Is level scaling in RPGs a good or a bad thing?

>>387059263
As in bring a characters level down to fit the area? Its a good thing

>>387059263
Depends. I prefer capped list scaling the way Morrowind did it, for example.

It depends on how it's done.

If it leads to weaker enemies magically vanishing and being completely replaced with stronger enemies that somehow magically show up everywhere then it's bad.

If it leads to run-of-the-mill bandits acquiring rare armor and gear then it's also bad

>>387059263
There's no sense of danger or risk. The game will never put me in a situation the average player can't handle.

it's a very neutral thing

>>387059263
I really hated Grimdawn for that. Also some of the NFS games.

>>387059263
Lunar: Dragon Song

There's your answer.

>>387059263
Is it open ended or does it have a definite end?
Essential if open ended and not necessary if definite end.

>>387059263
oblivion/skyrim/moden fallout level scaling = bad
level scaling where you get aditional enemies up until a certain level is the right way to do level scaling not adding affixes to enemies and increasing their hp and damage
also this>>387059552

>>387059792

i dont get it

>>387059263
Because running into bandits or other supposed weaker enemies with endgame armor is amazing.

>>387059938
Play the game or read up on it.

>>387059792
It's not a fair example, the game was dogshit on all levels imaginable.

I guess if you are doing it for very specific enemies with very clear reasons as to why they are getting stronger as you are, like the sith assassins in kotor 2, it's "ok".

All other cases that I imagine are bad.

When are game developers actually start improving difficulty by changing the enemies AI and attack patterns instead of just changing enemies HP and attack

File: 1499310014385.jpg (55KB, 499x562px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 499x562px

>>387059263
Because it utterly destroys the point of exploration
>see monster you've never encountered
>instantly know you can kill it
>never feel like you are getting any stronger because your ability to fight enemies always stays exactly the same
the fucking worst is level-scaled loot, exploration in Fallout 3, Oblivion and Skyrim is pointless because you never find anything cool or good. Say what you will about the Souls games but they have the perfect idea of item placement, you always explore everywhere because the world is littered with unique weapons and armor.

>>387059263
>enemy x should always cost the player the same amout of time/effort to beat, no matter how high he is.
I think it's stupid

>>387060370
IDK fag when are you going to become the commander in chief of your country instead of posting on a Jangladesh Sanskrit trading website?

One is a whole lot fucking harder to do.

The answer, just like for you, is when game developers really give a fuck, have the skill and experience, and are given or able to take power/money to get them to work hard.

>>387059263
level scaling is too easily cheesed, it discourages enemy encounters/exploration, and has to be in tandem with another system or the game would have no progression at all, usually breaking it further

t. Someone who just beat FF8

>>387059263
I have NEVER seen it done well, ever. It's always a negative.

>>387059263
It's made for people who don't actually like RPGs.

>>387059263
It usually leads to the optimal game plan being to avoid fights and letting your equipment destroy everything as you progress. Leveling becomes detrimental rather than making you stronger, which is the opposite of what you want leveling to be.

>>387060974
>I have NEVER seen it done well, ever.
The key word here is seen. It's good when you don't notice it happening. As some anons have said. Morrowind does it well. Maybe you're saying even Morrowind's implementation isn't done well, though.

File: 1502650116700.jpg (216KB, 998x1108px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 998x1108px

>>387059887
Fallout 4 doesn't have much level scaling, Fallout 3 and new vegas don't have that bad level scaling anyway.

>>387061105
FUCK I remember avoiding level-ups in Oblivion for this reason. Skill-ups were fantastic improvements. Level-ups were just trash.

>>387060974
What are some of your favourite open world games?

its a pretty shitty design philosophy.

in FFXI for example, the most fun part of playing with my friend is going as far as we can and fighting enemies that are challenging but don't instantly wreck us.

Because it doesn't make any sense and breaks immersion.

If enemy scaling was done based on absolute time played, that would make sense.
While you're doing your own various adventures and skills, so are all the other heroes, villains, monsters, etc. That makes sense.


But saying that all of those other entities change, when you change?
It's basically how a toddler views the world, in that there is no world, just them.
Which is also why your average gamer is usually okay with it, because they already have that perspective in real life.

>>387059263
It's good, D&D PnP has level scaling for a reason. The problem is that level scaling is implemented poorly most of the time.

>>387060332
Several problems were a result of trying to compensate for said level scaling.

That said, having bosses scale after you reach certain thresholds is a great mechanic that stops grinding/completionism from ruining a game.

Level scaling is the only downside with Oblivion and Skyrim. The reason why Morrowind was so GOAT was due to having access to everything and all types of enemies the moment the game started. it gives you more of an adrenaline rush and more of a challenge

>>387060936
I think FF8 had a nice idea with the higher level enemies giving the player access to draw more powerful magic from them, but ultimately the level scaling was still bad since staying low leveled makes everything much easier.

>>387061619
> D&D PnP has level scaling for a reason
wich version and how is it implemented? I always seen all encounters being left to the DM to decide.

>>387061750
>Morrowind was GOAT due to having access to everything and all types of enemies

It has the same system in Skyrim, except Skyrim's more in depth and robust.

Morrowind simply has level lists. Skyrim has level lists with some minor scaling adjustments within those ranges. There are still plenty of high level zones to stop low level characters from accessing them. While you get stronger as well, a lot of the low level enemies are still retained in the game to give you a sense of progression.

Skyrim does have shitty item scaling though, but nowhere near as bad as Oblivion.

positive: let's the player experience an open world in a fully nonlinear way
negative: everything else

>>387061939
It's called the challenge rating system that's been used since forever.

CR gives you an idea of what's required for an easy, medium, or difficult encounter.

>>387059263
Because it's stupid, doesn't make any sense and what's the point in getting stronger if you don't actually get stronger?

>>387059263
Level scaling as a mechanic is bad, but some sort of difficulty curve is needed. These are not contradictory.

In an RPG, it's important for you to be punished or rewarded by sliding up or down within the difficulty curve as a result of your choices or employment of strategy, so it the game equalizes your level too perfectly it disrupts the balance of a pleasant difficulty curve.
Unless the game bases the progression more around other mechanics like the economy or something like that, level scaling the probably not well suited.

>>387061969
Its about the items though, in morrowind you can't just loot daedric stuff off of enemies at a high level, there are set locations and they can be gotten early because it isn't scaled, all of the most overpowered artefacts are there from the beginning of the game, when a quest is done the reward weapons aren't level scaled.

