The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[GMMichael]

I just watched a FoolTube video, pretty well done, about how the Elder Scrolls games are being "dumbed down" to meet the lowest common denominator. To make more money. And I had to ask myself:

Are TRPGs doing this too?

Now, obviously, the video's arguments don't apply directly to TRPGs. But for your reading pleasure, here they are (with my additions in parenthesis):

1) You can't fail (except to die and reload in the same place).
2) No consequences for faction membership (or, the Imperials don't care if you're a Rebel).
3) You make little impact in the world.
4) The quest and journal system (does little more than make you walk toward arrows).
5) NPC conversations are heavily reduced (and bear little significance).
6) Massively oversimplified puzzles (usually, with the solutions in plain sight).
7) The value of (special) items has been reduced (and supply has been greatly increased).

This would probably be easiest to view through the lens of multiple D&D editions, on which I'm no expert. But most big companies are out for your dirty dollar - are they making compromises as well?

 

[Celebrim]

I just watched a FoolTube video, pretty well done, about how the Elder Scrolls games are being "dumbed down" to meet the lowest common denominator.

It happened with Mass Effect as well. Mass Effect I was probably my favorite cRPG ever, though even then it wasn't hard enough and lacked some of the adventure gaming elements that I'd expect in an RPG. Mass Effect II brought us reduced character building, and more limited open world where combat no longer could occur in any situation but only in carefully designated combat playing fields where simple terrain features dictated the flow of play, and to support that a good deal less judicious and interesting use of cut scenes. (Mass Effect II's first cut scene is by far its most powerful, but its also probably the most anti-game cut scene in video game history. Compare the use of cut scene as in game elaboration of consequence and reward for success in ME1. ME2 uses the cut scene to abrogate player choice and involvement.)

1) You can't fail (except to die and reload in the same place).
2) No consequences for faction membership (or, the Imperials don't care if you're a Rebel).
3) You make little impact in the world.
4) The quest and journal system (does little more than make you walk toward arrows).
5) NPC conversations are heavily reduced (and bear little significance).
6) Massively oversimplified puzzles (usually, with the solutions in plain sight).
7) The value of (special) items has been reduced (and supply has been greatly increased).

There is definitely a move in cRPGs toward:

a) No meaningful failure. That is no failure ever attacks the player's primary agenda. True failure sucks so find some way to redefine limited victory as failure.
b) No consequences to choices. All roads lead to the same place, they just differ in the provided color.
c) Linearity.
d) Conversations reduced to combat style mechanical obstacles.
e) Character skill as opposed to player skill.
f) No exploration play.
g) No withholding of reward.

No system as yet is explicitly advocating all of that, there is a definite trend away from 'old school' at least on some fronts (retro gaming being the obvious and obviously reactionary exception). Pretty much every modern system is guilty of encouraging at least some of that. Though there are definite exceptions when comparing the trend in PnP versus cRPGs, conversation isn't any more of a lost art now in PnP's than it ever was because actual RP is so system independent in a PnP (whereas it's highly dependent on what the developer enables in a cRPG).

One driving force in cRPGs toward simpler games is rising cost of production for larger games strongly encourages multiplatform development, which drives interface design to the lowest common denominator. You know longer could create a mainstream cRPG that expected you to type text into the interface, for example, which strongly limits that sort of exploratory conversation and interaction associated with very old school cRPGs. Ironically, we are now at the point where we have the capabilities to avoid the worst elements text as interface (hunting for the exact right wording). PnP's so far as I can tell don't have that problem, since paper and dice are still relatively cheap and imagination is free.

 

[Mallus]

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: No. Neither video games as a whole nor tabletop games are being 'dumbed down'.

Slightly longer still: Changes made to a single popular CRPG franchise do not indicate a widespread phenomena. And whether those design changes constitute 'dumbing down' are open to debate. They can't merely be assumed.

Plenty of counter-evidence exists; the rise of old-school indie (video/computer) games across many platforms which bring back so-called 'smart' features like permadeath, 'consequences', unassisted exploration, tough puzzles, and so on (the apotheosis of this would be Dwarf Fortress). In fact, there's a really-well reviewed tough old-school RPG just released on Steam -- Divinity: Original Sin (I'm going to pick it up as soon as I'm done re-obsessing over Civilization V).

Basically, the idea (video and computer) games are being dumbed down only makes sense if you ignore the wealth of evidence that disproves it. Is Elder Scrolls getting dumber -- maybe. Personally I wouldn't hold any of them up as examples of smart design, but that's just me.

