Why must numbers go up?

[Benimoto]

Most modern cRPGs are dreadfully easy having been designed such that a minimally skillful player with a casual level of commitment will certainly complete the game. In a modern game, 'finishing the game' is the expected result for all players. Older cRpgs (and video games in general) tended to have less content but much higher difficulty levels to maximize the play time. If you grew up with that environment or with games inspired by tournament modules, inflating numbers to create the illusion of success or games where winning is the expected outcome for all players regardless of skill or commitment can be annoying.

I don't know, are you sure you haven't just gotten better at video games? I know for certain that games that gave my fits when I was 11 or 12 seem much easier now that I've spent 20 years playing them. To give specific examples, I haven't played #13 yet, but Final Fantasy 12 didn't really seem easier than Final Fantasy 1, although it was much longer with better graphics. Oblivion wasn't easier than Daggerfall (although I don't remember Arena much.)

And I certainly don't think tournament module have gotten easier. At last year's GenCon, I was one of the DMs for the 4e Ultimate Delve, and I don't think more than 1-3 teams out of about 50 made it through the entire module. In fact, none of my groups, including a group made mostly of Wizards design staff and employees made it past the 3rd encounter, out of 6 in the module.

The whole "everything was better/harder/realer in the past" schtick always rubs me the wrong way. Old, classic games are classics, sure, but it doesn't mean that newer games have to be worse.

6) cRPG's generally are some of the worst offenders here precisely because the whole concept of levelling up works against the need for high levels of skill. In a normal video game, a scene can normally only be passed if you develop sufficient player skill. But in a cRPG, you can get through a scene by either developing greater skill or by leveling up to the point that the challenge can be defeated at your current skill level. Guess which tends to be easier?

First you argue against cRPGs where the opponents "level up" along with the player, and here you argue against it. I'm really not sure what position you're advancing ht

 

[Antithetist]

To give specific examples, I haven't played #13 yet, but Final Fantasy 12 didn't really seem easier than Final Fantasy 1

Final Fantasy was never exactly hard, because you always had the (aforementioned) option of going away to grind boars in the forest until you were such a high level that all the plot encounters were rendered trivial.

I'm not sure if CRPGs have got easier; the Japanese kind have always enabled grinding (at least, as far back as I know anything about them), and as for the Western sort, I'm too young to have braved the horrors of Rogue and whatnot, so I can't really say. I think it's true, though, that in general there are more easy games around; a wider market means a lower common denominator, so the games that are pitching to that level will be easier. Similarly, the really hardcore and punishing stuff tends to get pushed to the wayside since it's now only a small subset of serious hardcore gamers who have any interest in that. What's more, many of the 'hardcore' types have moved on to internet multiplayer stuff, leaving less market share again for hardcore single-player games.


Back on topic, surely the idea of numbers changing (they could as easily go down, as in pre-3E, but that's less intuitive) is what keeps the illusion of game balance alive? If numbers don't get bigger as the PCs grow in power, if arbitrary easy/moderate/hard target numbers for die rolls are simply set by the DM, then you're basically playing freeform. Having a set of numbers to manage and cultivate is, surely, the very essence of the players' engagement with the mechanical side of the game?

It's possible to imagine a different way of doing things, in which character abilities are rated in a non-numerical manner, but if your system is any more complex than the most elementary rules-lite framework then numbers are rapidly going to become the only feasible way to track things.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know, are you sure you haven't just gotten better at video games? I know for certain that games that gave my fits when I was 11 or 12 seem much easier now that I've spent 20 years playing them. To give specific examples, I haven't played #13 yet, but Final Fantasy 12 didn't really seem easier than Final Fantasy 1, although it was much longer with better graphics. Oblivion wasn't easier than Daggerfall (although I don't remember Arena much.)

Err... hmmm.. I was thinking of things more like Nethack, King's Quest, Bard's Tale, etc. I know virtually nothing about console games, but the general consensus seems to be that while the newer FF's are better games than the older ones, they are in fact easier.

And I certainly don't think tournament module have gotten easier. At last year's GenCon, I was one of the DMs for the 4e Ultimate Delve, and I don't think more than 1-3 teams out of about 50 made it through the entire module. In fact, none of my groups, including a group made mostly of Wizards design staff and employees made it past the 3rd encounter, out of 6 in the module.

I'm not going to comment on this except to say that with a module like TH, a group playing 1e 11th level characters does not necessarily possess a strong advantage over those playing 1e 3rd level characters. How many groups would have failed to get through your 4e Ultimate Delve with characters that were 12 levels higher than the ones you used - say 18th level Paragons rather than 6th level characters? That is what I'm referring to when I talk about changes in how difficulty is measured.

The whole "everything was better/harder/realer in the past" schtick always rubs me the wrong way. Old, classic games are classics, sure, but it doesn't mean that newer games have to be worse.

Better =/= Harder.
Harder =/= Better.

However, I can assure you that while Diablo is essentially Nethack with better graphics, the ASCII version of the game is the far more difficult one. Which one of those two classic and admirable games is better is not to me an interesting question. Sometimes I might enjoy playing either one. But the question, "Why must numbers go up?", is not I think answered by saying, "Well, duh, obviously the numbers being bigger means a better game!"

First you argue against cRPGs where the opponents "level up" along with the player, and here you argue against it. I'm really not sure what position you're advancing ht

I was advancing a position on why game designers decide it is a good idea to make numbers go up. To that question, I don't feel my answers are contridictory. Numbers go up because the designers are cateering to a particular popular experience in a game, and some might argue the essential experience of a game - the illusion of success.

