Easy to learn and easy to master? Or easy to learn and hard to master?

[NotAI]

In general, there is probably at least one player who fits into any of the categories. It really depends on what one wants to get out of a game or in this case RPG.
Option 1 suits the casual player who may or may not replay a game which fits the criteria. Hardcore players lean definitely into the hard to master categories.
If the discussion is extended to any form of competition both easy to learn and hard to master, as well as impossible to master are the best options. If it is impossible to master it will still allow the players to go far and keep a game interesting over a long or very long time-span.
It has more or less been mentioned, but access to and ease of use (e.g. inputs) in a game are for the introductions of players to a game or franchise. Longevity and replay-value are not 100 % tied to its depth and thus difficulty of mastery but it should still be high.
There is also the topic of game-made and player-made rules and how it affects a game's difficulty of mastery. Like avoiding using certain spells and tactics and other restrictions, to give an example. Or no-death runs.

:100%:

Good that somebody mentioned these points; this is why the meta and how players like to play matters so much.

[Rigwort]

What is better for rpgs? What about for casuals? Same thing or not?

They are all good choices. I like RPGs generally. Just like sometimes tabletop players like having a braindead game to eat foods and BS with buddies, I like playing Morrowind and eating chips. I also like harder games that actually challenge me. And I do think Gothic is a game that can be considered "Hard to learn, easy to master" and is worthwhile. Same with Deus Ex. That would be the one I think most people would not think can be good, but so much of an RPG is "being in the know". Interesting discussion!

[WhiteShark]

And I do think Gothic is a game that can be considered "Hard to learn, easy to master" and is worthwhile. Same with Deus Ex. That would be the one I think most people would not think can be good, but so much of an RPG is "being in the know".

I would say that outliers like that are exceptions to the rule and are good for reasons other than their skill floors and ceilings. Deus Ex is a great game, but gotchas like the Swimming skill still detract from it.

[Rigwort]

And I do think Gothic is a game that can be considered "Hard to learn, easy to master" and is worthwhile. Same with Deus Ex. That would be the one I think most people would not think can be good, but so much of an RPG is "being in the know".

I would say that outliers like that are exceptions to the rule and are good for reasons other than their skill floors and ceilings. Deus Ex is a great game, but gotchas like the Swimming skill still detract from it.

But you would say it's in spite of it? I would argue that these "power-trip rpgs" are fun. Morrowind actually fits in too. I think these games lean more into the "discovery" part of an adventure, rather than the "challenges" And discovery means that once you learn the bits you need to learn, it's free coasting. I think that is valuable.

[WhiteShark]

But you would say it's in spite of it? I would argue that these "power-trip rpgs" are fun. Morrowind actually fits in too. I think these games lean more into the "discovery" part of an adventure, rather than the "challenges" And discovery means that once you learn the bits you need to learn, it's free coasting. I think that is valuable.

I find power trips fun for about five minutes.

Cheesing is fun when you initially figure it out because it makes you feel clever, but as soon as that wears off it usually makes the game totally dull. "Wow, I can do that!?" rapidly turns into, "Yup, I can solve everything by doing that."

Exploration and discovery are fun, but novelty alone can't carry a game for me. I'd rather read a book than play a game that doesn't challenge me.

[Rigwort]

I find power trips fun for about five minutes.

The bit here that's a problem is that it's hard to learn. You take the whole game (most likely) to properly learn the mechanics and builds, the power trip is the reward. It need not be fun for more than 5 minutes. Because that high of even meeting the mark is worth it.

Exploration and discovery are fun, but novelty alone can't carry a game for me. I'd rather read a book than play a game that doesn't challenge me.

Exploration and discovery are serious business. You probably have the view of exploration like BotW or chasing icons in a newer Bethesda RPG. That's not it. Gaining the very real skill of evaluating the terrain/level, finding secrets, putting game information together. It's why I never show someone new to a game the type of build they should go for. Figuring out the world and mechanics is most of the game. It's why many of these games are ruined by wikis and why so many people who don't like them are the very people who used wikis.

[rusty_shackleford]

All that matters is whether it's fun or not.