>>387059263

Characters should be under threat of dying at any time
And RPGs need to realise the average campaign can be beaten in a very short timespan, either weeks for fantasy no-brakes pace or months for stuff like Cyberpunk where lifestyles and consolidation of power will slow progression. Considering the idea of characters "only being level 1" no matter their age when they start, and max level only about a few years later, it's honestly better to make the player (and party) a collection of characters that get placed into a situation by fate and the focus on the world giving them reinforcement to get the job done (including total replacement of those characters) or starting a new campaign entirely.

Levels are mostly to keep RPG characters around way longer than they reasonably need to be. A video game can only contain a single campaign without UGC or expansions so it should focus on the mechanics giving you a relatively short run and then stopping without making things harder to balance for no reason.

>>387059263
>Be high level
>Quest: "Please kill the rats in my basement!"
>Rats cast magic and wear legendary items

>>387059263
>Scale enemy level to match you:
Pro: All areas and encounters theoretically remain worth exploring
Con: No sense of progress as things always pose roughly the same threat
Con: Two-bit thugs almost as strong as a legendary dragon
Con: Often has poorly skewed results, enemies could be comparatively over/underpowered based on your build
>Alternate, scaling up enemies to the average of your team
Pro: Low level character may get quickly boosted and get good loot
Con: Underleveled characters get destroyed when the characters' level difference is high

>Scale strong character down to area/party
Pro: Arguably the best way to allow veterans to team up with newbies
Pro/Con: Despite being toned down, you're still probably still overpowering the enemies
Con: Area is usually irrelevant after growing stronger than that area when it comes to loot and experience unless the area does some of its own scaling when it comes to rewards

>>387060704
this

>>387062217
>It's about the items though
That's item scaling not level scaling though. Those are entirely different systems governed by different mechanics.

>>387062217
>ywn be level 8 stealing a 30,000 glass longsword and getting away with it

>>387059694
Hate to make a 'this' post but, yea. When I go to a dungeon or a cave or whatever, if I'm too low lvl I want to get wrecked,

>>387062052
This is hardly "level scaling", you can just ignore it. It just means that if you PLAN on putting the party to fight an encounter in the beggining that you don't want to wipe them out or to be trivial, to be used as guide lines.
At the end of the day in many ways a P&P campaing looks more like a linear (even if confused) story than an open world non linear game. It's nonsense in a linear game put a very strong boss in the beggining and expect the party to win.

This however doesn't mean that you can't put very dangerous creatures near to where the party was, and make it clear to them, and let them be wiped if they still try to fight.

Or if they are high levels and want to try to fight in someplace that doesn't make sense to have strong enemies, make all fights easy.

To follow this guidelines always without thinking about it properly would just let to a stupid game. The same is valid when you take such philosophy to a video-game.

>>387059263
It's extremely bad for the exact same reason procedural generation is in RPGs. It's immersion breaking and it disinclines the creators from making tailored gameplay/writing/experiences.

>>387062659
You realize -all- D&D mechanics are simply guidelines because everything is optional, correct?

It's a system involved that controls the challenge of fights and scales appropriately to the party size and level. It's level scaling.

>>387059263
It literaly makes level ups, skills and exp pointless.
You better off making a action game at that point.

Bad. If it scales improperly you can be fucked, and you miss the challenge of having low XP and taking something on.

>>387062881
Yes. What I'm saying is that to follow this guidelines too much would be disastrous. A game to be good would require a GM to know when don't follow them.

It's much more difficult to implement the abilities of judment of a good DM in a video-game, and simply following them is also disastrous in a video-game.

>>387062881

Technically all PnP is optional
But DnD is less optional that others if you take it as it is. Without homebrewing, it's much more inflexible and linear because of the amount of writing and details placed into an adventure/splat book that you pay money for (as it's the entire economy that WotC rely on to still exist outside of MtG).

More "rules only" stuff like GURPs or whatever yeah, it's all entirely down to DM. At that point you may as well be just designing a really early access video game just for you and friends.

How does /v/ feel about stuff like The Last Remnant with its Battle Rank?

>>387059263
Depends on how its handled. Games like bethsedas and FF8 do it wrong. Games like SaGa Frontier do it right.

>>387062302
>Rats have built a modern and advanced society based on high tech laser weapons

>>387063216

Absolutely retarded.
I mean, the systems for stuff like that seems really complex and contrived, which only makes the bad gameplay worse since it goes from "not for me" to "or anyone because they forgot to design the fundamentals".
RNG in which unions you hit, or who gets to go first and who DOESN'T use their OHKO arts is bullshit.

Considering like many JRPGs stuff like enemy speed/turns/OHKO is tied into levels (or BRs) this also makes everything terrible even moreso.

>Level Scaling
Everything is worth doing.
>No level scaling
You're just going to progress down a relatively linear path to fight stuff around your level. Everything below your level becomes worthless and everything above your level is virtually unwinnable until you pump up the nonsensical numbers that lets you win.

Doesn't matter whatever the case, Level up systems in RPGs are retarded. Numbers go up arbitrarily for you and enemies and you're always fighting shit that's equal to your strength.

>>387063216
Terrible. You don't grind for the first little bit of the game until you beat those handful of bosses (that would otherwise scale up and become unwinnable), get access to the gear you need and amass a large enough union. Then you can grind to BR99 and be just fine.

>>387063247
If my memory of Saga games is right I think it's the same crap.
What's the difference?

>>387063264
>Rats are actually the secret endgame boss

How about we just get rid of level systems entirely, and let players figure out if something is more difficult by the amount of special attacks it can do?

>>387063416

Also re: TLR, this. The entire game felt like one really stupidly long tutorial, before you're ALLOWED to strategise and prepare. If they just opened up everything in a reasonable time at the start then you can play however you want.

>>387063459

This, mostly. It's for time gating exclusively and for those autism games that wouldn't get judged at all beyond how it fares against other "click it till it dies" games in the same genre.

>>387063435
Most Saga games don't really have levels in the traditional sense. Your characters get stronger depending on the actions you choose and the equipment you give them a lot of times.

File: 1496337750491.png (71KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x600px

>>387059263
its the sign of a lazy dev that cant into level design.

