For and Against Potions

Game historian and RPG aficionado Matt Barton and Frayed Knights developer Jay Barnson have recently chimed in to give their own opinions on consumable design in role-playing titles. To really simplify their positions, Barton would like consumables to disappear into oblivion, while Barnson thinks there’s value in that kind of resource management.

A quote from Matt Barton’s piece:

In short, I don’t like healing potions or any (consumable) item in a CRPG. At best, they’re a mild irritant. At worst, they’re a temptation to hoarding, filling my bags and taxing my patience as I constantly attempt to manage my inventory. It’d be like a guy trying to lug around six cases of fine ale, but never drinking one because hell, there just might be an epic party in the next days and if you drink a single bottle now, there won’t be enough left to party hardy.

I liked the way some games get around this temporary nonsense by simply allowing you to block off some of your mana pool for a constant effect. I’ve seen these called (sustained spells.) Want earth resistance? Well, toggle a spell, and it’s on until you shut it off. The trade off, of course, is fewer spell points for other purposes. Fair enough.

Cooking is another easy fix. Cooking skills are fun to put in, and it’s always fun to find recipes and such. But it’s also easy to just leave the details to the imagination. Just have the character with the cooking abilities provide a constant bonus to him or herself and the rest of the party say, faster recovery, or bonuses against certain kinds of spells. If you find a recipe for cupcakes that grant moral bonuses, for example, just assume that character will bake and serve them without having to be told to do it. Throw in some dialog occasionally to remind us that it’s active )Ah! Here’s some flour and sugar.I’ll stock up so I can make some more cupcakes!) (no need to represent this in the inventory, mind you). Or, from the other characters: (Oh, delicious cupcakes!) or, (Oh, man, rat stew again! Why don’t you learn some more recipes, you damn wannabe cook!) Everything doesn’t have to be clickity clickity click. Leave the boring stuff to the imagination already. Assume that the characters will carry and conserve small amounts of gold for minor purchases; the player shouldn’t have to bother with it.

And one from Jay “Rampant Coyote” Barnson, whose piece was written directly in reply to Barton’s:

Choosing a potential equipment upgrade with a permanent effect can be a really interesting decision. Or not. If it’s a difference between a +3 Sword of Smiting and a clearly inferior +1 Sword, it’s not so much a decision as a straight-up reward. But with the more complicated weapon stats of games like the Diablo series, it’s an interesting decision of the kind Sid Meier credits as being the heart of gameplay.

The thing is, this is an interesting decision you make occasionally. Once you get some halfway decent equipment in most RPGs, the choices are trivial and uninteresting you aren’t going to find upgrade candidates very often. And sometimes, your interesting decision will be to keep what you are already using.. maybe it’s inferior in some ways to the potential upgrade (which made the decision interesting), but overall you felt better about the known advantages of your existing equipment. That’s all good. That’s a fantastic RPG decision right there.

But the problem is that this kind of decision only comes occasionally. With consumable items, you are making a similar decision in every combat. (Do I use this Potion of Rage now, or save it for later?) Or, (Should I use one of my charges on this wand of fireballs now, in a less-than optimal enemy arrangement? Will I ever get a completely optional arrangement?) If the answer is (no,) it simply means that the option remains available for the next fight (or for the next round).