How to make a Web-based RPG FUN?

Are you specifically talking about a turn-based or casual game? Because there are actually web-based versions of some standard real-time 3D WoW-like MMOs. Earth Eternal is one example. ZOMG is a 2D MMO which is web-based, I believe it is a Flash application, like many webgames. As I understand it, rolling a game as a downloadable client is mainly for speed (cashing image and sound resources locally) and security.

I'm asking for clarification because Farmville and Evony aren't RPGs, and I'm not sure what sort of game you're really trying to make, so that makes it difficult to make suggestions. If I was just going to recommend something out of the blue that would be casual-friendly, I'd suggest a forum with a minigame collection like Neopets has, but give the player a human avatar they can buy clothing to dress up like Gaia Online has, and use the pets as Pokemon-like-monsters for the players to battle, capture, collect (set completion quests/rewards), trade, and race. The minigames could include farming sim activities like Harvest Moon or Farmville. Another good minigame option is a trading card game like Elements. Then of course the standard selection of speedpuzzle, shmup, platformer, fighter and solitaire can all fit in; the minigames exist to give the player non-combat ways to spend their time and earn game gold and unique resources, as well as high score trophies. If you didn't want to go in that direction, then I'd suggest a 2D MMO like Dofus, Maplestory, or ZOMG.

I'm specifically talking about games that run natively in a browser (NOT using a plug-in like Flash). Turn-based games make a lot of sense in such an environment, but with Ajax and &#106avascript real-time games aren't entirely out of the question.<br><br>Point is I'm referring specifically to games that work off of standard web technologies: XHTML, CSS, &#106avascript, and a back-end server platform (PHP, JSP, ASP, whatever).<br><br>Strategy, RPG, Adventure -- it doesn't matter, the point is, how would you break out of the cycle of repetitive/addicting gameplay and make a game that's actually interesting in it's own right?<br><br>Edit: By the way, sunandshadow, I'm pleased to see you're still around after all these years! :)

Haha, didn't you know? When they make you a moderator they shackle you to your computer. [grin] "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."

Personally I consider flash as much a part of my browser as &#106avascript, but ok.<br/><br/>Here are some main goals your game might have, these are the things people keep playing for. Which of them interest you?<br/><br/>1. Player progresses through an overall linear story and probably must unlock access to each new area of the game (like a jRPG), or several smaller independent linear stories (i.e. quests).<br/><br/>2. Player accumulates XP to earn levels to get stat points and access to higher levels of spells, enabling the killing of higher level monsters and higher-level pvp performance.<br/><br/>3. Player accumulates money to shop for a large supply of vanity items (clothing, mounts, house, car, etc.)<br/><br/>4. Player accumulates in-game possessions which are equal to combat or crafting power, especially items which cannot be bought - this includes land, buildings, livestock, crops, machinery for automating sim play, pet monsters, mounts which function in a competitive way (combat or racing), epic gear, and less functional/more vanity items like palaces, monuments, possibly in-game children or otherwise 'owned' npcs. This also includes less tangible possessions such as faction reputation and relationships with individual NPCs.<br/><br/>5. Player collects objects as combat and minigame rewards, player has some sort of way to display their collections to other players, and player is rewarded for completing sets.<br/><br/>6. Players compete on a more-or-less equal footing for pvp rankings (non-level-based pvp arena). Ditto for minigame high scores/trophies/achievements.<br/><br/>7. Players are community members who socialize in public forums and possibly also in private forums.<br/><br/><br/>Theoretically an MMO can include all of these goals but from a design point of view it's best to focus on one or two, you can add more later.

Check out Supremacy 1914.

Of all browser games I have tried, it is the only one that I have enjoyed. I think the key is smaller servers/games/realms. Browser games usually focus on the social aspect, but if there is 1000+ in a single server it is hard to get to know people. The max in S1914 is 31/32 and not communicating will get you destroyed.

In a current game I am Morroco. There was a guy playing French West Africa and I, being a newb, attacked him. I negotiated the support of West Algiers in return for a shitloada oil. We won, and had fun, because we used to social aspect in game. Later I attacked and destroyed Greece as part of an alliance pact with the Ottomans. We had fun and mashed him(virtual highfive!) , he got crushed.

In short, have a social aspect but make reasons in game to talk and negotiate. No one makes friends by coming up and saying 'Hi! Wanna be friends?'. You socialise by saying 'Wanna beat-up Greece? He's a dick.' Only AFTER that can you connect and join each other's horse-porn group/ South American drug cartel.

