Let's talk about gameplay mechanics

I ask this because I've been noticing reviewers starting to get turned off by what I like to call "World of Warcraft 204X" but they call 'WoW Ripoffs'. It's not the setting they're against; it's the gameplay itself, and it seems to be more of a split between those who love it or at least think it defines the genre and those who hate it or thinks it stifles the genre creatively.

You know how WoW plays, right? Isn't that a given?

Apparently, some people think that it doesn't make sense for VRMMORPG games (or VRPG, or RL-RPG or whathaveyou) made in the 2040s (aka the Kurzweilian Era) to have mechanics identical to those of a game released 40 years prior and that RPGs have to have evolved since then in some way. This can get a story labeled a "WoW Ripoff" (even though WoW was so far from the first to use those mechanics that it's like saying Google invented the Internet); thus, this is more or less a heads-up for those trying to avoid negative reviewers since this seems to be their new trend of trashing incoming novels, but considering my own intentions, I figured it'd be a good thing to ask: when it comes to creating gameworlds, how do you prefer them to play?

For me, on one hand, I don't know how else you could do a proper MMORPG, and it's true that regular RPGs could get away with something different. People have tried to dethrone WoW for over a decade now, and they've all failed for a reason. When you think of how a MMORPG works, 9 times out of 10, you're gonna think back to WoW, no matter the setting. It doesn't matter if it's set in paleolithic times or in the far-flung future. It works because it works, and trying to create a better version for a novel essentially means you're trying to create a better version for a video game as well. And if you actually succeed, Blizzard's gonna snatch you up before you can hit 'publish' on Amazon. Considering the fact that we're talking about video games in a pre/contemp Singularity future, it does stand to reason that some ideas that would provide a solid work around simply wouldn't work today or in the very near future.

On the other, I can understand it. As a child of Grand Theft Auto, it's the sense of absolute freedom that I love the most, and absolute freedom means I can use whatever I want whenever I want however I want and not be limited by my race or class or skill-level. As in, if I want to slit a mofo's fat meaty throat with a knife, I shouldn't need to allocate 50 points to Single-Handed Weapons and then 75 points to Stealth first. If anything, I should only need to allocate those points if I want to become proficient at it. But if a guard's standing right there and I have a giant blade in my hand and I make savage stabby motions at his neck, failing to kill him because of that floating red "-33" above him feels unsatisfactory.

The reason why being that even if I'm uploaded into a video game, I theoretically still possess full-body control, which means I can aim my weapons. We don't have such a thing in WoW today because WoW is still an over-the-head third-person game far from realism. You don't really control every little movement of your character, so you can't explicitly aim your weapon at a body part.

My idea for a work around would be to simply utilize GoldenEye's "locational damage" rules in that case, where you can throw critical strikes at certain body parts with certain weapons rather than a stab to the head causing as much damage as stubbing your toe. That's something where you can improve off WoW given the times.

I talk about this not just because I'm about to jump in the ring with LitRPG stories but also because when I was younger, I used to imagine playing FIVR games and I recognized that a lot of traditional video game tropes (in most genres, not just MMORPGs) break immersion if my mind believes I'm in the game and I'm theoretically controlling my character as I would myself rather than through a keyboard or controller. Except there's the retort that if I'm playing a game in FIVR, shouldn't I expect to break some level of immersion and willingly suspend my disbeliefs? Because it makes no sense that I should take offense at swinging my sword at a octopus demon and only do a set amount of damage based on stats but I should then be able to jump off a mountainside and slide down the slopes like a badass without taking any damage or wearing out any of my garments. It's a debate that I can see some bringing up more often as LitRPG grows in popularity.



That's just my idea on how to keep general classic RPG rules why adapting them to the 2040s. What are your thoughts otherwise?

 

Another thing that I wanted to mention: when it comes to deciding between skill-classes and hard-classes (classless vs. traditional classes), be very careful and be sure to make absolute decisions unless you want some Dragonball Z-tier ratios between usefulness and uselessness (i.e. how useful Saiyans are vs. how useful Humans are by EoZ and deep into Super)! If you're looking to have hard limits to the world, encourage Party creation, and the system would be better served by having some classes simply have expanded abilities rather than skill-based systems (i.e. you choose 'Rouge' at the start than leveling up certain skills to become a Rogue), don't include them. I've tried doing both in one setting before (not a LitRPG story, just an affectionate parody of games) and everything fell apart as just about every skill-based character might as well have achieved apotheosis while those stuck to the pre-chosen class system became more useless than a fly without wings. This also discourages partying and guild creation as several characters become so stupidly overpowered that they obliterate everything by blinking at it and can do any job that their class-based allies can do better than they can within their dreams.