A slice of level scaling to make older content you skipped marginally more difficult is not so bad, IMO, but if I skip the newbie cave and come back to it at level 99 the cave that everyone else saw full of hobo bandits shouldn't be full of hobo bandits decked out in legendary equipment.

File: 1374962543180.gif (1MB, 296x160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 296x160px

I absolutely hate level scaling but allow me to play devils advocate
>Playing Divinity coop with friend
>We get about 75% of the way through the game
>Fucking around in the first town while he sells items
>Find an entire dungeon we completely missed on accident
>Since we are so high level now we just one shot everything
>Boss dies in like 2 turns
>Experience for that whole zone was lame as fuck instead of what i assume would be ball busting to someone who is on level
I guess you could say its our fault for not fully exploring but still static areas can also be bad.

>>387059263
Scaling is bad because it ruins your sense of progression. The solution this, for certain genres, is simple. Zones. Picture this:
>You're level 1.
>Enter a zone designed for level 1-10 characters
>Slay level 1 mobs somewhat easily
>Have a hard fought battle with level 2 mobs
>Realize you're too weak for level 3 mobs, attempt to escape
>Die quickly to anything level 4+

With this system, if you think you're good enough, you could use your skills and strategy to take on enemies that should be able to beat you. This gives battles a feeling of a real struggle. If you feel so inclined, you can go back to lower level areas when your level is high above them and defeat them with ease. This gives you a feeling of power and progression. What was once difficult, is now easier with your increased level.

Running into an enemy you had a hard time fighting at level 1, and them having health scaled to yours at level 10 isn't fun. It feels like you've stagnated. At that point, you need to revamp the idea of what your game is about.

Maybe you shouldn't be gaining numbers, that is, no bonus STR, DEX, INT, HP, MP, none of it. Perhaps your game's level progression should deal solely with new abilities. That way, there's a real reason why every enemy is at your "level" at all times. If you level, and they level, there's no change other than numbers.

File: Let me explain why you are wrong. see, ....png (112KB, 335x295px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 335x295px

am I the only non baka here? here is an example with tentative numbers.

first, level scaling done bad :
enemy 1, 2, 3, etc
>base level 1, 10 hp
>scaled health, level 14, 140 hp
>model applies to all enemies
THIS is bad. no enemy or boss will feel threatening.

now, good level scaling
enemy 1 (trash mob, easy to kill)
>base level 1, 10 hp
>scaled health, level 14, 140 hp
enemy 2
>base level 1, 10 hp
>scaled health, level 14, 255 hp
enemy 3 (for later areas or tougher areas)
>base level 1, 10 hp
>scaled health, level 14, 680 hp
THIS is good scaling. apply the same idea on defense and attack stats. some enemies level up "better" than some, making them always dangerous, and vice versa.

>>387059887
Skyrim's level scaling shouldn't be put in the same tier as Oblivion's, it was handed far better. Enemies scale, but only within a set limit based on their faction, and they are never straight replaced with entirely different higher tier enemies. A group of bandits even when scaled up to their will still have low tier equipment, outside of the bandit chiefs who sometimes have rare stuff.

I don't think Fallout 4 even had any scaling at all, beyond new NPCs rolling in as the story progressed.

>>387063459
Levels work with a lot of numbered systems. Everything from maplestory/dark souls manual stat point placement to fallout 4/borderlands perk systems work on the fact you receive these points from levels. Entire genres would fall apart without the concept of character progression.

if you're talking about leveled enemies, then there are only a small handful of games where the enemy level actually determines anything, and the enemy level is usually just a recommendation for how difficult an encounter should be to the player. hiding this information can be interesting and works in some games, dark souls being a good example, but it is not exactly user-friendly, especially to younger players or those new to the genre.

>>387063435
SaGa games after RS3 have a thing called a battle rank. The last remnant has it too. Battle rank increases based on either how many battles you have or your average HP total depending on the game. Either way it gives an expectancy of your power at that point.

Then the game uses that to alter boss strengths around depending on what they expect you to be at for an area. So say you're in a BR4 location at BR2, the boss will be a bit weaker. On top of that each dungeon has its own BR alterations to make them easier or harder like a minimum or maximum. So a beginning place like the Koorong backstreets has a set -2 BR from yours, a minimum BR of 1 and a cap of 5 or 6. So even if you're endgame tier the enemies there cap at something weaker and the place is always easy. On the flip side a place like the Bio Lab is a minimum BR of 4 and has a +2 on it. So if you're BR2 and go you will encounter BR4 enemies. If you're BR5 you encounter BR7 enemies, etc.

It keeps each dungeon feeling like the devs intended for it to be, either a beginner zone, an average zone or an endgame zone. This is how it works in RS3, frontier 1, RM ps2 and TLR. Just changes between the games. Unlimited had an ecology system which was neat and a whole other mess to explain.

Always shit, all it does is de-incentivize exploration because every kill is making the game harder for yourself.

Dead Island got really carried away with this. You used to be able to take out a bazinga with a couple slashes at the start but once you hit like level 40 you need to pump in multiple assault rifle
>clips
Just to make a dent in a regular ass zombie health bar.

>>387062052
>that's been used since forever.
You mean since 3.0 and with nothing even remotely similar prior. It's also descriptive, not prescriptive, and is dependent on CR ratings actually being accurate, which is only true in one edition of the game.

Classic level up is like going to gym and start lifting. As time goes by you start to lift heavier stuff and visually you will start to look good.

Level scaling is like you go there and, don't matter the weight your trying to lift, you will always have the same difficulty lifting it up. Also you will look the same in the mirror.

File: 1414018168042.gif (2MB, 440x322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 440x322px

>>387059263
>leveling acts as a means of progression
>let's strip that feeling of progression away
I'm sure some anons can name a few games where level scaling isn't retarded like this, but it seems like a self defeating mechanic.

>>387059263
inherently neither. there are shitty implementations of level scaling as well as good ones. depends on the game

best kind of 'scaling' though is alternate skins for previously-encountered monsters imho

>>387064014
>good level scaling
It can be abused by not levelling.

>>387064014
>avoid all fights, never get a level, and the final boss still has only 10hp and is just as easy as the first enemy

>grind excessively and each enemy is not merely slightly stronger, but actually exponentially more powerful then the enemies before it

The best way to play this game is literally to not play it.

