RPG Design: Keeping a level ahead

Surlent · Mar 8, 2005

Last time we concluded often the higher levels PC becomes, the less interesting the character progression becomes too. Not only that but usually more skills, spells, hp and better items the character gets makes the game less challenging. Ofcourse that's the point of better stuff, but usually tactics start going downhill while levels goes up. Now I'd like to hear various thoughts how to maintain challenge and interesting character progression throughout the game.

Final Fantasy Tactics has some prime examples of combat. First, enemies level up as you do (doesn't make much logical sense) and gain different abilities the higher they progress like PC. The enemy's attack pattern would change somewhat because of the new skills, but it would still retain its typical traits.
Second, tougher enemies have more more evade. (In FFT your hitrate didn't increase with levels, which made heavy armored units hard to hit without skills that ignore evade though those skills ruined that game's tactics in the end.) :roll:

Still increasing enemies' evade relatively to yours could provide harder opponents.
Third, more powerful spells are harder to pull off, they require more mana, casting time and gives the enemy chance to act before hit (ofcourse in console game there were munchin skills to bypass these restrictions too). :wink:

In DnD crpg variants, high level mass destruction spells like Meteor Storm are more like improved versions of fireball. I don't remember any high level spells like aganna's scorcher which spits a line of fire between the caster and the enemy and even spells that fire in cone like burning hands are rare. Enchantment spells which put different effects on enemies depending on their saving throws are on the right track though.

Total removal of pure uber powah items would be shift change for the better though - or making more items that have both penalties and benefits. You could try just combo item benefits to reduce their penalties or just use appropriate item for the right moment.

Hajo · Mar 9, 2005

Surlent said:
First, enemies level up as you do (doesn't make much logical sense) and gain different abilities the higher they progress like PC.

There are a few games that link monster levels to character levels (e.g. the higher the character level, the higher the levels of spawned monsters).

In some cases this leads to players who try to stay below a certain level in order to avoid monsters with certain abilities. Actually IMO this destroys the whole idea of leveling up: gaining an advantage against your opponents.

I also don't see much reason for this. It's fairly easy for a game designer to put areas of consequently more powerful monsters in the game. The game starts in an easy area, and the player can reach the more difficult areas as he continues adventuring - in Divine Divinity you don't even need to unlock many of the areas like in Diablo II, you can just go (almost) anywhere and learn where it's too hard for your character and where it's ok to adventure.

I would advice not to link the monster levels to the player level, but to the area where they are found.

Surlent said:
Total removal of pure uber powah items would be shift change for the better though - or making more items that have both penalties and benefits. You could try just combo item benefits to reduce their penalties or just use appropriate item for the right moment.

I like the idea of mixed attributes for items (benefits and drawbacks on the same item).

It seems impossible to remove 'uber' items alltogether. One or the other item will be the best for a certain type of player, and finally all those players will try to get it and use it.

Having randomized items instead of fixed items seems to be a solution, but in DIablo II players go great lengths for finding a particular item type with perfectly rolled stats. So eventually randomized items don't help to avoid the search for 'uber' items.

Having specialized items for special encounters (e.g. fire resistant armor against fire enchanted opponents) will cuase players to collect several sets of items and choose them according to their plans (e.g. fight dragons -> wear the fire resistant item set, fight snakes -> wear the poison resistant set). If you mix monsters, player will carry all thos e items and try to change them on the fly ... overall it just seems to put another tedium and annoyance on the player.

Vault Dweller · Mar 9, 2005

Imo, the solution to this problem is maintaining vulnerability of a character. If your character becomes a demi-god (KOTOR 2 is the best example) then the char system and the game fall apart. Needless to say, tactics and character development lose their focus when you can do without them.

The best solution, I think, is to get rid of HP increases. If you have a 300 HP behemoth fighting against 20-50 HPs enemies, the outcome is predictable. If you have 2 300 HP behemoths fighting each other, that's simply boring - you just watch how they whack each other for several minutes until one of them runs out of potions and HPs.

In DnD I always enjoy low level combat the most. A couple of hits and it's over. That's more realistic and more action-y to me. Unlike, the HPs competitions, it's less tedious.

