So, let''s recap:

1. People don''t like having to level up for hours and hours to beat some bosses.

2. Other people think it''s important for a character to grow meaningfully before continuing on.

3. Some people like to face bosses with strategy and cunning on the part of the player, rather than having a "cunning" attribute for the character and settling it with a dice roll.

4. Other people think that the whole point of an RPG is to relegate the player to a supervisory role and let the characters settle their differences based on their attributes.

5. It''s generally agreed that no role playing system can accurately reflect the thought and tactics that goes into real conflict.

6. It''s also agreed that no single style of gameplay can satisfy all of the people all of the time.

7. This thread has totally morphed into a discussion about XP systems.

Now, my responses:

To the RPG difficulty topic: Wouldn''t a variable gameplay style be the logical choice? I''m trying very hard to remember the battle system from Star Ocean 2. Anyone remember how it worked? I seem to remember there being a choice between real-time running and chopping and turn-based menu-manipulating strategizing. That seems like it might be viable. It allows action fans to use their own manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination to make their characters perform better than their stats alone would allow, and it also lets people build up their characters until they can take care of themselves.

To the XP topic: Start a new thread and talk about it there.

Ah. I haven''t gotten around to getting Star Ocean 2 yet, but I''ve played the original SNES Star Ocean, which has almost the same battle system. This is indeed a great game series. I never ran into a Star Ocean boss that couldn''t be beat by coming back to it with a different strategy. (i.e. bring out four fighters and attack from four different sides while taking control of the front fighter to better have him avoid the boss''s heavy attacks, etc., etc.) This whole system of combat is ideal, except that I, for one, would prefer controls that are closer to those of Secret of Mana. Thus my idea for Pentaverse''s combat system. (sort of described above)

I''d prefer a uniquely different *way* of defeating opponents rather than what you described.

- Rob Loach
OverTech Technologies
__________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don''t stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller

Iron Chef Carnage: the whole area of difficulty in RPG is very closely tied to the question of how characters improve - if you have a system where characters'' abilities can improve dramatically over relatively short timescales, like in FF games (I''ve had situations where a fight that I couldn''t win despite reloading a dozen times or so suddenly I could win every time just by going away and levelling my party up once) then if you fail to keep to the designed pace through the game, the effective difficulty tends to vary wildly. If you have an XP system where characters improve relatively slowly, then the effective difficulty of any given encounter tends to be pretty much constant.

On the topic of variable gameplay style: in XCOM: Apocalypse (which did have some RPG-style elements) the tactical program could be run in either turn-based or real-time modes. The problem was that the real-time mode was much easier to do well in (among other things, you could pause the action at any time and issue commands) so while I do know of a few die-hard fans who played the game in turn-based either for purism or for the opportunity to brag about having completed the game on the hardest difficulty setting only using turn-based combat and iron-man save rules (only save at the end of play sessions - or if your machine has a tendency to crash). For the vast majority of players, the turn-based system was completely pointless.
Maybe it is worth putting in an additional play style purely for a few die-hards, but in any case you then make it much harder to balance game difficulty properly since, unless you are very careful/lucky, one system will have a noticeable advantage, and players who would prefer to play the other system will feel pressured into using the better one. Alternatively, clumsy attempts to balance the two systems may result in neither being better overall, but each being better in particular circumstances, pressuring players to master and use both...

Rmsgrey, That''s a very good point. pacing of character advancement is a very important factor. So, you want characters to improve, but you want a smoother, less steep learning curve, right? The more rapid character advancement leads to choppy difficulty levels and inconsistent boss challenges, which you think is bad, while a more gradual process with smaller steps ensures that the bosses and player will be evenly matched, which you think is good. Hmm... If I''ve properly assessed your stance, then I''ll have to disagree with you.

In my experience, games in which just getting to the next boss is practically a guarantee that you''re strong enough to fight it effectively is a less satisfying gaming experience. It lends itself more readily to "speed-gaming", one of my least favorite RPG strategies. Besides, the only real ways to implement it that I''ve seen is to either build all the levels and enemies such that they rapidly boost your characters to the appropriate level for the boss, but can''t really get you any higher than that, or else to make character advancement event-based, going up a level after killing a specific enemy or finishing a specific task. If anything, I find that to be a choppier gameplay experience, jumping from plateau to plateau as you progress through the game. If I want that type of structure, I''ll play Mega Man or Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest.

I think that the variable gameplay style is a good system. However, it requires that the game be developed such that both are effective. Apparently, the turn-based system in XCOM: Apocalypse was not as favorable as the real-time mode. In Fallout Tactics, I find the real-time to be awkward and clumsy, and so I prefer turn-based play. Pretend with me for a moment that absolutely nobody liked the turn-based mode in XCOM: Apocalypse. Could the game have been improved by removing that feature and then catering the game unilaterally toward real-time play? Probably. If that''s the case, then I think that variable-play games might have to constitute a sub-genre, since they''ll have to observe conventions of both action/strategy games and turn-based RPG''s. Games like Parasite Eve could no doubt fall into this category, along with the Star Ocean games and XCOM: Apocalypse.

