Ah, The Nearly Alone Lone Hero
by Evil Overlord in
gaming editorials
during first breakfast on
July 18th, 2005:
4 years, 7 months ago
There he is. That’s the baddest mother of them all. The Queen of Darkness. The Evil CEO. The Dark Lord. The Wicked Witch of the West. The Borg.
This is it. The final boss fight. All that stands between world domination/destruction/implosion/defenestration and this overgrown megalomaniac is me. And my trusty allies. All two to three of them.
WHAT!?! I only have two or three guys beside me? Was everyone else too busy learning level 99 ultimate summon bomb to bother with this historic fight?
Come to think of it . . . I’ve only had two to three guys with me the whole game. You would think that more people could join in with this whole “save the world” idea. Or worse – I have more people with me, they’re just taking a smoke break while my “main party” goes toe-to-toe with the Big Cheese itself.
The Roots grow from the (fictional) Mana Tree
Most RPGs are about saving the world in some form or fashion. There are notable exceptions (Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne or Disgaea) – but it is safe to say that saving the world is a standard plot cliché in RPGs. And there is not a thing wrong with that. Saving the world is fun and leaves the player with some sort of satisfaction that s/he has accomplished something worthwhile – if nothing else, simply finishing the game.
The problem is not so much with the plotline itself, but the modern RPG’s execution of it.
And it is not the fault of just the RPG realm, this is a problem that springs from the bedrock foundation of much RPGness – the science fiction/fantasy genre. Ever since Tolkein (not the originator, but the populizer of the idea), much has been written concerning a small band of heroes who must fight against all odds in order to save the day.
This is a completely understandable phenomenon. A small Fellowship is easier – for both writers/developers and readers/players – to handle. There’s more character attachment. There’s more character development. There’s fewer plotlines to remember. Besides, modern attention spans wouldn’t stand the length of a novel/game that would develop several hundred major characters.
RPGs have taken the concept of a small band and applied it wholeheartedly, but without experiencing the same creative freedom as those fiction writers.
You can’t handle the Truth!
The basic problem lies thusly:
1. I have a hero (or more rarely, a heroine).
2. Said hero travels the world and gathers a small group to ward off impending doom.
3. This small group constantly encounters useful people who say “good luck” and don’t actually offer to come with.
4. Only half of this small group can be used at any given time.
Within those four statements are two fundamental problems that most RPGs suffer.
On my command, unleash Hell!
First, the hero travels the world, gains a small number of allies, but meets many people who don’t care that he’s out to save their butts.
Of course, he has to have a few allies. Without the Love Interest, Bumbling Tag-a-Along, or Inept Wizard, he wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. Not that many RPGs actually feature conversations during travel (excepting Tales and Grandia), but it’s still useful – especially if the hero suffers from Silent Hero Syndrome – to have multiple people around to discuss plot developments.
But in all seriousness – given the scope of his mission, doesn’t it seem a tad bit odd that the average hero doesn’t manage to garner more than a handful of supporters, save for RPGs where there’s a base to be built (Suikoden and Skies of Arcadia). What’s everyone else got to do that’s more important than saving the world?
Admittedly, not everyone is a good potential party recruit. An army of innkeepers, shopkeepers, and barkeeps would probably die in the first green slime battle, thus leaving quite a dearth in the world’s amenities.
But then there are characters you meet during the adventure that would be perfect additions to your party. If you save a village of ninjas/warrior monks/healer priests, why does only one guy raise his hand and say “You know what? I’m not doing anything today. Or tomorrow. Let’s save the world.” (And that one guy is always some sort of student/acolyte. Good grief, if they could only send one, why not the head of the order?)
Wouldn’t it just feel better if the hero waltzed up to the Dark Fortress with an army of ninjas behind him? The hero thinks to himself, “hmmm… random battles all the way up five floors… or… on my command, unleash Hell!” Oh sure, said army of ninjas couldn’t take down the final bad guy. That’s what the hero is for. But why should the hero and his small band have to fight the entire Legion of Terror by themselves?
