[verroq]

Maybe I play games differently but I always try and go for the optimal set up (the min/max)(even if it involves looking it up on the internet).

So theoretically, assuming players are somewhat rational. Then they'd always go for the optimal set up and most RPG players will end up converging onto the same optimal stats anyway.

This is where level systems shine, they can make the path to the optimal set up extremely painful, but players will still grind for it, since it's the optimal (and players like to be optimal).

[erikb]

Well, what is optimal? The first time I played Fallout 1 it was optimal to me to have a high barter skill, because I traded a lot and want to not lose money on that transaction. Later I found I can steal money, so I focused on theft skills instead. Years later I didn't play all too morally any more, therefore I could kill whole cities which meant weapon skills were more important than barter or theft. A few months back I played it again, and this time I found shooting people is boring, because I did that in all my playthroughs before. So I began using only melee weapons/skills on my character.

Optimal is different for different players and will change over time. A good RPG has a very high number of optimal or only slightly suboptimal paths you can choose from. I would even argue that sometimes the suboptimal paths are the more interesting ones (real roleplayers play their character in way that they might be scared of rats and run away, even if their character is able to one-shot the end boss; another example is above me deciding to only use melee weapons and make the most of it).

[cdr]

For any goal, there's only gone to be one (or a best a couple) optimal builds. Among players, the vast majority are going to have one or the same few goals.

In a MMO, most players are going to be chasing the most overpowered build. Which is why MMO developers change things all the time - not for supposed "balance", just to keep players on the treadmill.

[erikb]

I agree on the MMO part. That's why for me MMOs aren't really RPGs. My statement about good RPGs was a little different, though. A good RPG really has different optimal builds, e.g., you can't say that one of the starting characters in Diablo 2 is really better than the others. If one build overpowers the others that's really a balancing issue and a game claiming to be a good RPG has to make sure that this doesn't exist. As you say I also believe that MMOs have the goal to keep players on the treadmill and therefore prefer a changing imbalance over a constant balance.

[DanBC]

That's one way to play a game.

But sometimes people like role playing an actual character, not just grinding to get 'best' character. As an example there are plenty of suggested SPECIAL setups for Fallout3.

[nnnnni]

Yeah, exactly. I have more fun making the character that I choose the best it can be relative to its starting state, not every other character in the game.

[JetSpiegel]

The first Fallouts had low-Intelligence characters. It makes most responses "Uhh?", and everyone responds accordingly.

[kazagistar]

Except the other low intelligence characters, with whom you have some extensive and enlightened conversations.

One of my favorite twists on mechanics ever.

[JetSpiegel]

I didn't remember that. Time to replay Fallout...

[angersock]

Fallout 2, chat with Tor.

[Negitivefrags]

Well there are multiple different personalities that we have to cater to when designing a character progression system. You are what we would call a Spike player (going from the terminology coined by the design team of Magic the Gathering).

It's okay that you act like that because following towards a goal that you think is optimal is fun for you.

However, it's our challenge as game designers to make it so that opinions will differ in the player base as to what is optimal. Once you have a diversity of player builds than you will still feel a bond to your character because you still picked between different efficient options that were presented on the internet.

[bildung]

Maybe I play games differently but I always try and go for the optimal set up (the min/max)(even if it involves looking it up on the internet).

I think the fact that you can min/max a game easily is a testament of bad, or at least simplistic, game design. In games like System Shock, one of the examples in the article, there is no simple optimum but multiple viable paths to victory.

Of course simplistic game design has it's place, for example in mindless shooters like left 4 dead. That one is extremely linear (on a level that really killed immersion for me), but it perhaps aids the game designers goal of completely braindead (hah) entertainment.

It's perhaps the same thing as in literature: The author asks for more Goethe but only gets Tolkien & Co. Both are fine, but Tolkien selling more copies doesn't make it good literature, "just" great entertainment.

[kazagistar]

This is why I burned out so hard on "RPGs", and why one of my favorite games to this day is Space Station 13, which is possibly the only true multiplayer roleplaying game (and please point me to more if I am wrong).

The core game mechanic is actually playing out some role, and interacting with others playing out their roles, sometimes conflicting and sometimes cooperative. The game starts, and you are given a job on the space station. The mechanics are complex, pretty punishing (permadeath lasts until server reset, or someone clones you etc), and partially irrelevant; incompetence is realistic, and expected. Dysfunction abounds. Some people might be assigned as secret agents and given tasks automatically like theft or murder. Most of the time, however, is spent playing the drunk police officer, crusty cynical mechanic, horribly unhelpful bureaucrat, or janitor who "forgets" to put up wet floor signs for amusement. The chemists and farmers trade goods, the scientists perform dangerous experiments for dubious ends, etc.

The irony for me is that the only way to restore a true feeling of "playing a role" was removing the stats, and many of the normal objectives, and building a theme where the only optimal play is, essentially, to play sub-optimally and just go for whatever is fun (excluding things that get you thrown out an airlock or tossed in jail for a few hours).

I guess I just got a different idea of what RPG meant from pen-and-paper roleplaying games, and my coding background makes me a bit allergic to games that could be "solved".

[maxerickson]

Where's the fun in what you describe?

I avoid leveling system games, I guess because I feel like they are abusing some stimulus-reward system in my mentality, but I am asking what you think there, not trying to be snide.

[verroq]

Well there is a payoff at the end. Let's say you were playing Runescape and you were min-maxing (building a pure). If you go PKing, you'd almost always win the fight (unless the other person was a pure). The real fun with Runescape is writing bots though.