[Norfleet]

Cheesing is fun when you initially figure it out because it makes you feel clever, but as soon as that wears off it usually makes the game totally dull. "Wow, I can do that!?" rapidly turns into, "Yup, I can solve everything by doing that."

That's why you want to have more than one cheese, especially in multiplayer. Because no one has as many friends as the man with many cheeses!

Not in the mood for cheese? That excuse has more holes than a slice of this fine Gorgombert!

[Acrux]

Cheesing is fun when you initially figure it out because it makes you feel clever, but as soon as that wears off it usually makes the game totally dull. "Wow, I can do that!?" rapidly turns into, "Yup, I can solve everything by doing that."

That's why you want to have more than one cheese, especially in multiplayer. Because no one has as many friends as the man with many cheeses!

Not in the mood for cheese? That excuse has more holes than a slice of this fine Gorgombert!

Sigh. Say the line, @maidenhaver.

[maidenhaver]

A sweet old lady asked me where this cheese was made, and I says "Fromunda." She asked "what?" I said deez nuts.

[aweigh]

i look at it this way:

- if a game is a never ending straight line where you just move to the right you'd get bored. in fact this can hardly be called a game at all.

- now add a small obstacle where the character has to jump over it. this is introducing challenge. this creates gameplay. same scenario, endlessly moving to the right in a straight line except now you have to jump over an obsctacle.

take this kind of thinking to its logical extremes. you could argue that challenge is gameplay. that you can't have a game without it.

[Xenich]

In general, there is probably at least one player who fits into any of the categories. It really depends on what one wants to get out of a game or in this case RPG.
Option 1 suits the casual player who may or may not replay a game which fits the criteria. Hardcore players lean definitely into the hard to master categories.
If the discussion is extended to any form of competition both easy to learn and hard to master, as well as impossible to master are the best options. If it is impossible to master it will still allow the players to go far and keep a game interesting over a long or very long time-span.
It has more or less been mentioned, but access to and ease of use (e.g. inputs) in a game are for the introductions of players to a game or franchise. Longevity and replay-value are not 100 % tied to its depth and thus difficulty of mastery but it should still be high.
There is also the topic of game-made and player-made rules and how it affects a game's difficulty of mastery. Like avoiding using certain spells and tactics and other restrictions, to give an example. Or no-death runs.

:100%:

Good that somebody mentioned these points; this is why the meta and how players like to play matters so much.

I think it also comes down to honest evaluation. There are many styles of games where, personally... I am not a fan of, but... I respect how they are designed and implemented.

I think the biggest problem I have had over the years with casuals (and some hardcores) is the refusal to accept "style" into the equation. You got arguments like "Turn based is antiquated", or "inventory management is a flaw", etc... where they refuse to accept these as styles and see them as poor design.

The turn based argument used to really urk me as we saw shortly after, turn based became the standard in the industry for a while just after I was being lambasted by mainstreamers that turn based was poor design.

It is a shallow view I have seen some take where they use their completely subjective view of something and act like somehow it is an established truth that all other ideas must submit to.

[J1M]

And I do think Gothic is a game that can be considered "Hard to learn, easy to master" and is worthwhile. Same with Deus Ex. That would be the one I think most people would not think can be good, but so much of an RPG is "being in the know".

I would say that outliers like that are exceptions to the rule and are good for reasons other than their skill floors and ceilings. Deus Ex is a great game, but gotchas like the Swimming skill still detract from it.

There has to be a better example. Name one game before Deus Ex or since that would have led you to even consider swimming in the top 50% of skill point choices. It is abundantly obvious this isn't needed as soon as you see a rebreather or how little water there is.

[Acrux]

And I do think Gothic is a game that can be considered "Hard to learn, easy to master" and is worthwhile. Same with Deus Ex. That would be the one I think most people would not think can be good, but so much of an RPG is "being in the know".

I would say that outliers like that are exceptions to the rule and are good for reasons other than their skill floors and ceilings. Deus Ex is a great game, but gotchas like the Swimming skill still detract from it.

There has to be a better example. Name one game before Deus Ex or since that would have led you to even consider swimming in the top 50% of skill point choices. It is abundantly obvious this isn't needed as soon as you see a rebreather or how little water there is.

