The End Game game....

Because my blog post is very long and I wanted to post it here, I have only posted the first three paragraphs. The link is below if you care to read the rest. Otherwise, hope we can have a discussion anyway.

I am not trying to start a controversial thread here so hope you will bear with me. I know that the vast majorities of folks here who also play games, especially MMOs, are motivated by the very things that we see in most games, the achievement, the rewards, the progression, etc. However, I want to talk about another way to play an MMO.

Recently, we have seen more games attempt to change the grind that goes along with these games. Crowfall seems to be adapting the passive skill features from Eve Online where players gain skills without actively participating in raising that skill and even when they are offline. When my son drew my attention to a video of Crowfall’s passive skill methods and it made me think….deeply.

So when do you have fun playing a game? Is that early grinding period enjoyable for you? What about the mid-level grinding, when the monsters and NPCs you encounter are more challenging. Or maybe it is when the game puts out the new zone for those who have reached the top so they can start over again…or the next new zone? Or do you prefer the end game, when your character has reached the top and there is nowhere else to go. Is this when you quit the game or is this when you begin to play?

https://teilasblog.com/

 

I have fun playing games as I uncover parts of the story. Not just the "story cut-scenes", but the background, the lore, the motivations behind things, etc. I like discovering new things.

Making faster, better, strong characters is OK. But to me it's not the fun part. That's just to enable me to get to new places, uncover new things. I hate grinding. It feels pointless.

Once I've gotten through the story, once I've seen what there is to see, once it's just "get stronger to beat the next boss", I quit. I do this with single player RPG's and adventures. I hardly ever get all the way to the end. It's the journey that is fun. For MMO's I often quit sooner. They seem to fall into the "first area is well thought out, and everything else is just hack and slash" mold. The ones I've stuck with the longest were "Guild Wars" and "Age of Conan" - and the latter only lasted for the first area to around 15-20 hours.

 

Outside of instant feedback for achievements, the main value that I can see in grind is expanding available choices over time, and changing the gameplay experience over time through facing different challenges, like new enemy types that only spawn after you've reached a certain level. I don't play MMOs but for multiplayer games in general I prefer them to be either stateless outside of the current play session (like in Counterstrike), or state beeing tied to the lifetime of your character or server wipe-cycle (like in DayZ where it's mostly about the gear you acquire and you can lose everything at any time).

What I do like and think is important to keep players engaged, is having a super high skill-ceiling for actually executing the available strategies in the game most effectively. Like in Dark Souls where I played through the same segment over and over dozens of times just to practice blocking and finally defeat Havel the Rock, that was a much more fun and rewarding experince for me than crafting and enchanting daggers and jewelry in Skyrim for half a day.

The question is, what can your game offer instead of grind, to keep players engaged, and how do you achieve the positive things that grind can accomplish in other ways?

In the old Arma 2 mod days of DayZ, we've had a lot of fun just searching for rare gear and trying to stay alive. Much of the gameplay came down to risk/reward management and outplaying other players. And sometimes it's fun to find something rare, just because it's rare, like a can of Mountain Dew which had an incredibly small droprate compared to other softdrinks (for no good reason other than making one super rare, they were equally valuable/useful in the game).

And related to the examples you give in your article: there need too be enough forms of possible ingame interaction to create emergent forms of play, that were not designed or incentivized by the developers.

 

@Teila - I'm interested in your answer to this, too. I don't stick around for MMO end games, usually just playing socially, adventuring in small groups to see new sights and experience new stories.

 

To me the whole term "end game" in MMOs is moronic. But then again I'm not a huge gamer. I enjoy the adventure. The whole rushing through leveling and skipping 9/10ths of the world to get to "end game" doesn't make sense to me. I'm just glad most developers don't skip developing content for their whole world for those of us who are explorers and enjoy nomadic play styles allowing us to roam and die horrible deaths when we roam into places we don't belong yet... heheh

At any rate, I kind of went off on a tangent there with the whole "end game" term. Great convo @Teila! Very interested in this discussion! Following...

That's me too, @TonyLi! I don't even really do raid groups at all. I'm more of a solo adventurer. Occasionally a small group. I enjoy MMOs more for the other social aspects. I'm a crafter in most games I play so I take advantage of the multiplayer aspects more for selling my wares/taking orders for crafted stuff than any sort of "end game" aspects. For me, developing awesome story lines around the communities/sights in a game and developing a solid way for players to be social overall is more important than throwing tons of time into "end game".

@Teila - I don't mind a grind where it makes sense. I also don't mind some offline progression to the grind, although I would think offline progression would be MUCH slower or maybe instead of offline progression, do something like what WoW did with inns where it adds a bonus for a period of time that boosts progression when you come back and play for a period of time when you go offline in an inn. That way instead of just giving overall progression, you gain a certain bonus to speed progression of specific abilities dependent on where you chose to camp when exiting the game. For instance if you want a blacksmithing crafting boost, maybe you exit from the game at a forge, foraging you may exit the game at the herbalist shack, slight bonus on everything across the board you might exit from an inn or a campsite. I think I would rather see that type of mechanic than just allow all progression when offline..

Or another option might be some integration of mobile apps similar to what Neverwinter did where you could log in to the mobile app and work on crafting. I think it was crafting at least. Been a while since I played. Maybe have puzzle and crafting quests that can be completed using items in inventory or lore based puzzles that don't require movement throughout the world to complete that could help progress while "offline" from the main game.

 

What are the positive things that grind can accomplish? My research shows that many people hate the grind. They only do it because that is the only way to progress and progression, is the way everyone plays this sort of game. It is the way it has always been done.

@TonyLi and @Shawn67 both mention that they prefer to run around and see new sights, explore, socialize and experiencing stories. Plenty of people enjoy doing more than just grinding up skills. I realize that Shawn enjoys grinding and even gives other ways to grind..lol..which sort of misses the point. I am advocating no grind but I am not advocating no progression. I just think there could be a way to do it that would be fun, not a "grind", which really is, according to the dictionary, "hard, dull work". Is that really fun?

As for how to keep players engaged, I think there are many ways but they definitely depend on the audience of the game. I cannot imagine players who really enjoy the grind, maybe like Shawn, wanting to put it all aside for other things. They might feel it is not a game, not worth their time.

On the other hand, I have discussed this with a number of gamers and developers (which prompted me to write the post) and a majority of these said..."Oh, I hate the grind." So, those folks play games just to get through the grind but they do not enjoy it. It is simply the hours invested in the grind that keeps them playing the game.