Anyway, that's what I have in the game I'm working on. You get HPs when you create a character. CON determines how much you get which makes Con more useful then in most games. Whatever you get will help you to survive 2-4 hits depending on a weapon. You can't increase HPs and you can't increase Con. Armor and defensive strategies help, but they don't make one invinsible. That way even a lowly guard or a bandit from a starting town can still be a threat even when you are about to finish the game, as it should be, imo.

Hajo · Mar 9, 2005

I want to second VDs point on hitpoints.

In my "H-World/The Jungle" module the characters have basically fixed HP, too. Yet some equipment can add a few extra HP, so there is a slight option of advancement.

But the difference is more like starting with 70HP and ending with 120HP instead of starting with 5 and ending with 400 like in some roguelikes.

OTOH this will make the player look even more for some special items which offer good bonues to become stronger, and at some point when the game can't offer anything better the character is maxed out and a part of the fun of the game - the search for powerups - stops to exists.

Balor · Mar 9, 2005

Well, in case of our MUD, there would be injury system - each wound is calclated separately.
You may get a ton of scratches and survive, but a deep slash a across throat will kill you no matter how tough you are - you'll bleed to death in seconds. Not to mention decatipation, heh.
You can become tougher by training.. but not 'take 100 slashes with impunity'.
It's high skills and armor that should protect you, not HP increase.

Oyarsa · Mar 9, 2005

Designs on the designated designer

I'd also ditch HP advancement. Characters should have the chance to develop means of protecting themselves, evading attacks, and avoiding danger in general as reflective of increasing skill and ability. I'd add in a pain threshold. Pass it and the character has a chance of passing out. This could be increased somewhat through skills or even quest rewards and would need to be based on the game equivalents of CON & WIS (mental discipline).

Balor · Mar 9, 2005

Yea, in fact, in our system we have abstract "Combat Points" - that will:
1. Provide you with some narrow escapes - to prevent situations with 'first attack - hit - dead' - like a frantic jump away or hurl yourself to the ground - it well drain them. (Will trigger in case you were to slow to dodge or deflect an attack by normal means).
2. Even small scratches and bruises will affect it, and serious wounds may drain it to zero - which means that you'll be either completely paralyzed by the pain.
3. They, in turn, with endurance level, will measure your overall performance at tasks form 100% to, well, 0% (you faint from pain or exhaustion)
Btw, a question... what is better to measure you level of ‘Energy’ so to speak, how you are NOT tired - endurance or stamina? Or, perhaps, something else altogether? (like in Morrowind they used fatigue - lol. Kinda, the more you run about or swing you weapon, the less fatigued you become, heh)

Surlent · Mar 9, 2005

Nice to see this thread picked up... lots of good ideas here.

Hajo said:
In some cases this leads to players who try to stay below a certain level in order to avoid monsters with certain abilities. Actually IMO this destroys the whole idea of leveling up: gaining an advantage against your opponents.

Yea, it sounds more like players would avoid leveling up. The idea of leveling up is definitely changed, not anymore advantage against opponents but evolvement of species/characters/enemies. Maybe if the timeline of the game's plot would be long enough, it could be used for various purposes.

Hajo said:
It seems impossible to remove 'uber' items alltogether. One or the other item will be the best for a certain type of player, and finally all those players will try to get it and use it.

Players will always optimize the benefits, but there's still difference between an item that just adds few points extra damage and special effect like slowing enemy down compared to
your average BIO Holy Avenger +5 of Divine Carnage and Obscene Protection.

VD said:
Imo, the solution to this problem is maintaining vulnerability of a character.

The best solution, I think, is to get rid of HP increases.

VD hits right on the nail. There's no purpose or challenge in combat if there's no threat of serious injury or death. Fixed HP sure would make HP boosting items vital and armor best protection.

Balor said:
You may get a ton of scratches and survive, but a deep slash a across throat will kill you no matter how tough you are - you'll bleed to death in seconds. Not to mention decatipation, heh.

That sounds like next step from calculating damage for separate body parts.

Keldryn · Mar 10, 2005

My thoughts...

I think (C)RPG designers need to move away from D&Disms, such as the ever-inflating Hit Points, which has already been touched upon here. The Final Fantasy games take this to an extreme... I thought it was quite ridiculous to be starting FFX with 700 hit points (or whatever it is).