>>387059263
levls have two major advantages
you can really feel your character grow stronger, going back to old area and blowing up everything feels good. you can feel the progress.
and adjustable difficulty, you can stay underleveled if you want a challenge, you can grind and over level if you are stuck or wanna feel like a god.

level scaling removes both of these to the point were you might as well not even have levels to begin with

>>387064047
Fallout 4 is actually a perfect example of how the level system is not needed, just make perk points a quest reward.

File: romancing saga 2.jpg (1MB, 2100x1398px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2100x1398px

>>387064206
It's not level scaling since the game doesn't have levels, but enemy power scales with battle rank extremely fast and battle rank increases based on how many encounters you engage in. This means playing like a retard and blindly engaging enemies you can't learn techs from/gain statups from fighting because they're too weak hoses you while engaging enemies that are dangerous to you and actually thinking about what you're doing means you'll have the tools and the stats to keep going.

>>387064501
Fallout was never intended to have levels so it's only killing a sacred cow if you don't know enough about the history of FO1.

>>387064501
Sure, just call the quests 'enemies' and call repeatable quests 'basic mobs' and only give you fractions of a perk point while full quests can be called 'boss monsters' and give you a full point.

>>387059263
It's not bad, I prefer SaGa's Battle Ranks to level scaling but if it's done well it's still a very good way to keep the challenge, more RPGs should use Battle Ranks, the last SaGa game tried out level scaling in its own way and it was implemented pretty well.

I completely understand why people don't like level scaling in Morrowind or Oblivion, but the problem in those games is that the general combat design is garbage, level scaling per se is not a bad design idea but it's very hard to do correctly.
>>387063435
SaGa games use Battle Ranks, which means that the enemies you encounter are completely different the stronger you get, some games add system ecology on top of that so you can force entire species and races to evolve by altering the food chain, or also bring some other species to the brink of extinction.
SaGa games also don't have levels but rather specializations in either stats or proficiencies, that helps making the Battle Ranks work as good as it does.

>>387064154
>You mean since 3.0
So yeah nearly 2 fucking decades you retard.

>>387061750
Except after level 20 the game was piss easy and nothing offered any sort of challenge.
It became a walking sim at that point.

Having a game become boring 20 hours in is an odd decision when you can expect players to spend hundreds of hours on a playthrough.

Morrowind was the poster child FOR level scaling.

>>387059263
Level scaling is hell in games like Warframe, where they scale so far your weapons tickle them and you have to use exploits or a few rare scaling weapons to win.

ruins the feel of roleplaying and exploration

>>387064912
Far less than half of the lifespan of tabletop RPGs, and if you're looking for a functional CR-like system instead of 3E's shitfest, that's 9 years.

rpgs are partly about progression. what's the fucking point of leveling if the challenge remains the same throughout the game? you want to feel like you're getting more powerful

>>387065025
>Except after level 20 the game was piss easy and nothing offered any sort of challenge.
>It became a walking sim at that point.
Unless you abused potion bugs to get armor more powerful than what you should normally be able to make, certain enemies, such as briarhearts, can essentially always one-shot you with a basic attack into an unlucky heavy swing+ crit for a cutscene kill. There's a reason why everyone eventually becomes a stealth archer.

It's SUPPOSED to keep the game more exciting in lower levels but never actually does it.
It never actually factors in skills and weapons, so you still steamroll over enemies, they just take longer to kill.
Also just gives you a reason to NOT return to lower level zones, instead of the other way around.
I think BOTW did it better than most games, it doesn't SCALE enemies, it gives you new ones based on how many enemies you've killed.

The best level scaling was done in KH2FM.
>Doesn't matter what level you are you'll always do a minimum amount of damage for each world, which makes the fights go fast anyway
>If you grind for levels however you'll up your STR/DEF/MP leaving the early enemies easier to kill but the end game enemies still hard

>>387065025
go find a different game you stupid fucking nigger. once again you stupid subuhman redditors don't understand the point

>>387063742
>>387064061
>>387064849
These "SaGa" games sound pretty good. Any idea where I can buy them? I might have to see this battle rank system in action myself.

>>387059263
I want the ability to overlevel and stomp everyone's shit in an area.
I wnat to feel like I have an impact in the world.

>>387059263
Bad. Just make a game without leveling and balance it properly.

>>387065619
Most SaGa games are old, you problably will find easier to emulate it than buying it.

>>387065337
I was refering to Morrowind.
It had limited scaling and after level 20 (Earlier if you meta gamed or exploited the game) it became boring.
The only way you could die was if you fell asleep while being attacked by every enemy in the game at the same time( Ok maybe that is a slight exaggeration )

Level scaling in Bethesda games exists because of how bad Morrowind was mid to late game.
Oblivion addressed the problem (poorly) and was a step in the right direction.

The only ones bitching are the shitters who miss their easy mode.

Level scaling is a direct contradiction to having a leveling system in the first place. What is the one and only purpose of having levels? To let the player grow stronger. That's it. If the world grows with the character, that's not happening.

>>387066076
That's unfortunate. I always try to buy it legit before resorting to emulation. Oh well.

>>387064014
The system you described is literally how Lunar: Dragon Song works.

The end result is that gear matters more than anything and leveling any more than the minimum just makes the game more tedious.

>>387065619
The Last Remnant, which is practically a SaGa game in all but name, is on pc, and fixed the battle rank issues of the original 360 release. Mistrial Song on the ps2 you might get lucky and find for cheap and probably your best bet to get introduced to a lot of what SaGa does. Unlimited SaGa might be harder to find, and harder still to get into, since a lot of people consider it a pure distillation of the DnD formula with lots of obtuse and esoteric mechanics. The Frontier games, you're better off trying to emulate.

>>387064317
>>387064407
I copy pasted the hp value and forgot to change them because I am retarded. they don't literally have all 10 hp. plus I did say it was all arbitrary numbers.

>Add leveling up to game so that players become stronger as they progress
>Make enemies scale so that the player stats and leveling are actually completely irrelevant as a feature
Bravo

>>387065294
>you want to feel like you're getting more powerful
You totally can feel that, the problem is that most devs are lazy and don't do level scaling correctly, they just make the enemies scale in everything with you but also don't bother adding new abilities, so you're just fighting the same old thief or goblin but with roided stats and endgame equipment, that either leaves you doing the same exact thing you did 99 levels ago, but spending more time doing it, or bottleneck you into a specific build or set of builds because you have to deal with stupid stat inflation.
>>387065619
You can just emulate the vast majority of them, the series' has gone to sony consoles since the SNES days so most of it can be played on those, mostly PS2 and Vita since the former has two exclusives and the Vita has access to the PS games, one exclusive title, a remaster of Romancing SaGa 2 and an upcoming remaster to Romancing SaGa 3.