I think the clue to how to engage players would be to look at the folks who play the game and do not grind. Exploring, hanging out with friends, role playing, discovering new places and new adventures, etc. The new Zelda game, while not an MMO, is a good example of how the content is provided and player uses that content in unique ways.

So giving players tools, such as a way to build cities, farms, economic systems, trade routes, businesses, political systems, along with support for thriving communities might appeal to some of the people who hate the grind but love the social side of the game.

Explorers need new places to explore, mysteries, maybe items to collect or discover, deep lore that is actually part of the game rather than a short bit you read if you want to read it. Their findings need a way to become part of the world, through writings, books, art, museums, etc.

And story tellers need a way to tell their stories, through books, through role play, through plots that players can direct, through conflict and drama. Wars, astronomical events, gossip, crime, politics, all make great fodder for stories as long as the players are given the tools to use them. We have already seen that in some games out there, like Elite Dangerous and others. All the stories I have heard from friends are not how they leveled to 50 in bread baking but about cool things they did, an unexpected encounter with the evil guild or the big party someone in the game threw, or a marriage, or when they won a skirmish against the bad orcs. That is the fun, not the grind.

As players take control of the world and as they create relationships with others, they can push the content further. Player created and player driven content can create unlimited things to do. Of course, since most games require so much grinding, you see very few players break through this and actually make the game more than just a huge grindfest to the "end game" even if just a temporary end game.

End game to me is when you are done with the grinding and just want to play as your character, experiencing stories, spending time with friends, and taking advantage of all the cool tools and roles in the game. It is when I really start to play.

As for positive things grind can do, I suppose one might use that flash of dopamine when one accomplishes something. Well, I can get that through becoming the most famous baker in town, or by having a positive role play session with a friend, or by becoming mayor of a town, building a cool house, or discovering a shorter trade route. Progression does not have to be a grind. It can be discovery, experiences, and community as well.

 

I can see that in a single player game. But the journey in an MMO does not have to be about leveling up to 150 and waiting for a new zone. It can be about being part of a community and putting your stamp on the world, whether as the hero who saved the town or the guy who is the most famous armorsmith in town.

 

Oh I agree, I'm just giving my motivations. I couldn't care less about those things, or about community. Even in an MMO, I want the story to be about me (and the occasional sidekicks that help me out).

 

I missed this. Instant feedback can be from many sources. Not all gamers have the same level of satisfaction from the same stimuli. Choices can expand without grind. If you are gaining levels while offline or even while in-game but engaging in questing or social activities, you will still be expanding your choices and your game experiences will still change. The only difference is no grind. And lots of folks hate grind. lol

 

So for you, the MMO is a single player experience with NPC or maybe strangers you meet along the way replacing the companions/sidekicks in a single player game.

Since that is all you want from the game, then the rest of the experience in any game, even the ones you may have played, really are not important. Even in game with no grind, you can still adventure and go on quests with your sidekicks. Your rewards will be real though. You find loot off the bandit you killed and that loot gives you money to buy in-game stuff. You quest and experience your adventures.

The grind really is only a small part of the experience and it is the least fun part as well.

 

I kind of wonder if players really hate the grind as much as they claim. After all, they still play, don't they? Maybe there's something of value in the grind, even if it's mixed with some frustrating features, too.

When it comes to more places to explore and more stories to experience, player-generated content is going to be the key. The writers on Skotos.net posted a lot of good thoughts on player-generated content, such as these general thoughts about the topic, and these very specific thoughts on how in-game economy can make or break player-generated content.

 

Okay, so you spend months and months grinding to get to level whatever. Do you want to quit the game now after all the work you put into it? I honestly believe these methods are just that, a way to keep the player from leaving the game. I remember the same exact feeling when quitting games....all that work gone. Usually I kept paying the subscription for several months until finally I stopped paying. I was never sure if I would come back.

Thanks for the link. SWG was a prime example of a player economy worked until the developers decided to make the game easier, dumb it down, and cater to those who wanted better loot drops. Adding that faucet completely ruined it. Prior to that, the economy did well, adjusting to the players reactions to prices. Everything was made and sold by players.

 

(Got ninja'd by your other post, so this example got a bit redundant)
I have an example from a multiplayer RTS where you play against other players. In a 1 vs 1 match you both get resources at more or less the same rate, can buy units for the points you have, and will use them to try and capture and defend 3 flag points on the map. If you hold at least 2, you slowly get victory points, at 100 victory points you win.
There are quite many units in the game that are "high risk strategies", because they are expensive and can easily get killed. If an inexperienced players buys the wrong unit at the wrong time, and the other player is even halfway competent, the noob will lose because of the wrong purchase. That's incredibly unintuitive an frustrating for new players.

XP grind and unit unlocks were introduced to "fix" that issue. New players would have limited choices what units they can buy, and unlock new options as they play the game. They get XP for every match, even if they lose. Everyone hated it of course, because noobs will then lose to units they can't even buy themselves (not knowing though that a more competent player could crush them with literally anything, because the skill ceiling is so high). I wasn't a fan either, I hate grind and I already knew the game well enough, when the feature was introduced. But the dev managed to convince me that in principle it's a sound idea, and does overall improve the user experience. I see grind unlocks as a way to ease the learning curve of a game.

Whether that's even necessary is another question. Counterstrike is a good example where grind to unlock new gameplay options would be super pointless, because it's one of those "easy to pick up, difficult to master" games. Everyone always has the same options, the only limiting factor is the virtual money they get during a match and how they choose to spend it.
They later introduced one element of XP grind though, which was access to the serious competitive mode. You had to play quite a few hours to be allowed to play competitive. On the plus side: playing competitive mode you'll now never have someone entirely inexperienced join the match and cause your team to lose because it's their first time playing. And during the grind period the game sort of figures out your ranking to match you with players of your skill level in competitive matches right from the start. It also cuts down on smurfing a bit.

That game might have much lore, but when I played it, it felt like a super shallow grindfest. I'd imagine many people who enjoy Elite Dangerous also enjoy Euro Truck Simulator, like Yahtzee hinted at in his review. Not sure how it's balanced at the moment, but it used to be over hundred hours of grind till you have a "lategame ship", unless you want to min/max an effective trade-route and do a few days of the most mind-numbing grind I could imagine. I'd rather dig for Diamonds in Minecraft.


I just had an idea, what if an MMO offered classes not in the warrior/healer/mage sense, but losely based on bartle types? One class that has traditional combat grind with leveling and unlocks, one class that each day they log in gets a few randomly chosen abilities only for that day (based on "ingame star alignment" or a similar lore reason), one class that has progression focused on gear they find and craft, which is inaccessible to other classes, and one "diplomate" class that has no stats progression, very low offensive abilities, very high defensive abilities, and unique abilities to interact with NPCs. Their progression could be gaining social influence in the world.
Just a thought, I don't play MMOs, so it might not work out in an actual game.

