hehe...

I think computer RPG designers should sit down and play some old school RPG, of the pen and paper kind to get an idea of what is possible. It''s a shame in many ways that role-playing in its pen and paper form is dying out in favor of computer games. I have yet to play an RPG (which admittedly is not many) that comes anywhere near the enjoyment I got out of playing PPRPG''s.

While lots of PPRPG''s also stressed the combat aspect of play, the true strength lay in acting out roles. You got to be something else, and live in that world. And the social interaction with your friends.....while virtually the epitome of geekdom....simply can not be matched by logging in online and "chatting" with other people.

I don''t think I''ve ever laughed harder in my life than in some games I played in an obscure game called Justice Inc, which was a role playing game based on the Hero system and set in the 1930''s pulp fiction world. What made it hilarious was how the some of the other characters took the roles and hammed it up. I also thoroughly enjoyed some of the Call of Cthulu and Chill games when I was teen as well.

It may feel a little corny at first, speaking out loud and trying to act like something else, but after awhile, you get used to it, and it becomes fun playing hardened 30''s detective, or a bumbling stage magician, or a ex-cop chronic gambler, or a former gangster with a heart (all types of characters I played in Justice Inc, alone)

I think that in many ways, computers have robbed us of our imagination, and I still remember my roleplaying days very fondly and wish RPG could capture the true essence of "role" playing rather than "roll" playing.

One MUD I once played (long time ago) had your level based on experience. XP ranged from 0 to maybe 100. It was computed something like (sqrt(fight points) + sqrt(quest points))/10.

This means that if you had 10.000 fight points you''d be level 10, 160.000 is level 40. So it was very important to do quests too. With 40.000 fight points you''d be level 20 (and that took a lot of time, doing some quests for 6400 points that would add 8 XP points, totalling 28. You would need 4100 fight points for level 29, but only 1700 quest points.

So even the small quests helped you a lot, while just fighting had diminishing returns. Small quests were like 50-100 points, so the first few levels were easy, while small monsters were just a few points. So it was vital to quest first, eg up to level 10, so you could slay beasts for 30 points each, instead of fighting as level 1 for 2 points each. Then your fight XP went up very quickly, because fight level 1 is 100 points, 2 is 400, etc.

You could extend this system to fight XP, quest XP and skill XP, where you would get points for skill related things, like going fishing, baking bread, sneaking, etc.
The sqrt would make the returns get less when you do it more.

quote: Original post by Themonkster
I don''t play rpg''s because I hate the combat system in most I have tried and just get very bored with them. I like the exploring and story parts. if developers removed the combat then I would play them.

Just my humble view

I did like deus ex because it did''nt have that role of dice combat thing going on.

So are you saying you want a game where they sit you in a world and you control a character and talk to people endlessly doing fetch this and retrieve that errands?

[sarcasm]Yeah sounds like a lot of fun... I''m going to save the world by finding granny some apples for her pie[/sarcasm]

I really think RPGs should have combat. If they took combat out of your RPG where would the story people really. Even if it is only five battles a game it''s combat. I mean how excatly are you supposed to rescue your wife or save the world, by showing the big bad meanie a shiny coin you found in a street corner?

On a positive side I think it would be a pretty nice challenged to make a good RPG that does have one speck of combat in it, no violence whatsoever.

Bleu Shift - www.bleushift.tk

What if the rpg asked the player to constantly change rolls. The player interacts with game targets, eventually trying to become them (@ least to the point where they could achieve some other goal, like infiltratate a weapons plant or whatever)? Has it been done (outside of the mask maker in mission impossible for 64)?

quote: Original post by w_w_JohnCarmack_d
What if the rpg asked the player to constantly change rolls. The player interacts with game targets, eventually trying to become them (@ least to the point where they could achieve some other goal, like infiltratate a weapons plant or whatever)? Has it been done (outside of the mask maker in mission impossible for 64)?

I like this idea. You kind of force the actual ''role playing'' on the player without them even realising it.

Suppose you are an undercover agent. You get given missions which involve infiltrating various organizations, and have to try and ''fit in'' - you have to make the NPC''s believe you are an ordinary person, without arousing suspicions.

How would you actually implement this though?

quote: Original post by Sandman
Suppose you are an undercover agent. You get given missions which involve infiltrating various organizations, and have to try and ''fit in'' - you have to make the NPC''s believe you are an ordinary person, without arousing suspicions.

