I will argue that this is Game design not-done-right. If your level reach a point were your character became Unplayable/Boring/etc. It's because the game is ill-designed regarding that mechanic.
Most games will have a certain range of values where they are fun. If the optimal success rate is 50-70%, but you improve by a percentage every once in a while, you'll eventually move out of that range into a less optimal range. In practice, I've usually seen RPG campaigns (particularly but not solely level based campaigns) eventually reach a point where the players lose interest in the game and eventually abandon it. The vast majority of D&D campaigns never make it past level 10 for this sort of reason.
A well designed game will recognize the limits of these parameters and move the game toward a conclusion. More open ended conventional rpgs place this in the hands of the GMs and players without identifying where the sweet spot ends, which leads to most campaigns having lackluster conclusions.
Hum, OK Gherhartd Sildoenfein, I wasn't sure if you want to talk about misuse of Xp or problems with character evolution. I guess it's the second. I often realise when I work on evolution mechanics, that if I want them to be rich and meaningful (like Dogs' fallout and experience), I can't make them work on (very) long term play. So maybe there's a choice to do at this level.
I may be a bit off topic here but It's the same issue with Immortality. When you get all the time in the world you end up bored, because at a certain point there is no thrill anymore. In Dogs, for exemple, the rules specify that dogs usually end their service after 4 years of service maybe less. It sets a lifetime for the characters. So you hit that peter walls in the evolution mecanics when you reach that immortality sensation.
Characters, situations have a shelf life indeed. But sometimes character advancement make it worse. Too much advancement and you change the nature of the game. Sometimes you want to follow that path, but sometimes you want only the part you really like. (And sometimes you can’t get the part you really like only, you have to walk the path to give that part meaning.)
I love how some games promise you a changing gameplay, eg. by introducing new spells, or wilderness adventures, or war game elements. Some people may not like all these elements. They feel tricked because they got more games (and in a particular sequence to boot) than they expected. Personally, I feel that this a OK. Don't like harsh games, skip the first two levels. Don't like war games, end it when reaching name level. I find that better game designs, more focused game designs, effectively take away some of the things I like. To me, the solution would be to be more explicit about what game to expect at what levels, and suggestions of how to tune the game to your expectations.
Ideally, advancement should extend potentialities of play : when you play to slash monsters for looting, Xp should allow you to slash better or bigger monsters and loot more. When you play accordingly to this object, the pleasure might grow with the advancement. If you drift from this object, advancement can drag you in the direction you're trying to leave and be uncomfortable. But this is the simple case. Many games don't really have a clear object and advancement pulls you in an arbitrary direction, with no link with the many possibilities the game seems to offers.
Do you think the "Peter Principle" feeds on these issues, or is it unrelated and it can happen even in games with a clear object and aligned reinforcement ?
Frédéric Sintes I guess my preferences don't match: if I like A, more of A is not necessarily better, if I plan to do a thing over many years (a long RPG campaign, for example). In a long game, things must change. We kill monsters for loot on level one, but if we still kill monsters for loot in level ten, I'm going to be disappointed. Not sure how many people share this preference, however. :)
That's very interesting. I don't have answers to that matter. I'm very curious about Gherhartd Sildoenfein's point of view about this. Would it be better if we let the players push towards more or less advancement ? I suppose they cannot know the moment when more will be less good...
Maybe evolution should bring something else than just be better at the core purpose of the game. Something more linked with the life of the character during the game. Each advancement that could be linked to a past adventure fight the boredom and add to the incarnation. (again Dogs is a good example of this mechanic)
To stay as true as possible to the original Peter Principle, I'd say that it playing the game change the game till it isn't fun anymore. But in games it is because there is a possible misalignment between the players' taste and the game.
From the top of my head…
In short and possibly middle terms games may deepen the experience. Maybe the old ‘advanced rules’ section was a quite good idea for this.
In the long term, games must propose change to avoid weariness. But it is already difficult to align one gaming proposition with a group's expectations / tastes. Trying to align a succession of proposition is even more difficult. So either all players are already OK with the sequence, learn to like it, don't like it and pursue (frustration), don't like it and quit (less frustration, but frustrating nonetheless), anticipate and wrap things up when still pleasurable.
From a game-design pov, i’d say: announce game style changes, offer appropriate transition mechanics that might double as endgame mechanics. I believe Primetime Adventures and Monsterheart do that, but I don’t have any direct experience with these yet.
I will argue that this is Game design not-done-right.
RépondreSupprimerIf your level reach a point were your character became Unplayable/Boring/etc. It's because the game is ill-designed regarding that mechanic.
The xp, as any reward, must reinforce the actual pratice, not create an artificial one.
