I separate story because while I think there are players who consistently play just for the story I don't believe that that's the central reason why people play RPGs, especially if you consider MMOs. If story was the core reason, this audience would be playing lots of different games which have great stories, not caring if they're RPGs or not. (This isn't entirely true as there are crossover players, obviously, who WILL play lots of other related genres, such as Adventure games, and skill may be a barrier to playing some games with great stories for some RPG players.)
Learning is important, but I wouldn't define it as core gameplay, rather a byproduct of it. I think also that exploration itself isn't self-justifying in a traditional RPG unless the game rewards you SPECIFICALLY for exploration in a manner that would rival combat. The same is true for questing. WHY do you quest? What gameplay does questing lead to?
It's important to understand that I'm not so much trying to encapsulate the full experience of an RPG. I'm trying to drill down to the core loop which drives it and ask what other loops would substitute, what activities they'd be made of and why they'd work.
if we're talking about a regular RPG leveling is there to facilitate story progression and more times than not "leveling" is taken out now adays. The enemies are made so that the Adventure facilitates the level up. The Adventure opens a new city/town/area/quests/whatever... By exploring you are often rewarded with gear, story, ability, skills, extra story, or some other special thing... So you adventure from town a to town b. when you reach town b you explore to get more gear and these two actions together lead to character improvement which then allows you to adventure from town b to c and do it again. The newer RPGs pretty much make it so you never have to do anything except adventure because the explore/character improvement parts are so small or pushed as part of the adventure
If we're talking about MMORPGs... it's mainly socially driven and has little to do with actual level progression. Good design in MMORPGs is a design that promotes a good Community, because more or less it doesn't matter what you do once you have a good community the community will keep most people from leaving it. I've heard nearly everyone I have ever played an MMO with at some point say "I'd quit if i could get my friends to go play this other game" So leveling is done as a community activity and if you fall behind it is done to keep playing with your friends. It has nothing to do with loot, level, or fighting.
In the case of a sandbox MMORPG, the economy would be a major factor, and having a sense of roles and a place within society. An economy can justify many mechanics (such as having fishing in the game) by giving it a context with which to relate to the big picture. In a sandbox people make their own goals, and sometimes those goals don't have or need a higher context (Minecraft comes to mind). People generally like to explore the capacity of things.
The standard hook is the Skinner's box. Do something and get a reward. People also like a sense of progression and forward movement. In the case of pretty much every game, the progression comes from advancing yourself in some way, as the stat-based avatar, as the skilled gamer controlling it, or as some combination of both.
The reason I play an RPG (although I don't play much of anything anymore) is to see the next thing. I love seeing what's next when there's a great world to explore and new things to see and experience. I also enjoy planning a build or working toward an armor set, and keeping at them and all of their sub-goals until they are completed.
I almost always play support roles, so I like keeping the party in good shape, resing the occasional stranger, healing someone who needs it, warping people to where they need to go, giving people the buffs they need at the right times, etc. I'd rather help a person compete than compete myself, it's a lot less shallow for me that way.
The social aspects of MMOs are also a major factor as to why people keep playing.
if we're talking about a regular RPG leveling is there to facilitate story progression
Totally disagree. Leveling exists to facilitate combat. As I acknowledged in the OP, I think you're correct that story progression is a significant factor (it gives context and meaning to the battles), but people are playing many RPGs (especially action-RPGs) for the action or strategy found in the combat gameplay. Examples abound, new and old: Mass Effect, Borderlands, Diablo, Din's Curse, Jade Empire, Sacred, Icewind Dale, Fable, The Witcher, Morrowind, WOW, Runescape, Dungeon Siege, Phantasy Star Online, etc. etc.
If this wasn't the case, why is combat so central to these games?
and more times than not "leveling" is taken out now adays.
[/quote]
Really? Which games are doing this these days?
The enemies are made so that the Adventure facilitates the level up. The Adventure opens a new city/town/area/quests/whatever... By exploring you are often rewarded with gear, story, ability, skills, extra story, or some other special thing... So you adventure from town a to town b. when you reach town b you explore to get more gear and these two actions together lead to character improvement which then allows you to adventure from town b to c and do it again. The newer RPGs pretty much make it so you never have to do anything except adventure because the explore/character improvement parts are so small or pushed as part of the adventure
[/quote]
I still think you're not analyzing what adventuring is. When you say adventure what you typically mean in RPGs is that you kill your way from one environment to the other. If you doubt this, then you'll need to provide several example RPG where you can play as a pacifist.
If we're talking about MMORPGs... it's mainly socially driven and has little to do with actual level progression.
[/quote]
I'm not really an MMO player but from what I've heard, the little I've played and what my friends' experiences have been I have to say it strongly depends on the type of player. Social gamers seem to be there for the community, much as you say. But the Achievers and Killers who play against the environment seem to be there for the combat, by and large.