At the very least, send in random people to soften em up. “Hey you! Random soldier wearing a red shirt. Get in there and take one for the team!” The hero shouldn’t actually say the phrase “canon fodder,” but random soldiers ought to be able to swipe away some hit points from the Evil One or even just keep some of those pesky high-level minions busy for a while.
Developers have used a number of clichés to avoid this very issue: the army will attack the front so the hero can sneak in, the hero needs the stealth of a small party in his mission, the hero is the chosen one who is foretold, etc. While these can sometimes be believable story elements, too often they are simply transparent story devices designed to isolate the hero’s party and amplify its danger/suspense.
This may strike some as being too… ruthless for the average hero. And perhaps the caricature of the red shirt is hyperbole. But the point is valid: RPGs with a sweeping theme (saving the world) need to have more than a handful of playable characters who are deeply involved with the plotline.
I’m on Lunch-Break
The second problem lies not in the storyline itself, but in the game’s execution of the playable characters. Far too many RPGs do not allow all of the playable characters to be effectively utilized.
Typical RPG happening: hero’s party of eight is wandering around the overworld map when they’re suddenly attacked by hordes of angry bandits and their crow friends. Overworld map disappears to be replaced with battle screen showing the hero’s party of three and the… wait a second, where’s the other five people?
Perhaps they’re cooking a meal. Or they’re just beyond that hill, there. Maybe they’re having a bad day and don’t feel like fighting. They could simply like a good show. They might even be off-screen cheerleaders. We’ll never know. Whatever they are doing, they are not helping in this battle.
Why in the world does the hero bother to recruit anyone at all when most of them cannot even participate in a basic battle? Most of the time, there is no logical reason why they are out of pocket beyond the simple fact that the game is designed to only have three or four people in combat at a time. This should not be.
It is utterly frustrating to only use half (if that) of the characters during the majority of the game. If there are six people wandering around, then six people should be involved in the fight. If developers don’t want to program for six people in combat, then the storywriters need to come up with a plausible explanation of why only three people fight at a time.
The sad fact is that sometimes these “extra” characters are simply a bone to be thrown at gamers. Few RPGs force the player to use certain characters at any given point, save the hero (Suikoden and FFVI are excellent exceptions). Players can simply find their favorites and stick with them through most of the game, ignoring other characters if they so choose.
Adding further insult, many games end when the “main party” becomes crow bait. What happened to everyone else? Did they just sit there and watch their friends be slaughtered? Shouldn’t they get a chance to have at the enemy and finish off that last orc who only has a few hit points left? Apparently not. They’re just extras.
Is there no end to the Insanity?
While this editorial can easily be aimed at most traditional RPGs (strategy/action RPGs are usually a different animal), there are some games that make efforts in the right direction.
FFX (and its knockoff LOTR: The Third Age) allows hot-swapping characters, thus solving some of the inherent questions but still not answering why only three could fight at a time. Suikoden (and to a lesser extent, Skies of Arcadia) brings a large cast into play who actually provide useful services. Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne introduces more playable characters than any game should have and provides a plausible explanation for why only a few can be used at a time. The Bard’s Tale (recent) provides a believable reason for limiting the number of on-screen summons. Old-school RPGs often never even allowed for extra characters (Final Fantasy, Wizardry, The Bard’s Tale).
In the end, the call is relatively simple. If the world is being rocked to its very foundations, let’s have more characters than just the hero interested in saving it. Once we get those characters, let’s be able to play with them, all of them – at the same time.
video game editorials- a simple note on the reviews
- Ah, The Nearly Alone Lone Hero
- building a better random battle
2 Responses to 'Ah, The Nearly Alone Lone Hero'
Now posted at RPGamer.
[Quote]Reposted with permission from the RPGamer forums.
Dracos
You have good points yet not good points.
Going sort of down the editorial:
The two to three guys thing is part narrative and part sanity check. These aren’t realistic systems to begin with and keeping everyone contributing sensibly with ten or twenty on the field gets pretty crazy. Nevermind trying to balance fights with a player who will get ten actions each round or provide sanely working ai for that many player characters simultaniously with the enemy ai. Think about trying to mentally keep track of 30-40 characters in a battle environment? You’d totally remove any possibility of doing it as anything but TRPG style and even then they try and stick away from that many on screen since you pretty much NEED to extra-simplify the whole combat system to handle 40 actions taking place each metaphorical round. Narrative wise too, virtually every game that put that much in sufferred downfalls where the writers were going beyond their ability to make it work. While this’ll get easier as we get more and more towards talented writing teams, it still provides a major barrier alongside the rest of them I listed.