I prefer a system of more gradual, consistent advancement, versus the more common "earn 5000 XP, and gain a level" paradigm. Something less like D&D, and more like GURPS or the old D6 System Star Wars (in terms of pencil and paper games), or Betrayal at Krondor and Dragon Wars (in terms of CRPGs). Yes, Dragon Wars had levels, but I don't think it meant anything more than a handful of points to allocate amongst your attributes -- no automatic HP gain.

I agree regarding maintaining vulnerability throughout the game. I think a designer could still allow hit point advancement, but it would only be one or two at a time. Armor and protective magic (in a fantasy game) could prevent damage, and combat skills would play a role in evading damage. This would lead players to choose their battles much more carefully.

My own design philosophy leans toward fewer combat encounters, yet more challenging and rewarding when they do occur. I'd really like to de-emphasize or eliminate the endless hordes of weak enemies that many CRPGs ("C" meaning either console or computer) feature.

De-emphasizing combat in general can help maintain an interesting and challenging late-game. I think Ultima VII is a good example. Combat was pretty unimportant in U7, and you only advanced through 8 levels by the end of the game. The same with U7 Part 2. The challenges of both Ultima VII games were generally outside of combat. The combat system sucked, but that's beside the point.

Hajo · Mar 10, 2005

Re: My thoughts...

Keldryn said:
My own design philosophy leans toward fewer combat encounters, yet more challenging and rewarding when they do occur. I'd really like to de-emphasize or eliminate the endless hordes of weak enemies that many CRPGs ("C" meaning either console or computer) feature.

Fewer battles also allow to emphasize the details of the battle. You can make them last longer and be more complex. Balor should have a lot of ideas on that, he once sent me a design snippet on 'moves' to use in battles.

OTOH if there are fewer battles you need interesting non-combat activities to fill the gaps between the battles. E.g. wandering through the lost sewers for hours until you are involved in a battle is boring unless there is something interesting to do there.

I assume the game world will have to be quite different than in current CRPGs.

Most likely you'll end up with a fairly different kind of CRPG (which can be a quite good effect

)

bryce777 · Mar 10, 2005

It is easy to keep a challenge up, the problem is that developers are too afraid to alienate the less skilled players by making it too difficult. It is also easier to do a game for the 10th time, as well.

However you do things, it comes down to balance. Tying monster levels to character levels is just a stupid cheat that developers use because to really balance a game and combat system takes effort and some brains.

Balor · Mar 11, 2005

Yea, and brains on both sides of the screen - you know what I mean. *sigh*
I guess that's why levelled list made into Mor and will into Oblivion - so casuals that will stumble into deadric shrine will not die horrible death they, in truth, deserve.
And yes, it's a stupid cheat.

bryce777 · Mar 11, 2005

Balor said:
Yea, and brains on both sides of the screen - you know what I mean. *sigh*
I guess that's why levelled list made into Mor and will into Oblivion - so casuals that will stumble into deadric shrine will not die horrible death they, in truth, deserve.
And yes, it's a stupid cheat.

Well, you can have difficultie levels. That way they guy who has played 23 times can set it on nightmare and still win, but the first time rpger can set it to easy the first time through and still make it.

The other problem with tying things to level is that then you are FORCING what is a 'balanced' game. You can never go into an area and have an insane enounter (which is nice the 23rd time through) and if it is too hard then levelling up wont get you away from the difficulty. So, you tend to go towards the common denominator again and you get stupid combat that is easy, simple, and boring...and pointless.

Hajo · Mar 11, 2005

bryce777 said:
Well, you can have difficultie levels.

How exactly should a difficulty setting work in a RPG?

I think I like the way Diablo II/LOD does it: in nightmare and hell levels monsters not only get more hitpoints, but also new attacks and magic enhancements.

bryce777 · Mar 11, 2005

Hajo said:
bryce777 said:

Well, you can have difficultie levels.

Click to expand...

How exactly should a difficulty setting work in a RPG?

I think I like the way Diablo II/LOD does it: in nightmare and hell levels monsters not only get more hitpoints, but also new attacks and magic enhancements.

Well, you can do that any number of ways.

I sort of like in wizardry 6 and 7 how you would get harder supporting monsters and random monsters and the 'boss' monsters would have a twin. Their hard was actually hard!