How would you actually implement this though?

d00mit, you stole my idea! And I haven''t even shared it with anyone here yet! =)

Here''s how I was thinking of implementing it: Make it multiplayer (or even MMO). Players get awarded for finding and killing/capturing enemy player spies. They get punished if they kill or capture innocent civilians (NPCs). So as a player spy, you need to role-play as an ordinary NPC in order to not get caught. The server doesn''t send any information to the clients to differentiate between players and NPCs, so spy-hunters actually need to pay attention to the behaviors of the various characters to find their targets.

quote:
I really think RPGs should have combat. If they took combat out of your RPG where would the story be people really.

Combat is a form of conflict resolution ... it''s NOT the only form ... There are millions of books out there, in which the story has lots of conflict, but none of it is resolved through combat.

quote:
I mean how excatly are you supposed to rescue your wife or save the world, by showing the big bad meanie a shiny coin you found in a street corner?

How about:
* put a bounty on his head?
* Kidnap HIS wife ... then negotiate to swap?
* Use some reverse psychology ... he kidnaps your wife, so you file for devorce from her.
* Pay his ransom to get her back.

I''m sure you can think of some more ways to resolve the situation that do not involve direct combat.








Oh yeah...the "changeing roles" game idea...check out Messiah...it was released a couple of years ago...not exactly a RPG...but it featured a little "angel" that could possess the NPCs in the game...an example of a great idea...but flawed implamentation

I had a idea for a MMORPG basied around the same concept...but crossed with the game Black & White.

Players could chose from two character classes...angels and demons...in this mode the game was like a chat room...you could walk/fly around...but couldn''t effect anything...not even each other...
Then players could "get into character" by possesing various animals that populated the island the game took place on...in this mode players could not see the numerious angels/demons...nor could players talk to the other animals...but depending on what players did in animal mode, thier angel/demon bacame stronger, allowing the player to take control of larger animals...but if the animal dies while the player is in control of it...then the player''s character "dies" as well...
The game was to be called EDEN...and each server would present a different persistant world (all in the form of islands)...one could feature dinosaurs...another midevil dragons and such...while another features ice age creatures, for example.

I wanted to use animals as it can be much simpler to model thier behavior then with people (as far as the A.I. goes when the player are not in control of them)...and animals offer a much greater variety of "roles" given the simpler behavior patterns (given that the player may never inhabit the same animal twice, it becomes less important to a detailed "history" and personality traits...only to have the player betray them with his/her actions).

If you look at this quote from the original post:

"Most rpgs, mine included, are mostly battle simulations where the player must figure out the best strategy to not end up dead."

The phrase "The player must figure out the best strategy to not end up dead" describes almost all games where they control a single avatar. I agree with those saying that it''s about different methods of conflict resolution, not story.

Shoving in a neatly tucked and plot-twisted story, in fact, is rather the opposite of allowing someone to role-play, since the player''s trying to tell their own story here if they really have the intent of role-playing.

But many role-playing video games allow the player to be "lazy" and force them to follow along with the plot with little ability to change it. This minimizes the role-playing aspect into a variation on story-telling, and encourages combat since it fits so neatly and easily into a story, with few details needed besides "we won" or "we lost."

Really, I think that a lot of the role-playing could be found through very basic things. Travel and getting lost. Taking supplies along. Exploring the world for it''s own sake.

Not every game has to be about grand, flawless heroes who run across continents devoid of life except for evil monsters and towns where they can get instantly healed and buy everything they need, eventually going on to beat a foozle with all the odds stacked in their favor by fighting 100000 little bad guys and finding some neat equipment previous to the big battle.

Making the world furry one post at a time

I''d just like to add one thing, I think that combat has to be in a RPG, because for me, a true RPG gives you as much freedom as you''d like, this includes smacking everybody around. But if you remove experience in some way from the game(by creating a progressive stat increasement system), there would be almost no real need for combat, because the only gain would be getting better in combat, which you will probably not really need if you do everything to avoid combat.

conflict != violence

You can solve conflicts politicaly, for example.
You could also find your way around a problem, instead of running into it.

Look at the Sakura Anime, the main character, Sakura, is a card hunter, and the cards aren''t violent, still she must defeat the card in order to get its power and control it.
No violence, but an adventure, and an entertaining story.


No need for violence, all you have to do is find a way around it.
After all, do you resolve your problems with violence in real life ?

Of course in an epic story you might have no choice but to answer to violence by violence, but is an epic story required at all ?

my 2 € cents.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-