The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[Janx]

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.

who else would I mean? Of course players playing the game get interrupted. Try having kids or a short wife in the house. There's always something that needs your help.

What you call dumbing down, is a side effect of trying to solve the problem of players who need to stop NOW, and using the obvious technology of saving data. While it's obvious that the benefit is not having to replay stuff, that wasn't the original driving factor when it was invented.

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."

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.

You got it backwards. Nobody plays Skyrim and skips 80% of the content. They load up a character and play EVERYTHING with that character. The game is designed so I don't need to repeat myself, I can get to all the meat with one PC. Proof of this is hours spent. I have 300+ hours on Oblivion. Almost the same on Skyrim, and I haven't even finished the main quest.

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.

In my example, I was literaly in mid-stride following an NPC inside a tower with live foes in it. I obviously got interrupted, a year ago when I last played Skyrim. Notes weren't going to happen.

What you call dumbing down, I call a handy reminder to bring my mind back into focus on what I was doing. In point of fact, as I had loaded the latest save file, I was surprised when I got my bearings, that I was in the middle of a quest I remembered already completing. So I didn't need notes. I just needed a cue as to what I was last at, without flailing around in the middle of a live encounter.

I used to take notes when I was a kid playing D&D. It was mostly stuff I remembered anyway as it turns out. Note taking is generally a waste of paper for me. And for most people, note taking is work. And work is something you get paid for. D&D is play time. So there's a movement to not do so much work, just to play a game. That's not everybody's preference, but it is a common one.

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!)

Generally, the DMG (or whatever) is trying to advise GMs to not invent puzzles that have no realistic bearing to the situation at hand (puzzles for the sake of puzzles with no context). You can interpret, as you have in this whole topic to be one meaning, but I see the other meaning, which is there are certain things to avoid in game design or RPG adventure design, because they cause more problems than they are worth.

 

[billd91]

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.

I think it's really more of a player type issue. This has been an issue much longer than CRPGs have been around in large numbers. Back in the early to mid-80s, there were players who took notes and ones who didn't and wouldn't if their lives depended on it. It was simply the way they wanted to play - without the encumbrance of a lot of notes or thinking. They wanted to smash in doors, kill things, and loot the bodies. Occasionally, they'd also want to seduce a barmaid. But they were also the types of players who did NOT play Call of Cthulhu or any other game with significant amounts of investigation either. And on top of that, they are also the types of players less likely to take up the GMing mantle in the games they play - they aren't as interested in the same kinds of details as a GM is, the stories behind the ongoing action of the campaign, the whys and whos behind the adventuring locations and desired treasures and artifacts.

In today's world of CRPGs, you still have some players who will take notes on everything, who will read all of the detailed data entries that appear in Mass Effect or Dragon Age even though they're playing a CRPG that doesn't require it. They're simply the types of players who like that sort of thing, some to the point of writing wikis on game's setting or writing fan fic. Their expectations aren't lowered by a CRPG's quests and adventures, in fact, the background details in a CRPG may actually stimulate their expectations.

 

[Umbran]

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.

If a player has to use unlimited respawn to get through to reach the big battle, that implies that the thing that keeps killing them before the big battle is, for them, a big battle! So, case (2) actually reduces to case (1), and there is no dumbing-down.

Computer RPGs are extremely limited in scope and abilities, as compared to tabletop RPGs. They are not at all flexible - the number of ways to reach the designated goals must be determined before play begins - all cRPGs are, effectively, railroads. Early cRPGs did not mark where the rails were, and forced the player to search for them.

However, I reject that idea that this led to "smart" play. It led to *dogged* play. It led to exhaustive play. Let us consider a classic - Zork - as an extreme example. I submit that no person, no matter how smart, was ever able to *think* through Zork, and make it through without being eaten by a grue by right of main intelligence. Zork and its ilk operated on the headache principle - the good thing about the headache is that it feels good when it finally goes away. In a game like Zork, the positive reinforcement and pleasure comes not from how clever you were, but in the sheer relief of frustration when you finally found your way through the opaque challenge in the singular way the writer intended.

If invisible rails did not lead to smart play, marking the rails does nor count as "dumbing down". It counts as getting the player to the parts of the cRPG experience where the player *can* be smart - tactical engagements.

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."

The TRPG doesn't need a "save game". If the GM does not want to accept the TPK, he or she can implement a solution that doesn't require discontinuity in the narrative. The CRPG doesn't have that flexibility, as it cannot create new, unplanned narrative.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I cannot comment on computer or online games because I don’t play them.

That said, I don’t think it’s really possibly to ‘dumb down’ tabletop RPGs. Sure, some may be more or less high brow than others but in all cases there is a basic requirement of literacy, numeracy and simple communication skills in order to be able to play them.

I’m a high school teacher, so believe me when I say this would be a major achievement for a lot of students, and without trying to sound elitist in any way (I wish more people would play them!) I think by extension it is the same for the general public. People who play RPGs may be vulnerable to lacking social skills or whatever, but they are rarely ‘dumb’, and the games they chose to play certainly aren’t.

 

[Jhaelen]

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).

Well, 1) is almost unavoidable in a CRPG. Even for Rogue-like games you can create a safety net by making backups of the game folder.
4) & 6) are indeed typical of most modern CRPG titles, especially the MMORPG types.
2), 3), and 5) are typical for the Elder Scroll series and the main reason why I don't like it: What's the point of complete freedom, if none of my actions have any impact? Why have a gigantic game world if every place is essentially the same (identical monster spawns, identical npc dialogues, etc.)? 3) is of course also a common feature of MMORPGs.
7) is something that reminds me most of Diablo 3. Compared to its predecessors, it's extremely streamlined to provide instant gratification and prevent 'wrong' choices (e.g. in character development). 1) and 4) - 6) also apply to Diablo 3. But then it's an action title and not a real rpg.