I agree, it's one of the worst pro grind/xp arguments. I should have explained that better.

 

When I played Wurm Online, that was how I played it. I was doing blacksmithing and carpentry for my friends, plus raising trees for various kinds of wood.

However, there can be a soothing enjoyment to the "grind". I can load up Rift, run around and do some quests, kill some monsters for their skins, gather some nodes, and have enjoyed myself. The play certainly requires less mental effort than some other games or hobbies of mine, but just like mindlessly doing some crocheting can be relaxing for some, mindlessly finishing a few quests can be relaxing too.

For me, it doesn't start to be "grind" until I feel like the game has put up artificial barriers blocking my way. Not just, "You have to earn a million experience points to reach level 100," but more along the lines of adding in, "And we're going to make the monsters worth so little experience that you'll take 40 hours to gain just one level so that we can keep you playing." The other type of "grind" I hate along those lines is things like, "Go collect a ridiculous amount of resource X so that you can do thing Y because we want you to play for another 50 hours or so just to get this." That's when I get annoyed and lose interest.

Ultimately, however, once I reach the maximum level and all there is to do is run the same dungeons over and over, I'm done. I either play a different character or move on to a different game. Even when each monster my character fights has a lot of similarity to some other monster I've fought before, at least it's not following the same hallway through the same monsters over and over and over just to get better gear to kill tougher monsters in a slightly different hallway.

 

I think the pleasure of the grind come from the anticipation, doing effort to gain something is in the human nature.

As a designer, I always been wary of linear progression system in social set up, it does matter how big is the cookie jar and how slow you eat, at the end all cookies will be eaten. Refilling the cookie jar is also a problem, in design term it's the "content threadmill", that's expensive production. That create very static gameplay.

From that format I think that a maintenance type of gameplay work best, ie you grow something, but maintaining that state cost something that need to be collected, it create a back and forth between maintaining the state and collecting the resources. That's the model of management game like the sims. It's better if there is many state of diverse usefulness to maintain such as it creates complex economy and that you can't be in many state at the same time. Better if those two phases are mirror of each other, like maintaining one thing allow to collect easier for another state. End game "raid" (I don't mean just combat, but any hi level activity), would be about doing both of that, maintaining a power hi enough to engage in it but the raid being important to obtain consumable for another state. Linear progression would be retain for convenience like bigger gauges for collectibles.

That's basically what they did for the last zelda game, While there is still some cookie jar (koroks seed, shrine trinket, number of quest) everything else is consumable, progression are actually there to augment convenience in collecting the consumable (bigger inventory, bigger stamina and health), and even then you still can't maximize stamina and health at the same time, but you can respec them, it encourage to improvise and can change a similar encounter by having stakes emerging dynamically. They have an armor system that emphasis variation and trade off instead of linear progression, you can't be maximize stealth and have max fire resistance at the same time, and area emphasize different state so traversing them mean shifting and adapting, heavy armor is great protection but great hazard when it start raining with thunder looming over, which is a random event... Situation create the content.

In MMO it would create organic specialization not tied to class but on equipment. For example, what if inventory is limited and shared by all items, having health potion take the place of the stealth pant you could have, it means that you can distribute role by having a healer having all potion, and the tank all heavy equipment, instead of having given class, just trading the role base on requirement of a situation. And instead of having content to expend the game, the designer would focus on diverse situation, ie different mix of elements that create different stakes to resolve. To go further, I would have handcraft content, but also random events some procedural area to keep some unpredictability. Orc raid for example can be random, but also can be manipulated either through preparation (maintaining a fortified place, which require constant works) or through action (going into their fort depleting supplies so they don't have the mean of attacking, of course doing so deplete some of your resources and is not easy task), if on top of that you have events that perturb maintenance of your fort (harsh winter) it can lead to memorable situation.

But the danger is to create systemic dead end, where a character is on a slippery slope and can't recover from a low state, growing and maintenance should always be easy toward a middle state and hard on the extreme end. This would push for constant accomplishment. And since we have the state of each player and area, we can play on them to spawning events that match the current state in interesting way, either by challenging them or reward them.

/opinion

 

I don't recall saying anywhere that I enjoy grinding. I guess I just see grinding as playing a game where you have to work for something and it isn't handed to you. I guess it would help put a definition on what you call grinding. Having to repeat content over and over again is a type of grinding that I despise. But it taking me a week or more to get through a level? I'm fine with that as long as I have new places to explore, options of where I can hunt and quest, and not being restricted to where I can go.

I think about the only way to achieve this would be to eliminate leveling and scale damage/exp earned/resistance/defense/etc for a mob based on player experience or player experience averaged between players within a group. Eliminate "end game" and have the whole game play through that way. That was what I was hoping to do if I can ever get back to my game. Without doing something like that, "end gamers" will always complain about grind unless you do like Blizzard and just give them a max level character when they buy expansions. All that accomplishes is more people complaining there isn't enough end game content, meanwhile the people actually trying to fully enjoy your world get neglected because 90% of your new content is always geared towards people too impatient to actually play through the game.

Sorry.. The whole concept of "end game" has been a huge pet peeve of mine for a number of years.. lol I'll step away from my soapbox now.. heheh

I love the idea of player generated content. I enjoyed being able to create my own quests and maps in Neverwinter that people could then play. It gave an alternative way to level and some of the players generating content were really good. The problem I could see is giving the player too much control over what they generate. That could be an economy killer. Neverwinter didn't let us define drops and it randomized based on whatever factors. That wasn't bad, but wasn't the greatest either.

 

I would rather craft because I can use that to make in-game money and buy a house or clothes or better armor than for the XP. The soothing enjoyment of collecting the resources or finding another player who can sell you the raw material and then crafting the items...plus working with other players to sell my items, take orders, etc., is more satisfying and rewarding than a bunch of XP and then another grind to the next level.

I would rather kill monsters because they have invaded my village or because they are eating my crops rather than because I get XP.

And I would rather do a quest that has meaning to me.

 

So in NWN you could stat out your equipment and do whatever you wanted with it, basically created super equipment that destroyed the economy because it brought down the prices of everything else....or so I think that is what you are saying.

When I talk about player created content, I do not necessarily mean allowing players the ability to create crafted items without any limits. I am not even talking really about content as items or objects. Content can come in all sorts of forms. Plots that involved players into detailed story lines, player created quests such as another player hiring someone to do something for them, solve a problem, get rid of the wolves that are killing their chickens, gathering many players to build a cathedral, becoming a slum landlord, protesting when the player king raises taxes, etc.

