The Dumbing Down of RPGs

[Celebrim]

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.

While it is true that simpler rules don't necessarily equate to a dumb game, it's not necessarily true that they equate to good game either.

Tic-Tac-Toe has much simpler rules than Go. Yet is not an elegant game of exquisite strategy and tactics. It's a superficial trivial game. Simple rules don't lead to interesting game play, regardless. They have to be simple in a particular thoughtful way that gives large amounts of freedom but excludes trivial strategies. Most simple rules sets don't lead to interesting play.

Tic-Tac-Toe can be refined into a much less trivial game by making it slightly more complex in a variety of ways, granting each player more freedom while still allowing trivial strategies to be thwarted. 'Go' is one example of the general, 'Take a square' family of games that Tic-Tac-Toe is a member of that turns out to be elegant and deep (at least, it has defied easy analysis so far). However, it actually does have some daunting complexity hiding in the simple verbiage of the rules. For example, consider the 'super ko' situation. 'Repeat no prior game state except by passing' is actually a very complex rule!

But Go aside, we could easily look at examples like 'Connect Four' or 'Pente' to see that increased complexity does lead to increased depth. Granted, 'Connect Four' turns out to be not enough increased depth to defy easy analysis, and complete solutions exist for it, but its still complex enough that it makes for interesting leisure activity far longer than Tic-Tac-Toe does. Maybe a higher sophont class would consider it as bad as Tic-Tac-Toe though.

My suspicion is that Go will turn out to be a simple game once it is analyzed, with a set of rules for winning scarcely larger than the rules of the game (though, Go's distributed nature will probably mean that actually applying those rules algorithmically will probably be challenging to impossible for a person to do consciously). It's just defying analysis because it will actually have to be understood what the strategy is rather than simply searching the full space of all moves.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

While I staunchly do not think Tabletop RPG's are being "Dumbed Down", I think they are going through a metemorphasis. (Not one I necessarily am in favor of, but that doesn't automatically mean they're being "dumbed down.")

Under "Old Skool" game systems, the focus was on challenging the players, rather than the characters. (YOu wanted to find that secret weapons stash/ You had to tell the DM exactly what you were doing to find it. ["I check the desk drawer for a false bottom"]; there were no "Easy Out" Skill checks.

Since the advent of D+D3E (or thereabouts), there has been a trend to want to challenge the characters, rather than the players. I think a large part of this is because of the tremendous proliferation and codification of skills and feats. Suddenly, if something isn't on the extensive Skills or Feats list, people think it's not applicable, or even possible! (YEs I am hyperbolizing, but I hold to the root of my statement.)

 

[Umbran]

While it is true that simpler rules don't necessarily equate to a dumb game, it's not necessarily true that they equate to good game either.

I'm aware of this. Which is why I didn't imply such. Why I *specifically* said that good rules lead to interesting play.

Of course, it follows that complicated rules do not necessarily lead to a smart or entertaining game, either.

My suspicion is that Go will turn out to be a simple game once it is analyzed, with a set of rules for winning scarcely larger than the rules of the game...

"Once it is analyzed"? Dude, the game is a thousand years older than chess. You think nobody has analyzed it yet? The number of possible games of Go exceeds the number of atoms in the observable universe. This leads to a game that does not lend itself to algorithmic analysis of the strength of positions and moves (until you can run your algorithms very, very, very fast indeed), and thus no easily computable strategy for winning.

 

[Celebrim]

"Once it is analyzed"? Dude, the game is a thousand years older than chess. You think nobody has analyzed it yet?

No, I don't. Serious analysis of the game has only really started in the past few decades, and a more analytical approach to the game is only now being taken seriously.

Humans had been moving and interacting with their environment for hundreds of thousands of years before Newton came along and produced the laws of motion.

The number of possible games of Go exceeds the number of atoms in the observable universe. This leads to a game that does not lend itself to algorithmic analysis of the strength of positions and moves (until you can run your algorithms very, very, very fast indeed), and thus no easily computable strategy for winning.

If that was necessary, humans couldn't play Go successfully either.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

The point I was making that it used to be that most games were made to provide an appropriate challenge for people like me who had a lot of play experience already. That's not the case anymore - there's a lot more very easy games made now than hard ones.

