Limorkil said:
To some extent I agree with your reasoning, but the counter argument is that the 2x/3x increases are normal and that only powergamers want the 5x increases. This is the "Bethesda defense" and I don't totally agree with it, but I see the point.
I've seen that argument many times.
What it means is this: Some players won't mind at all that the design sucks.
It does not mean this: The design doesn't suck.
I've had words with GhanBuriGhan on this subject. He's a thinking person whom I respect, but maintains that this issue never bothered him. That's fine.
It still doesn't make the design good. (or even passable)
Problems with the Bethesda "reasoning" I see are the following:
(1) Assumes there are powergamers and non-powergamers, rather than a continuum of player types: Nonsense.
(2) Assumes that a player who focuses on getting 5x multipliers actually enjoys this: Nonsense.
(3) Fails to acknowledge that the system can easily be improved for those who dislike it, without putting anyone off who already likes it.
In any case, the "powergaming" argument is still nonsense.
The same argument could apply to this "design" idea:
Let's put all the most powerful weapons in the first room. That way the powergaming players will pick them up and enjoy them (they wouldn't do it if they didn't enjoy it right??), while other players can just walk past them if they like.
Everyone is happy!!
Or this one:
Let's use an xp system, and start the game in a small room with an infinite supply of easily killable enemies. That way the powergamers can stay there as long as they want and increase their level (they wouldn't do it if they weren't enjoying it, right??), while other players can simply walk past.
Everyone is happy!!
The notion that a player will only do something that he enjoys is nonsense. If any player sees a situation where he believes certain actions are expected of him in order to make progress, he'll usually do them - even if they're not entertaining.
He'll also assume that the game isn't designed by fools - so if there's a room with a load of easy experience available, it'll be expected that he'll get much of it (again, even if it isn't entertaining).
Also, I'd argue that in most cases "powergaming" in an RPG simply consists in doing what is best for the player character (i.e. good sense / pragmatism). In the absense of any compelling role-playing reasons to do otherwise, that's exactly what most characters would do.
Many people argue that things like the following are powergaming, rather than role-playing, since "real" characters wouldn't do them:
Deciding when to sleep based on skill/level increase.
Deciding what skills to train based on eventual attribute increase.
Training endurance early to get health increase.
...
However, these are all things that people wouldn't do in a world similar to our own -
because they wouldn't be useful. Characters in Bethesda's world would learn over time that these things are useful.
They'd know from experience that focusing on about three skills at a time was a more effecitve means of self improvement than focusing on e.g. one or five skills - because in their world, this is the case.
They'd know that people who train hard physically early tend to end up more healthy, without losing out in terms of intelligence etc. - because in their world this is the case.
When a character lives in a world which has certain rules, he'll adapt to those rules - even when they are stupid/nonsense. Roleplaying should be about working within, and building upon the framework the game provides. It should NOT require wilful ignorance of parts of the system considered to be "powergaming" features, simply because they don't accord with the rules of our own world.
Sometimes, such situations might be difficult to avoid, but that's not the case here.
I can sum up a vast improvement in one sentence:
Attribute, magicka and health gain should be independent of the order of increase of skills.
Hardly rocket science. This removes all the ludicrous "when is it best to train this skill" nonsense at a stroke: it'll always be a good thing to improve in any skill, and won't matter whether you train A, then B then sleep; B then A then sleep; A then sleep then B...
The distinction between powergaming and roleplaying comes up most often when the following is true:
One action benefits the character most.
A different action seems like the action the character would take.
Given a pragmatic, non-retarded character (which I know is not always the case), I'd suggest that in an ideal design, the above should never happen. For a pragmatic character, the action (or range of possible actions) that appear to benefit him most should always seem like the sensible thing to do.
In an ideal design, roleplaying a pragmatic character, and powergaming should be the same thing.
What this does is connect the player to the character. All decision-making can happen in-character without any problem, since there is no "the player wants X, but the character ought to do Y" dichotomy.