Try not to do this like facebook games though. It shouldnt be forced, it should be natural and obvious.

-----------------------------

I just realised this post was pretty useless, and mostly a plug for S1914. I'll post anyway, there may be something of use.

Don't you mean how to make RPG's FUN?
It really doesn't matter what technology you use where it pure web,flash,or an actual application other, then some particular quirks they can have
Most web games don't care that much about gameplay being fun just like most MMOs don't care about them being fun
If the technology supports it there is nothing stopping you from making FF7 in a web browser,and if it doesn't find ways to go around it

"How to make a Web-based RPG FUN?"

Don't make web-based RPGs.

If I attempted to make a good RPG, I'd start by hiding every last character, enemy and environment stat and skill level from the player. I'd try to give the players a view of the world through the lens of their character. You would not be told you have "swimming level 4"; you would know your character is "pretty sure" of herself to be a "good swimmer". You would not be told the creature facing you is a "level 3 vegetarian lizard"; you would know your biology-ignorant character thinks it's "maybe a dragon" and "seems incredibly dangerous". Various game events and experiences would not only change the character and the world, but also the character's understanding.

I would embrace uncertainty and not spell out everything. Some things would become known to the player through evidence which discounts other possibilities. When the player would make a (correct) judgment of a situation and react to it by making a great sacrifice, the game wouldn't always give them complete confidence that they were correct. The player would be allowed to be badly mistaken and act based on it as well. I would have NPCs occasionally lie to the player for a variety of reasons, none of which is "because the NPC is secretly evil and will soon grow a mustache and explain their master plan". The player would be capable of uncovering the truth behind most situations, but not all of them. Sometimes learning the truth would have a great price tag and no material benefit. Actually, many, many things in the game would not have a material benefit.

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari If I attempted to make a good RPG, I'd start by hiding every last character, enemy and environment stat and skill level from the player. I'd try to give the players a view of the world through the lens of their character. You would not be told you have "swimming level 4"; you would know your character is "pretty sure" of herself to be a "good swimmer". You would not be told the creature facing you is a "level 3 vegetarian lizard"; you would know your biology-ignorant character thinks it's "maybe a dragon" and "seems incredibly dangerous". Various game events and experiences would not only change the character and the world, but also the character's understanding. I would embrace uncertainty and not spell out everything. Some things would become known to the player through evidence which discounts other possibilities. When the player would make a (correct) judgment of a situation and react to it by making a great sacrifice, the game wouldn't always give them complete confidence that they were correct. The player would be allowed to be badly mistaken and act based on it as well. I would have NPCs occasionally lie to the player for a variety of reasons, none of which is "because the NPC is secretly evil and will soon grow a mustache and explain their master plan". The player would be capable of uncovering the truth behind most situations, but not all of them. Sometimes learning the truth would have a great price tag and no material benefit. Actually, many, many things in the game would not have a material benefit.

I agree with this completely although it'd work better as a single-player RPG than a web based one, I reckon.

Quote:

Original post by MeshGearFox I agree with this completely although it'd work better as a single-player RPG than a web based one, I reckon.

Why would that be? I would think these measures work for both but are even more important for the multiplayer game because multiplayer is typically infested with numerical minmaxing and power-gaming. All of which is fine in an action or strategy game - which includes most games falsely called "RPGs" - but death knell to roleplaying.

The limited information, perception and deception stuff obviously becomes stronger when there are flesh-and-blood brains behind other characters. While with a NPC you could have a scripted, not-entirely-wooden interaction where you dig out information they have tried to hide from you, with a human being you can be the one trying to do the hiding. Conflicting secret goals, motivations and histories FTW.

Quote:

Orriginal post: Stroppy Katamari If I attempted to make a good RPG, I'd start by hiding every last character, enemy and environment stat and skill level from the player.

I sort of agree with this.

Hiding these stats, for certain types of players, is a good thing and helps them get emersed into the game world, but there are other players that like the stats to be visible. I think a solution to this is to have a default where the stats are hidden, but allow player the ability to reveal the stats if they want them.

This can be an explicit thing like a button that says "reveal underlying stats", or it can be by using predefined phrases to mark each level (without an effort to obfuscate it). This way, the predefined phrases act as stats to players who want that knowledge, but to players that don't want to delve in too deep to the mechanics can just use the superficial phrase to guide them in their characterisations.

For example:

If the game had 5 levels of stat with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest you could have:
1 = Pathetic
2 = Poor
3 = Average
4 = Above average
5 = Excelent

So a player that wanted to know their jump skill, they might have that reported as: An average jumping ability to indicate a stat of Jumping = 3.

This way it caters to both types of player without excluding either of them.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Quote: Orriginal post: Stroppy Katamari If I attempted to make a good RPG, I'd start by hiding every last character, enemy and environment stat and skill level from the player. I sort of agree with this. Hiding these stats, for certain types of players, is a good thing and helps them get emersed into the game world, but there are other players that like the stats to be visible. I think a solution to this is to have a default where the stats are hidden, but allow player the ability to reveal the stats if they want them.

That misses the point of my suggestion entirely. It is not some user interface nicety, but specifically aimed at preventing the player from receiving absolute information their character would not have. It guides the player into their role and cuts down on powergaming. Such limited information also generally makes the world feel larger, more alive, less mechanistic.

Suppose you (= your character) think you are a great swimmer. Therefore, you decide to sign up for a swimming contest. You lose miserably. It turns out you thought you were great because you were the best swimmer in your village, but everyone else there was really bad; after this event you will believe yourself to be an average swimmer. This is an example of character development without the actual skill stat even changing.

Actually the swimming analogy proves my point. If I am a good swimmer, then I know I am a good swimmer because I can see my own ability. Sure, there might be better swimmers than me and I don't know their abilities (ie I can't see their stats), so I don't actually know when entering a competition that I am as good as the competetors I am up against, but I certainly would know my own abilities.

For instance a conversation might go like this:

In real life
Person 1: I can swim 100 meters in 30 seconds.
Person 2: Well I can onyl swim it in 50 seconds, you are obviously a better wimmer than me.

In a game (stat version):
Player 1: I have a level 7 swimming skill.
Player 2: I only have a levle 5 swimming skill, you are obviously a better swimmer than me.

In a game (phrase stand in for stats):
Player 1: I have a great swimming ability.
Player 2: I only havee an average swimming ability, you are obviously a better swimmer than me.

Can you see now how it works? I can, in real life know my own swimming ability based on how long it takes me to swim say 100 meters. This can be translated into some kind of stat, or just a stat phrase stand-in.

As it is possible, in real life to know how skillful you are at something, then why not allow it in a game?

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan In real life Person 1: I can swim 100 meters in 30 seconds. Person 2: Well I can onyl swim it in 50 seconds, you are obviously a better wimmer than me. In a game (stat version): Player 1: I have a level 7 swimming skill. Player 2: I only have a levle 5 swimming skill, you are obviously a better swimmer than me. In a game (phrase stand in for stats): Player 1: I have a great swimming ability. Player 2: I only havee an average swimming ability, you are obviously a better swimmer than me. Can you see now how it works? I can, in real life know my own swimming ability based on how long it takes me to swim say 100 meters. This can be translated into some kind of stat, or just a stat phrase stand-in. As it is possible, in real life to know how skillful you are at something, then why not allow it in a game?

There cannot be a direct translation from the real life version of meters per second to the stat version of levels or to the phrase stand in version. Speed is an absolute measurement, but the stat version is inherently relative. It is meaningless to tell the player they are level 7 at anything unless you have already told the player for example that the maximum level is 100, the minimum level is 1, and that the learning curve is linear/logarithmic/etc with respect to the number of meters the player has swum. (Which as you both recognise is quite boring, and as I'm suggesting, is also artificial.)

In which case, you are both wrong, because you both assume it makes sense to say "I am this good at something" without having first defined the scale of goodness.

The only thing that makes sense and which might be a solution to the problem, is to say "my top swimming speed is 3 m/s in calm water" or "my swimming endurance at top speed is 1 minute" etc, or better yet to have mathematical relations between endurance depletion (available muscle energy), swimming speed, and water roughness, etc etc. These would of course be hidden from the player except to show them an endurance pool and speedometer. The player would have an idea of how skillful they are, as they would in real life, by testing themselves under certain conditions, to see how fast their endurance pool runs out under certain swimming tests, and how fast they can complete those tests, and how well they perform those tests when compared to other people. This would mirror real life quite well, and would much more interesting for the player than a simple "I am level 70 swimmer, hurr durr" or "I am a great swimmer, hurr durr".

For me an RPG shines when there is a great dungeon master. In other words: a good and well-told story. As soon as it becomes a grinding RPG, I am out.

Stats and such are just there to drive your quest for leveling up. A player needs a goal. But for me that is not reaching level 42 but unfolding a story in which I play a part and (have the illusion that I) can influence the outcome. The latter part is very important; if that isn't possible I'd rather read a book. And when the story only continues after I solved the puzzle or killed a gazillion bugs I am out too, I don't like to be stuck on page 20. The story should continue even when I do not solve the puzzle or kill the bugs.

Quote:

Don't you mean how to make RPG's FUN? It really doesn't matter what technology you use where it pure web,flash,or an actual application other, then some particular quirks they can have Most web games don't care that much about gameplay being fun just like most MMOs don't care about them being fun If the technology supports it there is nothing stopping you from making FF7 in a web browser,and if it doesn't find ways to go around it

But that is exactly what he is asking for... what is the fun element you find on a web-based game. I believe he is not worried in technology and he does not aim in doing another addicting "stupid-like" game, but he wants to make a really fun and more challenging game!

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari If I attempted to make a good RPG, I'd start by hiding every last character, enemy and environment stat and skill level from the player. I'd try to give the players a view of the world through the lens of their character. You would not be told you have "swimming level 4"; you would know your character is "pretty sure" of herself to be a "good swimmer". You would not be told the creature facing you is a "level 3 vegetarian lizard"; you would know your biology-ignorant character thinks it's "maybe a dragon" and "seems incredibly dangerous". Various game events and experiences would not only change the character and the world, but also the character's understanding. I would embrace uncertainty and not spell out everything. Some things would become known to the player through evidence which discounts other possibilities. When the player would make a (correct) judgment of a situation and react to it by making a great sacrifice, the game wouldn't always give them complete confidence that they were correct. The player would be allowed to be badly mistaken and act based on it as well. I would have NPCs occasionally lie to the player for a variety of reasons, none of which is "because the NPC is secretly evil and will soon grow a mustache and explain their master plan". The player would be capable of uncovering the truth behind most situations, but not all of them. Sometimes learning the truth would have a great price tag and no material benefit. Actually, many, many things in the game would not have a material benefit.

That is the exact definition of a role-playing game. You probably play Dungeons&Dragons or GURPS or another paper-dice-based game. If you don't, you SHOULD!

Now going to my answer:
I think that a person that is looking to play a game online directly on the web, without having to worry about downloading and installing extra content and stuff, is actually looking for a more casual gameplay than a full challenging adventure one.

I like to divide the fun web games in 2 categories:
1) Flash based games, that runs smoothly with peculiar graphics, and has a direct objective for the player. By reading only a single screen of instructions the player is able to be a master on it, by simpling playing over and over the same steps.

2) Games based on personalization of the character and/or its cards, decks, items. I will cite 2 games here, and I think they describe it most: PoxNora, MyBrute.
PoxNora allows you to control your faction of monsters and magic on a turn-based system in which you can play 1vs1 player. Besides it allows you to raise the level of your monsters and magic and also compose your deck by buying additional pieces.
MyBrute is a very interesting game. You don't do a thing on this game... you only have to give a name to your character and it randomly fights other players characters (whithout your control over the attacks, or weapons to use). The thing in this game that made a lot of people play it.. is that you can get random itens when you level up, and you get pretty excited by luckly winning or loosing a fight (not depending on your poor skills).

Sorry for my long message... I think I got into the theme! :)

Quote:

Original post by forsandifs There cannot be a direct translation from the real life version of meters per second to the stat version of levels or to the phrase stand in version. Speed is an absolute measurement, but the stat version is inherently relative. It is meaningless to tell the player they are level 7 at anything unless you have already told the player for example that the maximum level is 100, the minimum level is 1, and that the learning curve is linear/logarithmic/etc with respect to the number of meters the player has swum. (Which as you both recognise is quite boring, and as I'm suggesting, is also artificial.)

And yet, the players will have all that information you say they need to make sense of the stats. It is only if you hid the stats that the players loose this ability to extract any meaning from their characters stats. Your argument actually supports my postion.

Quote:

Original post by forsandifs In which case, you are both wrong, because you both assume it makes sense to say "I am this good at something" without having first defined the scale of goodness.

And that is why you have to give the players that information. Hiding stats just removes this ability of players to make sense of their characters.

Quote:

Original post by forsandifs The only thing that makes sense and which might be a solution to the problem, is to say "my top swimming speed is 3 m/s in calm water" or "my swimming endurance at top speed is 1 minute" etc, or better yet to have mathematical relations between endurance depletion (available muscle energy), swimming speed, and water roughness, etc etc. These would of course be hidden from the player except to show them an endurance pool and speedometer. The player would have an idea of how skillful they are, as they would in real life, by testing themselves under certain conditions, to see how fast their endurance pool runs out under certain swimming tests, and how fast they can complete those tests, and how well they perform those tests when compared to other people. This would mirror real life quite well, and would much more interesting for the player than a simple "I am level 70 swimmer, hurr durr" or "I am a great swimmer, hurr durr".

So two stats:
Swimming and Endurance would staify your. Yes, I didn't include endurance as I was not trying to describe a complete system, only trying to describe the reasoning behind why hiding stats does not actually improve the player experience for all players (it does only to a small subset of players and causes other to leave due to bad game feedback). I was trying to develop a system that would be useabel by all types of players.

In my system players who don't want too much stat detail don't need to look too deeply at their chatacter descriptions and won't get the "stat numbers" that other players who do want to know these things can get. It removes the obviousness of stats while still allowing players to get access to them if they want.

When I play an RPG and I need to choose between two swords that both "Has a chance to inflict lightning damage", I want to see the actual percentage, because I know that the game has that number. I am not going to try doing experiments to figure out which is more potent. If the expects me to figure that out myself, I would play a game that shows the numbers.

Having that said, I also understand Stroppy Katamari's emphasis on perception. He means that when the player reads the bio of a character, the player should only be able to read what the character's perception of himself.

If the character is meticulous and quantified his own stats, then the bio might have stats. The point is that the character, not the player, must have the interest and ability to do so. It is not about how much the player has studied the character, but how much the character has studied himself.

Quote:

I was trying to develop a system that would be useabel by all types of players.

I don't know whether this can work. Imagine a game where population A are the role-players and they play according to the perceptions of the characters, and population B are the RPGers and they play knowing the actual stats:

1) When an RPer talks to an RPGer, the RPGer doesn't talk back. That isn't fun for teh RPer and it has nothing to do with whether you show stats or not.
2) When an RPGer does reply, they may tell the RPer information that the RPer doesn't want to hear like, "Wow, that sword does 20 dps."
3) The RPGer may not be replying, he might just be having a bazaar: "20 dps sword for sale!"

So if you are an RPer, would you play in that game? Or would you choose a game where RPGers won't play because of various anti-RPGer features, such as hidden stats?

1) Don't make a world too large to cause a direct competetion with the giants, or you'll lose. Make a smaller but fun enough world. Make a more open world in a way.

2) make quests find players instead of players find guests
3) make groups find individuals instead of individuals find groups

4) slow paced instead of hack'n slash
5) a slower but more tactical combat system

Quote:

Original post by Wai When I play an RPG and I need to choose between two swords that both "Has a chance to inflict lightning damage", I want to see the actual percentage, because I know that the game has that number. I am not going to try doing experiments to figure out which is more potent. If the expects me to figure that out myself, I would play a game that shows the numbers.

When it comes to a sword that creates lightning, I think the important stuff for roleplaying would be what the sword is, what it does, how it came to be where you got it, if it has some significance for the future. If your character compares it with a previous sword, maybe one of them feels like it has better balance but is a bit heavy to swing; that's in-role information. Plenty of basis for making decisions without consulting an Excel spreadsheet.

Quote:

Having that said, I also understand Stroppy Katamari's emphasis on perception. He means that when the player reads the bio of a character, the player should only be able to read what the character's perception of himself. If the character is meticulous and quantified his own stats, then the bio might have stats. The point is that the character, not the player, must have the interest and ability to do so. It is not about how much the player has studied the character, but how much the character has studied himself.

That would be true for the information the character comes with. After the character is in control of the player, the player and character are one. If the player thinks it's appropriate for the character to seek better information, then the character will seek better information. A key point is that information would usually not be free. Testing most things takes some time and resources. Choosing to poke around with something insignificant would result in the character missing opportunities and events elsewhere. Then there are some things that are inherently risky to test (dodging arrows), some that are inherently damaging to test (wound recovery) while others cannot be tested exhaustively (sword dueling).

The game could even not have stats at all. The same principles stand. Information in the world should optimally only be known to the player if the character is capable of knowing it.