Leveled loot and monsters

Lumpy · Dec 27, 2005

How do you feel about leveled loot and leveled monsters? Are they a good thing or not? A counter-argument would be that leveling up has no point if the whole world levels up with you. You don't feel more powerful. A pro-argument would be that, without such a system, difficult dungeons are redundant early is the game, and easy dungeons become useless late in the game, because the rewards are too small and because the creatures are not challenging, therefore limiting the character to a small number of dungeons at all times.

Balor · Dec 27, 2005

They are undoubtely stupid... they CAN be a good thing, but stupid nonetheless.
And you know why? It stems from the stupidity of general stat systems in RPG.
I mean - begin as power equivalent of potplant, end as Godzilla.

Also, at first you get rusty swords you cannot kill yourself with, and end with magical artefacts that seem to rip apart space and time.

As long is such (also, undoubtely, rather stupid) systems exist - they will require levelled loot and monsters to provide most fun the player.

Lumpy · Dec 27, 2005

Balor said:
They are undoubtely stupid... they CAN be a good thing, but stupid nonetheless.
And you know why? It stems from the stupidity of general stat systems in RPG.
I mean - begin as power equivalent of potplant, end as Godzilla.

Also, at first you get rusty swords you cannot kill yourself with, and end with magical artefacts that seem to rip apart space and time.

As long is such (also, undoubtely, rather stupid) systems exist - they will require levelled loot and monsters to provide most fun the player.

I thought of that - leveling up was always unrealistic in RPGs. In one or two years, you leveled up from level 1 to about level 50. Then, the NPCs who have been adventuring from tens, even hundreds of years, should be at least level 5000.
Considering that most NPCs that have been fighting for, say, 30 years, are level 30, a realistic rate would be 1 level per year. Which would simply eliminate stat progression, an important feature of RPGs.

Zomg · Dec 27, 2005

Good post. I think the system has some attraction (let's expand the discussion to encompass all levelled lists, like levelled loot).

The traditional RPG methods have been zone-based lists (Darklands, Gold Box games, Final Fantasy, etc.) and hand placed content (Fallout (mostly), Gothic). They offer more tailored experiences, generally superior verisimmilitude, and content which expands with progression (meaning more content is effectively available to you at level 2 than at level 1, since you can go more places and do more things). The last point is useful because it gives increasing character power and equipment quality a context rather than being simple progression porn.

The levelled list method can theoretically retain balance at any point in the game and prevents "wasted" skipped content (since you can always go back). It also allows more freedom in the personal narrative of the character, since there is no necessary low potential "groove" to follow in progression (contrast with Darklands' pre-Raubritter phase). The system also prevents "I'll come back later." syndrome, where you go off and level up and then come back, which means the player can undermine any challenge by grinding away in some easier area.

The downsides are almost mirrored. Levelled lists lose context and the freedom gained is bought with a paucity of meaning, while zone-and-hand methods lose balance and uncircumventable challenges while preventing homogeneity. However, levelled list games to date have all been hybridized with zone-and-hand methods AFAIK. For example, Nethack is continuous merger of zone and levelled list, with both depth (a proxy for zone) and character level being considered in what loot and mobs are spawned. It also has a few hand placed challenges that act as "gatekeepers" between content, particularly the primarily static endgame which gatekeeps victory. I don't know how satisfying a theoretical pure levelled game could be.

Edit - This brings up the idea of other types of lists - say, time based or player-driven dynamic lists, of which I'd like to see more versions.

Atrokkus · Dec 27, 2005

In a hack-n-slash with RPG elements, this is a must, really.
Diablo2 proved that, and displayed a flawless implementation of such a system. This features contributed greately to teh challenge and fun value of higher acts and difficulty levels.

In a pure RPG, though, I'm against this "greenhouse effect".

Balor · Dec 27, 2005

Great post, Metallix.
Exactly my thoughts - it's great for stupid, heh, games - like action-RPGs where you don't care shit about immersion, realism and roleplay.
But otherwise...

Lumpy · Dec 27, 2005

I thought Daggerfall had this system, didn't it?

Imbecile · Dec 27, 2005

Logically it doesnt make much sense at all, but then as someone else pointed out logic hasnt been a a part of the levelling system for a long time.

Looking at it from a purely gameplay perspective, I reckon that a combination of levelled and non levelled has to be the way forward.

