The Yoke of Advancement and Content

One of the puzzling inconsistencies in modern Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) design lies in the way that character advancement and content overwhelmingly tend to be yoked together.

Take the most common example: you create a character in, say World of Warcraft or City of Heroes, and as your character advances in their capabilities – in these cases, as is most frequently the case, measured in the character’s level – the character also consumes precisely calibrated content that is matrixed to the character’s level.  From level 1-10, the character is in Zone X, from level 11-20 Zone Y, and so on.

Perhaps the character can go a couple of levels outside of this range and still be okay, or perhaps there are mechanics such as City of Heroes’ side kicking to give a little more social flexibility.  Regardless, the character’s advancement is carefully yoked to specific pieces of content.

Why is this so?  How much of this is tradition?  How much necessity?  How much a function of the way the business tends to be structured?

As a caveat to the rest of this piece, note that this is aimed primarily at multiplayer persistent games that are anticipating regular content updates.  If the title is a single player experience or a game that it is expected a player will play start to finish, or for a game with an explicit, played-once storyline, then it is perfectly reasonable to yoke advancement and content.

The conventional answer to this question of yoking character advancement to content is that it makes the character feel more powerful, that as they are growing more powerful they are also encountering new challenges.  This design does in fact allow the game to carefully meter out in measured doses the content for the expected duration of a player’s time with the game.

But does it really make the character feel more powerful?  Sure, a player might go back to a previously visited area and knock off some rats with ease, but is that really gameplay or boredom?  True, a player is combating more dangerous foes, but if that was all it was, one might expect to see the content metered one way, and in fact some newer games such as Skyrim and Guild War 2 do exactly this; enemies are automatically raised – but not lowered – to a character’s degree of advancement.

One of the puzzling aspects of this design convention is that it is fundamentally based on a fear of players advancing (i.e., leveling) “too fast”.  This is puzzling because arguably the single biggest challenge in MMORPG design today is that no design studio – not even Blizzard – can develop content faster than even the average player can devour it, let alone faster than what the die-hards of any game will be capable of.

In games that maintain this yoke, this results in the completely perverse concept of “the elder game”, meaning that there is essentially one type of expected gameplay and set of content for the trudge up to maximum level, and then a completely new type of expected gameplay and set of content for those who have reached those august heights.

Not only does this split social groups of players – sheer lunacy for any social game, but this also forces developers to essentially create two different games.  Yes, there are a number of mechanics to alleviate this such as sidekicking or other forms of autoleveling, but the fact is these mechanics are bandaids covering up what is in fact a core design flaw.  Moreover, it means that a development team must always try to maintain equivalent sized (or more accurately, paced) systems and content teams even when it may not make logical sense for those areas of a game to expand at that time or in that way.

Don’t get me wrong – a game does need discrete advancement, and it certainly needs expansive content.  Some of that content should naturally be gated, but saying it should be gated does not mean it needs to be gated to character advancement.  The previous example of Skyrim is an exemplar of this; the main storyline can be completed at level 10 or level 50, with certain areas becoming available only to characters who have arrived at the right step along that story progression line, regardless of the character’s current level.

(Skyrim’s expansion Dawnguard went even further, and created completely parallel but optional character progression paths.  The solution Skyrim’s developer Bethesda decided upon to balance this was to make the exercise of these paths mutually exclusive; while this works, it is pretty unsatisfying, but I think this is the right general direction, if still very larval.)

Yoking character advancement to content is thus expensive, inefficient, impractical, divisive of the player base, and fundamentally restricts the options a development team has to expand a game post-launch.

Make meaningful advancement.  Sure, place a few sequential gates with the content there – but only a few.  Make some great content.  But then, let the player experience it on as much of their own terms and pace as can be afforded.  Yes, this means giving up some direct control, but games are not movies, and it is a doomed errand to make a game a movie.

Worried about new players feeling overwhelmed by the options?  Make a distinct path that always points the player to something new, but don’t hobble your own options by hobbling the players’ options.

Understandably, large studios are backed by insane amounts of money, and this kind of environment understandably discourages drastic innovation, but at some point – and I think that point is rapidly coming upon the gaming industry – the staleness of retreads of existing approaches will eat so deeply into gamers’ enthusiasm that new opportunities will open that may even rival Blizzard’s own monumental perfect storm success with World of Warcraft.