 

[Ariosto]

Many superhero games don't assume any sort of character advancement.

That may well be true of "many" little-known efforts, but it was not the case in:

Villains & Vigilantes
Champions
To Challenge Tomorrow: Challengers
Superworld
Marvel Super Heroes
DC Heroes
Heroes Unlimited
Golden Heroes (IIRC)
GURPS Supers
DC Universe
Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game
Champions New Millennium
Aberrant
Marvel Universe
Silver Age Sentinels
Godlike
or Mutants & Masterminds!

I personally think that advancement ought at least to fall short of routinely adding new super-powers, or open-ended power boosting that transforms (say) Batman into Superman. Characters in the comics certainly change -- and Superman went, for instance, from just "leaping tall buildings" to flying like a hummingbird -- but their status as easily recognized icons is also part of the genre.

 

[Benimoto]

Err... hmmm.. I was thinking of things more like Nethack, King's Quest, Bard's Tale, etc. I know virtually nothing about console games, but the general consensus seems to be that while the newer FF's are better games than the older ones, they are in fact easier.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting that consensus, as I disagree. I've played nearly all of them, and they all seem to be roughly on par.

And as for Nethack versus Diablo or the like, that's not an even comparison. Diablo has roguelike elements, but underlying the whole Diablo experience is that you can load your game or resurrect your character when you die. In Nethack, there's no such option, which is the main difference in difficulty. There is a setting in Diablo 2, where your character can't be restored back to life after you die, which makes it roughly just as hard as Nethack.

As for Bard's Tale or King's Quest 1, I file those both in the "hard when I was 11" category. I don't think they're noticeably harder than contemporary offerings.

There's a tendency on the Internet, and in storytelling in general, to complain that things today are easy and that things were much harder in the past. There's the whole cliche about "when I was young I had to walk uphill to school, both ways", and I give modern complaints about video games about the same weight.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You mean Classic Traveller?


RC

Not quite as bad...but the old TSR Marvel Superheros had next-to-no advancement.

I remember saving up my Karma for 3-4 months just to up my STR from Poor (4) to Typical (6) on a 5000 points scale.

DS

 

[Badwe]

someone wiser than i said that difficulty advancement should be "Sinusoidal" which is to say that you should experience tasks you undertake getting progressively easier before moving on to the next "step". So perhaps over the course of going from 1-10, your party progressively takes on more and more guards: this is a distinct change in gameplay style, their power enables them to go toe-to-toe with bigger groups. Finally they encounter the so-called "elite guard" who recreates the difficulty of early encounters with the guard. in turn the players slowly increase their ability to take on more elite guards, and so on.

Not all progression is zero-sum advancement though. an epic level character has a noticably better athletics check than heroic, and the DCs to jump X squares never changes. Same goes for climbing a wall of a similar material. Obviously if you do something like demonic ice cliffs, you're going to be recreating the sensation of lower level play.

Finally: a major difference is the wealth of options. While in 4th edition PCs do eventually start swapping powers, this comes along with adding on new powers from paragon paths and epic destinies. Similarly feats will change up the way play occurs, not only from amassing enough but from feats like heavy blade opportunity (a paragon tier feat) that significantly changes play for a heavy blade wielder.

 

[Chrono22]

The problem of numbers glut can be partially solved by distinguishing between types of advancement. Character advancement (experience), extra-character advancement (plot progress/fame/infamy) and tier (scope, influence) all play parts in determining the relative power of a character.

Take batman and superman. Batman has more experience and techniques- because he regularly faces challenges that are proportionately equal to him. He might have higher numbers than superman- but he's heroic or legendary tier. Superman may not have huge numbers- but since he is epic tier, the scope of his powers and actions is larger. When batman punches, somebody loses teeth. When superman punches, the environment around his target cracks and tears from the force.
And then, there is Lex Luthor or Joker. They are neither more masterful than batman, nor do they have epic tier abilities. They rely on their ability to influence others to achieve their goals.

The problem with most RPGs, IMO, is that they have hitched power too heavily to inflating numbers, when it should just as much be a function of the player's choices.

 

[Saeviomagy]

However, I can assure you that while Diablo is essentially Nethack with better graphics, the ASCII version of the game is the far more difficult one.

That's kind of like arguing that starcraft is essentially laser squad. The two games are only in the same genre in a thematic sense: realistically they're so different that no sane comparison is possible. Nethack is a strategic game, diablo is an action game.

As for the issue of inflating numbers: the one positive thing that number inflation achieves is so the game keeps moving on to new things (at least outside of combat). A 10ft deep pit trap becomes a non-issue very rapidly. The pits have to get deeper and deeper, and eventually pits are done. The campaign must rely on something else. Escalating combat numbers do the same thing for goblins, orcs etc etc. The impassable becomes passable and then passe. That structure gives the DM control over where the game goes.

Unfortunately some other elements of D&D destroy that whole guiding approach: monsters also tend to become capable of preventing escape through faster movement or crippling effects, or skipping the phase of combat where players might consider it by simply doing so much damage that the fight is over before the players make a meaningful choice. Otherwise you could lay out a world with these creatures of varying power and let the players go where they want. They'd meet a dragon, be unable to hit it, survive a round of auto-hits and decide that they should leg it. As is, they meet the dragon and either die during the round of auto-hits, or leg it and get eaten anyway.

 

[ggroy]

The problem with most RPGs, IMO, is that they have hitched power too heavily to inflating numbers, when it should just as much be a function of the player's choices.

How much of this is due to game designers being lazy and/or deliberately creating a simplified ruleset to attract newbies into the hobby?