards and Rock Fighters.

That's not quite what I meant.

I was talking about the fact that adventures in 3e are designed so that everyone has a chance to use their unique schtick and everyone has completely different roles and abilities. For example, if your schtick is party face then adventures that involve fighting zombie hordes have you twittling your thumbs but the healer is happy and useful, while a mystery adventure with lots of interviews and combats stretched between days or weeks has the healer feeling like a third wheel.

3e Adventure design guidelines used to have lists of all the things that you should include in your adventure so that people could have a chance to shine. This led to one undead per adventure for clerical turning, one trapped and locked box for the rogue, and a few standing magical effects for the Wizard to interact with, and other assorted zaniness.

Sure, there was some overlap. The undead who could be turned could be killed too and the trapped chest could just be smashed open, but it overall led to very unorganic and hard to write adventures.

High level adventures are almost impossible to write simply because your party can range from the pack of barbarians who are challenged by pit traps to the cabal of spellcasters who can open gates to active volcanos and flood enemy fortresses with red-hot lava.

People want to customize ... a lot.... with everything from character abilities to equipment to race (every RPG ever).

Not everyone. Some players are just... boring. Or conformist. Or diehard oldschool roleplayers screaming "Mary Sue!" at anyone giving their character blue hair and a giant sword.


Heroes don't feel like heroes if they hunt rats (every MMO).

Big rats.
Big Abyssal rats with acid drool and disease.


People like to get abilities from adventures that are outside the level system (Paizo's adventures).


Once again, not everyone. Personally I hate receiving that shit and giving it out as DM. Breaks the game, and that's no fun.

Once society can't hurt a character, they lose all respect for society (DnD).

Well. That's a bit nihilistic. Some people are still altruistic even with extreme power simply because they chose to be.
Superman syndrome, and whatnot.
On average, though, I agree; many characters (and players) would quickly disintegrate a setting in to a matchup of Immortal vs. The People, becoming yet another dark overlord despot for new heroes to overthrow.
It's the cycle of RPG life.

Exceptions don't disprove a general rule, they can just prove that they are exceptions to that rule.

These are just general rules, so of course there are exceptions. I've seen a lot of people not break RPGs when they could or they played in a better way than the rules allowed, so I don't discount the "mature player" defense.

[K]

I think a simple random dungeon generator can easily create all the situations you need from a hack-and-slash dungeon. Attacked on one side, attacked on two sides, surrounded, tight corridors, wide spaces, choke points, etc.

Both diablo and nethack had some non-random levels. At a guess, for nethack this was a limitation of the technology, and for diablo, this was to make boss difficulty less random.

That's my opinion. Hack n' slash as a form of play really does lend itself to random dungeons while RP-style play really needs every supply closet to be intelligently placed.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think a simple random dungeon generator can easily create all the situations you need from a hack-and-slash dungeon. Attacked on one side, attacked on two sides, surrounded, tight corridors, wide spaces, choke points, etc.

Both diablo and nethack had some non-random levels. At a guess, for nethack this was a limitation of the technology, and for diablo, this was to make boss difficulty less random.

That's my opinion. Hack n' slash as a form of play really does lend itself to random dungeons while RP-style play really needs every supply closet to be intelligently placed.

I third that opinion. I was just talking with a friend about how a chase mechanic could actually be made as a random 'dungeon' generator, with characters dropping location and maneuver cards as they go along.
I don't much like mixing cards with RPGs, but pseudorandom dungeon generation is great.

[Maxus]

I think a simple random dungeon generator can easily create all the situations you need from a hack-and-slash dungeon. Attacked on one side, attacked on two sides, surrounded, tight corridors, wide spaces, choke points, etc.

Both diablo and nethack had some non-random levels. At a guess, for nethack this was a limitation of the technology, and for diablo, this was to make boss difficulty less random.

That's my opinion. Hack n' slash as a form of play really does lend itself to random dungeons while RP-style play really needs every supply closet to be intelligently placed.

I third that opinion. I was just talking with a friend about how a chase mechanic could actually be made as a random 'dungeon' generator, with characters dropping location and maneuver cards as they go along.
I don't much like mixing cards with RPGs, but pseudorandom dungeon generation is great.

Speaking of which...

http://direpress.bin.sh/tools/