Tired of bots, RWT, and the trade meta ruining your ARPGs? Dive into why trade-restricted modes like SSF and Ironman are saving modern game design.
Are we playing a game to escape reality, or are we just picking up a second job as a virtual stockbroker? Why the hell does grinding for gear suddenly feel like checking crypto charts at 3 AM?
If you've played any MMORPGs or grind-heavy ARPGs, you know the drill: You kill monsters, loot garbage, sell garbage for gold, and use that gold to buy actual good gear from someone else. Eventually, the game isn't an adventure anymore; it's a spreadsheet simulator. In response, a faction of hardcore gamers revolted, giving birth to Trade-restricted modes.
For those out of the loop, this whole mess started with modes like Ironman in Runescape or SSF (Solo Self-Found) in ARPGs like Path of Exile, Last Epoch, and Diablo. The premise is brutal but simple: You are completely locked out of the trading system. No hand-outs, no buying, no selling. You eat what you kill.
Why do people subject themselves to this masochism? A few solid reasons:
This is where game devs start pulling their hair out. Designing a game with both a free-market economy and SSF progression is a logistical nightmare.
Imagine a dev wants to introduce an ultra-rare "jackpot" drop. In a trade economy, this is fine—someone will eventually farm enough gold to buy it. But for SSF players, that drop rate means it effectively doesn't exist. So devs are forced to make these chase items mostly cosmetic or minor stat bumps.
And when devs try to throw SSF players a bone—like adding "bad luck prevention" or tweaking crafting mechanics (shoutout to Runescape's Glassblowing drama)—the standard player base goes nuclear. "Why are you catering to the masochists? You're ruining the economy!" It creates massive friction, with players constantly arguing over who deserves dev resources.
Browsing the r/truegaming thread, you'll see a wild mix of opinions:
To wrap this up, there's a golden rule in game design: "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."
If the most optimal way to progress is to literally avoid playing the game (just standing in town flipping items on the market), that is 100% a design problem. Maybe game studios should launch a crowdfunding campaign to hire better economy balancers instead of blaming the players.
Trade is inherently overpowered. Both the buyer and seller profit, meaning anyone who doesn't participate is left behind. Unless your game is heavily monetized through engagement-farming GaaS mechanics, player power needs to be separated from open trading. World of Warcraft has been doing this successfully for decades with Soulbound gear.
As a dev, you never want your players choosing between "playing for fun but sucking" and "playing optimally but hating their life."
Source: Reddit - Appeal of restricted game modes and their impact on game design