The narrative, if anything, is the minimal reason to why such things take place. The energy and expense behind each character developed and the diminishing returns has a good deal to do with it.
The party of 15, usable 4 bit actually stems from something else entirely. When designing, it is optimal to allow the player an entire party of characters they like. Thus, even if you only want x characters in your battle system, allowing the story to have x*3 pretty much ensures that the players will be able to drum out the ones they don’t like and have a full party of one’s they do. It solves the indeterminate problem of providing an likable characters and oft errors on the side of there being more neat ones than not.
Again, with both these, while there may be narrative workarounds, I promise that design wise, these don’t come up nearly as high on the scale as the genuine design issues behind making such work.
The ‘crow bait’ thing. Yeah, it is annoying and some games do it far worse, SF2 I’m looking at you, but the genuine purpose behind such again is balance. I would not like to play a game in which it is expected that in general travel and levels I will have several party members killed. It is a far more entertaining prospect to balance with the characters on the field and only them then to say “Well, these guys should do more damage since if they actually, god forbid, kill them, it isn’t a problem.”
Hot-swapping helps, kind of.
Eh, The overall call “That it should be handled better.” Is a decent one. This doesn’t mean though that handling it better means taking more characters in, using an absolute minimal set that will ensure that the players dislike at least one party member and have to play with it anyway, etc. The suggested methods of fixing ignoring the very problems fundamental to creating those scenarios. It would be a poor choice indeed to fix them at the cost of breaking more fundamental problems. =)
Dracos
Wonder Bear Saves the Day.
tylerwillis
You do have a point here, and I didn’t really make clear what I thought would be good. Although I do enjoy a good TRPG, that’s not what I had in mind.
On a personal level, I would be just as happy to have 5 longer battles on a larger scale than 20 short battles where I just keep pressing attack. I would welcome the challenge of trying to keep track.
Perhaps this involves an entire paradigm shift of what battles in RPGs should be. Instead of three monsters attacking the first three people, why not have 10 monsters encircle the all 6 people in the party. Assign a sphere of influence to each character and and more-or-less limit the actions of the character to that particular sphere.
If I have two weak monsters attacking from each side, and four strong monsters attacking from the front, then I could assign party members for each front appropriately. From there, most of the battle sequence (preferably in Grandia II style combat system that takes into account distance and movement) would be limited to to each sphere - with notable exceptions, such as magic or long-distance attacks. If I defeat one sphere quickly, then I can have those characters run and join the battle elsewhere - similarly, if the monsters defeat one sphere, all is not lost.
Sure, it might be crazy. It might be frantic. It would probably be hard to implement correctly. But I would take that over 15 second simple attack battles anyday.
This is true - and I didn’t flesh it out in the editorial, but that’s what I meant by “thowing the players a bone”. If I have 9 characters, but only 3 useable, then I had very well better be able to pick 3 that I like - otherwise someone has done a very poor job on the design interface.
However, I think a well written story should incoroprate all of these useable characters at one time or another. Otherwise they’re simply there for show and dance. FFVI does a wonderful job of forcing the usage of all characters at several points in the story - while you can focus on some characters, it is best not to ignore everyone else. Suikoden also forces you to use a few characters in specific missions. I would like to see more games take this line rather than just allowing the free use of any characters.
It doesn’t matter whether I *like* them or not, they’re in the story and should play a relevant part.
I do see the point. Losing partymembers left and right would quickly become annoying, but I still hold that this perhaps should be implemented for boss battles and what not. Why should we be limited to only 4 characters fighting against the Dark Lord when there’s 6 more people just standing around. Even if we can’t use them all at the same time, then at least hot-swap or allow for secondary teams to go in and try to mop up.
Dracos, thank you for the intelligent critique.
[Quote]