Another problem could be integrating the RPG attribute system into the variable play game engine. Secret of Mana used automated responses to represent some of it, like the involuntary backflip when a character successfully dodges an attack. In Kengo II, improvements to speed and agility are reflected in gradual improvements to a character''s real-time responses to player control. These must be carefully considered when designing a new game. When a player is controlling the character directly, should the character still avoid 46% of attacks, or should that be the player''s job? Maybe the possibility of random evasion would be reduced to accomodate the player''s human skills of anticipation and logistics. If a human player takes control of a rifle-weilding character, should there be view swim as in Deus Ex to simulate random misses, or should a weak character, when "imbued" with the guiding presense of the player, actually take on the skills of that player? I think that''s an interesting possibility.

As to "Speed RPG''ers", I disapprove both of people who rush through games and of games that require monotonous level-raising. You shouldn''t just run through the main story line fighting main boss after main boss until you reach the end of the game, but neither should that be the only option. Side quests, odd jobs, and non-essential tasks can all contribute to a diverse and rewarding game experience that requires time to be dedicated to improving a character without requiring hours of wandering through the same lousy forest fighting the same lousy imps.

In fact, I rather like games with no immediately-apparent long-term telos. I like to have a goal like self-improvement, and when a big job comes around, I like to be the guy that says, "Yeah, I can handle that." And when an evil madman tries to conquer the planet, it''s nice to know that my character is legitimately the best man for the job, rather than being some punk farmer from Tatooine who happens to have a big fancy destiny.

What do you mean, Rob Loach? Do you mean a different battle engine, or a different way of passing critical points in the game, or a non-violent way to defeat minor foes?

Battle engines have been done all around. If that''s what you mean you''ll have to be more specific.

Different ways of passing critical points are fairly common in more hard-core classic RPGs. Build up your charisma and nagotiation skills, and talk your way through it. Build up stealth and speed and avoid it altogether. Freeze the dragon and run by, or bewitch it into letting you go. Go over the mountains instead of through the armies. Many games offer choices in big things like this, but often you''ll face repurcussions later on, like having the armies come up behind you after you''re over the mountains, or having to fight a recently thawed out dragon.

As to a non-violent way to fight grunts, there''s always running. Most small enemies are essentially brainless, and driven only by a desire to kill or steal. Really, violence and evasion are about the only choices available there. In Escape Velocity, pirates would harry you everywhere, but if you had the cash you could bribe them and get away without a fight. In fact, if you did a few favors here and there and made the right friends, pirates would just leave you alone. Of course, then the government agents are usually after you, and they''re less subject to bribery.

quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Rmsgrey, That''s a very good point. pacing of character advancement is a very important factor. So, you want characters to improve, but you want a smoother, less steep learning curve, right? The more rapid character advancement leads to choppy difficulty levels and inconsistent boss challenges, which you think is bad, while a more gradual process with smaller steps ensures that the bosses and player will be evenly matched, which you think is good. Hmm... If I''ve properly assessed your stance, then I''ll have to disagree with you.

In my experience, games in which just getting to the next boss is practically a guarantee that you''re strong enough to fight it effectively is a less satisfying gaming experience.

I''m not sure I actually have a stance on advancement pacing. I don''t favour any particular rate in ganeral, but I do have some specific gripes about specific examples. For instance, I''m not happy with the way Final Fantasy games penalise players for being too good - the game designers assume that in order to find your way through a given area, or solve a given puzzle, you''ll spend a certain amount of time wandering around dead ends, or looking for additional pieces, and have a certain amount of combat as a result. If I''m better at exploration and puzzle solving than the target player, then, without skipping anything, or missing any of the plot elements, I can get through significantly faster than the designers intended, meaning that, from time to time, I will hit a boss and bounce off - be unable to defeat it whatever choices I make. The most recent example was in Final Fantasy X, where, having played the game through without help from gamefaqs.com, or the OSG I bought with it (and still had the original shrink wrapping on) I came up against the final (real) boss, having managed to fight my way through the final area of the game, only to find that, as my characters stood, he was unbeatable. It was another 10 hours of gameplay, mostly spent in endless combat to improve my characters and capture enough monsters to unlock various things at the monster arena before I was able to face the final boss and actually defeat him. In that situation, there were actually side quests available, but most of the way through FF games, there is very little in the way of side-quests to go off and do, meaning that every so often, I have to just sit down for a couple of hours of pure mincing simply in order to progress further in the game. Quite apart from anything else, this sort of thing completely ruins my suspension of disbelief. And as I said, it seems to penalize me for overperforming - being too good at the game.

