by Nathan Smith
This is a set of ranting on RPG design, I've based this on personal experence in the playing of many games and on talks I've had with other people. (not all like-minded ;)
I've devided this in to several sections, each seperate but they are all linked up, sort of ;)
Today RPGs (Role Playing Games) can be many things, the heart of it is the player taking on the role of a character in the game, and playing though a plot or story.
RPGs were originally pen and paper games, and a lot still are. However since the time when computer games were first made, RPG also has as become computer game genre.
While p&p rpgs are primarly about players exploring the depths of a created character, computer RPGs tend on concentrate on combat and/or on the game plot. Some games allow a certain amount of control over the characters developement however this is limited by the games' design and not the player's imagination.
Some people sit and fight over what is an RPG and what is not. To them I would say English is writen by its speakers and not by TSR, Square, Black Isle or whatever they believe to be the true source of what it is to be RPG. Ask any dumbass on the street and they will either say "What are you on?", or "RPGs are games with battles, and a story.". That's it.
Well it all started with TSR, they released a role playing guide as a expanion to a fantasy war game. It was designed to allow players to to roleplay their favorate hereos from the war game. I'm not going to the all history of pen and paper RPGs but I wanted to point out that dungeons and dragons were the first.
Later on the first computer RPG, appeared as 'Dungeon' it is in fact a text adventure game, however it included a fantasy setting and some limited combat as part of plot. This wasn't the first computer RPG, but it served as a start. MUDs (Mult User 'Dungeon's) come from this game.
Some time later the first Ultimas started to appear. The early Ultimas concentrated building a game world and allowed the player to explore it. Ultima 3 was a very good one, I didn't like 4 or 6. 5 was okay. Ultima 7 was truely epic. A complex large world that almost seemed real. With a great plot too. there were 4 parts add to this game, with Ultima 7 Part 2 being a whole different (and in my belief better) game. Ultima 8 & 9 sucked.
Then AD&D (advanced dungeons and dragons) was 'ported' from a pen and paper game to a roleplaying game, it was thought a computer would be ideal for handling all the number crunching and dice rolling from the p&p games, and it was, but like the Roguelikes these suffered from limited plots and massive long drawn out battles, but they were a step in the right direction, and showed that there was something to be had in this genre. From here comes the idea of having a set of complex stats is important to a computer rpg, just because ad&d had it. Baldur's Gate has seen the return of ad&d to the PC. With game's like Planescape Torment being one of the greatest of all time.
Wasteland was one of the first truely great computer RPGs, and was not a pure fantasy world. Fallout 1 & 2 are modern games based this original.
Roguelikes started to appear with a simple plot about a character going down in to a dungeon it search of treasure, they used ascii and spawned whole new generations of roguelikes, including a game from Blizard called Diablo. Roguelikes are nearly 100% combat, most have a story of sorts, and some have quests, however these are ultimate not important to the game itself.
Then came the first 3d rpg. While some of the ad&d ones had a 3d view computers weren't powerful handle real 3d at the time. One week before Wolfenstein 3D came out Ultima Underworld was released, another truely great game. A whole world with plot, battles, and complex puzzles.
That's all for computer RPGs anyway.
Well I didn't get in to console RPGs until the gameboy came along, however this is what I know from information that was on the internet.
Its seems the Dragon Warrior was the first NES rpg. It defined many of the console game conventions like large amounts of gold, stats that go really high, turned based battles that happen randomly as you walk around in the world.
Final Fantasy came next, a defining moment for Square Soft. Saddly it defined them too much, and they continue to beat this dead horse to this day. There is no doubt that Square has done some really epic games, but the Final Fantasies were never more than good or great. Crono Trigger for example was the stuff of legends, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
The legend of Zelda included something unseen in either the PC or console world so far, Action! With the puzzles and story of a RPG, and the action of a real time battle system this game was hot. Games like this are basically single character, single you can only control one character in real time with a console interface. The Secret of Mana had three characters using AI for non controled character(s).
Phantasy Star.. I hated this whole series. why? I dunno. Something about the way the characters had the animation of walking even when you weren't pressing any button upset me. Its said it had a 3d dungeon view like the early ad&d games used for their 3d views. Early ultima did the same thing: 2d for surface, simple 3d for dungeon. Maybe if I try it again today I'll like it... hmm...
