This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
When Roles Go Bad Pt. 2
Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
Monday, April 11, 2011
When Roles go Bad pt 1.
I mentioned before that in 4th edition one of the better ideas that they had was putting forward a solid role system, IE the classes would be set to certain types and their functions would be set around that. Defending the group, healing party members, raw damage, or AoE/Debuffing. The role system is used in other games and there are a lot of advantages to it. For one thing designing classes is a bit easier when there is a clear idea of what the class is supposed to do as well as helping figure out if something is marked too high or low in terms of damage, hit rating, etc. The problem is that roles can also lead to stagnation and can, if used incorrectly, lead to a game that is frustrating, samey, or just plain bad. I am going to try to do this in shorter bursts, I realize a lot of my posts are kind of text walls and it might be easier for someone to follow the posts with shorter posts and maybe my stuff will improve if I'm more focused.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
One common problem in role based games comes from a problem in division of labor, especially in the area of the damage dealer. In most of these games everyone is able to deal a certain amount of damage, it isn't impossible for the people healing, debuffing or tanking to also lay a pretty good smackdown. However this leads to a problem, if their damage is comparable to that of the 'dedicated' damage dealer then three questions arise.
1) Why bother playing a dedicated damage dealer if a class in another role can crank out about the same amount of damage and have other options and features besides?
2) What was the point of the pure damage class in question, or even the pure damage role if the other classes in these roles can get near the damage output or perhaps even outpace it?
3) If the pure damage role is able to put out an incredibly high amount of damage, high enough that the other roles can't match it at all, then how do you avoid the idea of everyone simply going for raw damage and trying to overwhelm the targets with speed and a few hard blows.
In fourth edition D&D there were quite a few, for lack of a better term, errata storms that would hit because the Fighter was apparently outdamaging strikers, and then they would dial back the strikers to keep them from doing too much. It got frustrating but it also showed a basic problem, damage isn't exactly a complicated thing compared to what a lot of other classes do but it can still be easy to screw up, and when it goes wrong here it can get worse in other areas. I'll get into the problem of things feeling identical and some of the other issues from the role system in later posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