Claw · Mar 13, 2005

I strongly agree with the statements of Keldryn and Hajo.
However, a certain amount of sheer force makes sense as well, like in Gothic where the player can explore increasingly remote and dangerous areas with increasing levels.

Many rpgs just lack subtlety in the character progression. In Realms of Arkania 2, my characters did get more powerful, but never godlike.
Personally I feel modern games tend to overdo it and rob magic items, powerful spells or similar of their value by throwing too much of them at the player.
My wizard in RoA2 used half a dozen spells at most and it was satisfying. Until the end, the ability to blast away three or four enemies with the sheer force of 'Fulmen te cadea' remained a last resort that would leave my wizard weakened for days.
Likewise, my elf's magic bow was a treasured prize because it was unique.

bgillisp · Mar 18, 2005

Hey, long time lurker here, found the site when it started up, but never posted. Figured I would share my $.02 on this subject.

I agree with Claw here. That was one thing I liked about the Realms of Arkania series myself. You never felt truly godlike, and fights could still be a challenge at times, even when you are high level. And, you could still potentially win fights with low level characters against monsters quite a few levels higher than yourself. It took great tactics, and some luck, but it was doable.

And, I feel that leveling up monsters to match the character's levels is not a good idea. To give an example, look at FF8 (computer or consule version). Avoid making any system you implement like FF8's (terrible system!). The monsters level up faster than you did. In other words, if you level up from 10 to 20, the monsters do too, and gain a lot more in Hp/Stats, etc, than you do. Resulted in me getting my butt kicked badly the first time I played that game.

So, needless to say, once I figured out what was happening, I stopped leveling up my characters. Was doing exactly as Hajo says in the 2nd post, staying some levels down to avoid certain abilities. Did not work perfectly, but it did make the game much easier.

FF8 did try to offset this by saying the Junction system made up for it, but it was not enough in my opinion. What if you missed the perfect spells to Junction (or the GF's and their abilities. Anyone who has played it knows what I am talking about)? You are just screwed now, as your stats are way too low to have a decent chance.

In short, I think Realms of Arkania was a good system in regards to this, and FF8 was a terrible system.

Sorry for the long first post, but did have a lot to say on this.

Walks with the Snails · Mar 18, 2005

I dunno, I was never crazy about HP's, either, but other kinds of systems do have problems, too. Do you do random insta-death like Rolemaster? Well, that's been discussed here before, it just turns into a reload fest. If you take out the randomness, though, that puts skill into the equation. VD's scenario then fades away. No, that guardsman doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of hurting you, sorry. If he tied you down and put a pistol to your head, it still ain't gonna happen. Tied you up, strapped 10 kilos of C4 on you, and dropped you in a vat of fuming sulfuric acid he might have a slim shot, but who has time for that? I've played enough humorous Shadowrun games with twinked out trolls to see how that scenario ends. And you try to undo it and it just creates more problems. Life can't always be accurately simulated with a few dice, stats, and a hit location table.

Face it, combat in reality just isn't all that much fun. Who really wants to play a game where all you do is crawl through a ditches scared for your life not knowing if you're going to be human hamburger the next second or wind up back at base with nothing much to say, and knowing it's completely out of your hands either way. So don't worry about realism and just have fun, even if it means once you've got a few kills under your belt most of the puny mortals in existence are like wheat before the thresher to you. Yeah, not realistic, but often fun.

Hajo · Mar 18, 2005

Walks with the Snails said:
I dunno, I was never crazy about HP's, either, but other kinds of systems do have problems, too. Do you do random insta-death like Rolemaster?

Instant death should not happen in a game. It may be realistic in some situations, but it is very frustrating for the player. I don't think a game should trade fun for realism.

The player should have a tiny chance to escape, given that he is equipped properly. I don't mean an automated chance, but something that involves player cleverness. If he makes a mistake he's dead for sure.

Roguelike games usually include a fair selection of escape chances. Players still die very often but usually because of their own mistakes and not becuase of an instant unavoidable death.