Final Fantasy Legend for gameboy, was my first console RPG experence I loved that game. ffl2 was better though, it had a complex plot with lots of stuff to do. the Final Fantasy Legends (1-3) where not real final fantasy but SaGa as in Romancing Saga, but square renamed them to boost sales.
Final Fantasy Adventure, was quite like zelda and no surprise as this was the Secret of Mana 0 (before 1 or 2 but same world setting)
Well I could go on and on.. but there there were a ton of consoles and a ton of rpgs for them.
Well this is just in general, since some games don't fit in a single box.
There are three major differences as far as I can see: Interface, battles, and plot developement.
The Interface on a console game tends to be spare in the main view, so allow a large view of the play field with popup menus and things, the input is from a gamepad so it has max of 8 directions plus 4 or more buttons. With early PC games you tended to get a small view, but that changed with time, and the input switched from keyboard to point and click with mouse. Mouse control does allow for a great number of options.
Most console RPGs use turn based battles or near turned based with menu options that popup and let you pick was to do. Some early PC rpgs use something like this too, but while it died out in PC rpgs, it continues to this day in console RPG. Personally I find it tends to led to boring battles in places of the game, if things aren't thought out enough.
Plot developement in PC rpgs tend to be non-linear as they try to fake a ad&d like world where the player has the ultimate choice to do as they please. Ultima 7 & 8 were the only ones to get even close to pulling this off. Console rpgs normally use linear plots where the player watchs a preplaned story as it unfolds around the characters, this allows for much deeper character developement since non-linear plot tend to mean the characters only interact on the most basic level.
First is the Introduction, before the game is the bit where the players gets an idea about the RPG world, and maybe some clues about the plot.
The second thing the player must deal with is the user interface. Console rpgs normally have a very simple interface that is quite easy to learn. PC rpgs are sometimes more complex and difficult to learn. You can lose a player's interest here at this stage if they can't learn it fast enough.
What grabs a player next kind of depends on the player, but here are three areas left to explore.
One, Exploring the game and its world. The player begins to test and learn what they can and can't do, this is an important stage. And the longer it takes the better. As long as the player is discovering new game features, they can be quite happy with whatever else is going on, but once they figure out the game's limits you are forced to depend on story and combat alone. This also includes new areas of the game, and the all important "Player Choice" the more power a player has in the game to go explore where they feel, and talk to who they want the better. Making a game less linear, improves the experence to the player but not if it is at a cost of a good story. There are however a number of ways to make a linear story appear less linear to the player. (which I'll go in to later.)
Two, the story is examined. Weak or bad stories should waste as little time of the player as possible, while most players don't mind waiting for a section of a good or great story too take place. Not all players care about story. Perhaps they should play a different genre, but if you keep this in mind maybe you can keep each of the required segments in the story down to something quick they can read or skip though. The worse the story the less the player wants to see it, there are many good games with bad plots that work because the developers don't shove the plot down the players throat. However once the other options have been explored a good or great story can keep the game alive.
Three, action! On a platform game action comes when jumps and dodging enemies, in a fps the whole game is action. In rpgs you get action in the battles, here is the player must use and develope skills (his skills not the characters) to help keep the character(s) alive, and defeat the enemy. A battle is a real challange for here the player risks losing the game, but with the negitive side is also the positive side, when the player wins he is rewarded with money, items, and/or experence, with enough experence characters become more powerful allowing them to defeat more powerful enemies. In most rpgs however the game is balanced so the advancement of the player is cancelled out by the increasing difficulty in the enemy. As soon as player discovers this or works it out at some level, the bonus points become for the most part meaningless. One way of getting around this is to have new skills a character learns as they become more powerful. This new skills offer new animations and features that extend and change the tactics a player can use. I feel its important that the battles aren't always perfectly balanced. Having a hard battle in one place and an easy battle somewhere else, ensures the player can not predict what will happen next.
Once all three parts of a game have been fully explored, the game is over. Really great games try to keep all three going right up to the end. This is not always possible though. If the player beens to see patterns in the new areas or game features they discover and decide they have seen it before then that part is dead. If the story or plot gets too sidetracked from the main quest or if the character dialog gets dull this part is over too. And finally if the battles get to the stage your just pushing the buttons as fast as you can to get through the battle as quickly as possible due to how borring it is, then you the developer have a problem with that part. And remember what seems fun and action packed at the start can seem slow and boring later, since the player expects things to get better through the game, not stay the same. if the player gets through all three parts or feels they have they will quit the game if that the real finish or not. One out of Three is not always good enough either, but that depends on the player's (not the character's) endurance.
