开发者谈RPG游戏设计的四组关键平衡因素

原作者：Arto Koistinen 译者：Willow Wu

写这篇文章的初衷是为了回答了一个复杂而直接的问题：怎样才能做出一个优秀的RPG游戏？在我的职业生涯中，我参与过若干RPG游戏项目的开发，还针对这一主题写了做了PPT，发表演说。但是我从来都没有从整体视角来分析这类游戏。创造一款优秀的游戏需要很多条件，当然，其中大多数也适用于RPG游戏，但也有一些设计决策是针对特制定游戏类型的。

我不可能一一列出RPG游戏应具有的游戏特性，而且开发者们的实际设计方案也不尽相同，于是我就将RPG游戏设计的关键因素分为四组。请注意，任何单组都无法帮助你确定你的设计是否是正确的，但结合所有组能够帮助你更好地掌控大局。

1.随机性vs决定论

从早期的《龙与地下城》、Chainmail（由Gary Gygax和Jeff Perren制作的中世纪微型战争游戏）到现代的众多继任游戏，随机性一直都是RPG游戏的设计核心。在桌游中，你使用骰子来决定任何不确定性行动的结果。早期桌游中的不确定性行动非常多，而随着RPG游戏设计规则的改进，需要扔骰子的次数就逐渐减少了，有些游戏甚至都抛弃了这个小道具。在电子游戏领域，你能看到在更偏动作风格的游戏中有些随机性的设计已经被考验玩家技巧所取代。但对于传统RPG游戏而言，随机机制是不可或缺的，尤其是奇幻游戏中。

随机性vs决定论没有什么完美的配比公式，根据游戏情况的不同，最佳方案也有不同。一般在开始时我会准备会很多随机内容，然后在迭代过程中加入既定内容。

尽管大家都知道掷骰的结果是完全随机的(除了作弊)，但掷出个好点数就感觉像是一种个人成就，而点数不好要么是你的错，要么只是那个骰子不好用。在电子游戏中，遇到一连串的坏运气会让人感觉是游戏哪里出了问题，很快就会陷入负面情绪中，这就是为什么我们需要给玩家更多行动选择。所以在《冰霜大陆》中，我们增加了重掷选项。这个设定其实是在一定程度上减少了游戏的随机性，玩家可以选择消耗魔力值得到重掷机会。

增加确定性的另一个好方法是给随机伤害限定范围，设定一个运气最差值，以它为底线，这在日式RPG中很常见。就算你不是攻击者，看到暴击也是非常令人振奋的。无论如何，你都不会因为运气差把事情搞砸。

减少随机，对战感觉就解谜，你要思考如何搭配技能才能解决这个敌人。一般来说，这类游戏中确定性最强的就是boss战，但是像《女神异闻录5》这样较为极端的游戏你就必须清楚地知道优势和弱点才能获得胜利。

你给玩家的选择越多，他们的干劲就越强。玩家不应该觉得输掉是因为自己运气差，而是在于他们做出的选择。

2.机制vs内容

一般来说，RPG游戏是比较注重内容的。不同的对战、探索元素和剧情需要大量的角色、环境素材、关卡设计、文字叙述和音效。一般玩家会期望游戏流程能达到十几个小时，由此一来开发者所面临的任务就更加艰巨，尤其当他们做的是较为线性的剧情向游戏。

但还是有很多捷径可以尝试，比如，你可以在不同的关卡设计中使用相同的敌人、更换素材的纹理而不是全部重新设计，以及通过改变光效来营造氛围，这样你就可以做到资源重复利用，节省下不少时间精力。对注重内容的游戏来说，强大的关卡设计工具是必不可少的，在初期阶段多花点功夫制作它也是完全值得的。

Dungeons & Dragons Online from gamasutra.com

从另一个角度来思考，你可以把重点转移到游戏机制体验上。这在roguelikes游戏中很常见，它们依靠程序生成关卡，提供新的流程体验，但通常会使用与以前相同的资源。另一个例子就是解谜RPG这种混合型游戏，比如PuzzleQuest，把焦点都放在对战机制上，剧情全都是衬托。

一个以机制体验为主的游戏，它的表现好坏很大程度上取决于前一组元素的平衡。由于你由于无法使用同样的资源创造新的体验，游戏的核心机制需要支持多种选择和应变式挑战。如果游戏的核心机制不够吸引人，玩家很快就会觉得它单调且繁琐。

避免让玩家觉得 “游戏很肝”办法之一是给玩家二级目标。比如增长经验值，在痛击敌人小队的同时XP也在上涨，玩家就不会觉得这一过程很枯燥。

3.剧情vs自由探索

这一组平衡元素跟前一组有一定的联系，但更多的是从叙事体验的角度出发。游戏剧情本身就是内容，制作成本非常高。但RPG游戏在发展早期就将互动叙事设定为核心之一，这个类型既是一种游戏形式，也是一种讲故事的媒介。