The games with Battle Ranks are Romancing SaGa 2, Romancing SaGa 3, SaGa Frontier, Unlimited: SaGa and Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song, start off with Romancing SaGa 3 or SaGa Frontier, Minstrel Song is already Deep Sea tier in terms of mechanics so it's not advised to start the series with that, Romancing SaGa 2 is batshit hard and Unlimited is just something else entirely so steer away from these two unless you really feel like you can handle some punishment and really unique gameplay.

>>387060704
Oblivion in particular is bad about this, as long as you never level, enemies always stay at their weakest. So by constantly increasing archery and sneaking to their max, then suddenly everything dies in a hit.

>>387066470
It's still
>>387066351

If you make a game like that with fair gold to exp ratios, the entire game is a quickly completed cakewalk. If you make the gold unfair, the game gets obscenely hard if you don't minmax.

Lunar's solution was to split whether you obtain items (currency) or exp. And at that point, you're right back to "grind if this part is too hard" game design, nullifying the entire fucking point of level scaling.

>>387061285
The only real subversions to this are the flooded quary near the start after finishing the mission there, and the attacks on your outposts by everything from bandits to supermutants.

>>387065619
Emulate them. The first 3 are final fantasy legend on gameboy, or remade with fan translations on DS and just called SaGa

romancing 1-3 are snes, 2 got ported to phones and localized, 3's getting a phone port which will be localized and as an eh fan translation

Frontier 1 and 2 are PS1. They might be psn classics for psp but I doubt it, emulate em.

Romancing remake on PS2 is easy to emulate, Unlimited on PS2 is also easy to emulate.

Scarlet Grace is on Vita and JP only so if you know moon have fun. If not rip in piss.

Level scaling is an easy way to let level designers and encounter designers work independently. With no level scaling they'd have to, heavens forbid, actually communicate to design a game.

I think another related issue that crops up with RPGs a lot is just the sheer growth of numbers. Going from the beginning of the game to the end and doing 100x the damage. It really exacerbates the problems with level scaling, because either you don't scale and just accept that most of the content is supposed to become irrelevant (which works in more linear games where there's no reason to ever go back), or you do scale and the player becomes super aware of how much higher their numbers are getting while nothing is actually changing when they see the stuff they should have left behind keeping up with them.

Best method right here
>No levels, or levels aren't arbitrary "numbers go bigger" and give tangible gameplay changes
>Enemies are difficult because of their tactical value, not only because they throw bigger numbers at you

Examples, there is a spellcaster who buffs enemies behind a wall of enemies. Just running in hoping your numbers are big enough is impossible, because the numbers don't get that big.
There is an enemy type who always runs away if possible until they are a certain distance away, then they harass you with projectiles. This enemy is dangerous in groups, and especially dangerous when paired with tanky melee enemies.

>>387059263

For me it's bad for two reasons -- first, the entire world adjusting to be more or less difficult depending on your character's level really kills my immersion. It feels really silly overall.

Second, I have a tendency to think too much about it and it can bring me out of the game. Skyrim is a good example, where I want to level non-combat skills but hold off because the enemies will scale in difficulty.

I prefer areas to just hav a general level of difficulty. I'd rather not be able to enter certain areas because they're just too damn difficult. I don't want to be able to go everywhere at the start of the game.

>>387069330
Ironically crafting will power your character up the most in Skyrim.

fucking terrible. weak is weak and strong is strong and that should be that.

>>387069713

Honestly, I feel retarded playing Skyrim for some reason. Something about it's levelling and crafting doesn't jive with me logically.

Should I be focusing on crafting early on? How do you find mats? Do you just buy them? I don't know when a good time is to start improving my crafting skills or how best to do it.

>>387059263
The only good level scaling in the level scaling you don't notice happening. Which means when it's good you don't even realize it's happened.

>>387069920
>Do you just buy them?
Typical of bethesda game, the most efficient method is the one that involves the less gameplay.
You buy mats, use wait until the store restocks and repeat
If you feel like playing a little more you fast travel between all the shops in skyrim, buy the materials, and then wait a little less time for everything to restock.

>>387070406

At that point you should just console command whatever you want.

File: The_7th_Saga_box_art.jpg (88KB, 300x219px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 300x219px

>>387059263

>>387070534
But if you're console commanding materials, you might as well just console command the level.
And if you're console commanding levels, you might as well do all of them as well.
And if you're doing that, then why even bother playing the game?
I have autism

>>387059263
Why bother having levels if everything will be tuned to your current level anyway?

>>387070638

I can tell.

not sure if this is related but the broplem with skyrim is its not apparent how tough an opponent will be. This is especially apparent on legendary difficulty, you have mob bosses that look virtually identical to the mobs but they have literally 10x the hp. I dont even understand what level scaling means though.

>>387064031
also Skyrim's level scaling seemed to have a big spike. One dungeon you're fighting restless draugr and the next you're fighting draugr overlords.

>>387070861
>I dont even understand what level scaling means though.

how

>>387061714
>completionism ruining game
Nigga I just want to do all the quests that are there for me, it's not my fault the game is scaled to be easy once you do them, instead of hard if you don't.

Mostly because I'm paranoid, as I've been burned by many games that locked you out of certain content once you've progressed in the story. Especially fuck Dragon's Dogma, whole fucking zones and endgame crafting materials are missing, that are tied into even more fucking quests.

>>387070406

I guess that's what wasn't working for me. Normally I don't buy things in games unless you absolutely can't find or make them yourself but going out and mining or gathering seems completely unrealistic in terms of time expended and doesn't seem to be the "intended" way to level smithing and shit.

So, should you go out and level some combat skills first or should one begin levelling smithing and enchanting asap?

>>387059263
Like, why even have levels though if you're going to make an effort to keep them from mattering as much as possible?

As you do is increase the chances of fucking up the balance or confusing the player by adding in some non-scaled enemies with no real warning.


Also when you're character is supposed to be uber powerful and random fuckhead bandits are still able to go toe to toe with them it just seems dumb.