This is where player choice is primarily handled. Here the players choices what menu options to pick, and where to go in the world. Seeing new things is form of reward. But this has to be balanced with the learning curve, even more so if it is new game options and choices that the player is seeing. New art/animation/video and special effects go a long way to increase the value of new scenes discovered.
If the player begins to feel that they are walking in a straight line, the backgrounds of the new scenes become less and less important, and are ignored in favour exploring the gameplay instead.
Linear vs non-linear also plays a large roll here, this is no such thing as a truely non-linear plot. Since certain things will always have to be completed in a certain order. However here are three ways to impove the non-linear nature of a plot.
One, give the player multible goals as they play though the game. If the player has more than one thing to do, it allows them to feel more control since they can choose where to go next to complete the next part of one of their goals. If a player has only one goal however they feel that they might not have any choices.
Two, allow optional sidetracking. People love to get sidetracked and go off on a completly seperate side quest, that may or may not relate to the main goals of the player. Making the player have to go on the side quest is however a very bad thing. Even a player who chooses not to get sidetracked will enjoy the fact they could have done it if they wanted to. And if you include enough of them, the player can pick and choose making them feel like they are in total control.
And three, allow multiple solutions to a problem. This is tricky since you don't want to fork the plot at every node in the story, since that to led to less overall quality in the plot. However there are two kinds of results from a solution, the first is short term it includes experence and other short term rewards like items or gold or a plot/character developement. The long term results are its affect on the overall plot of the game. So if you have different short term results from different solutions, you can if you are careful have the same long term results for all of them, this allows you to have a more stable and better story.
Certain things will always have to happen in a certain order, since otherwise latter stuff wouldn't make sense, but with some thoughtful planning you can make the player feel like they have more of say about what is happening.
Most PC rpgs allow the player to choose what a character will say, this can help with the third option, or it can just be one way of allowing the player to choose what they will learn about the game world. This can be helpful or harmful depending on how it is done.
The final part of player choice comes in the form of combat. The player must choose how to fight and play. Heal, attack, heal, attack, heal, attack can get borring after a while, so the more real choice the better, and while there should be more than one simple way to defeat an enemy having different tactics the work better in different battles can go a long way to impoving the action in a battle. If a player can get though a battle by holding down one key then you have failed to deliver real action in your battle.
Players love to keep score, and get bonuses for clever moves, in rpgs we keep the score with 'character experence', gold and/or stats. it is however little more. Some enemies in the game are harder than others the more a character must deal with them the easier it gets. That's the idea anyway, but if all the enemies are harder and they all get easier this can led to a pattern! You could keep some enemies forever easy and some enemies forever hard, but if the new enemies one encounters are forever harder than the last set then you don't have to worry about this.
Warning! Don't let the numbers go to high, they don't really make a cent of difference to the game itself, but the experence can be ruined for the player if they feel carrying 300 billion coins is a plane stupid. Giving out more and more gold is just stupid, since you have to decrease the value of each coin in process. its natural that you will get more gold in some areas than others, but not all enemies have a use for money. So don't give out money if you don't have a reason, then when the player does discover that chest of 300 gold, it is priceless. Where as if they already get 50 or 100 gold per battle, the chest is worthless.
Don't allow all the characters stats to max. Each character should by difference from all the other characters. So while allowing one or two stats to get to the highest possible, the other stats should never get to 100%. Some game cap the player experence or level to manage this. Some games don't increase the most of the stats at all, keeping them most of them fixed from the beginning of the game instead. All I played allowed at least the health/HP stat of the character to go with through time in the game. Even that stat can go too high though. While players like a character to become more powerful, remember that having 1000 HPs and gaining 100 HP is the same as having 100 HPs and gaining 10. you don't have to increase the numbers by that much to impove the character.
Having smaller numbers makes the big bonuses you do give in those rare cases worth that much more.
I think I've covered most things that I wanted to. Please tell me your opinions and let me of any other issues in rpg developement that bug you, or get you worked up.
Nathan Smith
white_door@yahoo.com