The negative reviews that actual challenge in games earns

Ran into this twice, recently. The first is here. It's a review of the latest adventure time mechanic and it mentions that you can only get back to town after every five levels.

To make matters worse, you can only return to the surface after every five floors, so if you happen to lose all of your health before you reach the next checkpoint, tough luck--you’ll be dumped back above ground without any of the loot you’d accumulated. Worse still, there’s no way to quick-save in the middle of a floor, forcing you to continue playing until you reach the next checkpoint (or die trying).

Tre sigh!

And the next is of a review of might and magic in PC powerplay, where they say that whenever you rest, you use up supplies and can only carry six at a time. This is then described negatively as having to cut short the adventure instead of continue exploring.

It's so incredibly wearying to hear things that provide difficulty as being things which actually reduce the score a game is given. Perhaps unless they dark souls-like cram the 'this is tough!' meme down their throat, it's all exploro land to them?

Okay, caveat - Lord of the Rings, war in the north had checkpoints where if you died you'd lose your previously found gear. Which annoyed me greatly.

The thing is, it didn't announce when the next checkpoint was, unlike the adventure time game, where you can see how many levels you are away from the checkpoint.

Without stating where the checkpoint is, it's not a challenge that you're facing, I'd say. It's just struggling to 'not lose'.

Hidden Growing Difficulty - Undercuts satisfaction?

I recently got a PS3 and Batman: Arkham City (BTW: Mark Hamil...think about it...).

And I really can't tell if the thugs on the street are getting tougher, or I'm getting crapper somehow.

I'm guessing they are getting tougher. In Arkham Asylum you had a semi linear tunnel, so you could tell that the further you go, the tougher it gets. Here - it feels like - I dunno, did that guy club me in the back of the head because I screwed up, or actually he's been set to a higher difficulty.

It's an odd flaw - ambiguity of difficulty. It'd be better to show the difficulty of the goons somehow.

AD&D: Difficulty selection

So, the dungeon level/depth is 4. What do I roll for the difficulty on a D10? 3!

It kind of feels a bit like a non choice - would you like to go to the marginally less dangerous dungeon?

Also since their are some party member objectives in there, I I realise I kind of have to hurumph that the objectives are in either dungeon. Also, what if they want to go to the other one? I guess I have to say it's a meta game choice - harder or easier is a player choice, not a character choice.

I guess one level of difference can make a difference. In rolling the level three stuff, if it was more powerful than the level four creature already there, I switched the two around. Also I only made the first leg of the dungeon have a different set of monsters for each.

On a side note, I have a series of treasure rooms in this one which are time sensitive (so is the end objective, but in more of a made up as I go way, not a written down time). Each has a marking near them that the players are told at the start of the dungeon. To see if they can remember when they come across the marking (not as easy as you might think). There are also four rooms where there is a way of getting the treasure without fighting. It's also possible to get to them without fighting.

Also have a bunch of other ideas I'm trying out in the dungeon, as I tend to do - looking to work out some special combination of effects!

RPG/AD&D design: Naturalistic Difficulty

The first point in my last post might have seemed unsurprising: Adjustable difficulty.

But I'm actually excited about it. Because it combines a sort of Gygaxian naturalism...wait, let me define that a bit. The ol' Gyg. Nat. is whatever turns up is whatever turns up - if there's a goblin around the corner, then there is. If there's an ancient red dragon around the corner, then there is - what's around the corner isn't constrained to being withing -/+ one level of the partys average level.

The combination here is that you have that constraint, but you also ROLL a second option for how tough a dungeon they can run. Right now I'm thinking a D10, because the party is around level 4. Perhaps when they are around level 10, then I'd roll a D20, which makes the second option go right up to the top.

The thing I like about this is that I think it sucks that if you level and gain +1 to hit, the monsters you encounter will be forced to have +1 improved armour class anyway. What I like about rolling is maybe the roll brings up a level one dungeon - a level four party will tromp through it! And guess what, they've earned it!

BUT! What if they want a dungeon about their own level, for more XP and loot and general thrill of being harder? Well, now you've a choice between two option - go with the natural roll, or go with the dungeon that matches party level!

BUT, I hear you say, what if the natural roll comes up a 6 or 9 or something above the average party level of 4? Well, you can still take that option! Maybe you think you can hack it?

Or if you think its just impossible, well then here is Gygaxian Naturalism and tough! You're stuck with one option only of the dungeon at your level. But the more you level, the more of a chance you get of a dungeon below yours - ie, a cakewalk dungeon!

Only snag? Writing up two dungeons? Or use one and roll differing monsters for each room that has monsters (and since I tend to write the monsters on the sheet, there wont be much room for that). So I'll have to work out something for this.