The levelled loot and monsters provide a constant challenge and reward. The fixed loot and monsters prevent low level characters reaching items that they shouldnt (without making it feel like an area is cordoned off). The fixed low level beasties also serve a purpose for those who wish to roam the world, once they are level 80, bellowing challenges to small rabbits, brushing them aside like matchsticks and shouting that they are the uberest.

Vault Dweller · Dec 27, 2005

Stupid. It's a cheap replacement of a good game design.

RuySan · Dec 27, 2005

i don't like it.
But in Space Rangers it makes sense, since it's a dynamic world, and rangers and pirates also gain experience and buy better weaponry like you.

RGE · Dec 27, 2005

metallix said:
In a hack-n-slash with RPG elements, this is a must, really.
Diablo2 proved that, and displayed a flawless implementation of such a system.

You mean the way the D2 monsters would get increased HPs and yield more XPs when the amount of players in a game increased? Because other than that Diablo 2 didn't base monster difficulties or loot on the level of the PCs. It was always up to the players to find out for themselves what areas and what difficulties they could handle, and normal difficulty was balanced so that playing through an area once would generally make the PC powerful enough to survive the next area.

I wish that they had offered levelled monsters, or rather, max level monsters, in all areas, but the sad fact is that somewhere around level 80 it just didn't pay to play anywhere but in the River of Flames (or whatever that ugly place was called). I never played the expansion online, but Blizzard had an annoying habit of forcing highlevel PCs to gather in the very last areas of the highest difficulty rather than offer them the entire world to play in. Definitely not levelled loot. :cry:

For an RPG I'd prefer slightly randomized difficulties which does not depend on the level of my character. It's much more fun to find out for myself what my character can get away with, which is one reason for why persistent NWN worlds are fun to explore.

Lumpy · Dec 27, 2005

Of course, in a good system, dungeon levels should be offset from the player's level. Although this offsetting should be by percentages, not by fixed values, since fixed value offsettings lose importance at high levels.
The only disadvantage of such a system from a fixed dungeons system would be that you won't be entering dungeons that are way to easy and contain nothing of value, or dungeons that are too difficult and force you to reload, both not very interesting things.
But, Vault Dweller, what would "good game design" be like?

obediah · Dec 27, 2005

Lumpy said:
Of course, in a good system, dungeon levels should be offset from the player's level.

Ah, your nick must reference the tumor growing in the rational thought center of your brain.

If your last combat ended in you being knocked out by the little girl kobold, then you have no business entering the dark lords castle. Also if your necklace is made of the horns of the demons calling the nine levels of hell home, you're going to slice through the goblin scouting parties lair. 'nuff said.

Balor · Dec 27, 2005

If your last combat ended in you being knocked out by the little girl kobold, then you have no business entering the dark lords castle. Also if your necklace is made of the horns of the demons calling the nine levels of hell home, you're going to slice through the goblin scouting parties lair. 'nuff said.

But that would require players to (GASP!) think and consider their actions!
While everone knows that the REAL aim in Role-playing games is to kill stuff and grab loot!

And levelled loot and monster lists allow one to go ANYWHERE and meet monsters that are just on par with you, with loot that is neither too strong, or too weak.
Paradise for the 'alternatively gifted'.
...
Well, sarcasm aside, see above what Metallix said. It's great for 'exp&loot' action-RPG types, but when it comes to playing a role and immersion - such things are, indeed, stupid.

Imbecile · Dec 27, 2005

obediah said:
If your last combat ended in you being knocked out by the little girl kobold, then you have no business entering the dark lords castle. Also if your necklace is made of the horns of the demons calling the nine levels of hell home, you're going to slice through the goblin scouting parties lair. 'nuff said.

Yep, youre right, but without any kind of levelled system it seems pretty likely that you are unlikely to get too many close and entertaining battles. Youll probably either die, reload, wander off and slaughter a few rats, and then return. Or you'll kick arse easily. Either way isnt too much fun.

Fighting close battles against suitably levelled opponents is more fun - if you like a challenge.
If its done badly it can feel pretty unrealistic, but if you tweak it so that you will be more likely to face different types of bad guys at various levels, put a limit on how tough girl kobolds can get, and intersperse the levelled bad guys with unlevelled, or partially levelled bad guys, I dont see why RPGs couldnt deliver the best of both worlds.