Skill-based systems can potentially be used as a gamebreaker or a convenient excuse to have a Polymath (someone who is a master of a wide variety of skills) rather than a Jack-of-all-Trades (someone who knows how to competently utilize a wide variety of skills). If you have a story where being OP is the point, skill-based systems are probably the way to go unless you're planning on writing a story about the universe's greatest lockpicker, so godlike was he that he could pour a glass of mead and every lock in the omniverse would shatter. This is how I'm imagining Astral Falls, especially since it uses a New Game+ feature— rather than being stuck into one class or two classes for the whole game, the characters get to choose whether to join a class and, if they do, they can pick certain classes early on but ultimately have the opportunity to level up to the very-late cap of 235, which grants you more than enough points to unlock every skill; in fact, you're required to do so if you want to have a certain plot-important job. It's not easy; in fact, it's so hard that I'm still debating whether I should have any character reach it in the series ever. But if you don't pick a class, you just get average stats with no prespecialized skills until you unlock some for yourself, a Jack-of-all-Trades designation.

But for the most part, classes exist for a reason and having skill-based systems can screw with that balance hard. My favorite RPG— Knights of the Old Republic— can be broken if you exploit a loophole by having your character never level up except out of absolute necessity and then saving all your points for the Jedi (read: Hero) class. If you exploit that loophole, you will essentially have a huge glut of extra skill points to use to supercharge your Jedi abilities (however you see fit to use them). Despite this, you're still limited by your starting class. All that happened was that you got a new mid-game class. Once you choose your class, you are essentially locked out of some abilities or it costs more to get others that are not inherently part of your class.

In a skill-system like Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim, however, you would simply start the game and allocate skill points to whatever skill you desire. You can max out particular classes or mix and match them to your hearts' content. Like KOTOR, there is a well-known loophole towards becoming a Super Dragonborn: the Oghma Infinium Glitch. If you perform it correctly, you can reach Level 100 in all skills. Certain versions of the game only prevents you from becoming a God by limiting the number of skill points possible, but if you have a non-patched version where that limit is removed, you can max out each and every single skill tree. If there was a Party System, your allies would have become meat shields that are basically glorified extra health bars. There'd be no reason to rely on any other character.



TL;DR: make sure that you don't inadvertently create a way for characters to glitch to max power if you use a skill-based game mechanic system. And if you don't want parties to become entirely useless or OP after some point, either limit skill points or rely on a traditional class system where you pick your class at the beginning and that determines your gameplay experience. The reason being that skill-based systems (i.e. classless systems) don't lock you into a class early on.
Ultimately, choose which one you believe benefits/works with your game. Astral Falls doesn't and can't work with a class-based system, just as The Electric Wizard doesn't work with a skill-based system— while it conceivably could work, I'd rather choose against it.

 

Let's talk about exploration!

F**K INVISIBLE WALLS, let's walk off the edge of the world and fall forever into the void!

Let's talk about combat!

I mentioned before that my preference is that combat should clearly be combat, but that when you're dealing with future RPGs it should stand to reason that complex full-body haptic control of an avatar the likes of which we'd see in FIVRMMORPGs (goddamn, that name just keeps getting longer) means that sneaking close to a demon and slitting their throat with a dagger should probably have more effects that reducing their health by a set number. But this is variable based off the post I made above talking about classes, as well as depending on the level of realism your story's gameworld aims for.*
If it's grimdark ultrarealism, it doesn't matter what class slits a guard's throat or if the dagger's stats are sadder than an anime fan on prom night; realistically, that guard's going to drown in himself. Now if the guard engages in combat and you can't score such a critical hit on such a critical part of his body, then he shouldn't drop dead until his health's depleted; likewise, if you can't use a dagger to save your life because you chose the Sniper class and if you failed that initial encounter and can't get the blade anywhere near his neck again, you'd better hope you can equip your primary class's weapon. IF you even have a class-system, mind you— if you're playing a skill-based game, then... well, same rules apply. If you're aiming for a more traditional RPG set up, then yes, it makes no sense for your Cleric or Warlock to wield a dagger and then perfectly cut open that malchick's throat and actually do mortal damage just as much as it wouldn't make sense for your Assassin or Thief to start spamming AoE spells.
Not unless it's some sort of Absolute Desperation move you've built into your game.
Also, if there's a specific move during combat called "Emo Neck", then that makes sense as well. It has to have a chance for a devastating one-shot Critical Hit.