But I really like the idea of a dungeon that is just WHATEVER! Just crazy comes as it will, instead of always being a tight, predictable power band (that essentially undermines the idea of leveling).

AD&D: What I'm looking to include next time!

GM'ed a dungeon (the one shown in previous posts) the other night! Ended up granting each player over 5K of experience! It was a level 3 dungeon.

Now I'd like to touch on areas I don't think I quite got to with it. Some ideas are

1.  A difficulty option.
2.  Rolling attacks outside the DM screen. Physically this is difficult - I still want to have a screen. Maybe I can cover the map, lift the screen and roll? That might work. Oh, that reminds me - in advance declare that I will make up, based on judging the situation, who goes first (or if it's simultanious) on tied iniative.
3.  Work out some way of distributing attacks on PC's neatly. I've been using colour coded (to each player) dice. Kind of handy, but if I'm rolling outside I need some distribution method for attacks? Perhaps I could just roll on everyone, then roll another die (equal to group size) to determine which attack did or didn't happen?
4. I'd like to try out making carrying weight matter! I guess this'll most likely tie in with #5. Maybe add some exhaustion modifiers to combat, if they just try for 'oh, we just do alot of draggin of sacks of gold'. I guess in the end really it's just a question of whether they leave any loot unguarded and if some monsters come across it.
5. I'd like to make time passing matter, instead of a dungeon that just sits and waits for the PC's. I'm thinking perhaps monsters who have attack animals (giant centipedes in a cage?) that they release at the PC's. Or a group of archers who do a hit and run attack. I don't want these to be a full scale combat engagement - they wont have treasure and it'll just take time away from the detailing I've put into the dungeon. How can I have some archers attack, but without the PC's manically chasing them down and having to dispatch them all utterly? Perhaps a spell that creates etherial archers? Or a portable dart firing mechanism - the patrol detects the PC's, sets the dart gun near a corner, then they scuttle away and activate it remotely (or it's on a short timer - yeah, I'll go with that). The dart guns mechanism makes it roll around the corner, then fire a bunch of darts. I guess the problem is the rogue will then grab this thing and try and use it against monsters? Maybe just make it less accurate when those who didn't make it (ie, the PC's) try and use it, and thus it'll have some use, but not a substitute for combat.
6. I'd like to really figure out how to handle fleeing players, instead of simply erring on the side of the players because I had nothing made up. Movement speeds will be crucial to this, perhaps even the decider. As is, if you have somewhere to run to, then it seems to be a matter of calculating how many times the monster catches up to you (if you happen to be faster, then no sweat). If you have nowhere to run to (no door to get behind and bar, for example), then you are doomed - the monster would just keep hen pecking at you till you die. This feels odd though - it feels like you should play it out with dice, but it's also a foregone conclusion that you'll die, so why bother?
7. Finally I'd like rogue backstab or sneak opps to be more prevalent. I'm thinking of designating some as being special, where the rogue can use flash powder (cost: 25 gold) if he fails a sneak roll to perform a backstab in order to pass (but there's a negative to damage equal to his backstab multiplier, just to make it that a passing roll is still the best thing). This is because it just gets a little lame when the rogue flubs his chance 60% of the time (it's fine for fighters to miss over and over because they get lots of chances to hit. A rogue gets one chance at backstab and if they fail 60% of the time, then 60% of the time their backstab is irrelavent). I'm also thinking of having spots where the rogue can drink a 'skill potion' (ie, just cross off 25 gold from his sheet) to make a failing hide in shadows or move silent into a passing one.

Okay, so that's enough for now. I'm kind of realising how much expectations I pile onto myself!

More reward for higher difficulty is...rubbish?

Might be wrong, but I think that's been pushed in game design (particularly around the mmorpg area) that more difficulty of play aught to equal more reward.

The thing is more reward for more 'difficulty' (where that difficulty is just higher enemy stats) can even be easier than before. Say instead the monster that would normally inflict on average 10 damage over a  fight to your 30 hit points and give 100 gold, inflicts 20 points on average and gives 200 gold. You can then go and heal. Well this is easier! What's the difference between healing off the damage? None and you got more gold? It's just easier than before! The only thing that could change that is a spike in damage (and dice pools tend to average out).

If reward actually tracked to higher difficulty perfectly, then unless there is spiking damage, there is no point, it would always be effectively the exact same difficulty as before, but with higher numbers (though it would cut down on grind, granted!).

Difficulty has to always be incommensurate to reward otherwise difficulty has not been raised. The only reward higher difficulty can really impart and still be higher difficulty, is the knowledge you did it on a harder difficulty.

Yet another MMORPG 'Difficulty' post - Open Pandoras Toy Box...

I was reading a forum...let's not say where. And the person described coming across warhammer onlines first chaos side public quest. And that there was this greater demon and only two players, so they were just gunna die and he doesn't even...