>>387066914
If leveling up in an role playing game EVER makes anything harder your game is fundamentally broken.

>just because you get stronger so do rats and random people
>end up making the game harder for yourself and ruining the point of leveling up

>>387059263
Because the whole point of an RPG is getting powerful enough to beat that big baddie, not that baddie of size appropriate to your level.

Also, making a wrong turn and getting your shit pushed in only to come back after 20 levels and wreck shit is the best feeling evar.

>>387071535
I don't really have any concrete advice.
My playthrough usually goes like
>Play normally and go through dungeons, raise combat skills
>Once I have around 10k gold, start grinding crafting until I run out of money.
>When shops run out of mats, go exploring again, then buy more mats when I drop off loot
>This usually leaves me at around 50 or so smithing
>Play normally again until I have another stockpile of cash
>This time I have to use the "buy, wait, buy" grind because leveling takes so damn long
>This is also around the time ( 80+ ) I start using trainers, because it's easier to train and I can make the money back selling what I craft
>After maxing smiting, then I start on enchanting, then alchemy
>But because at this point I've already explored a lot of the map, I end up having to "buy, wait, buy" for the entire leveling processes

There is likely a much more efficient way to raise crafting skills, but whatever.
Honestly combat skills do not matter but unless you go full autist grind you'll level them up anyways exploring.
Enchanting boosts your melee/archery damage and makes spells free ( the only reason to invest in magic trees is to reduce the costs of spells )

>>387059263
Level scaling is good in games where loot is the only progression (i.e. diablo), it's not good when you're trying to build a believable open world like in skyrim.

What about keeping enemy toughness relative to your character throughout the game? Like a rat will always take as much effort as another rat regardless of it being a level 1 rat or a level 50 rat, however tougher enemies will consistently be tough but with more levels you have more tools to mitigate/handle issues making the fights easier not because of a level advantage but because of a character growth advantage.

I fucking hate in RPGs where you go to a new zone and it has a boar that is 10 levels higher than the dragon I killed in the last zone and realizing the boar has more health/does more damage.

>>387064047
>Entire genres would fall apart without the concept of character progression.
Idiot.

>>387059263
>run from every fight
>never gain much experience at all
>barely ever level up
>game gimps enemies so I can always win

Best system, I shouldn't be punished for ignoring most of the game.

>>387072525
I don't see how scaling based on loot would be any better. In that case loot would be the indicator of progression rather than levels and the scaling would work against that sense of progression.

File: The-Draugr-were-training1-850x1661.jpg (401KB, 850x1661px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 850x1661px

>>387059263
scaling is always bad, always
just lazy game design

I consider Stalker's "leveling system" if we can call it that the best. No stats, you only get better items. Enemies get consistently tougher as you go forward, because they have better gear. You can loot their gear and "level up" on their level.

Infact how come shooter games can get away with throwing more and tougher enemies at you as you progress, despite that the lategame weapons aren't that much stronger and their ammo is more scarce. Noone is bitching there about ramping up difficulty.

>>387061148
golden saints wandering the wilderness? no still shit
miles better than any later bethesda turds though

>>387059785
Why? I think it's well done. There's always challenge especially doing hc.

>>387072525
>>387073159
diablo games don't have level scaling, even items are based on monsters/chest level, not yours

It means the developer has to do less work.

It's almost always done poorly.

>make a game about getting stronger
>add in scaling enemies so you never actually gain any edge from your strength
why even bother having levels then?

>>387074120
I agree levels are a pretty dumb concept.

It's a good thing if it's part of the leveling process. Like for example with WoW, leveling from 1 to 110, if level scaling was enabled for that entire trek all the way through the expansions, that'd be fine.

If it's something that's still enacted even at max level, where old content is being scaled up to your level, then it becomes problematic. Old content should be "weak" in comparison to the player if the player is at the current level of content. It would make no sense in my opinion for say, Tempest Keep scaling up to 110.

>>387073380
Doesn't work very well in classic RPGs where you click an enemy and he and your dude beat each other until one drops. You would have to introduce some WoW-like mechanics like don't stand in fire. That's ok for bosses, but simply not fun when you have to do it for every trash mob you encounter. It's why PoE is such a chore, you have to master tactician every encounter, otherwise enjoy getting buttfucked.

>>387074748
>That's ok for bosses, but simply not fun when you have to do it for every trash mob you encounter.
Lazy faggot.
The idea of a "trash mob" is a retarded one to begin with that only exists due to lazy designers.

>>387074120
>why even bother having levels then?
Honestly, I don't know why levels are still a thing today, or rather, I do know but I'd prefer to ignore the fundamental lazyness of most RPG developers that are still fossilized in their own little D&D crypt.

>>387059263
Level scaling isn't bad. I love it when the AI gets smarter and smarter to compensate for you getting better at the game. Said noone playing any games ever.

>>387074989
leveling is fine, it's when scaling is introduced that it becomes entirely pointless. If you can't go back to the starting town and fuck up the native blue slimes dealing huge amounts of damage just for fun then the game is broken

File: 1428961397823.jpg (113KB, 616x396px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 616x396px

Whats the point of having levels if you can't feel stronger/weaker at certain points in the game?

Some bosses should wreck your shit if you fail to meet the requirements of having enough HP/gear to battle them.

If you can theoretically beat the game at level 1 because the boss scales down to level 1, then there isn't a need for level 2.

>>387061594
That's literally your perspective, imagine a skeleton warrior at level 1 with 1 hour play time, each hour it goes up a level, the skeleton isn't moving around killing enemies and doing quests and shit, this nigga is waiting for your ass when you come and depending on what your playtime is it will be that level. Now if they actually did roam around and level up on their own that would be something cool. But I don't think any game did that yet unless I'm mistaken.

Soft scaling is good, otherwise you'll just have to follow the same paths every playthrough, which gets old quickly.

>>387075631
>Now if they actually did roam around and level up on their own that would be something cool.

This is what needs to happen.

File: spoopy.jpg (34KB, 222x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 222x400px

>>387075631
>imagine a skeleton warrior
too spooky mate

>>387075283
But at some games it gets to a point you're so strong everything is piss easy.

>>387074989
Every system of progression would break down to the same concepts. Changing the application to feats, perks, or stat bonuses doesn't' change the concept.

Don't get me wrong I could see liking that you're proposing a game with fixed character capacities and resort to wave tactics when progressing the toughness of monsters/enemies.