If this has nothing to do with looting, leveling and fighting, then again, WHY is combat the core activity, rather than, say, crafting, or IRC-style MUD roleplaying or something else?
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
In the case of a sandbox MMORPG, the economy would be a major factor, and having a sense of roles and a place within society.
What does the economy typically enable you to do? Or better said, what does a rich player have that a poor player does not, and why is having it important?
In a sandbox people make their own goals, and sometimes those goals don't have or need a higher context (Minecraft comes to mind). People generally like to explore the capacity of things.
[/quote]
We're off the topic of talking about loops. Regardless of Minecraft's sandbox, if you play with monsters the loop becomes something like explore for (better/more) resources, gather, build, survive. If you don't play with monsters, remove the part about survival. That you can build whatever you can think of out of the blocks doesn't make it exempt from having a gameplay loop. (Granted, you could wander the world aimlessly to see what's over the next hill, or dig for the same reason, but I don't think most players are doing this).
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
The main loop IMO is Target -- Progress -- Achievement
As a Target we set just about anything in an MMO -- Learn fishing, Gain a level, Change hunting grounds, Join a guild
Progression happens when we try and reach our target -- we run around looking for a fishing trainer, kill mobs, ask for directions or apply to various guilds
Then there is the Achievement and the sense of gaining a rewards/finishing something meaningfull to us. We finally catch our first fish, we gain a new level, see new landscape or meet new guildmates.
Once that is done, we, again, set a new target in order to not get bored. We play an MMO as long as we can find ourselves a target that is important to us, a thing we want to achieve. Sandboxes rely on that heavily -- but compared to structured, "leveled" gameplay, the lifespan is shorter due to the amount of goals the player is unaware of or just doesn't want to do. Leveling slows down progression and gives a pace the player must accept in order to participate, as well as setting mini Targets along the way.
F.e. Minecraft. As long as we can set targets (each one being more meaningfull than the other) we play it, we are entertained. But then there is a point where all is done and nothing seems important anymore. WoW on the other hands slows you down intentionally, giving out content in small packets, making sure you will play long (thus generating profit for the company).
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise
Tech tree (gathering, creating units and buildings, upgrading, gathering more, etc.) is probably the most obvious example. Normally people think of this in association with RTSes and building games like Tiblanc mentions. But it can also work in an RPG context. Tycoon games typically cast the player in the role of a farmer, rancher, or pet breeder. The player typically levels up their house, their storage, their production capacity, their production or transportation speed, their crafting appliances, the pets if they are used for combat, gear if the player participates in combat, or their store if they are selling their produce. Usually the overall goal of this is to max out one aspect of the game. In a combat game it might be to defeat the biggest boss/highest level, or to obtain one of every kind of pet (or card in a CCG), or to conquer all rivals and become king of the world. In a tycoon game the goal might be to earn enough money to upgrade the store to the highest level. Or games of this sort may have a campaign structure (accomplish each mission within the time limit or other restrictions given) or a long-term time limit such as a year of game time by which a player must accomplish one or more long-term objectives (make X money, collect Y symbols of accomplishment, pick one of 6 large scale goals and accomplish it, breed or train a max level pet, etc.)
A Tale in the Desert has no combat, but it does have a leveling system in that being able to gather or produce a new material allows the player to build new objects, and those in turn allow the player to gather or produce more new materials. There's a secondary system alternating achievements with skills - you have to accomplish a checklist of achievements to unlock learning a new set of skills, which in turn come with a new checklist of achievements.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
Developing, creating, and collaborating can help to give cycles more justification. In a rhythm game like Guitar Hero, you constantly work on developing your skill as a player. That skill has a tangible quality, as opposed to face-rolling the same rotation with the same amount of skill and interaction for the duration of loot grinding.
A composer develops musical skill, and that cycle of advancement progressively produces work. So the results of a cycle can actually be creation. In the case of most games that would come in the form of a higher score of some sort.
Giving the cycle a context and value that is not completely based on your own perception can also help a lot. When you collaborate or do something with someone else in the picture, you effectively transfer the question of "what's the point--so now what?" to the other person. For example when you are helping someone clean, you don't question the integrity of it, the questioning of the integrity of needing to clean can be transferred to the other person cleaning, and for all intents and purposes both participants could be directing this perception at eachother. An act that has no basis can gain a basis by the fact that it is a group effort, and as far as each participant is aware, someone else has some logic/passion/motivation/meaning behind doing it.
The problem with most cycles in games, as far as I see, is that they tend to deal with self advancement, with "winning", so the justification is very limited. When you ask yourself "what's the point of winning", or, after you win ask "so, now what?", most often you get the answer "win more!"