And, in my experience, playing a strongly plot-driven game at its "designed speed" does effectively guarantee that you can defeat every boss you run into at the time you run into them. I guess the real problem isn''t so much advancement rates as strong linearity. Though, of course, non-linear games can fall into the trap of players not having a clue what to do next (main reason I''ve never really been a fan of Sim City is that once the initial interest in city building wears off, I''m left with a strong "so what now" feeling). One of the nice things RPGs could have is a mix of linearity provided by quests and non-linearity provided by offering a choice of which quests to undertake and when (though the Baldurs Gate option of doing every single quest in whatever order you feel like it reduces the sense of making significant choices - eventually you will have done all the quests in some order, and the order you chose has very little effect on your current status)

Now I understand your position a little better. I, too, have been very aggravated by the Final Fantasy series for exactly to reasons you specify. There are points in the games at which there is only one thing to do, a sort of plot and gameplay bottle-neck, but it requires a level of pure strength that my party doesn''t currently have. Three hours of mincing to get past an unnecessarily high hurdle is a symptom of poor game design.

However, I take issue with your idea of being "good" at a game. I think there''s more to proficiency at an RPG than just solving riddles quickly and navigating efficiently through the map. That sort of skill will get you through Zelda Games and Castlevania games, but for an RPG like the Final Fantasy series, the true test of a gamer is the ability to maintain viability throughout the game. If you hit a wall, then either the designers screwed something up or else you weren''t paying your dues. The game is, as are all RPG''s, character-based, and your superior logic and logistics can''t raise their levels. If you run the straight and narrow path, as many RPG''s are structured, you''re going to have to do some back-tracking and mincing to train up for the larger challenges.

So, to put this all in a nutshell, I''d say that it''s the game designer''s job to make sure that there are ample non-mincing opportunities to improve your character''s chances of successfully taking on big challenges, but it''s up to the player to take advantage of those opportunities and prepare his characters.

As a parting shot at your hubris, maybe those ten or fifteen hours of gameplay that you shave off aren''t saved by masterful orienteering or clairvoyant puzzle-solving revelations, but by turning up your nose at opportunities that a "lesser" player might jump at.

I was just thinking about mincing. Even with good game design, a certain amount of it is usually unavoidable, either to try to find a certain enemy to get a certain item, or else to raise levels prematurely in order to achieve a specific goal. Have any games included a feature that allows your characters to actually "hunt", either for a fight in general or for a specific sort of enemy?

I''m reminded of the "Survival" skill in Star Ocean 2, where a skilled character could search the wilderness for items. Why not have that character search for monsters to kill, or even for a specific type of monster? You want money, try to hunt down some brigands. You want experience, track down a hard-to-find monster to take on. You want an item, find a creature that''s likely to drop it or that you can steal it from.

Another thing this reminds me of is in the Ogre Battle games, when you want to find random creatures to recruit you have to dispatch all your units and have them wander around the map until a griffon builds up its nerve to attack. Why can''t you assign a unit to find these things? If random encounters are going to have a positive impact on the game, there should be a way to make them an objective.

Just a thought.

quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
As a parting shot at your hubris, maybe those ten or fifteen hours of gameplay that you shave off aren''t saved by masterful orienteering or clairvoyant puzzle-solving revelations, but by turning up your nose at opportunities that a "lesser" player might jump at.

You may be right in some cases, but there have been times when, using the official game guide (on my second or subsequent time through the game) I have entered every screen in an area, talked to every character until they repeat themselves and collected every item, and activated every trigger (including detrimental ones) and still had to mince to continue. The only opportunities I can think of that I passed up in that situation are chances to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out how to solve puzzles, opportunities to backtrack to make sure I haven''t missed anything, and earlier chances to mince... things that a "lesser" player (or one not using the guide/experience from playing through the game before) often does automatically because they spend additional time just figuring out the puzzles, and the game is designed for people to take that extra time...

Admittedly, in my first play through FFX, where I had the 10-15 hours at the end, it was at least partly spent doing things I''d overlooked on the way through - in subsequent games, I make a point of getting capture weapons as soon as possible, but the bulk of it was spent either on doing things that only become available once you''ve pretty much finished the plot (like getting ultimate weapons and summons or visiting previously inaccessible areas) or on straight mincing. And there were a handful of occasions when I''d had to mince on my way through, as well.

I guess it annoys me particularly because FF games generally make it abundantly clear where/what you''re supposed to go/do next in order to progress the plot so at times the non-linearity of the game shows through, but if you do what the game seems to want you to do - hurry on with the plot - you end up getting flattened by a boss you''re not ready for. Also, the plot in FF games generally has a sense of urgency about it that, if the games used clock time rather than event time, would penalise mincing heavily. So the game plot is encouraging you to rush forwards, while the game mechanics encourage you to take your time ("Oh look, Meteor is falling to the ground... Let''s go and breed chocobos for several chocobo generations so we can go get Knights Of The Round. Meteor will still be there when we get round to it").

Here''s an idea that pen & paper GMs should recognise: why not wait until the characters reach an appropriate power level before throwing the next mission at them. In the meantime, either give them game-time off to train or provide side-quests they can occupy themselves with until they''re ready to continue the main quest. That way, at least the game mechanics and the game plot are pulling in the same direction.