Whenever this rule isn't followed in Morrowind, I'm forced to break character to make a decision. I pretty much always notice these situations, since that's how I think (and by extension, how my character most comfortably thinks) - in strategy games you're constantly looking for such an edge.
Once I notive, I need to make the decision "Do I do what benefits my character most, or do I do what seems sane?". This again brings up the thought "Surely if this benefits my character most, and he's pragmatic, then in this world it
is sane."
Usually I opt for the "powergaming" decision, but at this point my decision is irrelevant. I've already lost any sense of immersion I might have been experiencing, and am busy thinking "What monkey designed this shit!?".
The next issue I face is that Bethesda reasoning goes thus:
Powergamers enjoy the way they play, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
We need to entertain normal players, and allow powergamers to powergame.
This means that there's no consideration shown to making powergaming entertaining [as indeed there shouldn't be - it should be made equivalent to roleplaying]. In turn this means that deciding to do what is best for my character means I need to follow many absurd courses of action which aren't entertaining.
For instance: stopping quests halfway through in order to get training in the "right" skills before I gain a level; making sure to avoid increasing the "wrong" skills etc.
Clearly these sorts of action are stupid, but can't really be avoided except by roleplaying a character who wilfully decides to adopt sub-optimal courses of action. I don't mind playing such characters by choice (various personality quirks can be invented to this end), but I certainly shouldn't be forced to.
Using the Oblivion levelled NPCs as an example: At the same time, the normal player will start with about 40 strength and will probably increase it to about 80 by level 20, also in line with the levelled NPCs. On the other hand, the powergamer will probably have capped Blade skill at 100 and have 100 strength by level 20, thus drastically reducing the challenge.
Sure.
That just means the game assumes that you'll play "naturally", where "naturally" means "without any thought to game mechanics, even when they're thrown in your face every time you level".
Assuming that you can give various x2 and x3 bonuses at each level increase without the player thinking about them and adapting his play to them is stupid.
Assuming that players who do adapt in this way enjoy doing it is also stupid.
I quite agree that the best way to play Morrowind is to play naturally, without thinking about all of this (not sure on Oblivion, since apparently increasing non-combat skills a lot can leave you completely screwed). I also realize that this type of play is expected by the "designers" at Bethesda.
That doesn't make the design reasonable. It just means that it can still be possible for players with any pragmatism to enjoy things - provided they're willing play the entire game intentionally doing the "wrong" (i.e. non-pragmatic) thing.
My point is that Bethesda balanced the game assuming that the player gets the normal 2x/3x increases. This was also true in Morrowind.
Agreed.
It is only powergamers that would "need" to max out their character at every level.
This is clearly what they thought (if they thought), and it's garbage.
Every player has "powergaming" (read "pragmatic") tendencies. It's only a question of degree. Also, the vast majority of powergamers don't enjoy powergaming at the expense of good sense - they just do it because it seems a lesser evil than wilful ignorance of in-your-face game mechanics.
A more realistic criticism of Oblivion/Morrowind in this context is how all players end up with more or less the same character, even though there are many races and classes to choose from.
I totally agree - this is garbage too.
However, this is garbage
for an RPG. My above criticisms are garbage in any game.
The fact that every character ends up the same is pathetic, soulless RPG design that removes all character, turns everyone into superman, and removes replay value (assuming quests are linear, which indeed they are).
There is an argument that this isn't much of a problem, since most characters won't actually reach the point where everything is at 100. However, as soon as the player gets a charcater to 100 in everything, it becomes painfully clear that this is his destination.
Character levelling for the rest of the game becomes a quest for the ultimate in boring characters. That's not something to get inspired about.
Personally, I am not a fan of racial bonuses/aptitudes and class hybrids. Much of it just seems like cheap design.
Of course in Morrowind and Oblivion, that's because it is cheap design. It's a load of ill-thought-through crap.
However, I'm very keen on the idea of getting away from traditional archetypes, and using a versatile character system. It just needs to be done properly, and followed through throughout the game. Character choice in Morrowind is pretty trivial for 80% of the game. (perhaps less so in Oblivion, for all the wrong reasons)
.