 

[GMMichael]

Interesting thing about Space Invaders - it was a thoroughly dumb game. Now, we have Candy Crush.

So I'd say that video games had a golden age, around the King's Quest and Legend of Zelda days. King's Quest had a consequence for failure: you weren't allowed to progress in the game! Zelda required things like searching, resource management (do I use bombs to kill bad guys, or to look for weak walls? Should I try to get full hearts, so I can shoot the magic sword?), item limits, and open-ended gameplay.

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.

One big RPG change that I've seen is the increase in production value. What used to be thick, single-spaced, small-type, graphic-free content is now friendly pictures on every page. Arcane markings used to cover monochrome hex-grids, and now we have near-real-looking graphics printed under square grids.

And yes, at least in AD&D 2e, your character would have several combat stats and a single "non-weapon proficiency" (or more?) that explained what he could do out of combat. Social and puzzle encounters were up to the players, although it was probably still possible to make an ability check to get some help. 3e introduced the skills (system) that turned these encounters into character challenges, and 4e codified it with the "skill challenge." Is that dumbing down? Not to players who have trouble with these sorts of things.

It's possible that TRPGs will enjoy gaining more players from CRPG-dumbing down. If dumber video games means that smarter players lose options, well, they might just have to change media.

 

[Halivar]

No, I don't. Serious analysis of the game has only really started in the past few decades, and a more analytical approach to the game is only now being taken seriously.

Combinatorical game theory has been around quite a while. We know that Go is in the same class of complexity as Chess and the Game of Life that mathematically exclude polynomial-time solutions. That is to say, they are some of the hardest to solve problems that exist or CAN exist. Not saying it can't be solved, but that the solution is considered bounded by the fact that no human will live long enough to solve it.

 

[Celebrim]

Combinatorical game theory has been around quite a while. We know that Go is in the same class of complexity as Chess and the Game of Life that mathematically exclude polynomial-time solutions. That is to say, they are some of the hardest to solve problems that exist or CAN exist. Not saying it can't be solved, but that the solution is considered bounded by the fact that no human will live long enough to solve it.

I'm not talking about approaching Go like Chess.

You don't have to explore the entire solution space if you have a strategy. For example, we could imagine a connection game played on an asymmetrical board such that the player going first had a simple algorithm (trivial strategy) based on the fact that for any move, he could either advance 1 closer or 'match' the opponent's last move. Playing the game on a 1000 x 1001 board would create a massive number of potential solutions, but a simple rule based state machine could still play the game perfectly.

Plenty of games seem difficult to play until you are given a simple set of rules for deciding how to play.

It's obviously true that human Go players are not doing a breadth first search of all possible moves when they play a game. It's obviously true that in fact, the human players are analyzing fewer moves than the computers.

In fact, if it is anything like Chess, it's going to turn out to be true that the idea that players are looking ahead X number of moves is as much of a myth as anything else. (Did you watch Kasparov's matches with Deep Blue?)

My guess is that the best players in the world are probably only analyzing about 20-25 moves and probably not following much of them more than 5 moves or so deep. What they understand but have yet to be able to explain is the secret language of parity that governs the game and lets them pick the moves worth exploring.

Human intelligence isn't magic. There is a strategy for decomposing the game, such that it transforms into a simpler problem. If there wasn't, humans couldn't play the game well.

 

[Halivar]

Human intelligence isn't magic. There is a strategy for decomposing the game, such that it transforms into a simpler problem. If there wasn't, humans couldn't play the game well.

It isn't magic, but it is also not computable by any means at our current disposal. As this point we leave the area of game theory and enter theoretical neuroscience. No one knows why or how humans can strategize EXPTIME-complete problems that are computationally intractable.

EDIT: I suspect that if we DID know how, that would be the holy grail of real honest-to-god AI.

 

[Celebrim]

It isn't magic, but it is also not computable by any means at our current disposal.

There are fairly strong estimates based on known extents of the brain involved in visual processing and good knowledge of the computational power required for such processing.

Until recently, no one was able to simulate the information processing humans do to play jeopardy either. For that matter, until recently no one was able to explain how a human could trivially tell tables from chairs - which is probably more relevant to the Go discussion.

While I doubt the techniques used are identical to the ones in the wet ware, they probably have certain similarities as well.