So which of these also apply to table-top rpgs?
I think most of them are under the control of the GM.
E.g. 1) - 5) are definitely untrue in our games.
6) is mostly true, because of player preference - basically, I'm the only one enjoying puzzles, so rather then boring the rest of the players while I'm figuring out a tricky puzzle, our GMs simply don't use them any more.
Regarding 7), this is the only point that is actually at least partly defined by the system, i.e. the value of items. Supply, however, is again within the purview of the GM.

So, if there is a trend that also applies to table-top rpgs, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Yora]

When it comes to rules, I think less is more. Simpler rules that flow more smoothly are an advantage, simplification is a good thing that makes it easier to do more thinking on the events as they unfold.

When it comes to adventure modules and settings, I think you can't get any dumber than AD&D, and that was over 30 years ago. The amount of thought that goes into them and the depth they achieve is much greater than it used to be in the past.

 

[Umbran]

When it comes to rules, I think less is more. Simpler rules that flow more smoothly are an advantage, simplification is a good thing that makes it easier to do more thinking on the events as they unfold.

Agreed. And a note that simpler rules does not equate to a dumb game. The game of Go has among the simplest rules on the planet, but it is an elegant game of exquisite strategy and tactics. Good simple rules lead to interesting game play, regardless.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Video games in general and CRPGs in particular are obviously being dumbed down over time. I think it's a case of trying to be accessible to more players. As an illustration of how this works, take me. I've been playing video games since Space Invaders came out, so almost since the beginning, and I've played a lot of games since I enjoy them. So I'm really good. A game that is an enjoyable challenge for someone like me who has been playing almost 40 years is going to be impossible for someone who's just getting into gaming. Since video games are still growing in popularity, there are a lot more new gamers than there are experienced gamers, and of course the money is following the bigger market. I'm unhappy about this of course, since I'm finding fewer and fewer games that interest me, but such is life.

I don't really see this happening in the RPG market. The only factor I can think of where RPGs are being dumbed down is dependence on character rather than player skill, e.g. social skill rolls and the like, but these could be argued to just be an esthetic preference.

 

[Janx]

Computer RPGs are extremely limited in scope and abilities, as compared to tabletop RPGs. They are not at all flexible - the number of ways to reach the designated goals must be determined before play begins - all cRPGs are, effectively, railroads. Early cRPGs did not mark where the rails were, and forced the player to search for them.

This is both true and untrue. it depends on the game. Sadly, it was more true for text adventures, where every item was effectively hard-coded to perform its operation when used at the right time. You had to get the right combination at the right moment it was needed.

For other games, the puzzle situation is an inherent function of the engine. Portal is an example of this. The game looks like an FPS, but the player gets a gun that shoots portals instead. The portals only work on walls made of the right material. The result is, the mechanics work to create puzzles by nature of the map level. It is both smart, elegant, and allows for multiple solutions as the map creator may have unwittingly enabled them when the player thinks of new angles to place the portals to navigate the map.

However, using almost the same engine, Portal 2 fails and becomes one of the hard-coded style. They give a few more gadgets, and in doing so, the map builders focussed on requiring the right gadget at the right time. Which meant there were fewer actual solution possibilities for any given level.

It's a case, where like Go, the simpler game mechanic enabled more options beyond what the creator envisioned.

However, I reject that idea that this led to "smart" play. It led to *dogged* play. It led to exhaustive play. Let us consider a classic - Zork - as an extreme example. I submit that no person, no matter how smart, was ever able to *think* through Zork, and make it through without being eaten by a grue by right of main intelligence. Zork and its ilk operated on the headache principle - the good thing about the headache is that it feels good when it finally goes away. In a game like Zork, the positive reinforcement and pleasure comes not from how clever you were, but in the sheer relief of frustration when you finally found your way through the opaque challenge in the singular way the writer intended.

I agree on the the old text adventures. or even most video games. You didn't beat them naturally in one pass. You learned by death. Repeatedly playing the old sequences to get to the part where you died, to figure out what the programmer expected you to do.

This in turn, is the sort of opposite of modern tRPG play, where you don't die and respawn to retry, you are expected to "solve it" on the scene in one take. Now some might take that as an expectation of no failure, but what I take out of it is that the challenge or puzzle must be of a nature that a reasonably thinking party should be able to figure out in a reasonable amount of time. Any groups that fail this, enter the failure path as expected. Design-wise, it means picking the right size puzzle/problem. Not too big, not too small.

 

[Janx]

Video games in general and CRPGs in particular are obviously being dumbed down over time. I think it's a case of trying to be accessible to more players. As an illustration of how this works, take me. I've been playing video games since Space Invaders came out, so almost since the beginning, and I've played a lot of games since I enjoy them. So I'm really good. A game that is an enjoyable challenge for someone like me who has been playing almost 40 years is going to be impossible for someone who's just getting into gaming. Since video games are still growing in popularity, there are a lot more new gamers than there are experienced gamers, and of course the money is following the bigger market. I'm unhappy about this of course, since I'm finding fewer and fewer games that interest me, but such is life.

I don't really see this happening in the RPG market. The only factor I can think of where RPGs are being dumbed down is dependence on character rather than player skill, e.g. social skill rolls and the like, but these could be argued to just be an esthetic preference.

I bolded a part because that part doesn't mean that games have gotten dumber. If you're so experienced, the bulk of all games out there are beneath your skill level. Everything is dumber/entry-level to a master.

Though for the record, Space Invaders isn't exactly a demonstration of "smart" video games. No doubt it is a challenging game. But it's kind of a railroad. I can only move left and right. I can't get out and make peace with the aliens,or attempt to rebuild the shelters. The enemies don't even really react to my actions.