File: hmm.jpg (64KB, 198x223px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 198x223px

How about an open-world game where enemies scale with level, but enemies in areas you've already completed stay locked at the level they were at when you beat them the first time?

>>387076248
That's basically Kingdoms of Amalur.

It makes leveling pointless, might as well not have exp/lvls or stats of any kind.

>>387076248
So Skyrim?

>>387075891
You put a lot of work into leveling up that much. I feel like you should be allowed to completely wreck a boss at that point.

>>387076391
Except that's objectively wrong. You still learn new abilities as you level and get to specialize your character however you want.

>>387059263
If your enemy design is good enough you don't need level scaling.

>>387076248
I fucking hated this in Skyrim. Basically you ruin a dungeon and make it worthless if you go too soon.

>>387076493
It's not necessarily a lot of work in many of those games. And just stomping everything wihout a challenge is just no fun.

>>387076516
Spells and abilities do seem to get overlooked in these discussions.

>>387076616
Well then, that's just a poorly placed game. Has nothing to do with level scaling.

>>387063457
I want to fight those rats

>>387076248
You still have issues where leveling matters less and gears matter more which makes players purposefully stay low leveled to avoid powering up enemies.

>>387076672
You don't need spells and abilities if the enemies are always on the same level as you.

>>387075917
I don't know, SaGa games trashed levels and kept experimenting with many systems for progression, either giving you proficiencies for what you use in battles or making each of your stats grow according to what you do, then there's panels in Unlimited or the way different races work in the classic trilogy or Frontier, all games without levels but their own design when it comes to character progression, and they work just fine, not to mention that they also give you a good sense of constant challenge and progression with Battle Ranks or proper level scaling in some games like Scarlet Grace, where enemies' stats scale but they don't get better equipment, then again, that also works because of how the battle system is designed.

I don't know, I still say that most devs are just lazy and don't want to get out of their comfort zone, there's a lot of potential solutions to a levelless approach and only a handful of designers even try.

>>387076708
Now there really needs to be a game where if you skip out on the obligatory introductory "Rats in the cellar" quest and come back later, the rats have completely taken over the town/region.

>>387059382
guild wars 2 does this and I like it

Loot scaling is even worse. I can't even enjoy Skyrim or Oblivion.

I really need to play one of the mods that hand place loot, but I haven't found a good one yet.

The best level system is gear based leveling, like in STALKER or BOTW. It keeps you immersed non stop without taking you out of the game with a massive level up notification.

Also the durability system in both games was excellent and the games would be bad without them, prove me wrong

>>387076780
Not really. If your melee stats were never leveled, you won't be able to kill enemies your level with them, unless you're very low leveled.

Depends on the genre, and how it's done.

>>387070632
7th Saga doesn't have level scaling.

>>387059263
If levels actually matter in your combat system then you have a terrible combat system.

>>387059263
What about scaling where when you meet a group of enemies, the higher level you are newer types join in like healers archers and tanks and the higher the level the more they'll heal or buff.
That's the only level scaling I can think that I'd like.

>>387076746
>players purposefully stay low leveled
I can't imagine any game in which people actually do that other than Oblivion.

>>387077274
At least one example has been mentioned in this thread already, FF8.

>>387077274
FFVIII.

Just give it a ceiling and a floor. A level 25 enemy can be scaled no lower than level 20 and no higher than level 30. If you're playing the game "normally" you'll always be facing enemies that are your level so normies won't complain about it being too hard or too easy. A player that is interested in exploring off the beaten path can still be challenged or find ways to shatter the difficulty scale.

>>387076904
>the rats have completely taken over the town/region.

So real life?

>>387077274
FFVIII. One thing I always liked about FFVIII is how you can change your opponent's level up or down since what you can get from them changes based on their level.

>>387077267
>the higher level you are newer types join
Change levels with Battle Rank and you have SaGa games.

>>387075631
>But I don't think any game did that yet unless I'm mistaken.
The closest I've seen is STALKER, where the random motherfuckers will wander the zone and get new gear as the game goes on, but I think that only applied to the loners who weren't hostile unless attacked.

>>387077274
Skyrim after level 30 is total dicks too, literally zero fun

>>387077437
>Just give it a ceiling and a floor. A level 25 enemy can be scaled no lower than level 20 and no higher than level 30.
That's exactly how Skyrim works.

>>387078193
It's okay if you're a stealth archer. I never played sword and board so I don't know about that. As a wizard yeah it blew I had to master destruction for free spellcasting AND conjuration to have something meaty to protect me from evil bandits. The defensive spells were simply not strong enough.

>>387078229
So then what's the problem? Just tighten up the range or make the calculation more complex if the sewer rats can use the moon as a baseball.

>>387075631
>That's literally your perspective, imagine a skeleton warrior at level 1 with 1 hour play time, each hour it goes up a level, the skeleton isn't moving around killing enemies and doing quests and shit, this nigga is waiting for your ass when you come and depending on what your playtime is it will be that level. Now if they actually did roam around and level up on their own that would be something cool. But I don't think any game did that yet unless I'm mistaken.
For you, as the player, there is no difference if the skeleton "roams around and does things" compared to him levelling automatically.

You severely overestimate how powerful your PC is. Put several hundred or a few thousand NPCs doing what you want them to do and your CPU is already on its knees. Then you cry about the game being "unoptimized".

The optimization pass there is to literally remove needless garbage like the "skeleton roaming around" and instead roll it into probabilities so that it mimicks roaming around, but doesn't waste your goddamn PC resources.

>>387059263
Defeats the purpose of RPGs.
I liked the XCX approach where any area has both weak and endgame shit which of course you can avoid with enough precautions. Makes the open world more belieavable from a world building standapoint and lets you explore while being rewarded,
Too bad the combat itself sucked ass.

>>387078910
>Too bad the combat itself sucked ass.
Like all Xeno games.

>>387078619
Oblivion's level scaling being so bad, that the memories leaked into Skyrim and people think it was very similar when it really wasn't. The ranges could of course be tightened up, but it was a huge improvement from Oblivion's system still.

File: 1482639818585.png (30KB, 1231x765px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1231x765px

>>387059263
>Is level scaling in RPGs a good or a bad thing?

it's great if you aren't retarded.

>>387078873
Yes, it's just a perspective thing really. They don't have to do anything.