You know, I think commercial mmorpgs will eventually click to never ever have the player die at allllllll. Wow is already shooting for this, from what I've read.

They'll just have them slump a little bit when their health is low (though there will be adverse forum reactions to this as well "Is my toon a looser or sumpting? Dis game makes meh play loosa! Bad gahm!"), but the health will never go any lower and perhaps you get a tiny, tiny bit less loot points (but this is never messaged - only careful scrutiny (the sort the competitive will actually give) would show this)).

And so the player will never have to be faced with their own inadequacies ever again (granted the inadequacy of not having bum on seat for a longer period is one of them), and so they wont then go on forums and put down the game. Because they instantly rationalise how it was the games fault and the game has a problem with it. Never them - it's always something else that's at fault. Which is bad press for the game, of course.

And maybe the commercial mmorpgs will eventually just click and quit trying to present a game and instead just present the toybox that so many really want, ala minecraft. Yup, I said it - "OMG, I feel token threat from monsters - hell, I just have to build a scale model of the starship enterprise to protect myself! That's totally playing to win and I winnar!". Yes, yes, you totally had a reason to build all that shit. No, it does look pretty and interesting. I just think the whole 'game' idea of it is bullshit. Call yourself sculptors and the respect that comes with that, instead of gamers (unless 'gamers' has just come to mean toybox playing people, in which case stay as you are...).

PVE Difficulty

Tippa made an interesting post over on her blog about The Miseducation of MMO Players.

Where have mmorpgs gone, in terms of difficulty? Indeed, where can they go? Back when you bounced mario around, you could lose all your lives and being sent right back to the start of the game worked out. What do you do when you have a hundreds of hours long game 'session'? Add a death jog every time someone stands in the flame?

I made a reply to someone in the comments about guild wars two supposedly not having any death penalty, which I've talked about here before. Here's the reply...

As far as I can tell guild wars 2 hasn’t removed a death penalty – if no one revives you, you have the classic death jog from some waypoint, back to where you were. Which is pretty lame – why bother coding in a time waster for players?

I think these games have trouble determining any fail point, which goes all the way back to gygax’s designs. With your traditional game, like a FPS, you have a level start, middle and end. What does a mmorpg have? middle, middle, middle, middle….

Your classic FPS can send you back to the start of a level and that works out. While mmorpgs are floundering on what the heck to do – can’t send them all the way to level one! But can’t just do nothing every time they are hit ( see my example of this: http://www.yoyogames.com/games/138974-proof-of-bad-concept ).

I think they need to do the reverse of the traditional design and grant people bonuses for doing well – like go for one hour of gameplay without being knocked to 0 hp and you will GAIN 500 gold (can be won once per RL day/X number of times per RL day)

Looking at : Torchlight - very difficult takes awhile to...get difficult

I chose very difficult for my first play of torchlight. Or whatever the highest difficulty there is, but without the use of hardcore mode. Hardcore, which I'll probably try out sometime, as the natural direction to take is to make a waddling tank - will that be fun? I'm curious, but this topic is about difficulty.

But after about seven hours of play only now is it really presenting difficulty and requiring manouvering. On the upside it's doing it on a consistant basis - I'm guessing if I did more side dungeons I'd be higher level and have better gear.

Sadly I obviously went through six hours and 59 minutes of not so challenging play - I don't know why I'm drawn to it. Moth to the shiny flame? Already spent money on it, may as well try?

I think it 'pushed back' so to speak near the start, but really, the solution was to keep the attack or magic button held down and a finger over the heal potion button. That's it. I guess that's a timing skill as atleast these potions take a little time to heal you instead of insta healing you like in diablo. Instant heals just mean buying tons of potions and mashing the heal button over and over will be enough.

Do you think if you dislike something in a game, it's a mistake?

Once again my 'What the firetruck?' responce to someone elses blog becomes a post here...I'll paraphrase my responce here

If something is an unintended side effect and the developers did not intend it to happen, fair enough to argue against it.

But if they did intend it to be part of the difficulty of the game, even if only tanks have to face it...well, what? Do you think difficulty in any particular game has to revolve around what you personally dislike?

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's a bug.

I mean, where does it end? If you think your in a position to argue away intended challenges, where do you stop? Which ones are acceptable to your sensitive palette?

And what of the thousands of others - what if they think they can argue this way, and what challenge you think is okay, they think is a big bad spoils their fun bug? Someone, somewhere might have their fun spoiled by what you think is okay - and as much as you think you get to determine what is a bug rather than an intended challenge, so do they. So it must be removed!

Eventually all challenge gets removed as there's always someone who's fun is spoilt by practically any challenge and you end up with...a themepark.

Oh yeah. Right.