But my point is, RPGs aren't what they used to be. Technical capabilities have changed. Once upon a time, all RPG combat was done via dice rolls and cards; then it was through graphical interface versions of the same thing. And it was turn-based.
I haven't read many turn-based LitRPGs, but I do have about a thousand** more to go through.
AKA, "I equip my machete, dash forth for a decapitation attack, do 10 Damage, and wait my turn to strike once more." Or, more technically, Tactical RPG mechanics.

Most LitRPGs I've read have generally free-flowing combat that are still beholden to the typical Damage Stats rules. I pick up a general metal staff— +2 ATK— and go whack a dickhead with it, dealing him 5 DAM because he was buttnaked and had no defense except his gloves, which possesses +1 DEF. He has 0 LUK, so now he's stunned and paralyzed because I achieved a Critical Hit to his balls. Then I whack his face several times with a blunt wooden club. Poor pleb couldn't even get back onto his feet before he was turned into a crumpled pile of loot consisting of worthless soiled underwear and priceless hippie tablets. Simple, and using nonsensical stats, but it details what's expected of this style. It's what's dominant in LitRPG— you fight at the pace you would in real life if you were actually fighting monsters/orcs/trolls/demonoids/mechs/alien hordes/etc. but you deal a certain amount of damage with every blow, only occasionally getting a one-hit-kill if you're lucky or sufficiently powerful.

I call this one: "My machete has +10 Damage and I'll cut you down with it as many times as I can." Or, more technically, Action RPG mechanics.

Some have the type of combat that I, in my Rockstar Games-filled childhood, find more familiar— weapons and spells give damage stats but some are one-hit killers based purely on what makes sense rather than just their stats. As in, if I impale an approaching goblin hoplite with my longsword and deal him 50 DAM but then shove my sword deeper into his body and twist up into his skull, he's not getting back up no matter what his HP was. You could argue that's DPS, and yeah that would work, but it destroys any reason to feature stats in the first place, which can inadvertently ruin the escapist nature of a VRMMORPG. To use an even more extreme example, let's say I visit the gloomy land of Talmæl and am approached by some halberd-wielding armor-wearing ghouls. Except I have a Magnum .357 I brought with me from the real world somehow, with armor-piercing bullets. I aim between their eyes and blow their brains out. What happened to the damage system? If I used this combat type, the stats become meaningless. If their hitboxes took equal damage everywhere, that could ruin my plans, but apparently the designers of the game never intended for anyone to use weapons from outside the gameworld's setting so they never programmed any conversion method in case I brought something with me.

This one is: "It doesn't matter what the stats are on this machete; as long as it's in my heads, it's decapitating orcs in one badass blow." Or, more technically, Action Game w/RPG elements mechanics.


See, it's the second one that I feel would serve a genre named LitRPG the most, whereas the former is very very crunchy LitRPG because you literally can't progress through a story without stopping to roll the dice with every random encounter (which is another topic for another post); the latter doesn't work well with stats because it's the players' own skill that determines whether enemies get hurt and die or not. And this calls back to the whole debate of "what is LitRPG". If I novelized my wacky adventures in Grand Theft Auto Online, keeping the game mechanics intact, inputting cheats whenever I feel the need to do so, getting Wasted, getting wasted, doing Heists, trolling racist 12-year-olds, buying ammunition, upgrading my guns, laying waste to everything with my RPG and its infinite ammo before going to find Bigfoot, would that be LitRPG? Theoretically it should be. But if I were to check Amazon for 500 LitRPG novels, how many do you think would follow the format of GTAO vs the format of EverQuest? Which means that your combat system could actually determine whether your story is LitRPG in the eyes of some readers. To others like myself, I'm just looking to see if your story transcribes video game mechanics, regardless of how it plays.