RépondreSupprimerMost games will have a certain range of values where they are fun. If the optimal success rate is 50-70%, but you improve by a percentage every once in a while, you'll eventually move out of that range into a less optimal range. In practice, I've usually seen RPG campaigns (particularly but not solely level based campaigns) eventually reach a point where the players lose interest in the game and eventually abandon it. The vast majority of D&D campaigns never make it past level 10 for this sort of reason.
RépondreSupprimerA well designed game will recognize the limits of these parameters and move the game toward a conclusion. More open ended conventional rpgs place this in the hands of the GMs and players without identifying where the sweet spot ends, which leads to most campaigns having lackluster conclusions.
Hum, OK Gherhartd Sildoenfein, I wasn't sure if you want to talk about misuse of Xp or problems with character evolution.
RépondreSupprimerI guess it's the second.
I often realise when I work on evolution mechanics, that if I want them to be rich and meaningful (like Dogs' fallout and experience), I can't make them work on (very) long term play. So maybe there's a choice to do at this level.
I may be a bit off topic here but It's the same issue with Immortality. When you get all the time in the world you end up bored, because at a certain point there is no thrill anymore.
RépondreSupprimerIn Dogs, for exemple, the rules specify that dogs usually end their service after 4 years of service maybe less. It sets a lifetime for the characters.
So you hit that peter walls in the evolution mecanics when you reach that immortality sensation.
Right as always, Frédéric Sintes, alhtough I was writing about the second case.
RépondreSupprimerBut I was more ranting about old times then really thinking. I had a throwback to ADD-ADD2 times.
Characters, situations have a shelf life indeed. But sometimes character advancement make it worse. Too much advancement and you change the nature of the game. Sometimes you want to follow that path, but sometimes you want only the part you really like. (And sometimes you can’t get the part you really like only, you have to walk the path to give that part meaning.)
RépondreSupprimerI love how some games promise you a changing gameplay, eg. by introducing new spells, or wilderness adventures, or war game elements. Some people may not like all these elements. They feel tricked because they got more games (and in a particular sequence to boot) than they expected. Personally, I feel that this a OK. Don't like harsh games, skip the first two levels. Don't like war games, end it when reaching name level. I find that better game designs, more focused game designs, effectively take away some of the things I like. To me, the solution would be to be more explicit about what game to expect at what levels, and suggestions of how to tune the game to your expectations.
RépondreSupprimerIdeally, advancement should extend potentialities of play : when you play to slash monsters for looting, Xp should allow you to slash better or bigger monsters and loot more.
RépondreSupprimerWhen you play accordingly to this object, the pleasure might grow with the advancement.
If you drift from this object, advancement can drag you in the direction you're trying to leave and be uncomfortable.
But this is the simple case.
Many games don't really have a clear object and advancement pulls you in an arbitrary direction, with no link with the many possibilities the game seems to offers.
Do you think the "Peter Principle" feeds on these issues, or is it unrelated and it can happen even in games with a clear object and aligned reinforcement ?
Frédéric Sintes
RépondreSupprimerI guess my preferences don't match: if I like A, more of A is not necessarily better, if I plan to do a thing over many years (a long RPG campaign, for example). In a long game, things must change. We kill monsters for loot on level one, but if we still kill monsters for loot in level ten, I'm going to be disappointed. Not sure how many people share this preference, however. :)
That's very interesting. I don't have answers to that matter.
RépondreSupprimerI'm very curious about Gherhartd Sildoenfein's point of view about this.
Would it be better if we let the players push towards more or less advancement ? I suppose they cannot know the moment when more will be less good...
Maybe evolution should bring something else than just be better at the core purpose of the game. Something more linked with the life of the character during the game. Each advancement that could be linked to a past adventure fight the boredom and add to the incarnation. (again Dogs is a good example of this mechanic)
RépondreSupprimerTo stay as true as possible to the original Peter Principle, I'd say that it playing the game change the game till it isn't fun anymore. But in games it is because there is a possible misalignment between the players' taste and the game.
RépondreSupprimerFrom the top of my head…
In short and possibly middle terms games may deepen the experience. Maybe the old ‘advanced rules’ section was a quite good idea for this.
In the long term, games must propose change to avoid weariness. But it is already difficult to align one gaming proposition with a group's expectations / tastes. Trying to align a succession of proposition is even more difficult. So either all players are already OK with the sequence, learn to like it, don't like it and pursue (frustration), don't like it and quit (less frustration, but frustrating nonetheless), anticipate and wrap things up when still pleasurable.
From a game-design pov, i’d say: announce game style changes, offer appropriate transition mechanics that might double as endgame mechanics. I believe Primetime Adventures and Monsterheart do that, but I don’t have any direct experience with these yet.
Thanks for this explanation. I don't have more to say, but it will surely makes me think.
RépondreSupprimerDam you, Frédéric Sintes, I was just ranting and now I am thinking instead.
RépondreSupprimer