View Single Post
Old 09-27-2010, 02:58 AM   #127
silvarilon
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 144
silvarilon is on a distinguished road
Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs

You could argue it. It wouldn't be a hard argument to make. But it would be focussing on the combat mechanics.
Early editions of D&D had archaic tables of accuracy, percentage charts, and other silliness. They required dedication to understand and play properly. But if we're talking about quality of *roleplay* then I'm not sure that the difficulty of the system really matters that much.

Modern versions of the game give much more freedom and support for roleplay, while early versions were more rigid. You could be a thief, or a wizard, or an elf. What's that? Yes. "Elf" was a class. You couldn't play an elven thief, nope. When it comes to bringing your characters to life, 4th edition gives much more opportunity. And there are other game systems that go even further (some even allowing you to define a character by aspects other than how they perform combat!)

Are those games "dumbed down"? Maybe. 4th edition DnD is certainly easier to pick up and play than 1st was. But is that really "dumbing down" or is it streamlining, improving? Bear in mind that D&D came from tactical wargaming. We (as a community) have learned a lot about roleplaying in the time since then.

The latest trend seems to even be removing skill levels altogether, and instead having character descriptors. Seems fruity to me, but I'm yet to see it in play. The idea of getting rid of hitpoints seemed fruity to me at the time, and now I hate the concept of "hit points" for a character.

I'd argue that 4th ed is a significantly superior game to 1st ed. Are there things I don't like about it? Sure. Are there things I miss from 1st ed? Sure. But in terms of a total package? It's a much better designed game. "Hard" doesn't necessarily mean "better" - in fact "hard to learn" is often a sign of bad game design.

Is the intention really to make the game easier, though?
Super Mario is a pretty easy game. At least, the early few levels. So there's something in there that anyone can enjoy.
But yet they have some fiendishly hard levels. But is that really because modern games don't want those hard levels? Or is it because content generation is so expensive? If it costs me $20,000 a level, I'm more likely to make a game with 10 levels that goes up to middling difficulty, and let people replay the game on "hardcore" mode, rather than having 10 levels that go up to middling difficulty, and then another 10 that go up to fiendish difficulty. Having the harder ones will get my game a fun reputation of being "hardcore", but it'll double the content cost. If, on the other hand, it only cost $200 a level, sure, I'll put in all 20 levels.

We see something similar with movies - as movie production costs go up, the demands that movie put on us goes down. Who's going to pay $80 million to make a movie that will only be understood by 5% of the potential audience?
There are still clever movies, but like "hardcore mode" those intellectual aspects are layered on top of a simpler story. Everyone can enjoy "District 9" because the basic story is pretty easy to understand, and it has fun explosions and aliens. People who want to, and are capable, can go further and appreciate the subtleties. But that basic, simple movie is still available to everyone.

Similarly, the basic, simple computer games are available to everyone. We're expected to pump up the difficulty level if we want the extra challenge.

Which is a shame. When we're not looking at costs, the situation can be quite different. I was just playing God Wars 2 for my first time today. Wow, it's got a bit of a learning curve. I was pretty lost. Y'know, that's cool. It means KaVir could design the game that he thinks would be as awesome as possible. If that was a commercial release, there's no way he'd have been allowed to drop people in like that. He would have had to build those first 10 levels that end at a middling difficulty level. And only if there's enough budget would he have been allowed to finish off the remaining 20, and have the challenge level that he's currently got.

I think this is undeniably a good thing. If there is a challenging game, it should be challenging because of the gameplay, not because the mechanics are unfriendly.

Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment, but in practice the quality of the players roleplay heavily impacts any social game.
If a game is set in medieval times, and a player is just incapable of remembering that they are not modern people - and keeps talking about democracy, modern medicine etc. then that's going to impact the other players.

And quality of roleplay does matter. Because the other players are there to roleplay. So if there is bad quality roleplay, then it's less fun to play. That needs to be balanced against a relaxed atmosphere (we should be able to kick back and enjoy our roleplaying, and not always worry about the quality of what we're outputting)

Unfortunately, as much as I might not *want* to judge players based on their ability, the other players will be doing so, and will be staying or leaving the game based on what they see. And when I play, I'm just going to be having more fun with the players that roleplay in a compatible way to me.

I'm of the belief that, at the right moments, all players will be trying to win. I don't expect them not to (achievement is important to players) - what I do expect is that they still play consistently with their character. The claustrophobe shouldn't suddenly be fine with going down a mine because it'll help the player win. But they should be able to ask their friend to go down.
(Similarly, the claustrophobe that refuses to go down the mine should be, in some way, rewarded)

I 100% agree with this.
It's very much like art. Personal taste plays a huge part. Especially because we're all experiencing something different, due to our own characters relationship with the other characters.

But, like art, it's still a learnable skill. Maybe you don't like watercolours, but others do. But you can still learn to paint a monet vs a finger painting. You can still learn to create art in a way that is going to be enjoyed by more people that before (or by the same number or less people, but those few will enjoy it to a greater degree.)

Unfortunately, like art, I have no idea how to teach it. Or even how to judge it. And I certainly have no idea how to (properly, and fairly) reward good roleplay and discourage bad roleplay.

Some obvious examples, aside. (banning players that have OOC tantrums, rewarding players that go above and beyond when creating an event)

But if we can't recognize what makes good roleplay, and we can't reward the good roleplay and discourage the bad - then it shouldn't be a surprise if quality of roleplay is dropping.

But then again, is it really dropping? Or do we just have nostalgia when thinking about the past?

Yup!
That's why I'm here. I want to find new ways of thinking about old games.

This is one of the big things for me, trying to objectively pick out indications of good roleplay, and reward them. Currently I only have partial answers on how to do that.
silvarilon is offline   Reply With Quote