1 thought on “The Yoke of Advancement and Content

  1. Ah, you’re touching one of my sensitive topics! Vertical progression. Or at least, vertical-only progression. That really only works in single-player games or for static groups such as tabletop RPGs which is where this all came from, but for the purpose of this particular argument, single-player and static group are effectively the same thing. As soon as you throw in more players than are actually in one static party or storyline, vertical progression (ie. the D&D “levels” so many MMOs make the mistake of using) serves only to segregate players and destroy any meaningfulness to the virtual world.

    It’s understandable why vertical levels are used, though. The player goes through the game and his numbers get bigger along the way. That’s a simple concept for players to grasp. When talking of RPGs (and perhaps MMOs even more so?) vertical levels remove (to a degree) some of the difficulty of balancing mobs and the content associated with them in a particular area. It’s easy enough for a player to be led by the nose and check mob levels to see if they can effectively play in this area or not.

    Some of the more “recent” Diku-influenced MMOs have applied a huge band-aid to the problem vertical levels cause for players by introducing concepts such as “mentoring” in EQ2 and others, or Guild Wars 2 which will auto-level players down (not up!) to the specific sub-zone they’re in at any moment. Cryptic’s games have “mentoring” both up and down, the group gets to choose. My friends and I usually found it works better for the group to set the lowest level player to leader the high level players match down to him. Though I do recall one encounter in Champions where we had a level separation of maybe 15 to 20 from the lowest level to highest level and a few fights were to tough to downlevel all the way so we picked someone in the middle and releveled to match him.

    What Skyrim does is to “level the world” along with the player. That works quite well and goes a long way to maintain the integrity and value of the entire game world. Bethesda’s other RPGs such as Oblivion and Fallout 3 also do this, though the mathematics didn’t always work out at higher levels; there are plenty of stories of uber-one-shotting players in those. It seems (at least so far) that in Skyrim they’ve tweaked the math and made it work out much better. But obviously in an MMO you can’t level the world appropriate to each individual player without keeping each player instanced or phased, in which case, why even bother with the online stuff at all other than monetization?

    So far it seems the only alternative anyone has been creative enough or willing to come up with is a pure skills system which EVE uses, and SWG before it, and UO. Darkfall maybe? I’m not sure that’s the perfect alternative but it does work better (to a degree) in maintaining a virtual world and maintaining community within that world.

    One example from SWG: as a new player I was able to go through the brief tutorial at launch (old SWG here, not the NGE version) to get the noob equipment. Maybe go shoot a few basic mobs outside town but as an extremely low “level” character I was still able to join my guild and go to Dathomir to hunt Rancor with them. At the time that was considered one of the “end game” activities. In today’s vertical progression MMOs I would never have been allowed to do that. First, because the mobs would have been more than 10 levels higher than me therefore I’m not allowed to even hit them. Second, because I would have been a liability to the group’s dps output. But back then in that game, that was never a factor. Yes, at low level my gun didn’t hit as much, but it did hit! And that meant I was gradually leveling up my skill for that gun. Optimized trinity dps didn’t really exist per se, and even then, the guildies I was with were high enough skill level to be there without me (and without anyone else taking up my slot) so I wasn’t reducing their effectiveness. There was certainly gating though. One, I didn’t have money on my own to afford transport to Dathomir, but the guild donated it without a second glance. I also didn’t have high enough skills (obviously, as a newish player) to effectively solo there at all. There was some vertical aspects to SWG but it was much more toned down, or a shallow incline, to maintain challenge as player skill increased but it didn’t outright separate players from each other. SWG allowed me as a new player to play with my guild and hunt some of the toughest monsters, learn the game and just HAVE FUN with them. I will always be grateful for that. Meanwhile practically every other MMO maintains the vertical progression and due to my job (as well as too many interests to stick with a single game exclusively) we end up separated and unable to do anything together besides chat. I don’t need to pay $15 per month (disregarding the F2P trend momentarily) to chat when there are so many IM, social networks, etc. out there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s