Obviously, I am partial to story driven games rather than games that focus solely on mechanics. Yes, we need those, and there are MANY games that do this. Many that grind, or have linear progression, and that suit players who like to come in and achieve over and over again.

It is not for everyone, and I am not even sure that it is something I want to do but I am seriously exploring this idea that for too long, MMOs have used the same tried and true formula. The fact that a few of them are experimenting with new ideas intrigues me.

I also met a guy at our Unity User group in Tampa who told me about his wife. He is 60 so I would guess his wife is close in age. She plays Lord of the Rings. The reason she plays it is to sit and make music with her online friends. She cares little about the linear progression, the grind, etc.

I found that fascinating.

Oh, you did not mind the grind, sorry, I misunderstood. Although, I think if you don't mind it, then it is okay. lol

 

Exactly. The content is the situation that is created, either through random events or through the players own "role play" or "stories". The raid may not be a spawn of orcs that attack the village, but a group of players that do so. The villagers may find out through espionage or based on past conflicts with these players and build their own fortification. Trade routes can be monitored, supplies stopped, wells poisoned, all creating situations that alter the player's behaviors.

None of these require any real change in the content but only that they are there and the ability to do these things is given to the player.

And while I mentioned a combat situation since I know most prefer that scenario (lol), this could also be true with a shortage of food due to weather that causes the villages to pull together to survive, or an infestation of disease, or even the need to recruit a baker after the village baker retires. Small or big, these situations push players to respond.

Now, this sort of gameplay will not appeal to everyone but then, the days of MMO's trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink really should come to an end anyway. We end up with watered down games that are just okay, but never really interesting.

I should say too that this probably won't work in a world with 500k players. Better probably for smaller populations where players have a vested interested in the world.

 

I never played Neverwinter Nights. And no, I didn't say anything like that. Neverwinter (not to be confused with NWN) allowed you to create quests and layout maps but gave you absolutely no control over what dropped off the mobs within the instance that your quest/map ran in. The game would randomize the items that dropped. Which was good for economy because it didn't let people just create quests/maps that dropped super loot which would destroy the economy. Just wasn't the most ideal for the player hoping to get loot for their character to actually use because drops weren't necessarily geared toward the player's class either.

Yeah.. I think we have talked about this before in one of the skype groups we are in together. I'm pretty sure we are in agreement here. Just probably not wording my responses right. You know me.. heheh Sometimes I sound argumentative even when I'm trying to agree.. heheh

lol.. Again. It depends on what you call a grind. To me, an actual grind is having to kill the same mobs over and over to level. I don't like that at all and to me, that is a flawed game design. What "end gamers" call a grind, actually playing the game through to "end game", I don't mind but I also don't call that a grind. That is part of the adventure. UNLESS, it is full of what my definition of a grind is as I described at beginning of paragraph. Head spinning yet? heheh Sorry..

 

THIS is more of the type of game I'm looking for. So.. Are you guys done yet? *hides*

 

I agree. When I talk of grind, I mean that grind, the one will you do the same thing over and over again to get levels.

What? I am being hypothetical, looking to encourage discussion about different ways of handling stuff. Nothing at all about our game.

 

Yeah.. Adventuring I like where I can go find different things to hunt and do as well as different places to explore. Going and killing the same things over and over or doing same quests over and over to level, I hate. I think I just hate leveling period. I think that is why I like a level-less type concept where everything scales.. heheh

Hypothetical?!? Awwww.. Come on! I read that as you were making it! *hides again* heheh

Oh well.. It has sparked an interesting discussion! But seriously. Build it already... heheh

 

I pretty much agree, I find grind to be a waste of time and annoying. Not even getting paid for it.

One thing that I've recently realized is how much (at least to me) linear game missions evoke the same response as the grind - where I don't really ever stop to enjoy myself, but I always just want to reach the next point in the story/progression, because it seems like it would feel good.

I think that any kind of feedback loop where, in return for effort, you get something that is clearly sanctioned as some kind of valuable resource but has an unclear actual value, elicits the kind of behaviour where you just keep doing it hoping to realize some kind of potential inside the game - because after all if the designers put it there it must be valuable for something!

This realization has pretty much made me re-evaluate my own game. Instead of missions, I'm just creating a set of 'resources' - which could be something as concrete as in-game currency, or something as abstract as conflict/drama - which can be accessed through many different kinds of interaction. Then, I just go around in the game exposing these interactions at different points (and hoping it turns out to be fun!).

It's a very fun way to develop a game, personally - because rather than building up the game brick-by-brick, it feels like the core of the game mechanics have been established in a very simple way and I'm just going around revealing it here and there.

 

It sounds more like you're lamenting the loss of social spaces than you are the rise of grinding.

It's comparing TF2 to Overwatch, but it's still showcasing Blizzard's M.O.

MMO's have always been terrible games made tolerable thanks to other people. It's just that now these games are actual games with actual objectives, so players spend more time playing the "game". It's not even that socializing is gone, it's just that you bring the group to the game. You socialize around the game, not so much in it. Most guilds don't even use in-game chat anymore.

Even grinding isn't any worse than it used to be. As far as I hear, any game that isn't a pay-2-win Korean MMO has a level cap that can be reached way quicker than the months to a year+ that any MMO from 2000 had.

Ultimately though, MMO's today don't target the same audience. They aren't expecting people to put in 40 hours a week into them and are aiming for a more causal experience. I haven't heard a horror story of someone ruining their life in years, and a part of that probably comes from the lessening of social factors.

 

I don't think most games are making grinding worse, and in fact, some are using ways to make it better. But it is still the tried and true and few are actually doing anything different.

Trust me, the horror stories are out there. As a mom, I have heard many and lived through some. However, these are not always associated with MMO's so won't really go there in this thread. Denial is rampant and it is just to painful for those of us on the other side.

If one does not mind the grind, then their are tons of games out there. However, for those of us who wish to play with the mechanics, the exploring, the socializing or whatever and ignore the grind, there is little out there. It is getting better, but not entirely. Min-maxers have lots of choices...the rest of us have less choice than in the past.

As long as developers believe the grind IS the game, then it will continue.

 

The issue I'm going to levy is that just about every genre has a group of people who were ostracized at some point just because the genre lost what they thought was a core aesthetic. No mechanic was put in that actually encouraged those behaviors, but people found some aspect to enjoy regardless.