拥有优质剧情的线性游戏是否就比看重玩家自由的开放世界游戏更好，这主要是个人喜好的问题，尽管真正的经典游戏能够在两者之间达到一种微妙的平衡。然而，这些多半都是预算超过8位数的大制作游戏。

对于相对较小的游戏开发者来说，他们就需要一点技巧。很容易想到的办法之一就是降低画质。如果你的叙事主要是以依靠文字和低分辨率的2D画面来展示，你就能用更少的资源制作更多内容。另外一个方法就是重复利用手头的资源：不要让剧情选择指向一个完全不同的环境，而是指向一个使用相同的NPC的地方。Telltale就是善用这种技巧的大师：结果大致相同，唯一的区别在于哪个角色做了什么或说了什么。“X记得这个”也是个不错的技巧，它也会让你觉得这个选择很重要，即使它对实际结果影响非常小或完全没有影响。

但你也可能做得太过火——现代《最终幻想》游戏中的闲逛玩法并不算一个特别突出的亮点，然而《最终幻想13》却将这一设计理念发挥到了极致，甚至吓跑了最铁杆的粉丝。

4.复杂选项vs上手难度

我在这里主要谈论的是角色的生成和进阶，尽管这也与玩家的选项数量有关。跟上一部分一样，这基本上就是个人喜好问题。

无论是桌游还是电子RPG游戏，对于一个不太熟悉的人来说，大量不同的属性、技能和其它角色选项可能会让他觉得不知所措。特别是当玩家刚接触一款新游戏，首先看到的界面就是角色生成时。在对游戏玩法毫无头绪的情况下做出这种永久性的选择，你很有可能会在正戏上演之前就败得一塌糊涂。

在这方面，日式RPG和西式RPG往往会形成对立：日式RPG一般都没有这样的环节，属性进阶方式很线性，只有一或者两个系统可供选择。而西式RPG会严格按照桌游模式展开——首先角色诞生，之后非常细化的进阶方式。

在《冰霜大陆》的开发中途，我们弃了角色生成，让玩家从空白状态开始。每次升级后，玩家可以选择要强化的技能种类，他们可以选择专注于一个技能，也可以每次都选不同的，这取决于玩家认为哪个更有利。

根据你的目标用户，你可以选择其中一种方式，或者折衷混合二者，但是要慎重，因为这组的情况很大程度上会受之前三组的选择影响。实际上四个组都是相互关联的。如果一款是剧情向、不需要玩家反复刷关的，同时它也很容易上手，没有复杂的选项，这就是一款相对优秀的游戏。反过来，如果一款游戏非剧情向、需要玩家反复刷关，就算它易上手、没有复杂选项，那也成不了大器。当然，你也可以用其它方式混合它们，但同样也是要多加斟酌，确定这会如何影响整个游戏体验。

你可以通过教学、演示机制在深度和易上手度之间找到平衡。一个很好的例子就是设定优势和弱点，它们可以增加剧情亮点和机制多样性。

这并不是RPG游戏设计的终极模板，只是一个分析游戏平衡性的工具，或者也可以帮你拆解其它游戏达到学习借鉴的目的。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

This article began as an answer to a multifaceted yet straightforward question: what makes a good roleplaying game? I have worked with several RPGs during my career and even written and done presentation on the subject, but I have never before approached it from a holistic point of view. There are plenty of material on what makes a good game, and naturally, most of that applies to roleplaying games too, but there are some design decisions that are specific if not unique to the genre.

Since it’s impossible to give a list of features a roleplaying game should have, and there are numerous ways to approach any given design aspect, I broke down the design into four distinct axes. None of the axes alone can tell if you’re on the right path with your design, but together they help to manage the big picture.

Project Scoundrel

Axis #1: Randomness vs Determinism

From the early days of Dungeons & Dragons, Chainmail and their precursors, randomness has been in the core of the roleplaying game design. In tabletop games, you used dice to determine the outcome of any uncertain action — and there were a lot of them back in the day. As the discipline of RPG design advanced, the number of dice rolls slowly decreased, and some games even left them out completely. In digital games, some randomness has been replaced by player skill in more action-oriented games, but it’s still an essential part of any a traditional RPG experience, especially in fantasy games.

There is rarely a sweet spot for randomness versus determinism, and the best approach varies from game to game. My process has usually started with too much randomness and then adding determinism iteration by iteration. My RPG battle design articles go into this in more detail, but here’s a short recap.

In tabletop games, rolling dice is an action you take: “I rolled 17.” Even though we consciously know that we can’t affect the outcome of the roll (except by cheating), rolling well feels like a personal accomplishment and a failed roll is either your fault or just a bad dice. In digital games, a streak of bad luck feels like a fault of the game and can get frustrating very fast. That is why we need to give the players more options to own their action. In Rimelands, we added the reroll option for this reason. Since the game only rerolls the failed dice, the option actually reduces the randomness, and by costing a single mana point (you always have a pool of precisely five mana points), it makes rerolling an actual choice.

Another good option to add determinism is to have a relatively limited range of randomness for damage, a solution often seen in JRPGs. The worst luck becomes a bottom line, and you can only go upward. Rolling a crit feels good even if you’re not the one doing the rolling, but you can never really botch due to bad luck.

A low amount of randomness usually leads to battles feeling more like puzzles in which you have to find the right combination of abilities to defeat a particular enemy. Usually, the most deterministic fights in such games are boss fights, but Persona 5 (for example) takes this to another level, requiring the player to know the exact strength and weaknesses to succeed in any fight.

The more options you give the player, the more agency they have. The player should never feel like the lost a battle due to a bad dice roll, but because of a choice they made.

Axis #2: Mechanics vs Content

Roleplaying games are often a content heavy genre. Varied battles, exploration and story, require vast amounts so character and environment assets, level design, writing and audio. Common player expectations of tens of hours of gameplay make the requirements even worse, especially when making a relatively linear story-driven experience.

There are many shortcuts. You can recycle assets by using the same enemies with different level design to bring new challenges to the battles, alter textures instead of making whole new models and use lighting to create a different mood and context for environments when using the same basic blocks. A robust level design tool is essential when creating a content-driven experience and well worth the initial extra effort.

On the other end of the scale, you can also go with less content heavy and more mechanical experience. This approach is common in roguelikes, which use runtime procedural level generation to create a new experience for each session, usually using the same assets as before. Another example is puzzle-roleplaying game hybrids such as PuzzleQuest which rely heavily on their battle mechanic and leave the story content to the background.

How well a mechanics-oriented game works depends heavily on the balance of the previous axis. Since you lack the opportunity to hand-design new challenges using the same assets, the game’s core mechanics need to support a wide variety of choices and emergent challenges. Failing to provide a compelling enough core mechanic makes the game feel grindy and frustrating.

One thing that I’ve noticed lessens the feeling of grind is having some secondary objectives. It feels less frustrating to hack through dozens of enemies if some other meters go up along with your XP bar.

Axis #3: Story vs Freedom

This axis is somewhat related to the previous one, but more from the perspective of the narrative experience. As with grind, the story is content and as such expensive to produce, but roleplaying has had an interactive narrative as one of their core tenets from the very beginning, and the whole genre is as much a medium of storytelling as it is a form of games.

Whether fairly linear games with a great story are better than open world games with an emphasis on player freedom is mostly a question of taste, although the real classics manage to find a very delicate balance between the two. However, the ones that do are more often than not gargantuan products with budgets of tens if not hundreds of millions.

For any smaller game, you need to have few tricks up your sleeve to balance this. One obvious option is to scale down the fidelity. If you have your story as mostly text and the art is relatively low-resolution 2D, you can fit in a lot more content with fewer resources. Another is to recycle the assets you have: instead of a story choice leading to different places with a different cast of NPCs, slightly tilt the content in a single place and use the same characters. Telltale was a master of this sleight of hand: the outcome was mostly the same, with the only difference being which character did or said what. The “X remembers this” was also a neat trick that made a choice feel important even if in reality it had little or no effect to the actual outcome.

You can go too far to another direction too. Modern Final Fantasy games are not exactly known for their free-roaming gameplay, but Final Fantasy XIII managed to take this into an extreme that scared off even the hardiest fans.

Axis #4: Options vs Approachability

Advantages and narrative mechanics

I’m mostly talking about character generation and progression here, although this does also relate to any amount of choices the player can have. As with the previous axis, this is also very much a question of taste and the player’s experience in the genre.

Both tabletop and digital roleplaying games can feel overwhelming to an unaccustomed person with tons of different statistics, skills and other character options. Especially if the first screen after starting a new game the player sees is the character generation. If you have to make very longstanding choices before having any idea how the game works, there’s a huge risk you’re screwing up even before you’ve even started.

This is an axis where Japanese and western RPGs tend to be on the opposite sites: JRPGs don’t usually have any kind of character creation, and the stat progression is often very linear with one or two systems offering options, whereas western games stick closer to the tabletop model of character generation first and very granular progression choices.

In Rimelands we went halfway and ditched the character generation, having the player start with a blank slate. Then after each level up, the player could select from three classes; they could either stick with one class the whole game or select a different one each time, depending on which one seemed to offer the best options.

Depending on your target audience, you can go either way here, or even compromise and choose some mixture of the two, but you need to make a conscious choice, as this axis very much ties to your choices in the other ones. They all do. A game with approachability instead of complex options works better if it also is more story-oriented and less grindy and vice versa. Naturally, you can mix them other ways too, but you need to be careful and know how this affects the whole experience.

You can balance depth and approachability by providing proper onboarding and expressive mechanics. A good example is advantages and disadvantages, which provide both narrative flair and variety in mechanics.

This method is not a be-all-end-all solution to roleplaying game design, but a tool for analysing the balance between elements in your work or breaking apart other games for study.

(source: gamasutra.com )