Plug for two of my favorite (semi) recent games: Flower and Journey are two of the smartest video games ever made. The posses almost every feature on the 'dumb down' list.

As for comparing video & computer games to tabletop RPGs in the first place -- it's tricky business. I think you need to start by providing an argument/framework for why the comparison useful in the first place.

 

[Mallus]

Come to think of it. RPG systems themselves aren't really ever 'smart' or 'dumb'. Campaigns are.

 

[Zhaleskra]

While I know it's become popular over the past decade or so to "be important in the world", I've never particularly cared about number 3 at that tabletop. Does the adventure have a world reaching outcome? Possibly. Most important to me is how my character's part of the story plays out and impacts those he or she adventures with. I do get attached to characters, but I'm more than willing to let their stories come to a sudden end.

 

[Celebrim]

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: No. Neither video games as a whole nor tabletop games are being 'dumbed down'.

Slightly longer still: Changes made to a single popular CRPG franchise do not indicate a widespread phenomena. And whether those design changes constitute 'dumbing down' are open to debate. They can't merely be assumed.

We aren't talking about single examples. This isn't even something that is controversial in the cRPG world. Plenty of designers have observed it.

Plenty of counter-evidence exists; the rise of old-school indie (video/computer) games across many platforms which bring back so-called 'smart' features like permadeath, 'consequences', unassisted exploration, tough puzzles, and so on (the apotheosis of this would be Dwarf Fortress). In fact, there's a really-well reviewed tough old-school RPG just released on Steam -- Divinity: Original Sin (I'm going to pick it up as soon as I'm done re-obsessing over Civilization V).

Basically, the idea (video and computer) games are being dumbed down only makes sense if you ignore the wealth of evidence that disproves it.

This is probably the single most abused phrase in all of the English language, but these really are exceptions that prove the rule: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. We are able to distinguish the rise of retro-gaming in both cRPGs and PnP precisely because it is distinguishable in features from the larger trend in mainstream gaming. If games weren't generally being made easier, with fewer controls, more explicit help, simpler puzzles, and less ability to get stuck then we wouldn't recognize the exceptions like Dark Souls as exceptions. Dark Souls stands out because it has features we no longer expect to find in mainstream titles. Dwarf Fortress isn't a mainstream title. It's basically applying modern computation to old school design. You don't even mention what is probably the premier example of that - Minecraft.

So no, I don't think that the dumbing down of games means that the audience is getting dumber, or even that the designers are (in general, I'd suggest the reverse). It means that the big budget titles with 100+ million dollar production budgets don't feel that they can take risks and must appeal to the lowest common denominator in the least risky way.

Plug for two of my favorite (semi) recent games: Flower and Journey are two of the smartest video games ever made. The posses almost every feature on the 'dumb down' list.

Journey's company went bankrupt releasing it. And Journey in particular is closer in my opinion to interactive art or an electronic toy, rather than a game. Smart I'll grant you, in the sense that the people who made it were clearly deep thinkers, but it's almost in a different category. It certainly doesn't require a smart person to play it, so in that sense, it's also 'dumbed down'.

 

[biotech66]

I don't feel games are any dumber then they were before. Games themselves are becoming more inclusive and less fiddly as a whole. I love some things about DnD that others don't, and I'm sad when those things leave the next edition. However, by removing that obstacle, more players can join my game and that makes me happy. I see changes in the video and table top industries as overall positive allowing for less of an sharp barrier to entry.

 

[Janx]

I just watched a FoolTube video, pretty well done, about how the Elder Scrolls games are being "dumbed down" to meet the lowest common denominator. To make more money. And I had to ask myself:

Are TRPGs doing this too?

Now, obviously, the video's arguments don't apply directly to TRPGs. But for your reading pleasure, here they are (with my additions in parenthesis):

1) You can't fail (except to die and reload in the same place).
2) No consequences for faction membership (or, the Imperials don't care if you're a Rebel).
3) You make little impact in the world.
4) The quest and journal system (does little more than make you walk toward arrows).
5) NPC conversations are heavily reduced (and bear little significance).
6) Massively oversimplified puzzles (usually, with the solutions in plain sight).
7) The value of (special) items has been reduced (and supply has been greatly increased).

This would probably be easiest to view through the lens of multiple D&D editions, on which I'm no expert. But most big companies are out for your dirty dollar - are they making compromises as well?