Anyone can toss around some mooks and fight them with a sword until either party's HP's depleted. What makes RPGs good is when you have to really think about how to pursue combat. It's essentially the difference between a game of tic-tac-toe and a game of chess. And maybe a game of Chinese checkers.
I need to read much more LitRPG to see how well authors can do it, but generally it's a good rule of thumb to remember that these are stories we're writing. It's not gonna be easy to translate a combat system like, say, Undertale's into literary format. Likewise, good lord be unto your damned soul if you decide to tackle a combat system like F.A.T.A.L.'s.

I'm not gonna say that simple is better or that less is more, because opinions are varied and people like what they like. Going back to heavy metal, I'm a more middling sort of guy, where I prefer music in the vein of Black Sabbath. The more riffs, the better; I prefer guitar solos but only on some songs and not on every single one. Some people prefer chordless art-drone music; some people prefer virtuosity that would make Yngwie Malmsteen sound like the Ramones. I'm not going to knock on either one.

So if you want to create a combat system that would have a steep learning curve if it were translated into a video game, more power to you. If you want to create something that's got less depth than Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood, again, more power to you.

But what makes combat in RPGs good is when you can't just hack and slash, can't just pick "Attack" or randomly choose a special attack, can't just send in your strongest party member or use your strongest weapon. You've got to know when to use these things.

TL;DR: combat systems in your book's game can determine the way your whole story plays out, so be mindful about the pros and cons of each one.

*This only applies if your LitRPG is actually about an RPG and not a different genre of game.
**Perhaps less than 300, if it's true that the majority of books labeled "LitRPG" aren't actually LitRPG but instead Portal Fiction, Fantasy With Incoherent Stats, and GamerLit

 

I would also like to add be very careful with how you use luck and gifts i know its not exactly mechanics but if rares are .01% and the MC is getting them left and right or if your game is supposed to be rule based but then they get random "cheat" things from the game. It makes your character seem OP especially when the MC starts having everything go well for them because luck. Luck should NEVER be an explanation for something unless luck plays a minor role in the accomplishment as a whole. having your MC decide to look for treasure and then find it is better then them randomly stumbling across a great item

 

I think luck in any degree is fine, as long as the MC's aptitude outweighs that luck... In a battle it's always the lucky ones that survive... The unlucky ones are dead...

 

Really interesting conversation! This is something I'm trying to figure out myself with my current LitRPG project.

I'm trying to balance "game play" with "realism" to make the world/writing feel immersive and fun, while functional and not making my MC way, way overpowered.

I'm trying to work out stats, skills, abilities, players vs npcs, etc. etc. It's a lot of work and I spend a lot of time going "Hmm, too much? Too little? Too complicated?" It's enjoyable, but a little frustrating at times because it's such a fine line between 'too simple/too complicated' as well as 'too much/too little'.

I will say I normally loathe games where the MC wins/progresses basically due to cheating/glitches in the system. The occasional bit of luck is fine, but if the MC wins because "Oh, they got this super epic legendary weapon that has a tiny typo that let's them use it as a much lower level" or "they can use this super OP spell that they found in a book under a bush" then I tend to be kind of annoyed by the MC. Now there are exceptions in a few books I'd read, but normally in that case, the item/ability is a key point of the story and it being in their hands causes them as much trouble as it does bonus. I can roll with them having those glitches a bit more in that case.

Combat is one of those tricky things because if you go strictly by HPs, you can batter at something all day and it doesn't matter where you hit them. You just have to drop their HP. However, being able to do "super awesome attacks" that insta-kill can also be really OP as well and hurt the story. Personally I do like the idea of "Locational damage", similar to games like Fallout, etc. Where you can aim for a spot with a percentage to hit/damage and what you hit causes effects, such as hitting a leg makes the NPC slow down/limp.

 

Here is a bit of a tip, take it for what it's worth. Backwards Engineering.

Don't sit and make the rules then see how it works. Start from where you want things to be, design what the end result is, then work backward from there to your rules of the road. it's easier to design things when you know what you want the end result to be.

