Forum > Design, Development, and Gameplay
Risk versus reward
Balbinus:
Over on rpg.net there was a discussion about MMOs, and how companies behind them were moving from a balance of risk and reward to a pure reward model.
It occurs to me that's a path rpgs have already walked.
Back when I started out in the early 1980s, to get stuff in game you had to risk stuff in game. Characters could die, characters were not necessarily anyone special, you became special by risking and winning.
Over time, not so much. Nowadays increasingly characters start special, they start with the reward, and as the game goes on they get more reward because drama point mechanics, ubercharacters and challenge ratings help ensure that they are never really risking anything. There is the illusion of risk, but no actual risk.
It strikes me as being linked to another design change. Back in the early 1980s, playing in a cool setting was the hook. You were a guy making a living in space (Traveller), a cowboy (Boot Hill), a social climbing musketeer (Flashing Blades) and so on. You weren't anyone that special, but the world you were in was special.
Again, now, not so much. The model now seems more Exaltedesque, in which the world may or may not be special but you sure as hell are. I think White Wolf helped with this shift a lot, the White Wolf paradigm in many ways is that you are special, you are marked out for greatness. The idea that you are nobody special until you prove you are, and maybe that you're just an ordinary guy in an interesting place, the dominant paradigm of the early 1980s, that's not really around so much now.
So, what causes it? I think there is definitely a place for you are special, there is no special virtue in starting out crap in every game, but having every game increasingly having you as special loses something. We have the reward, but not the risk.
Thoughts?
Abyssal Maw:
I kinda don't agree. Or at least, I don't agree that risks and rewards must be absolutely quantified such that risk = permanent character death and reward = things gained as compensation for facing risk as defined above.
The issue is - in a serialized adventure type game - in order to create a successful experience for everyone playing (and a good game) you have to be able to allow for loss without totally ruining or ending the game. This is a succesful time-tested model. Every MMO (City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, etc) allows for some form of respawn if endangering the 'life' of a character or playing piece is one of the possible consequences of the game.
Thus, things like resurrection/raise dead/re-spawn etc are good things.
The obvious RPG example is D&D, (with it's raise dead spells, but more importantly the -10 mechanic), but let's use another, newer RPG that has a similar rule.
In Faery's Tale: When you run out of Essence, your character falls into a magical sleep and can't be harmed while it regenerates. Then your'e back up in the next scene to try again.
This is important, I think. Yeah, even if it is unrealistic!
Risks should be real, but not permanent end states. And rewards should be rewards that actually satisfy and interest players.
Balbinus:
What's wrong with rolling up a new character?
Faery Tale is a bit of a special case, it's designed in part with kids in mind and I wouldn't personally fancy telling little Timmy that his faery is dead and gone forever.
But in DnD, the ease of resurrection is one reason I don't play the game. It's also almost unique to DnD, hardly any other games have the ease of resurrection that DnD does. It's actually quite atypical in that.
For me the resurrection spoils the game partly because death is just a minor inconvenience, and partly because it makes the setting not make sense (the king is dead, oh, no, he's just been resurrected).
I certainly don't think resurrection in game is necessary for good gaming, I haven't played a game with that setup in over 20 years and I am hardly alone in that.
That said, death need not be the only risk by any means, but if you can't have a genuine setback then there is no genuine risk, and certainly for me something is lost then.
For me, easy resurrection is a game killer, if I can't retcon it out then I would play something else. I suspect that's not actually that uncommon an attitude, the ease of resurrection is one of the most common complaints about DnD sometimes even from its fans. One friend of mine who played it complained of a cartoon like quality intruding. Certainly it doesn't much evoke fantasy fiction in which typically one guy coming back is a big deal indeed, not a matter of economics.
Balbinus:
--- Quote from: Abyssal Maw ---Every MMO (City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, etc) allows for some form of respawn if endangering the 'life' of a character or playing piece is one of the possible consequences of the game.
--- End quote ---
This is actually one of the key reasons most MMOs don't interest me. No risk, thus ultimately time spent playing is the most important factor over skill or anything else. It rewards dull grinding over good play.
Settembrini:
You, Sir, should indeed play Traveller.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page