At bottom, this seems to be another one of those player/character skill issues.
If bad guys are levelled it takes some of the importance away from your characters stats and puts more focus on the player to perform. Some players are going to like this, others arent.

Lumpy · Dec 27, 2005

Balor said:
If your last combat ended in you being knocked out by the little girl kobold, then you have no business entering the dark lords castle. Also if your necklace is made of the horns of the demons calling the nine levels of hell home, you're going to slice through the goblin scouting parties lair. 'nuff said.

Click to expand...

But that would require players to (GASP!) think and consider their actions!
While everone knows that the REAL aim in Role-playing games is to kill stuff and grab loot!

Indeed, and it also takes a really high IQ to load a save game after getting killed in a dungeon way above your level. Not to mention the huge amounts of roleplaying that derive from loading a savegame after getting pwn3d by a Dremora at level 1.

Balor · Dec 27, 2005

Well, loading savegames do not take too much IQ, but if you'll constantly bumb into places that are 'out of your level' - you'll hardly be able to have any fun.
Results are not hard to predict.

Human Shield · Dec 27, 2005

Balor said:
They are undoubtely stupid... they CAN be a good thing, but stupid nonetheless.
And you know why? It stems from the stupidity of general stat systems in RPG.
I mean - begin as power equivalent of potplant, end as Godzilla.

Also, at first you get rusty swords you cannot kill yourself with, and end with magical artefacts that seem to rip apart space and time.

As long is such (also, undoubtely, rather stupid) systems exist - they will require levelled loot and monsters to provide most fun the player.

I think this is the problem, if single humans can become demi-gods like the player from fighting rats I think elite army divisions would have equal strength and more numbers then the player.

In Fallout you could still die from a critical hit from a mini gun, and skill didn't make guns magically do more damage. If HP was balanced and didn't go so super-high, firearms would still pose some threat the whole way through.

If you look at JA2, a lvl 1 can kill an elite if he is lucky enough and gets the drop on him.

If the game isn't going to limit player's power then the game needs to use natural means to reach balance.

Take a Goblin cave.

If the player is weak the goblin guards can attack him, providing a challenge.

If the player is medium strength and the guards notice they aren't hurting him, they will retreat and from into bigger groups, providing a challenge.

If the player is high strength the goblins can try and escape, maybe being forced to run into the nearby town where they can take hostages where the 'fighter approach' will probably get some townsfolk killed, which they will blame on the player, providing a challenge beyond combat of having to plan things out.

If the player is maxed out in combat and can solo dragons, making different color dragons is stupid. Adjust the challenges away from straight combat, in movies the villain doesn't have a straight fight after having all his elite troops killed he adjusts the odds by taking hostages, planting bombs, or just distracts him until he can flee.

The player can be challenged by low level enemies if he knows that they are meant to slow him down while the rest flee and take all their loot with them.

The enemy should also attempt surrender if they know they can't beat the guy. Game designers treat everyone in the game like mindless zombies that rush to their death, except they don't even have the intelligence of zombies to form into large enough groups.

The game world should react. Like in VD's game that weapon skill can be used to intimate people, if you have the skills to kill a dragon you would think pickpockets would think twice.

Oblivion: Enemies are challenging and act intelligently in battle. As in Daggerfall (but not Morrowind), creatures and items you encounter are automatically balanced to your level. So, for instance, you can't just grab an overpowered Daedric sword by sneaking into a high-level dungeon.

It would be cool to run to the end game and have him say, "Sorry I don't have anything that can threaten the world, you aren't high enough level yet." I guess all the townsfolk can blame the player for starting an arms race with all the monsters after they made an agreement not to build up past a certain point.

Vault Dweller · Dec 27, 2005

Lumpy said:
But, Vault Dweller, what would "good game design" be like?

Indeed, and it also takes a really high IQ to load a save game after getting killed in a dungeon way above your level. Not to mention the huge amounts of roleplaying that derive from loading a savegame after getting pwn3d by a Dremora at level 1.

First, your example leads me to believe that you expect your character to be able to win every battle. That's just plain wrong. A good game should be challenging, a good game should have areas that are too dangerous for all but the strongest and/or the most skilled. Becoming stronger and better, and finally being able to enter such areas, be they a shady bar, a dungeon, or a dark passage, is much more rewarding than knowing that everything the game throws at you has been conviniently scaled down to prevent you from being disappointed at your failure.