All those are valid data points about game design, Skyrim in particular.

I can see how an observer might come to the conclusion that the intent was to "dumb it down". I don't think the reality is that deliberate or nefarious. Instead, these data-points are the outcome of a variety of probably well intentioned decisions or natural progression of design/technology.


1) You can't fail (except to die and reload in the same place).
In the arcade, you used to feed quarters to keep playing. Making it to the end of the Dragon's Lair was more about wallet than skill.

On the PC, the inherent nature of the medium is to save frequently and often. Which means backup points. A game would have to deliberately destroy your backup files to prevent you from reloading.

There's also the "are you programmers morons" effect. People get interupted. Cut scenes and check points to saves are the number one peeve to gamers who get interupted. From a computer science standpoint, any programmer who can't enable saving at any time is a moron who doesn't understand how to serialize game state to file.

2) No consequences for faction membership (or, the Imperials don't care if you're a Rebel).

I assume the goal here was to not lock a PC out of any action. I only play one character in Elder Scrolls. I don't want to make multiple characters and replay a bunch of content so I can access the "different" stuff. I'm likely the target demographic for this feature, though I agree its stupid from a "that's not realistic" perspective.

3) You make little impact in the world.

Ah, the joys of sequels. A game that is part of a series has to maintain continuity across series. if the Player makes radical changes in Game 1, then Game 2 has to account for them. Which is really complicated when 100,000 players make 100,000 different radical changes.

The resulting solution is to neuter the player's impact on the game world. If a game's world was designed as a one-shot (no sequels), then it could allow the player to do whatever damage to in a given save file, with no worry about trying to fit it into the sequel.

4) The quest and journal system (does little more than make you walk toward arrows).

After taking a year long hiatus from Skyrim, that little arrrow was pretty handy to indicate I was in the middle of an active quest, that more specifically had me following a dude in a tower.

Had those arrows not been there, I'd have completely mucked up the mission I was in the middle of as I had no clue what was going on and would have wandered out because I though i was just exploring a tower.

5) NPC conversations are heavily reduced (and bear little significance).

crappy writing is crappy writing. I long to see text to speech and voice recognition technology get to the point where a zillion NPC voices can be made from the text, and I can talk to the NPC in character. Chatbot engines should be the future of NPC conversations. But it ain't yet...

6) Massively oversimplified puzzles (usually, with the solutions in plain sight).

Because GMs have discovered that nothing craters an adventure like a clever puzzle that the players are too stupid to think like him to figure out.

puzzles are risky game elements. Plus, in a time sensitive situation (hurry up and solve this before the cultists sacrifice the farmer's daughter at midnight), the players could spend HOURS of real time figuring it out (or just google it), and the in-game time limit needs to expire (which bugs me that the game quests don't have reasonable time limits. Those cultists will wait DAYS for me to make it into the ceremonial chamber.


7) The value of (special) items has been reduced (and supply has been greatly increased).

Everybody likes loot. It is a very modular system for customizing the power and look of a character. So it happens. a lot.

 

[GMMichael]

There's also the "are you programmers morons" effect. People get interupted. Cut scenes and check points to saves are the number one peeve to gamers who get interupted. From a computer science standpoint, any programmer who can't enable saving at any time is a moron who doesn't understand how to serialize game state to file.

By "people get interrupted" do you mean while playing games? Anyway, on-demand saving is a sort of double-edged sword. It can mean that 1) you don't have to constantly replay several scenes before a big battle (in which you keep dying), or 2) like with unlimited respawn, a player doesn't really have to think about HOW he gets to the big battle, he just needs to get there. Effect 2 is the dumbing-down effect.

An interesting application to TRPGs: I've never seen a "save game" mechanic in an RPG. It would be nice in the event of a TPK, especially if it were more interesting than "okay, you get all your hit points and potions back."

I assume the goal here was to not lock a PC out of any action. I only play one character in Elder Scrolls. I don't want to make multiple characters and replay a bunch of content so I can access the "different" stuff. I'm likely the target demographic for this feature, though I agree its stupid from a "that's not realistic" perspective.

Replayability is an interesting feature. Skyrim is loaded with it, in the sense that you can miss 80% of the game and still finish it. Yet, if games are being dumbed down, the target audience isn't interested in replayability. They have short attention spans, and love DLCs with new maps.

Really, I don't think faction-exclusivity is a TRPG issue. Unless you apply it to classes and multiclassing.