With MMO's in particular, socializing was something the players themselves wanted to do. There was little to nothing the games did that pushed socializing (beyond partying up at least, and even that doesn't need much), all while in the framework of a Skinner box. The grind was always there, even if something else offset it.

 

Definitely true. One example of an MMO that did encourage socialization was SWG. Even though many people played past that end game, meaning they had spent time grinding to the level they wanted for their character and stopped, the socialization thrived due to to the mechanics of the game and the fact that the players found their own way to have fun. The grind was only bearable because of those macros that would allow them to grind all night long. One of the factors that caused a mass exodus of players is when the grind increased due to the introduction of Jedi's and the social aspects decreased dramatically. Players were robots and could no longer socialize.

 

I feel like a significant element to this whole discussion which has been largely unaddressed is the idea of a sandbox vs. theme park MMO.

It seems like theme parks are more in line with the grind than sandboxes, because they're based around following a linear path. While with a sandbox there's a lot more to do so even if there is a single thing you're trying to gain, like XP or currency, it's not required to do the things you want, but can make it easier/more enjoyable/whatever.

This is basically a shift from a theme park to sandbox approach. More focused on mechanics and emergence than on guiding the player through a set path.

I wouldn't say it's better or worse than the more linear example (I play games mainly for stories), but it's gotten very popular recently with things like Minecraft.


As for myself, I don't know. For the most part I only play games for story or something along those lines and typically quit when the story's over, but on the other hand I grew up on RTS games and Sim City and MFS, and have both Euro Truck Simulator and American Truck Simulator with some time in both. I probably don't fit comfortably into either category.

Add to that the fact that my main game ideas are a non-linear VN (almost no player freedom), a 3D puzzle game with non-linear dialog (also almost no player freedom), and a "game of life" where you interact with the world as you choose with no story at all (so basically complete player freedom)...

 

I think it's not so much that sandboxes are less grindy by nature, but rather they can open up more possibilities. There are a lot of games like "omg openworld survival sandbox universe" where it turns out that, perhaps because of the difficulty of handling such a nonlinear experience, the devs just add a lot of grindy elements to make it feel like the world has something to offer - case in point NMS.

It's much harder to make a sandbox experience that actually feels open, because you need to fit intuitive flexibility into what is still a finite experience created with finite resources. It makes you look for the elegant formula behind everything - which is great and all, but this formula is often forced into a simplicity that robs the experience of its more visceral, highly derived elements that normally need to be created by hand. The more emergent a property is, the more likely it is to have lost a large part of the versatility and character it would have had, had it been created by hand - and the less likely it is to be able to persist in the game universe because of how much intermediate data would have to be retained to arrive at the same exact property.

I see the problem as a question of merging hand-crafted content with emergent possibilities. It's kind of a natural process for me to start trying to create something by hand, get sick of working on it and try to find out how to have done it procedurally. So now I do that intentionally - I create something, whether a model or a coded system or whatever, and then at some point I go back over it and ask myself what properties could have been derived logically from other properties - and I go around reducing the amount of information to a minimum.

 

Actually, sandbox and theme park MMO's usually, not always, include some sort of grind, whether XP or skill based.

A theme park MMO is one focused on linear progression though quests and a variety of PvE material, such as first fighting level 1 monsters, then level 2, etc., and going through quests in order as you level up your character. So, you go from quest A to quest B and you can only go to certain areas of the map or only use certain levels of weapons and armor.

A sandbox allows you to fight whatever you want whenever you want, you can go on quests if you want or not, there is absolutely no path at all, like Minecraft. There can still be the same exact grind when leveling your character (fight or craft to gain xp) but there are no paths to follow.

A sandbox relies more on emergent game play to fill in the time players in a theme park will spend going through the linear progression. Factions, raids, an in-game wedding, party in the pub, etc. all player created content, will keep players in the game having fun.

Both can create enjoyable games if the content is there to support the game's style of play. I enjoy story driven games too, although for me, those are all single player. In an MMO, I prefer a game driven by the player's stories and emergent game play. Being forced down a path is boring and tedious to me. I much more enjoy the game when the path is done and I can do whatever I want and enjoy the creative interactions with others.

 

Great discussion.

 

Great thread! I don't really play MMOs that much to comment there. But you see similar problems in other games.

To be honest I tend to enjoy the early to mid game most of the time. I enjoy building up a character and unlocking new stuff, more then I enjoy completing all the content. Its not that unusual for me to skip the end game. Sometimes beating the late game challenges just isn't worth the work that goes into it.

One of the advantages of the grind is that it slows progression down. If you start off with all of the abilities or if progression through the abilities is to fast, then:

• Gaining abilities isn't a valid goal
• There is little incentive to experiment with and learn weaker abilities
• Progression doesn't feel meaningful
• Payers are not skilled to deal with more complex challanges

By making players grind, it makes all of these concerns go away.

There are other ways to gate progression. Or you can do without progression altogether (games like chess are actually regressive, players get less and less power as the game goes on). But most games come down to repeating a core loop of actions. Repeat that core loop of actions enough time, and we call it a grind. As a general rule that core loop of actions should be enjoyable to players. In many ways that is the game, more then the actual content.

 

This is true of games out there now. But does it have to be true? Is there not a place for games that use the player created/directed content rather than spend their time progressing through grinding? And does not progression happen even if it is your end game character creating a business and making money, or building a city, or starting a thieves guild?

The mindset is that progression only occurs through adding numbers to your character sheet. Anyone who has played a long DnD campaign knows that those numbers are only a part of the game. Anyone who stops leveling at level 8 and then plays the social or role play aspects of a game knows there is so much more than just adding more numbers.

It is very difficult to think outside the box when many years of conditioning has taught us that this "is the way" to make/play a video game.

Play, progression, and fun do not have to come with grind and XP. I just wish there were more people out there who were able to have the experience.

 

It doesn't. That's just the easiest way to build a video game.

Despite the immense processing power, video games tend to be fairly limited in the design paradigms they embrace. Like you say, most of them can be boiled down to systems to make numbers go up. I think this tendency comes mainly from the fact that as designers and programmers, everything has to be converted into a number to implement it on the computer. So the easiest and most obvious way to do anything is to simply play with the numbers.

I can draw from my LARP experience. The weakest LARP tends to have orders of magnitude better stories then the best video games. Here are some thoughts from that domain.