 

I want to end up writing several books I have plots outlined for in the same game/universe, so I'm taking time to do some solid worldbuilding, but I also really suck at maths so I'm trying not to get into the nitty gritty of number crunchery (plus I getting to dislike tables in books) and just skim over that bit with descriptions rather than actual tables.

 

I read somewhere that step one is world building. Create your world and it's rules. Once that's done drop your character into it and see what happens. Their actions are then decided by two things, their personality (whatever you made it) and the rules of the world around them. It's actually how things happen in the real world. You're rarely handed something on a silver platter, most of the time it's a combination of circumstances and how you've reacted to them.

I think the working backwards thing @Seagrim mentioned works well with items and places. Like say you are near the end and your noob level 3 is up against a level 250 boss. One way of doing it is going back to chapter one and planting an item with one of the characters and then hinting at it or even using it for something else through out here and there until it's time for it to shine. E.g. from HP is the time turner necklace.

Though.... that mcguffin trick is kindda clunky and not many can pull it off easily (a level one player randomly finds a defeat zombie ring +100... yeah, no). works though, just so long as it doesn't break the rules of the world you've placed.

 

That's really good advice, especially for me. I tend to be very bad about worrying so much about the tiny details and the little bits of worldbuilding that I drive myself crazy and "overbuild" to the point I never even get to the story. I know people say "you can never worldbuild too much!" but if you do Tolkien and spend decades making it, you'll probably die before you even write all you want to write! Even Brandon Sanderson, whose made some incredible worlds, mentions that you need to work on the story, not just the details.

So, excellent advice, Seagrim, and definitely advice I need to take! I'm bad about that stuff.

 

It can, but what I'm talking is backstory and world building. It's not so much a hard and fast rule, but a good rule of thumb. Take litRPG for example. instead of creating the rules of a game and jiggering around and fiddling with the game rules, figure how you want the finished game to handle different things, then backwards engineer the rules of a game needed to get there. Same for the world building, get an idea in mind for what you want the world to be like, then work backward to what would be needed to make the world what it is. It's like plotting a story, you have a rough idea of what you want the story to look like, then go and build it to those specifications.

It doesn't mean you won't be doing fiddling and jiggering, but, at that point, you're working towards a coherent goal and vision so the jiggering will be more purposeful. Decide how you want combat to occur, then, you go backward and create a combat system that leads to that form of combat. How do you want magic to affect things, then, begin crafting a magic system.

 

hmmm dangerous grounds. sounds very plot driven. maybe I'm just bias since I don't like it when its too obvious that the characters are meant to move from point A to point B but I'll leave it to you guys. pretty sure writing a tome isn't like a 500 word short story like I love to do XD

 

Why not just use hidden mechanics? It might be a gameworld, that doesn't mean you need to see the coding. Especially for VR games, I find myself doubtful about the inclusion of spell lists along the bottom of the screen. Why would we include other stuff that is a result of us looking at a screen rather than being there ourselves.
Games and the way we play them will evolve with technology.
It's like a medieval person imagining transportation in the future as horse-drawn carriages, except with more horses and at least ten times the horse-power.
That is to say, same thing, except more of it and *subjectively* better.

 

There is a movement where instead of game mechanics the characters don't know they're in a game and follow all the inner mechanics of a jrpg because to them that's the norm. from request boards to monsters respawning and dropping items. Not ironically either, the books are written completely straight. I like those because normal litrpg has compatibility issues sometimes while the later is more fantasy meets gaming making it more open and less tied down to status and such.

 

I think the main reason you should avoid most hidden mechanics is sandersons first law of magic i honestly think more authors should realise that most of what is in LitRPG should follow these rules skills are magic anything different from the normal world is magic more authors need to realise this
An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
If characters (especially viewpoint characters) solve a problem by use of magic, the reader should be made to understand how that magic works. Otherwise, the magic can constitute a deus ex machina.

 

By hidden mechanics, I mean not including stat screens ad nauseam, that does not preclude that the mechanics themselves cannot be logical. It just means that it's like real life, there are mechanics that are discover-able but not necessarily displayed.

 

Yes this is important i get frustrated when all of the characters immediately know everything because of stat screens or you know what objects are mcguffins (not that almost everything in some LitRPG isnt) because they have some glitched out text or whatever it just leaves no mystery of feeling of challenge to the books other then the MCs fights which almost always go in there favor