Had those arrows not been there, I'd have completely mucked up the mission I was in the middle of as I had no clue what was going on and would have wandered out because I though i was just exploring a tower.

Dumbing down. Sure, the arrows were helpful. But what did you, as a player, not do? Take notes. Nor did your journal system allow you to record more useful info. Really, smart games would REQUIRE the player to take his own notes, and do his own thinking. Which might be less inconvenient now, with a player and game's ability to include PDAs in the game.

This problem carries over into TRPGs. Personal experience: lots of info thrown at the PCs in the Mines of Madness (specifically, mineshafts named after dwarven kings), and did a single player bother to write anything down? You guessed it.

Because GMs have discovered that nothing craters an adventure like a clever puzzle that the players are too stupid to think like him to figure out.

Yes, that really does stink. But this is where problem 1 comes in: players can't fail. A GM can present the too-clever puzzle, and let the players solve it - or let them fail. Now, it's up to the RPG to explain, "hey, genius, if your PCs can't solve your awesome puzzles, you can't let it derail your plot." CHANGE the plot? Yes, please. But don't derail the train. (EDIT: oops, bad metaphor!)

 

[Celebrim]

This problem carries over into TRPGs. Personal experience: lots of info thrown at the PCs in the Mines of Madness (specifically, mineshafts named after dwarven kings), and did a single player bother to write anything down? You guessed it.

This is a HUGE problem. I've been running a biweekly game for going on four years now. It has been a huge repeated problem that even though I'm obeying the 'three clue rule' and even when players are given the clues, if they don't immediately recognize the importance of the clue, by the time two weeks roll around they have completely forgotten about it. And since they've completely forgotten about it, the significance of any clue they find that points back at the original clue is also lost on them. It often leads to a situation where NPCs have to take the lead and be quest givers who explicitly tell the players what to do, because the players are generally lost without a clearly stated goal to perform. That's annoying on several fronts. First, it means that I'm having to deprotagonize the PCs to keep them protagonized, and secondly it means that often lately there is a small army of NPCs they've gotten involved in the problem who I have to keep track of.

It's probably only in the last year or so that the players have finally figured out, "All these stuff the DM keeps telling us. Maybe we should write some of it down?" Prior to that it was like pouring water into a sieve. It didn't matter how many clues I gave them, it just went in one ear and out the other.

And that's not to even get into the problem where early on I discovered several had been taking treasure and then not writing it down on their character sheet, and then they kept doing it despite repeated cautions that I wasn't going to keep track of what they owned for them. That went on for more than a year before some of the other players started figuring out it was things like magic items (cure potions for example) that were being taken and then disappearing, and then the party appointed a PC to be the companies in game quartermaster/accountant because the problem had gotten so bad that party survival was being threatened.

Maybe in another three years I will have got them to the point that they actually reread those notes before the session to refresh themselves on what to do or what they have on their character sheet.

It's not that the players are stupid - in fact a couple of them are absolutely brilliant. It's that they have their RPG expectations set by Blizzard rather than things like TSR, Chaosism, or on the cRPG front Infocom, Origin Systems, and Sierra (or even Lucasarts). The don't expect to make choices or investigate things, and they certainly don't expect it to require thought.

In the early days of cRPGs, it was implicit that the goal was to get the computer to act as a good dungeon master - a sort of recreation of the naturalistic experience of PnP play utilizing the strengths of a computer (and without the need for a social group). Now I've got the problem that players except a DM to act like the computer, only the computers aren't actually getting more DM like but less so. Even something like Diablo III compared to Diablo I is a huge step backwards in making the game act like a DM. The Diablo I game engine acted like a DM in that it actually generated new 'creative' maps with new features every time you replayed it. The Diablo III game engine does not really do that - it just toggles a few minor binary features so that they may or may not appear. In that sense, the engine has gotten more 'stupid' despite major advances in the presentation of the game and attempts (lame ones granted) at a more developed story.

UPDATE: Speaking of Diablo III, probably the case study in the dumbing down of cRPGs is Act III where the supposed greatest general and strategist of hell, literally takes on the role of quest giver to the PC by explicitly telling the PC at every single stage exactly what the PC needs to do in order to defeat him. And he continues to do this even after the PC continually defeats him, each time expressing his disbelief that the PC could ever defeat him. It is a joke even among fans of the game. That is to say, the makers of Diablo III were more than willing to make their game mockable, than they were to risk even a moment of a player experiencing frustration that they didn't know exactly what to do next.

Oh, and "Look. More footprints."