• There is at typically only one number, which is how much health you have left. Typically the number is set before the game, and can't be min-maxed very effectively. You can play to have the most health, but that also means you have to lug around more armour, making you slower.
• Game play is event driven. Players know months in advance of when a game is coming up, and will typically know many of the other players in a session. Players build characters in advance. This also means that stories can be coordinated and set up in advance. None of these stories survive the full game, but they give fertile ground for stories to start.
• Death is serious. In the short battle games, death means sitting out until the next round starts. In the longer, more serious games, death is permanent. And in the top tier games, its not just the player who died that gets penalized. The player who killed them is also penalized, as well as any players who witnessed the event and didn't step in to prevent it. This makes a murder feel like an actual murder, rather then just a mild inconvenience.
• NPC plants are used to drive the story. In some cases the players are aware of the NPCs. In which case they form simple drivers around which the plot can form. In other cases the players are unaware of the NPCs. Used sparingly, these hidden instigators can have a powerful effect, often setting up dramatic conditions or conflicts for the players to deal with.

I'm not sure how exactly one would translate this to a video game. But its always food for thought.

And apologies for deviating so far from the original thread.

 

Yup, and that would be my favorite game.

No, you did not deviate. A lot of my thoughts regarding game design come from my years of playing pen and paper games. Such games are so much more intense, story driven, player driven, as well as more hard core...yes, perma death is hard core. Death has meaning and really drives the decisions the players make. In video games, there is no meaning to death, it is nothing.

 

You really should try out a LARP. Done well they take player driven story telling to a level well beyond anything pen and paper. Its one thing to say 'you have been fighting hard, fatigue is starting to slow your reaction times'. Its another thing entirely to actually stumble because you are tired. We've also got some incredible stories out of it, one of our princes managed to win a diplomatic victory by convincing one of the Japanese themed swing states to join our side. At the time multiple other factions were attempting to bribe the Shogun with money or various favours. Prince Fabio instead spent time in their court, honoring their traditions and sharing ours. The Shogun values honor over gold, and joined our side. That's just one of hundreds of stories that came out of that event.

Of course done poorly it can descend into beer around the fire dressed in funny clothes.

Anyway, back to video games

Honestly, the way perma death is implemented in most video games seems to be poor. Basically perma death means 'you start over the entire game again from the beginning'. Its a significant penalty, but comes with none of the benefits that perma death can provide. It makes the game more 'hard core' in that the player has a significant amount of risk from death and dying, but that is about it. It does very little to advance the story.

This factor is worse when combined with the unrealistic leveling progression seen in many games. A player with perma death will be drastically penalized by having to repeat the leveling process all over again. Death should generally be disincentivised, but it shouldn't be a major penalty.

The more I think on it, the more I think that you are right in trying to eliminate grind for xp and numerical progression into a game that's meant to be story and role play focused.

 

Permadeath is a hard one. I love the idea of it but it has to be done well. I worked on a game for years that had permadeath as a major feature. It had a following of 100k, and this was back in the day before "social media". So not everyone hates it. It is one of those things I think about often.

I am too old for LARP. Not sure I could handle the drama. However, I have deep respect for those who do it. I am involved in pen and paper campaigns with deep role play and that is about all I can handle at this stage.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Just need to work out how to implement it.

 

Permadeath on the other hand raise the stakes and completely change how you approach things, and even yet there is permanent benefits, even when the entire world is reset (and item effects are shuffled), you just become better at the game (even handling unknown potion effect become a skill in itself). It's a not a new idea, game like tetris, old arcade games, had infinite progression instantly reset, a lot of the fun is to see how much clever we become on rerun. Permadeath focus on the gameplay skill instead of the pure progression, but roguelite have permanent meta progression with unlocks based on how good your rerun is. In pure roguelike you develop skills to handle unknown, uncertainties and improbable, and that create stories like no other given the game as enough depth (see dwarf fortress as the extrem).

 

Interesting way to look at it.

In an MMO, the reset will be a bit different I would guess. Players can start over with another character but unless they choose the same exact path once again and choose to learn the same skills, they most likely will not actually get a reset or even a rerun. The world will have changed for them.

That is not a bad thing though. In a game focused on stories and role play, permadeath can make the way the player live the life of his character even more important, more meaningful.

Of course, losing the character to death will be much more devastating than losing stuff or xp.

I will have to explore permadeath in games in my next blog post. lol

 

Did anyone play Mortalis Victus? It was a Skotos game that shut down while in beta. I never played it, but the premise sounded interesting. On a regular basis, the world reset and a new Age began. Everyone, and the world itself, experienced permadeath, with some actions from the previous Age influencing the starting state of the next Age. This would keep the end game continually fresh.

An untapped opportunity around permadeath in MMOs is the dead PC's legacy. Maybe she could be memorialized as the discoverer of some new land, or her heir (e.g., the player's next PC) could receive a family quest for vengeance.

 

I don't think this is the type of permadeath @Telia or I are seeking. The rouge-like permadeath simply makes the game more difficult. It makes the player replay the game until they get good. Death is an expensive penalty, but its but other then that it has no meaning.

What we are seeking is a game where death impacts the story and moves it forward.

Spoiler: Another LARP example

In a recent LARP game, there was a planned coup from the military against the nobility. The nobility found out, and executed a significant military leader. The players death was a big story moment. The coup fell apart, with some players falling in line, and others focusing on revenge.

Thinking about it, Shodow over Morder kind of did this. Each time the player died, the world state changed, and the players death made a mark on it. Even though the game didn't have any sort of permadeath, dying was significant in story terms.

 

While I have not played LARP, I did play a text-based role playing game and a similar story happened. A character who was a mentor to my character was murdered. It had a huge impact not only on my character, but on the world. A story was created as players tried to solve the mystery of her death and find the culprit.

So a death led to player directed/created game play without grinding, without numbers, and the players felt as if the world reacted to their actions because the players reacted to their actions.

 

I had this design I thought up long ago, but I think I will never have an opportunity to use it lol:

Basically it was at the early mmo popularity era, around the age of ragnarok online appearing, early wow, lineage and tabula rasa and etc ... A lot of people were complaining how grind was replacing roleplay. A lot of purist wanted MMO to be about PvP, social interaction and roleplay, but it was obvious the wind were shifting toward loot, linear quest, solo progression and raid ...

Looking at the gameplay I had identified one major problem, games reward fighting, and even quest base XP rewarded following the marker, some game tried to combat that with job class that locked the player into very key "role" (swg) but still was limited in that main resources was still HP and XP. The main resources limited what a player could do, travelling and exploring a world infested with monster mean class, other than fighter, where at disadvantage. Also activity beyond fighting was lacking variety, offered by enemy, and stakes, offered by resources management of hp, tp, etc ... Which mean everything were organized around fighter. Of course for hardcore role player thats' enough, they can bring something on the table on their own, they just need a world with enough depth and appeal.

In some way it's just a matter of having the right rewards for encouraging variety of action. My idea was to have a traits system player use to create a character, the traits you have decide how actions are rewarded, but also what action and at which efficiency, they are basically supercharged skills. Being a thief would yield no result if you kill someone, but big prize would yield a lof of xp. There was also taboo point, for example if you are a pacifist and kill someone that yield a lot of taboo point, which kinda act like HP in that they measure how much close you are from failing, but instead of failing by dying you get character crisis.

Character crisis kind of work like a respec tied to quest for that respective crisis, that quest is basically a specific stake that will route the character toward change or not, if it goes to change he can choose a new traits and loose all the benefit and taboo associated with the changed traits. On contrary gaining more xp by reinforcing the role unlock new capability for that trait. Some traits like thieving has time penalty that slowly tick down to a min state, ie if the thief detect a great loot, it get more point by stealing it quickly rather than waiting.

Some traits have passive penalty, like a prude can't stay on the same room as a naked person too long else they gain taboo point. Some action need to be tagged, for example to murder someone, you can't just go a murder that person, you must tag the person to declare to the system the intention, then you can choose constrain to carry the plan to get more xp, for example killing someone while no one else see you with his own weapon, I haven't thought this through enough for killing, but the thing is to delay with some step to get the system information to react.

On top of these traits, there was story goal to choose for gaining meta progression, for example you can choose how your player must die and try to complete this to gain more point, the more difficult and constrained the set of goal is, the more the player gain story point, which unlock more traits and story goal with more opportunities and more origin. Origin is another thing the player must choose and is part of a meta character progression, when a character die, the system evaluate how well the character traits, story goal and dying goal where met to create a score the player can invest in the meta progression. Traits efficiency are also based on the popularity of that traits, the more a lot of players choose a traits, the less reward it yield.

Once a previous character dies, the player can then create a new character to continue, with a new origin, he can link this new character through lineage to a previous character (mentor, family, etc ) if they have with this previous character achieve a state that allow it (for example creating a testament that will transfer property to the new character, or simply achieving a certain status), which ties in the origin system. The game also keep track of relation through a gated system, it measure how well you know a character. Basically if you just met a character (player or not), you have to do a certain number of activity together (positive or negative) before unlocking new set of interactions.

Relation goes from formal to intimate, each phases has an activity gate. For example: from unknown to acquaintance, you won't evolve past that gate if you don't go to the pub or invite home once, etc ... Each state unlock affinity states, from annoyance at the formal state, to mortal enemy in the intimate state, in the case of negative interactions, the interaction during a phase decide which affinity state is chosen. This ties to the origin system, for example you can decide to have a family, a students, etc ... which open new origin point like child of previous character or students and the type of things you can pass on from one character to another, it's the lineage system, the lineage can even be passed by character you are in deep relation with (and another player can grant certain lineage if they have the right relation). Some type of relation can be pass through this system to the new character to not start over like a stranger (would be odd for a child to have no relation with her mother).

Tied to the relation system is also the environment tagging, basically each environment area have two tags, ownership and privacy. Low privacy environment are simply public space, high privacy are those place we don't share with people like a toilet or a shower, bedroom is just below toilet in term of privacy, then come the home living room, the porch of the house, the public park etc ... Ownership decide who is supposed to be in a certain place, public toilet have no ownership, but are highly private, so only one character at a time can occupy them, but home toilet are mostly own by the family of the home, but can get access by people who are in relation with the family, depending on the family relation. The degree of relation basically unlock more and more private area, of a certain ownership, with a person, acquaintance might be able to access the living room but not the bedroom. It allows the game to react to what's happening. The tag also unlock activity with people based on their traits and relation status at that place.

So in conclusion:
The system try to reward player to mostly role play by offering a system that encourage activity in a way that make sense in a social context, with npc or player. It encourage action that pertain to their character created personality, but avoid locking them in bad choice, by offering them a mechanics that allow them to fail gracefully, and still be relevant to roleplay, with the crisis mechanic. It further encourage exploration and implication in stories, through a way to reward dying and actually making it challenging. It also offer hook for interactive system to react to the status of the player characters.

What do you think about this?

 

@noeshaman - Good stuff! I'm ambivalent about Bartle's taxonomy of players, but how does this satisfy the needs of Achievers and Explorers? Leveling up, item acquisition, and reaching new areas are the usual methods for them.

The two draws of multiplayer games for me are conflict and cooperation. Your idea has potential to deepen both. For example, a thief might want to steal the golden idol right away, while his devout party member would want to leave the temple unmolested, leading to interesting inter-party contention.

 

I have written about this on my blog. Most games make the fighter the center of the universe. All crafting skills center on the fighter. Crafters to make armor, weapons, buffs, magic spells, etc. are really the only ones necessary in the game. A few have added some cosmetic skills such as tailoring or furniture maker. The vast majority of games though focus only on what is needed to support the combat-based player. And in fact, most do not allow non-combat players to level up throughout the game without engaging in combat. Even wealth is often cornered by the combat oriented players as most comes through loot drops. Whether the players know it or not, they are forced down one path most of the time...that of a fighter, killing and collecting loot.

While I think your idea has merit and could be a fun game, I am not sure it really connects to deep role play.

The thief is rewarded through the mechanics for doing what a thief would do. That is a great idea. But in a pure role play setting, the thief is rewarded through the game play and interactions of others to do what a thief would do. If the thief does not act like a thief, then he is not a thief. Going to back to pen and paper games, while a GM can give role play points, the other players will also encourage the thief to unlock the chest or check for traps so that the group as a whole can finish the quest.

Lineage is a must with any sort of permadeath system as well as inheritance. Without it, then the player's character ceases to exist, even if there is a statue of her in the town center.

Having played a number of multiplayer role play games, some text and some simply role play servers, I think the best way to create a game to encourage role playing is to create the world, make mechanics that allow the player to interact with the world and each other, and then get out of the way.

Your idea could work wonderfully I think in a single player rpg, but not sure it would attract hard core role players in an mmo setting. It might though attract the average MMO player who wants something different. It could make a good commercial idea probably much more so than my ideas.

Yes, but could that conflict not happen if the two were actually role playing? The thief could still steal the idol and the devout may still want to leave it unmolested. I am not really sure what mechanics bring to this other than create a "fake" role play mechanic that is predictable. True role play brings conflict and drama through the inability to predict what a player will do. If a thief is rewarded for stealing the idol, they why would he not always steal the idol? If the player who is playing the thief is a role player, then he would steal the idol without the mechanic.

While a fun idea, I would probably find it boring the umpteenth time the thief did exactly what was expected. This would quickly drain the role play right out of the game.

But..as I said before, it is not role play. It is doing what is expected based on the mechanics. Predictable and the reward is the bonus, not the joy of being involved in a role play plot or situation.

I doubt this will do anything for the socializers either, @TonyLi. There is nothing to hang your role play hat on when you get back to the pub and the thief is telling you that the devout tried to stop him from stealing the idol. It would be so expected that I can imagine a role player looking at the thief with "ho hum". Nothing to spur the story telling, the role play, the socialization that comes with those great unpredictable stories, plots, and dramas that can arise from a really deep role playing game.

 

To be frank they were a first pass long ago, it was when I was heavily invested in doing "social games & interactive storytelling" and trying to rally people to my cause, but back then no gamer would like to touch new idea that wasn't hardcore action or stat management, at least in my entourage. I never had a a second chance to deepen it and put it in practice and didn't have the skill back then either. If I come out alive of my current project, I'll try to fit some of these ideas in my next game.

@Teila

Think of it like designing for fun, you can't make a game fun per see, you can only design mechanics that support fun, because ultimately it is the player that bring the fun inside the game. I think of roleplay the same way, mechanics must support it, but ultimately the player will need to add the extra layer of depth, it's just making the shallow layer is supported and has a higher bar than other game. The other problem is that player are fickle, they don't stick to stakes and can play outside their role. Also there is the problem that a lot of people talk about roleplay when they mean self insertion in a fantasy social drama.

For example there is hardcore no man sky people who are dangerously approaching 1000h of gameplay, I like no man's sky too, I have been waiting for this game for like 30 years, you won't ever tell me I'm not having fun NEVER! Also a lot of people role play in no man's sky (For the HOV) and just going to the galactic hub is enough to witness this.

Now for the specifics, the mechanic are design to encourage interaction with the environment, but also bring internal conflict to the player. The Gist is that Nobody else need to know what traits you have (thief was just an example anyway), so it's potentially conceal information, anyone who played game like "loup garou" (will edit if I find the english name) know that having people with differing unknown goal can lead to amazing drama! So you wouldn't know if someone is a thief, and maybe they would like this to stay hidden and not share with you, which is a conflict in itself.

Which is where the taboo mechanics come into play, while I have presented as a punishment, it's really just realizing a typical story arc of a character and putting it center by supporting it directly with gameplay, it put the character in a special state where he need to take some actions that might interfere in how he already interact in the game, it can also be a side goal to shift it's power dynamics by loosing a traits and its cost/benefit. The other thing is that a character is made of multiple traits, which can conflict with each other!

Which mean crisis management inside the character, depending on the implementation it might lead to the player having unpredictable actions as he is trying to veer one way or another. The other point is that I spend time saying these mechanics are hook to the system, which mean we could implement a drama manager (or let a gm player) use these hooks to dynamically create situation that are creating more conflict, not only in between character but also inside the character or against the system. Think about it, maybe you need the thief mechanics because it give you perk on stealth movement, but you are in relation with a lawful character, how does that end up? What if the goal of the player is to become the king, but is starting as a peon and the current king is liked? Anyway I'm sure there is more to do to create conflicts.

But ultimately, it was designed as a framework to think about these mechanics (I don't have a balance lists of traites and skills for example), they never have been implemented in practice and I don't know how a player would react to them. It need a testfire. But HARDCORE Role player, need non of that anyway, roleplay is in their souls, if they can role play no man's sky, they need nothing, NOTHING! Except like minded folks! (see experiment like the forest of Tales of tale, you are deer and can only do wordless emote deer like, sometimes these emote have mild interaction with the environment like having flower stuck on the horn, that's it, the dedicate community was VERY dedicated).

Is that a contradiction?

 

Nope!

I am not critiquing your idea at all, just that it is a different game from what I envision for role players. I agree that mechanics are important but if they get in the way of the player making decisions based on story because the mechanics reward them for ignoring the story, then I would not want to put it in my game.

I have had many discussions with role players over many years. They want to create the story and they simply want the framework that allows them to develop their character within the world they are given. The elements they need do not include being encouraged to go one direction so they will get the reward from the mechanics. They prefer instead to have the mechanics work more like the background that allows them to create their own stories. I like to think of the game as the stage and players like the actors on the stage.

Rewarding players for acting a certain way regardless of the story would not be as fun as allow players to be rewarded through a good story, or playing through a situation, or a plot that would bring a community together. Role players love to see an unexpected situation thrown into the room, like the GM in a pen and paper game. But they they want the game itself to step back and let them take over. They want to make decisions, even if their thief is deep inside a religious guy who has superstitions that stop him from stealing the idol. They want deeper meanings in what they do.

Some of what you say sounds good, but still...you do not need to reward with XP or loot. Role players find the reward to be much more intrinsic.

 

I understand what you mean and where you come from, you are building a game to find like minded roleplayer, those who can satisfy themselves from emergent social situation based on pure world simulation.

I just proposed a system in case of, as a suggestion to find some more idea, not necessarily those verbatim, but who know if there is more inspiration lol. I hope it has inspired some people to create new mechanics too.

Just some nuance for anyone else:
- The reward would not be loot or "xp" in the traditional sense, it would be more interactions and therefore more situational opportunity.
- The system don't really enforce goal on the player, the player is actually choosing his goal and traits, the system is just a push to make tracking them more engaging, using a system of rules.
- The player still make decision, the system just react to them, which make them meaningful IN the system and for other player at the same time.
- It allow the system to react in a coherent way to interaction instead of blanking to whatever happen. Which also allow to throw unpredictable wrench in emerging stakes.

I know @TonyLi is working on an emotional system (disclaimer, I bought it preemptively) , we could build the system such as it could match stuff like "deep relation", "love interaction", "bedroom", "married character", and detect "adultery" and create a situation where the other spouse has a random goal (get new cloth to get somewhere), unrelated, that make him come back to home ... which he could choose or not to follow lol ... but what if he go back and get into his room?

That is a genius combination of traits! We van feel the internal struggle lol what if the quabbling was not about stealing the idol, but actually going for it AND not stealing it when realizing what idol it is lol. In fact the thief can turn around and prevent the stealing because of the pious traits lol That's the kind of surprise twist that make a good situation and story!

Here we go lol, I have my imagination stimulate lol I need to focus back!

 

As a player of The Sims 3, I did enjoy the trait system. So it does have merit. @TonyLi's system is already planned for our game. The potential is just amazing.

More interactions? But are not interactions in a role play sense already unlimited?