Balor · Mar 18, 2005

Well, if you look above, I've already posted how we'll manage that. In our system you can be killed really easily... so instead of making player able take a lot of hits, we just introduced a system where you have a pool of 'combat points'.
Once you are threatened with death, you perform a 'short escape' maneuver, like jumping back frantically, or falling flat - etc, which will drain your CP, but will either make you take a much lesser wound (a scratch instead of a full-scale hit), or avoid being hit altogether. CP is not just some abstract score - it represents your morale and will to fight. So, if you'll get a few 'close calls' - you'll ether flee, or give up in desperation. Highly disciplined (Discipline is a stat) people will be able to fight to the last.
Of source, it's not 100% realistic... but since 100% realism will not be fun, that's best we can have, I guess.
So, battle-tested, implacable people will have a lot of CP (HP), and newbies will have a few...
And even if both die if take a solid hit to the unprotected neck, hitting a vet would be much harder, and even if you'll manage that by some crazy random chance - he'll escape death anyway, only a bit frightened

bgillisp · Mar 18, 2005

Isn't CP in your system basically what HP'a are supposed to represent in most other combat systems? That is the impression I am getting from reading this at least. Only difference is you are not actally hit in your system when CP's are used.

How do you intend to handle vets getting too many CP's and being basically godlike in this system? Or, is that what the random chance of an actual hit supposed to handle?

Just curious on this, as it seems too close to an HP system with critcial hits to me, just different names. CP replaces HP, a real hit replaces critical hits.

Could you elaborate on this more, as I am curious?

Balor · Mar 18, 2005

Well, in fact, you are almost right.
However, it is much closer to realism ('movie' realism, at least) then just HP, and if you get hit for real, all injuries will be listed separately, with their affects (well, beside mere scratches, perhaps).
And for vets being 'godlike' - well, it depends whom you'll compare this to. Just as vet is godlike compared to a newbie, but two vets would be equal - only their fight would be not not be - hit -> parry -> counter -> death (RL), but something we see in the movies - which is not all that realistic, but much more fun.
And random chance of hit will crop up as your CP will get drained, so at first you will be rather safe, then get scratches, then you'll fumble and get hit for real.
Well, it mostly stands true for peoply who fight w/o armor anyways.
Armored people get penaties according to armor stiffness and weight, but full set of plate mail makes you all but immune to simple one-handed swords, for instance.
The only alternative is that duels, between chars that are any good, would take exactly two seconds.

Walks with the Snails · Mar 18, 2005

Deadlands had a similar system that had a certain elegance to it. You drew poker chips before the game, and received more poker chips after completing adventures. Poker chips were used to nullify damage and give you skill boosts, etc. The flip side is they were also what you cashed in to advance your character, like raise his skills, stats, learn new powers, etc. So you were kind of stuck with the decision do I save my chips to soak damage or would it be better to advance my character. Hits went to different locations, too, so if you had two wounds to the head, three to the guts, and four to the leg you were hurt but still standing, but five to the head or guts and you were pushing up daisies. Once you were out of chips you were basically careful or dead. It could be a pretty deadly system but fun.

bgillisp · Mar 18, 2005

Thanks for clarifying Balor. So we are going for the fun factor here? Makes sese, too many games try to be ultra realistic and neglect fun in my opinion.

Sounds like your system is close to Betrayal at Krondors was. Once your HP dropped your skills got worse. So, a 48/48 HP character has 100% of his skills. But a 24/48 HP characater has less, think it was 50% of skills,but need to play the game again to test. Though, this made characters with only 1 HP left pushovers, as they usually had only 1 skill point left on defense.

I think your system is going to be close to that from what you said, just less extreme, so that people with 1 CP are not totally vunerable. Or, did you intend that to happen? It makes sense from a realistic point of view (too exhuasted to defend yourself), but may not be as fun in the end.

Balor · Mar 19, 2005

Well, exausted is different.
Wounded is also different.
CP will only provide you with 'narrow escapes' from full-scale hits.
You wounds and endurance levels will determine your actual skills.
Scratches will not affect you much, but a long, deep cut across torso, while may not be instantly killing, but will make you all but helpless, unless you go completely berserk, or assume Void (WoT and Japan-specific

).
Makes sence, in my book.

RPG Design: Keeping a level ahead

Liturgist

Liturgist

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Liturgist

Arcane

Novice

Arcane

Liturgist

Arcane

Liturgist

Erudite

Arcane

Erudite

Liturgist

Erudite

Erudite

Scholar

Erudite

Liturgist

Arcane

Scholar

Arcane

Erudite

Scholar

Arcane