>>387059263
I think it can be good if used in moderation.
>For world encounters easy areas scaling would be a range like level 1-10, medium areas scale 10-20 and so on, so the player can still feel progression but also can still feel challenge if they choose to trek out early

>most hotspots like dungeons etc would have static levels and handplaced enemies/npcs

I like scaling. I love having epic 20-minute long battles against rats when I'm 150 hours into an RPG.

I think level scaling in RPGs is crap. Then again, I think the way RPGs are done is usually crap. They should be less focused on the stats you gain from levels to be able to beat content.

>>387059263
Modded Skyrim to scale enemy levels based on location. Out in the world enemies were typically easier on roads and harder as you go out into wilderness. Made things way more fun.

File: 1495649155241.jpg (168KB, 671x786px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 671x786px

>>387059263
Level floor but not a ceiling is fine with me. Fallout 3 did the opposite, and took it a step further and made it even shittier with http://geck.bethsoft.com/index.php?title=Encounter_Zone

>>387079264
That chart is from an MMO. MMO's all do rpg elements like shit. Please explain to me how level scaling is a positive addition to a real role playing game.

>>387075631
That would make sense if the big bad had his own party and became stronger as the game goes on the same as you do, wich isn't a novel concept since many games include a rival anyway. However a skeleton warrior thats probably been buried for decades in a dungeon has no logical way of obtaining exp and doesn't even have a motivation for doing so since it's just a mindless zombie.

>>387059263
It's extremely bad.

It kills all the goals you want to set for your character; you are never as strong as you are at the starting level

it kills exploration since all the loot you'll find is scaled to be crap for your level; instead of making every location worth exploring it makes nothing worth exploring

It kills any desire to actually want to make your character stronger, since you'll never see a strong item you want in some other character's hands or find a difficult area with potentially great loot inside

It kills any satisfaction from leveling up since in actuality nothing actually happened

It kills the believability of the world because your demon-slaying millionare world savior will have trouble fighting a random street thug

rpgs are about progression, and level scaling is quite the opposite of that

>>387080520
You don't know that, it could have been a cursed human who died, and when his remains turned to bones he revives and has muddled memories, he slowly regains his thoughts and starts killing random things in the dungeon getting stronger, finding better equipment etc ultimately regaining all his memories and when you enter the dungeon he's the big bad or so you think at first, you can choose to murder him right away but if you wait a bit you'll notice he's not just a random skelly warrior. You can add more to that if you wish, just a random thought.

>>387059263
Hard level scaling is shitty, but I like when events in the game cause stronger enemies to fill old areas at plot relevant times.

>>387081109
Yeah that's actually pretty cool. I also like when that happens and a path opens up from that point to a new later game area, like a cave opening found in the starting location, or in Pokemon Silver/Gold where the starting city had the path leading back to Kanto. That was awesome.

>>387080995
Wouldn't the dungeon be empty in that case?
All enemies defeated and all traps deactivated and just a huge skeleton at the middle of it?

File: 14876382577998.gif (497KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 500x379px

>>387081796
>Go through dungeon
>Keep expecting enemies to pop up around every corner
>Completely desolated
>Hear scraping footsteps echoing as a lone giant skeleton hunts you down

>>387081796
I suppose, or the skelly man found a way out and roams the world, and the dungeon all has dead corpses everywhere with some loot, but I suppose all of this can be contained as a "quest" I guess so now that I think about it the whole roaming around idea doesn't really pan out, I don't really know how you would know the difference.

leveled enemies are bad in general, the supirior way of doing a level system is have everything do a base damage and have equipment effect how much damage you and enemies do. A guy swinging a rust dagger and wearing a cotton shirt is less than a guy later in the game decked in full plate and swinging a sharpened high quality steel sword.

>>387059263

It's bad. I should be rewarded for spending more time grinding.

File: 1491423313525.png (14KB, 633x524px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 633x524px

>ctrl+f
>no "gothic"

I'm disappointed, gothic is the best case against level scaling.
When you get your ass handed by a wolf and come back 20 hours later with a buffed character and good equip, the feeling of progression and development is great.
Game like soulsborne do it well too, no scaling, you're just getting good and getting better equipment and learning how shit works

A game where whenever i go all the enemies are on my level and i can easily go straight to the ending without applying myself is shit

>>387082991
I'm playing gothic right now trying to figure out where the fuck xandar or whatever is, I'm enjoying it. Gothic 2 is more or less the same kinda game right? Gothic 3 looks like shit

>>387082991
>Thread about level scaling
>No one mentions games without level scaling
What a surprise.

>>387082991
>A game where whenever i go all the enemies are on my level and i can easily go straight to the ending without applying myself is shit
Games with level scalings are made exactly for you to constantly apply yourself though.

>>387083154
maybe because Gothic is the best example of why level scaling is shit

>>387083120
Gothic 2 is better on every aspect, gothic 3 could be good if it wasn't so ambitious. When you'll be done playing G2+black raven give it a try, the world is well designed and your actions have an actual impact

>>387083458
I'd argue Bethesda games are an even better example of why level scaling sucks.

>>387083423
>Games with level scalings are made exactly for you to constantly apply yourself though.
Variability matters. Nobody wants to walk up the exact same constant slope for 40 hours. They want bumps and ridges and a few downhill segments to break things up.

>>387083423
>Games with level scalings are made exactly for you to constantly apply yourself though.
Not if i know that whatever i do the game will always handhold me

>>387059263
Depends on implementation IMO.

Shitty level scaling just matches everything to your level directly. I've never seen this be done well.

Good level scaling adjusts things in tiers, so that there is a balance between enemies being level scaled while still maintaining a range of easier/harder enemies. Rats might range from level 1-10, and dragons range from 90-100. This means that content isn't equally accessible through the entire game, but is accessible for a longer time than it would be if there was no scaling.

>>387059382
>>387077008
Some bitches out there complain about it because their line of logic tells them they should be able to kill at rat instantly. Double edged sword, but it helps the game in the sense that a high level player won't cheese the entire zone and ruin it for everyone, and allows high level players to play with friends who just got the game.

>>387073251
>glass items
>complains about Draugr

The player only has himself to blame at this point.

>>387083838
>Adventurer, i have A [red dragon of buttblast destruction] infestation in my basement, would you help me get rid of them? I'll pay you 12 gold and a wooden stick