Now, in regard to the good design question. Good design could take many forms, from allowing you a chance to see that what's ahead of you could be more than you could handle at the moment (you enter the dungeon, see bodies and blood, notice a dying man who warns you of the danger), non-lethal combat (the Gothic games did a fine job there; you get your ass kicked and in the process get a good idea of where you need to be to have a fighting chance), or even more realistic model of power level (for example, why does a creature from an end-game location should be 10x or 100x more powerful than a creature from a starting location? Why does the Bad Guy always send the most incompetent henchmen after you at first (the BG level 0 assassins - I mean WHO would hire those guys, like ever?!) Besides, there is always "run like hell" option when you encounter something you are not ready for.

Take Fallout as an example of good design. You leave the vault, the game sends you to V15, conviniently placing Shady Sands in your path, thus introducing 2 low level locations with less challenging enemies that logically fit those environments. There is no dark dungeon of certain death next to Vault 13. The scorpions are somewhat challenging at that point, but this quest is a) optional and b) you could just seal off the cave (very good design). Granted, you may decide to enjoy the non-linearity option, and just go exploring, but most enemies in the game are humans that are pretty much the same everywhere as it should be. Some areas are way more dangerous than others, but you are given enough warning (like the exaggerated deathclaws stories), etc.

Human Shield · Dec 27, 2005

Dreagon · Dec 28, 2005

Lumpy said:
How do you feel about leveled loot and leveled monsters? Are they a good thing or not? A counter-argument would be that leveling up has no point if the whole world levels up with you. You don't feel more powerful. A pro-argument would be that, without such a system, difficult dungeons are redundant early is the game, and easy dungeons become useless late in the game, because the rewards are too small and because the creatures are not challenging, therefore limiting the character to a small number of dungeons at all times.

Don't like it. I don't want the feeling that the world is tailoring itself to me. Especially at low level. I want to know there is a risk that if I'm stupid or incautious I could run into a monster that is way over my head.

At higher level, I would rather face new tougher monsters along with slaughtering the weaker ones, NOT have the weaker ones get tougher.

So basically, whatever I do the risk and the reward is always the same. Boring.

LlamaGod · Dec 28, 2005

It's boring fighting guys that are equal level to you if there is alot of combat in the game.

It also makes leveling pointless since you're just going to be as powerful as the monsters, the point of leveling up to be able to topple powerful creatures.

Might as well just play a damn adventure game

Drakron · Dec 28, 2005

I agree and it was something I always viewed as a flaw.

I think a lot of RPGs fall into the error of thinking players want higher levels just to say they are such level and they level up the creatures so the player becaming higher leveled is pointless because the challange remains the same, so unless the focus of the game is combat challange (such as IWD) ...

Take KotOR 2 for example, if they knocked down the insane leveling speed of that game into the 1-20 levels nothing would change, throwing lv 99 just because you have idiots wanting to be a lv 70 on the land of the lv 70's is pointless ... KotOR 2 proven that.

Twinfalls · Dec 28, 2005

Balor said:
Paradise for the 'alternatively gifted'.

Haha

without any kind of levelled system it seems pretty likely that you are unlikely to get too many close and entertaining battles. Youll probably either die, reload, wander off and slaughter a few rats, and then return. Or you'll kick arse easily. Either way isnt too much fun.

Fighting close battles against suitably levelled opponents is more fun - if you like a challenge.

Sorry, but that's complete rubbish. What's 'Fun' is good design which gives you real decisions. Play Gothic for example. You are always challenged, you are always making decisions, you are always having Fun. Most encounters you'll have will be challenging but do-able, because the game is well structured.

And then there's taking on a Snapper/Fire Lizard/Shadowbeast early on, learning the hard way not to venture too far into the woods, then doing it again later in the game and feeling the satisfaction of besting the fearsome creature.

Balor · Dec 28, 2005

Yea, great point Twinfalls.
The very moment of 'take that, you damn monster who bitten off half my ass when I went there ten levels ago!' is extremely satisfying.
Levelled lists do not provide that.

Leveled loot and monsters

What do you think about leveled loot and monsters?

They are a good thing.

They are stupid.

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Arbiter

Erudite

Arcane

Arcane

Arbiter

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Augur

Liturgist

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Arbiter

Arcane

Arcane

Augur

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Augur

Scholar

Cipher

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane