A Retort to Guidelines RPGs Should Follow

by Tony Patino 

To impose guidelines on any genre of game and proclaim that 'All games of stated genre must do this or be thrown into the pits of Hell!' is a wrongheaded notion that completely ignores the factor of personal taste. I will point out how almost all the guidelines set forth in Justin Brown's "Guidelines RPGs Should Follow" would not be healthy for the market, or for gamers in general.

* No RPG should have more than 25% of its total length devoted to character building. Most players don't like spending hours upon hours building their characters to be strong enough to defeat a certain enemy, only to find the story in the game is not as long as stated.

Wizardry is a series based almost entirely on random battles. Many people like this series as is evidenced by the number of sequels. to say that games should not concentrate on level building would deny fans of RPG combat their favored style of game.

* No enemy character in an RPG should have spells or abilities the player cannot get. All RPGs have it where the enemy is able to block your escape from a battle, but you cannot block theirs. And some enemy bosses have spells which the player cannot get (ex: Chrono Trigger, Hallunation or Skygate Lightning used by the enemy character Queen Zeal.)

This does not take into account that bosses are bosses for a reason. Usually that reason can be traced back to a dreaded power or ability the boss has.

Perhaps it is a technique the enemy worked hard to perfect. Why would the they teach the technique to their enemies (the players)? Why should you learn an enemy's technique by defeating them? The characters are not amoeba, and do not learn from osmosis... Though, that may be an interesting premise to see made into a game one day.

* No RPG should have an overtly complex set of rules for getting the best rewards or endings (worst offender of this rule is Ogre Battle.) RPGs should NOT be restricted to expert gamers.

This is only offensive if that sort of thing offends you. I like the amount of thought and depth put into the story of Ogre Battle (and Tactics Ogre) This would only serve to please people who like to get the best ending right off and never have to look back for the 'lesser' ones. And the statement that RPGs should not be restricted to expert gamers, while not outwardly wrong, is a foolish statement because of it's implications. It implies that NO RPG should be advanced or expert in level. I enjoy a good challenge, and would prefer to see more expert level games. What the author fails to mention is the death of easy games like Suikoden, Final Fantasy 7 and the Breath of Fire series, among others.

* No RPG should punish players for character building(ex: Ogre Battle.) No player likes to spend a lot of time building a character(s) only to find their efforts were for naught.

This goes completely against the first guideline. One way of preventing excessive leveling is punishment of it. I was never offended by Ogre Battle's alignment system, and thought it was a good idea.

* No RPG should have enemy characters build levels to stay ahead of you (ex: 7th Saga.) Nobody likes an enemy who is impossible to defeat.

In the example given, the other apprentices weren't hard because they kept up with you in levels. They were hard because they had unlimited MP and unlimited access to power healing items. I retort with Tactics Ogre. The enemy's levels increase with yours to encourage you to use the classes effectively rather than level up and gimmick your way to safety.

* No RPG should have stories or enemies who are in poor taste(ex: Final Fantasy 3's Kefka was the worst villain I had ever seen, I don't mean the worst as in the best villain, but the worst as in the worst taste.)

And who should be the one to judge what is in good taste for an RPG? This guideline treads very dangerous ground.

* Every RPG should have a system explaining the use of spells and items (ex: Final Fantasy Tactics) because not every game has the instruction manual.

I cannot, nor would I want to argue against this one. It's a good Idea.

* Unavoidable enemy encounters in a game is totally unacceptable. Too many games have this problem. Its disadvantages far outweigh the advantages and it is more annoying than enjoyable. No player enjoys trying to get their badly wounded characters back to safety only to run into a random enemy encounter from which they cannot escape.

I feel that proper planning and equipment should negate this problem.

* No RPG should have irreversible choices which the wrong choice could force players to either reset the game or start a new game all over(Ogre Battle again is the worst offender of this guideline.)

This is totally inapplicable to Ogre Battle. None of the story choices force you to start over. You only need to start over if you're looking for the good ending so you can put the game aside and move on to another. The only time I ever had to start over in Ogre Battle was because of poor tactical choices. I feel that is an honest reason to start over.

These kinds of guidelines, while they may please the author, are ultimately unhealthy in practice and likely to drive many (like myself) away from the genre. The guidelines limit the creativity and freedom of the designers, and the choices of consumers at large.