Defining Progression Within Games

GameSetWatch is running a piece discussing some of the ways in which gameplay can progress from simple to complex. The author talks about how acquiring items, new abilities, or just increasing the player's overall effectiveness can make it difficult for game designers to keep their content balanced and interesting. Quoting: "What do I mean by progression? There are at least two distinct types of progression in computer games, which I'll label player progression, and character progression (narrative progression is arguably a third). Player progression is the increasing aptitude of the player in mastering the game: whether through learning and understanding the technical rules of the game (surface play) or the implications of those rules (deep play). ... Character progression is the unlocking of additional rules of play, or altering the existing rules, by choices or actions within the game."

This is why mages in D&D are stronger than fig

[CrazyJim1]

D&D was the one of the first RPGS and one of the biggest. So it can be excused if it has balance flaws. Fighters only had a certain limited styles of attacks, but mages would get like 10 new types of spells each level. Simply by giving a cornucopia of abilities, a few of them have to be overpowered. The further a mage progressed, the more spells they get, which makes them even more powerful! They just said that mages at the beginning are weak, but towards the end they get strong. That holds up in dated RPGS, but not for MMORPGS where many players judge your game by end game balance because that is where PVP goes on.

Re:Touches on something lacking in RPG's

[mackil]

I agree completely actually. My own experience was fighting with all my "old friends" I had encountered in Oblivion, charging forward into the last battle.

We won, and I received the special Imperial armor. Fame, fortune etc etc... only to not be treated any different by the shop keepers or highway men on the road. It was very disappointing, and it really takes you out of the world you're supposed to be immersed in.

Call me when they have a real AI to run a CRPG...

[Cheetahfeathers]

This is why I don't enjoy computer RPGs, only a subset of tabletop ones. Computers can do RPGs, sure, but not the type that I like.

RPGs can mean a variety of different things. The character that you take on the role of overcoming challenges that come before them (the most classic of which is the dungeon crawl), exploring the world and content of the game (Morrowind or Oblivion would be examples that are decent at this), or playing a story that your character is the protagonist in.

Since it is flatly contradictory for one person (say a game developer or GM) to author a story, and another person to determine the actions of their protagonist in any meaningful way, this leaves the player of the protagonist to author the story. The GM exists to facilitate this story. Computer games can't react to the limitless potential of human authorship without having a true AI. At best such a game run by a game designer (such as in a CPRG) can only railroad a story (be it a multi-track railroad, a very well disguised railroad with the illusion of choice, etc... but railroad none the less).

Progress in types of games I enjoy would mean conflicts that either introduce complications to the story, events which get the protagonist closer to their goals, conflicts that illuminate the thematic content of the game, or similar story oriented events.

Not even the most open and flexible of computer RPGs even start to cover this style of RPG. Final Fantasy series is often the classic held up for story telling CRPG. It's railroaded as far as the story is concerned. The content is there to provide challenges and to explore the world the game designers built. You can't play out the protagonists story, because your choices don't affect the story in a meaningful way.

So called open ended games like Morrowind are similar. You can't affect things in a meaningful way... you can just go on one of several pre-selected railroad tracks the game designers built into the game, so far as the story is concerned.

Re:Touches on something lacking in RPG's

[zehaeva]

I personally think the Bigger Guns With Experience metaphor is slightly broken. You don't reward the Good Stuff after you finish the adventure, really.

I can agree with this. For instance take WoW's Arena. The higher your ranking the better you are as a player and the better gear you get to give you a game advantage over other players. This doesn't quite seem right. If we all are to have fun why are you giving the biggest guns to the guys who have already proven that they are the best in terms of skill on a semi even playing field?

All you are doing, in at least the instance of WoW Arena, is making it easier for those at the top to stay there. While they should get prestige and rewards and such for getting to the top, shouldn't they be able to stay at the top because of skill? and not because they were a bit better than the teams they played and got better eq, which let them beat more teams which gets them even more good equipment which lets them beat everyone?

It just snow balls.