Quest for Glory V

EverQuest

[WhiteShark]

There has to be a better example. Name one game before Deus Ex or since that would have led you to even consider swimming in the top 50% of skill point choices. It is abundantly obvious this isn't needed as soon as you see a rebreather or how little water there is.

Obvious or not, it's still a trap option. It may be obvious to us that Swimming is a waste of a skill, but to speak from my own experience:

When I was a kid I made a Barbarian and put all of my points into the jump skill—not the jump attack skill, the jump skill. I can't remember if I got stuck on Andariel or in Act II, but it was pretty early.

Does letting the player waste points on a useless skill improve the game? No. It's a trap, and some people will fall for it.

[J1M]

There has to be a better example. Name one game before Deus Ex or since that would have led you to even consider swimming in the top 50% of skill point choices. It is abundantly obvious this isn't needed as soon as you see a rebreather or how little water there is.

Obvious or not, it's still a trap option. It may be obvious to us that Swimming is a waste of a skill, but to speak from my own experience:

When I was a kid I made a Barbarian and put all of my points into the jump skill—not the jump attack skill, the jump skill. I can't remember if I got stuck on Andariel or in Act II, but it was pretty early.

Does letting the player waste points on a useless skill improve the game? No. It's a trap, and some people will fall for it.

Another data point for why players should be able to freely change how their character is built. Far easier for the average dev to implement too.

[NotAI]

There has to be a better example. Name one game before Deus Ex or since that would have led you to even consider swimming in the top 50% of skill point choices. It is abundantly obvious this isn't needed as soon as you see a rebreather or how little water there is.

Obvious or not, it's still a trap option. It may be obvious to us that Swimming is a waste of a skill, but to speak from my own experience:

When I was a kid I made a Barbarian and put all of my points into the jump skill—not the jump attack skill, the jump skill. I can't remember if I got stuck on Andariel or in Act II, but it was pretty early.

Does letting the player waste points on a useless skill improve the game? No. It's a trap, and some people will fall for it.

Another data point for why players should be able to freely change how their character is built. Far easier for the average dev to implement too.

Good point. Agreed.

Though free floating points has some open problems. (I'm a zebra on Wednesdays and a shark on Thursdays.) It seems to make some games too easy (BG3?), hence needs extra AI or something to adjust difficulty in direct response to moving around of points. Definitely not scaling...but what? Because it means players will switch to meta for any given section as often as needed? Eliminating any role-play trade-off?

[rusty_shackleford]

I think he was referring to freely respeccing, and I strongly disagree. IMO it has made games worse, not better. You should feel committed to your character.

[J1M]

I think he was referring to freely respeccing, and I strongly disagree. IMO it has made games worse, not better. You should feel committed to your character.

The moments I enjoyed most in BG3 were in the character menu.

My archer never became a barbarian but he got to explore the system and try more than 2 talents. Game quality is nowhere near high enough for me to trust that a permanent choice works as described. Being able to change those choices at camp solves a lot of problems introduced by large teams and lower quality devs.

[rusty_shackleford]

I think he was referring to freely respeccing, and I strongly disagree. IMO it has made games worse, not better. You should feel committed to your character.

The moments I enjoyed most in BG3 were in the character menu.

My archer never became a barbarian but he got to explore the system and try more than 2 talents. Game quality is nowhere near high enough for me to trust that a permanent choice works as described. Being able to change those choices at camp solves a lot of problems introduced by large teams and lower quality devs.

All I did with the respec system was completely break the game.

[*] Respeccing breaks the game. Don't believe me?

My fighter was capable of soloing any fight on the hardest difficulty.

[rusty_shackleford]

All I did with the respec system was completely break the game.

Also did the same thing in ATOM RPG now that I think on it. You get all your skill points refunded, including any permanent bonuses you accumulated. Trivialized character building, was able to have high scores in basically every skill. And this is despite respeccing in ATOM being a one-time use consumable you get in the latter half of the game.
Respeccing basically breaks single player RPGs anytime I've seen it used.

[Oyster Sauce]

Ah, the Gloves of Yasuke Strength. Time for my seasoned, powerful warrior with over 500 confirmed kills to go down to 8 strength.

