571
Every race gets one cool ability (aussie.zone)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If a creator wants players to explore their work and everything they've build, and players aren't doing that, this is viewed as a problem by the creator.

That's not misguided, their hard work is going to waste. It makes sense for them to explore ways to encourage people to try new things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    It just sounds like the creator made a thing that wasn't what people wanted.

    It just feels like the question to ask then isn't "but how do I get them to choose the thing despite it not being what they want?"

    "Hard work goes to waste when you make a thing that people don't want" is ... true. But I would say it's a stretch to call it a "problem". It's just an unescapable reality. It's almost tautological.

    Look at houses. You made a village with a diverse bunch of houses. But more than half of those, nobody wants to live in. Then "how do I get people to live in my houses?" "Build houses that people actually want to live in." Like, you can pay people money to live in your weird houses, sure, I just feel like you have missed the point of being an architect somewhat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's misguided in the sense it's not a real problem for the target audience. BG3 does not have a problem of players not choosing the more exotic races. Maybe some game developers are annoyed about it, but it's not something that devalues the game. The option is still there for those who wants it.

    If you as a creator see that your players are only interested in 20% of the world you have created, you might want you reflect on why that is, and if you're not better off focusing on those 20%. If you don't want to do that there's nothing wrong focusing on the more obscure fluff for own personal enjoyment either. And I really don't see the point of downvoting all my replies, I'm not trying to argue in bad faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'll try to explain it again:

    If you create a setting where a core part of the setting is that there's all these different races interacting in a rich, vibrant, cultural melting pot, but all your players choose to play humans, then you have a complete mismatch between the setting you created, and the experience the players are having.

    This is a problem.

    It's not a problem that "players are doing what they want". The problem is that the reality of your game experience is fundamentally different to the setting design you've written. You have a setting document that says one thing, and a playerbase experiencing something different. The disconnect might seem trivial or unimportant to you, or you might not care - but the result is that your setting document is fundamentally inaccurate to the reality of play.

    For a designer, this is a problem.

    BG3 is a single player RPG where an individual player can make whatever decision they want and experience the game the way they want to play it. I'm not trying to claim this specific problem is an issue in BG3. The only reason I brought that game up was that they publicly released statistical data on millions of players, so it gives good data for the proportionality of player choices.

    For most tabletop settings, this isn't (usually) a major issue - a character party is typically on the order of 4-6 players, if they're all humans, that's fine. It's the duty of the DM to make sure that the NPCs and the setting are accurate if that's a thing they care about. It can be a problem if your game is fundamentally about exploring these different perspectives, which some indie-RPGs are focused on.

    This is mainly an issue in large-scale social play games, like MMOs and Fest-games, which can easily result in this disparity between setting design and play experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    For MMOs, fair enough. I can see the problem of the believability of the setting if everyone are running around as humans.

    I thought we were mainly talking about smaller/local games like tabletop rpg in which the DM or settings creator are annoyed at players mostly preferring humans in their settings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This has literally killed games that failed to deliver the reality of their brief to their players. Promise one experience, deliver another, and people quit.

    Maybe people are downvoting your replies because this is a commonly discussed and well-studied issue in design circles, but you're failing to understand the problem and dismissing it as a "misguided" concern.

    Just because YOU don't think it's a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The EOS-LRP system in the UK was planned to be a 10-year project, and it died within 4 events because of this exact problem.

    The designers created a game that was largely factionalized by race(1) - elves, orcs, goblins, humans, undead, and a few other player options. The idea was to build a dark, gritty "survival" setting where different factions would compete over limited resources, and the game story would be mostly driven by player-vs-player conflict. They kept prices for attendance low by running an extremely small crew.

    This has been a successful strategy for many larp systems over the years, player-driven conflict is extremely valuable in keeping your players engaged, because NPC-driven conflict is expensive to run... if all of your game content is being delivered by your crew, you need a large crew in order to be able to keep the players interested and engaged, and this means high prices. If your game content largely stems from player-vs-player conflict, then you can potentially run a game with thousands of players using a crew of 20-50. I've been involved in several of these in the past.

    So what happened with EOS? Well, the costume requirements for playing anything other than a human were extreme (this is a common requirement in larp systems that want a high quality immersive experience.) - we're talking full-head makeup, prosthetics, masks, etc etc. 80% of the players in the first event rocked up as humans, and because they were allied, they managed to wipe out the other factions completely. Some of those players went home, some of them rolled new characters, and got wiped out again, and went home.

    By the third event, 100% of the playerbase were humans, and allied to each other. The game crew was six people, and they were unable to create any credible threat to the players. Because everyone was part of one monolithic faction, there was no conflict, and the players rapidly became bored, with nothing to do.

    The designers tried to fix this by first banning players from rolling more human characters, and second introducing some overwhelmingly powerful hunter monsters to pick off isolated players. When characters died, the game admins told them they had to roll non-humans if they wanted to continue playing, and in response those players quit. Their friends followed quickly, and the game collapsed.

    EOS had an interesting setting, with a lot of good design ideas, and some really cool handles for roleplay and conflict. They talked a big game, and promised an exciting, fast-paced, dangerous competitive game. Players were drawn to the events because of what the design brief promised, but in choosing to all play the same race, everything promising from the design brief was undermined, and the game died.

    (1) There is, of course, a second, highly problematic issue with drawing your lines of conflict purely on "race" grounds, which is an uncomfortable issue all by itself. Modern fantasy gaming design is moving away from this, for reasons that I hope are well-understood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    This has literally killed games that failed to deliver the reality of their brief to their players. Promise one experience, deliver another, and people quit.

    Could you elaborate on what you mean by that in relation to people generally preferring to play as humans/vanilla experiences?

    Maybe people are downvoting your replies because this is a commonly discussed and well-studied issue in design circles, but you're failing to understand the problem and dismissing it as a "misguided" concern.

    No, when I was writing my comments it was only the person I was talking to that was downvoting, votes are public so you could easily check. At that point, just tell me you don't want to discuss the topic and I'll stop replying.

    Just because YOU don't think it's a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

    I'm arguing it's only a problem in the mind of the creator. For the ones it actually do matter for, the audience/customers, it's not an issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent