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

[NotAI]

Watched https://invidious.jing.rocks/watch?v=X8jC2KT481c

Poll

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

I think (1), (2), (5), (6) all work for rpgs (prove me wrong) but is there a case for (3), (4)?

Might not matter simply because most rpgs are basically long branching films. Quests and narrative and choices mattering means skill matters less. Or not?

Edit. When was the last time you can make a build that just straight up MUST restart an rpg and that was INTENDED?

[junior]

second answer is the only correct option

[Xenich]

Complex systems usually require a learning period and "tend" to provide more depth in play in terms of success and failure. I don't think I ever played a game where I could not complete it with a poor selection on my part, rather it just became very difficult resulting in numerous reloads or application of very interesting tactics to succeed.

[NotAI]

BTW, I skipped the option: (7) Impossible to learn and learning does not matter

The one where some people naturally can play it for other reasons outside the game. No amount of ingame learning is possible to improve or learn to play if you don't already know how or can't. So either physical sports or trivia based gameplay. Almost never true for popular sports also...

Too infrequent and only think of of some WWII themed board games with trivia based gameplay that are like that. Where you don't learn the game, you are either a history nerd, a historian, or unable to play. Not even play randomly. It's not multiple choice but enough decisions have to be correct else the game will deadlock. Which is a pretty silly or broken ruleset.

[DagothGeas5]

To me "hard" is too strong a word, especially for starting, but "easy" absolutely not, at least not for me. I love being overwhelmed and have to learn my way around the hard way, which makes even "level 2" sounds like the greatest accomplishment. Then when the journey comes to an end it's not a series of levels, but a series of victories, and every single one mattered to get me where I end up in the end. I want a game that I will always treasure looking back, the hard times only making it all the sweeter.

[WhiteShark]

Even a complex system can be made easy to learn by correct pacing and introductory techniques, and by this I do not mean endless tutorial popups. The holy grail of design is a system that has relatively simple fundamental rules that nevertheless give rise to multitudinous and complex interactions. The unholy grail of design is a system of endless rules and gotchas that breaks the instant you find the one combination to rule them all.

[Xenich]

Even a complex system can be made easy to learn by correct pacing and introductory techniques, and by this I do not mean endless tutorial popups. The holy grail of design is a system that has relatively simple fundamental rules that nevertheless give rise to multitudinous and complex interactions. The unholy grail of design is a system of endless rules and gotchas that breaks the instant you find the one combination to rule them all.

A competent system goes without saying. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't good, I understand that. Though having numerous options for detailed play and function can provide numerous carrots and management approaches to play. That goes for negatives as well as positives. I always liked systems that through leveraged penalty style obstacles with skill/attribute/environment based solutions (ie weight restrictions, logistic skills, resource management, etc...), but such systems tend to come with a learning curve depending on how much is exists. Though, as you mentioned how it is introduced can lessen that.

Honestly though, I have no problem cracking open a 100+ page manual and reading it before I play a game, but that would turn most modern gamers away.

[Anon]

Chess is the most egregious example of easy to learn and hard to master. Even a monkey can learn how to move the pieces, but as you progressively study, the amount of knowledge and theory (which is all logical) at some point becomes overwhelming. That's smart design.

For RPGs I think either this or "hard to learn and hard to master" could work, but videogames are such an ample field that this becomes a secondary factor, to speak frankly.

[WhiteShark]

Honestly though, I have no problem cracking open a 100+ page manual and reading it before I play a game, but that would turn most modern gamers away.

I can do that—I'm into tabletop RPGs, so it's often more like 300+ pages—but it's much easier to have someone guide you through the relevant bits one at a time before reviewing the rules yourself. Even the best laid out manuals inevitably violate the n+1 rule: new concepts are introduced very rapidly and you're required to hold numerous unfamiliar things in your head at once before you can learn what they actually are and how they interact. There are complex systems I enjoy and I am glad of manuals' existing, but I see no reason that games shouldn't make an effort to teach the concepts in a human-oriented way. That's what 'easy to learn' means to me.

[Xenich]

Chess is the most egregious example of easy to learn and hard to master. Even a monkey can learn how to move the pieces, but as you progressively study, the amount of knowledge and theory (which is all logical) at some point becomes overwhelming. That's smart design.

For RPGs I think either this or "hard to learn and hard to master" could work, but videogames are such an ample field that this becomes a secondary factor, to speak frankly.

I like games like that and can respect them, but its a mood of play I guess. Sometimes lots of "toys" so to speak are fascinating and part of the fun is learning all of the systems involved. I always loved games where I kept finding more and more system layers of play as I progressed (if I just jumped in and didn't bother with the manual).

I guess a good progression of complexity with learning, yet also provides depth of mastery in play would be some RTS games. Supreme commander for instance is pretty simplistic off the start, but gets more and more complex with layers of units, functions, etc... to which ultimately builds a wide toolset for various styles of strategic play. Come to think of it, this is pretty much standard (with varying complexity depending on game) with a lot of RTS. RPG's would do well I think to layer this approach of complexity in their designs, building up (allowing for a simpler introduction to play, but becoming very complex and vast with options over time).

[rusty_shackleford]

Video game manuals were a technical necessity, not a good design decision.

[Xenich]

Video game manuals were a technical necessity, not a good design decision.

Well, the only other option is to layer complexity through learning over time (which means more content development) or have a tutorial, which again... is more content development.

A manual provided all the aspects of play information to which a player could be dropped right into the thick of play without developers having to spend a lot of time "teaching" the game through content.

[rusty_shackleford]

Video game manuals were a technical necessity, not a good design decision.

Well, the only other option is to layer complexity through learning over time (which means more content development) or have a tutorial, which again... is more content development.

A manual provided all the aspects of play information to which a player could be dropped right into the thick of play without developers having to spend a lot of time "teaching" the game through content.

Video games should teach you through playing them. Anything else is misusing the medium.

[Xenich]

Video game manuals were a technical necessity, not a good design decision.

Well, the only other option is to layer complexity through learning over time (which means more content development) or have a tutorial, which again... is more content development.

A manual provided all the aspects of play information to which a player could be dropped right into the thick of play without developers having to spend a lot of time "teaching" the game through content.

Video games should teach you through playing them. Anything else is misusing the medium.

That requires extra development time to do something a simple manual can do with text though. So, instead of just listing input functions, attribute and world interaction, etc... in text in a manual, the developer now has to create "game play" mechanics that instruct the player on how to do those things within the game.

Even if you don't have a "tutorial area" made just to teach those things and you put it in within the flow of the game, you still then have to consider how to introduce them in a timely manner which will allow the player to properly apply them as they need while interacting in the game, which again... puts you into focusing on developing "around" the tutorial of the games features rather than just focusing on the games progression of content.

Now that may be preferred by some, but the practical reality is that it is development time building actual systems into the game to do what a manual can do quickly, without lots of time spent creating and allowing the player to quickly find the solutions they seek at the pace they choose (ie scanning for key features, skipping commonly implemented ones known from other games, etc...)

It is still, in my opinion wasted development time that could be better spent making actual game content.

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, the only other option is to layer complexity through learning over time (which means more content development) or have a tutorial, which again... is more content development.

A manual provided all the aspects of play information to which a player could be dropped right into the thick of play without developers having to spend a lot of time "teaching" the game through content.

Video games should teach you through playing them. Anything else is misusing the medium.

That requires extra development time to do something a simple manual can do with text though. So, instead of just listing input functions, attribute and world interaction, etc... in text in a manual, the developer now has to create "game play" mechanics that instruct the player on how to do those things within the game.

Even if you don't have a "tutorial area" made just to teach those things and you put it in within the flow of the game, you still then have to consider how to introduce them in a timely manner which will allow the player to properly apply them as they need while interacting in the game, which again... puts you into focusing on developing "around" the tutorial of the games features rather than just focusing on the games progression of content.

Now that may be preferred by some, but the practical reality is that it is development time building actual systems into the game to do what a manual can do quickly, without lots of time spent creating and allowing the player to quickly find the solutions they seek at the pace they choose (ie scanning for key features, skipping commonly implemented ones known from other games, etc...)

It is still, in my opinion wasted development time that could be better spent making actual game content.

The developer could also just put the entire game in text format and save a whole lot of development time.

[Xenich]

Video games should teach you through playing them. Anything else is misusing the medium.

That requires extra development time to do something a simple manual can do with text though. So, instead of just listing input functions, attribute and world interaction, etc... in text in a manual, the developer now has to create "game play" mechanics that instruct the player on how to do those things within the game.

Even if you don't have a "tutorial area" made just to teach those things and you put it in within the flow of the game, you still then have to consider how to introduce them in a timely manner which will allow the player to properly apply them as they need while interacting in the game, which again... puts you into focusing on developing "around" the tutorial of the games features rather than just focusing on the games progression of content.

Now that may be preferred by some, but the practical reality is that it is development time building actual systems into the game to do what a manual can do quickly, without lots of time spent creating and allowing the player to quickly find the solutions they seek at the pace they choose (ie scanning for key features, skipping commonly implemented ones known from other games, etc...)

It is still, in my opinion wasted development time that could be better spent making actual game content.

The developer could also just put the entire game in text format and save a whole lot of development time.

Sorry, TLDR.

[StudiedAsleep]

Easy to learn means more people will play and stick with it. Hard to master gives those same people a sense of accomplishment when they put in more time.

It is also good for lazy people and people without much time.

[Xenich]

Easy to learn means more people will play and stick with it. Hard to master gives those same people a sense of accomplishment when they put in more time.

It is also good for lazy people and people without much time.

In terms of an RPG though, complexity in systems kind of goes hand in hand though. That is the more you design around your characters statistical interactions in the world, the more knowledge the player will have to understand to manage and balance them in play. Sure, you can go simplistic and focus on tactical play, but this starts to push the game more to a "board" style where less is about the characters development and interaction in the world via the systems and more about strategies within the world.

A complex RPG would have statistics that manage numerous layers. For instance, while a simplistic RPG might have a basic attribute (charisma) to influence dialogue, a complex one might have an entire line of specialty skills that influence it. So instead of just a simple role choice against an attribute, there could be various skills such as corporate speech, Street talk, etc... that govern more specific encounters within the game and not only weight outcomes, but can even influence the discovery of dialogue.

This level of complexity can exist among any style of development (combat, tech, medical, etc...) which if implemented properly can have numerous layers of progression for a character.

That would be a difficult thing to introduce to people (though some games do pretty well, Shadowrun for instance, but this is but one layer that could exist among many.

The point though is that this type of complexity, how it would effect character progression, direction, etc... may require more pre-knowledge which would turn away "less experienced" RPG players, but for people like me would actually draw me to the game.

[maidenhaver]

Unmasterable.

[Kowe]

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.

[Norfleet]

The unholy grail of design is a system of endless rules and gotchas that breaks the instant you find the one combination to rule them all.

This is, honestly, a great plurality if not outright majority of games, which are filled with trap options and false paths where there is ultimately only a very narrow and select number of ways to do things with all other options being inferior and wrong in all situations.

[Norfleet]

Honestly though, I have no problem cracking open a 100+ page manual and reading it before I play a game, but that would turn most modern gamers away.

That's because for most modern games, it is simply not worth it to learn an esoteric system that has no applicability to anything else. Even though I am certainly willing to study complex systems, I just don't consider it WORTH it if the game is going to be over within a day or two. I can just wait it out by not playing the game.

[Xenich]

Honestly though, I have no problem cracking open a 100+ page manual and reading it before I play a game, but that would turn most modern gamers away.

That's because for most modern games, it is simply not worth it to learn an esoteric system that has no applicability to anything else. Even though I am certainly willing to study complex systems, I just don't consider it WORTH it if the game is going to be over within a day or two. I can just wait it out by not playing the game.

Sure, but that would be contingent on the game also being of healthy size. Seems kind of pointless to spend a lot of time on an in depth complex system and than have the game over quickly.

[J1M]

Video game manuals were a technical necessity, not a good design decision.

Well, the only other option is to layer complexity through learning over time (which means more content development) or have a tutorial, which again... is more content development.

A manual provided all the aspects of play information to which a player could be dropped right into the thick of play without developers having to spend a lot of time "teaching" the game through content.

Video games should teach you through playing them. Anything else is misusing the medium.

Side note: I think a better argument against manuals is that for them to be comprehensive they probably need to include spoilers.

I hate integrated tutorials. When it is a separate menu option like Deus Ex, that is ideal. Otherwise I feel like I am wasting 2+ hours before the game actually reveals itself.

I realize we'll never return to the days of going into the key bindings in order to find out what a character can do, but I reject the idea that users are so ******** that they can't figure anything out... but also not too ******** to read and absorb the tutorial information.

[J1M]

The unholy grail of design is a system of endless rules and gotchas that breaks the instant you find the one combination to rule them all.

This is, honestly, a great plurality if not outright majority of games, which are filled with trap options and false paths where there is ultimately only a very narrow and select number of ways to do things with all other options being inferior and wrong in all situations.

Addendum: but the game is balanced such that any barely competent player can finish it with those inferior paths (because the design team wasn't competent enough to identify the power disparity).

We should probably split the discussion of trap choices into a new thread, but I will say that I think it is perfectly valid (and likely preferable) to include them when the player can modify such choices. The discussion of what variance in outcomes is acceptable before something crosses from viable alternative to trap choice may also be an interesting poll.

[Norfleet]

Honestly though, I have no problem cracking open a 100+ page manual and reading it before I play a game, but that would turn most modern gamers away.

That's because for most modern games, it is simply not worth it to learn an esoteric system that has no applicability to anything else. Even though I am certainly willing to study complex systems, I just don't consider it WORTH it if the game is going to be over within a day or two. I can just wait it out by not playing the game.

Sure, but that would be contingent on the game also being of healthy size. Seems kind of pointless to spend a lot of time on an in depth complex system and than have the game over quickly.

Pretty much, yes. This is why I tend to favor the multiplayer, often PvP, arena, when it comes to games with complex, unique systems. Otherwise you're just wasting a lot of brainspace on a thing that's going to be over in less than 2 days, given the typical 40-hour-or-less playtime. Whereas if I can use my learnings to thrash people for a long time, it's worth the effort.

[Norfleet]

We should probably split the discussion of trap choices into a new thread, but I will say that I think it is perfectly valid (and likely preferable) to include them when the player can modify such choices. The discussion of what variance in outcomes is acceptable before something crosses from viable alternative to trap choice may also be an interesting poll.

I would argue that the existence of trap choices is itself a symptom of poor game planning. After all, remember: The devs wasted tons of time coding this ****. Could the game have been better if time had not been wasted on this?

[asf]

if you arent gritting your teeth, it is for casuals

[J1M]

We should probably split the discussion of trap choices into a new thread, but I will say that I think it is perfectly valid (and likely preferable) to include them when the player can modify such choices. The discussion of what variance in outcomes is acceptable before something crosses from viable alternative to trap choice may also be an interesting poll.

I would argue that the existence of trap choices is itself a symptom of poor game planning. After all, remember: The devs wasted tons of time coding this ****. Could the game have been better if time had not been wasted on this?

Perfectly "balanced" choices often feel meaningless. If a melee character and a ranged one can do the same damage is that balanced? Does the melee character get additional durability to compensate? How much? Now you are balancing across more than one dimension, which inevitably leads to some choices being better than others.

What is a trap is also subjective. In an MMO like WoW portions of the player base would consider a 5% disparity a trap choice.

[Norfleet]

Perfectly "balanced" choices often feel meaningless. If a melee character and a ranged one can do the same damage is that balanced? Does the melee character get additional durability to compensate? How much? Now you are balancing across more than one dimension, which inevitably leads to some choices being better than others.

Yeah, but I'm not even talking about balancing across different dimensions. Often, the game flops in one-dimensional balance, where A and B have the same roles (both are swords, for example), but A is strictly a better option in every way than B, often even in soft factors (ease of use, etc).