[WhiteShark]

The better the RPG is at being a proper simulation, the more I'm against respecs. If it's basically just a combat game without much concern for making sense, then respecs are fine. I like the approach of JRPGs that have an in-world reason to allow 'respecs', such as changing your orbments in Trails in the Sky to get access to different spells and abilities.

[J1M]

I think he was referring to freely respeccing, and I strongly disagree. IMO it has made games worse, not better. You should feel committed to your character.

The moments I enjoyed most in BG3 were in the character menu.

My archer never became a barbarian but he got to explore the system and try more than 2 talents. Game quality is nowhere near high enough for me to trust that a permanent choice works as described. Being able to change those choices at camp solves a lot of problems introduced by large teams and lower quality devs.

All I did with the respec system was completely break the game.

[*] Respeccing breaks the game. Don't believe me?

My fighter was capable of soloing any fight on the hardest difficulty.

I would argue that what you did there probably required some meta knowledge about how certain awards are obtained as well as a very accommodating DM to place enough stat enhancing items for that to be possible.

But a DM can drop a +18 to all stats item into any game regardless of whether or not you can adjust character choices.

[rusty_shackleford]

The moments I enjoyed most in BG3 were in the character menu.

My archer never became a barbarian but he got to explore the system and try more than 2 talents. Game quality is nowhere near high enough for me to trust that a permanent choice works as described. Being able to change those choices at camp solves a lot of problems introduced by large teams and lower quality devs.

All I did with the respec system was completely break the game.

[*] Respeccing breaks the game. Don't believe me?

My fighter was capable of soloing any fight on the hardest difficulty.

I would argue that what you did there probably required some meta knowledge about how certain awards are obtained as well as a very accommodating DM to place enough stat enhancing items for that to be possible.

But a DM can drop a +18 to all stats item into any game regardless of whether or not you can adjust character choices.

Nope, I just used the items given to break the game in a way not intended.
Those items are meant to supplement a character that is weak in certain ability scores, instead I just drop the ability scores as low as possible and use the items as a replacement. No meta knowledge needed because of respeccing, otherwise you'd be correct.
Also a great example of how I hate gloves having more strength than a character.

[Anon]

Ah, the Gloves of Yasuke Strength. Time for my seasoned, powerful warrior with over 500 confirmed kills to go down to 8 strength.

That's why I hate permanent stat boosts and gear that sets stats, they make character building way less fun

Nope, I just used the items given to break the game in a way not intended.

Larian 100% knew that people would do that lol. They just added a broken item because they wanted to. And tbh it's a fair reward for undertaking the hardest fight in the game. It's the "gz you done this content now you deserve an easy game" reward

[rusty_shackleford]

And tbh it's a fair reward for undertaking the hardest fight in the game. It's the "gz you done this content now you deserve an easy game" reward

I don't even remember what fight it was from. None of the fights in Act 3 got close to challenging tho.

[J1M]

All I did with the respec system was completely break the game.

My fighter was capable of soloing any fight on the hardest difficulty.

I would argue that what you did there probably required some meta knowledge about how certain awards are obtained as well as a very accommodating DM to place enough stat enhancing items for that to be possible.

But a DM can drop a +18 to all stats item into any game regardless of whether or not you can adjust character choices.

Nope, I just used the items given to break the game in a way not intended.
Those items are meant to supplement a character that is weak in certain ability scores, instead I just drop the ability scores as low as possible and use the items as a replacement. No meta knowledge needed because of respeccing, otherwise you'd be correct.
Also a great example of how I hate gloves having more strength than a character.

I agree those items are poorly designed. I don't agree it is Withers' fault.

[Anon]

And tbh it's a fair reward for undertaking the hardest fight in the game. It's the "gz you done this content now you deserve an easy game" reward

I don't even remember what fight it was from. None of the fights in Act 3 got close to challenging tho.

Raphael's mansion. It's fairly challenging in honour mode. Still far from being very hard if you know how to optimize builds, sure.

[rusty_shackleford]

Still far from being very hard if you know how to optimize builds, sure

I beat the game about a week after it released and my exposure to 5E prior amounted to playing half of Solasta. I followed no guide, and had no idea how to "optimize builds".
The game is pretty easy, and it was disappointing due to it.