Extrarius-
If you like PPRPG''s and a fantasy setting, see if you can find any old copies of Ars Magica. Excellent roleplaying game that truly stresses the "role" aspect.

But I know what you mean, I used to be a d&d player too until I saw the light Heck, I was playing ad&d back in 1982 at the ripe old age of 10, pretty much almost when it first came out...back in the days when some guys were still playing Chainmail.

Personally, I''ve found too many other...errr, interesting pursuits to RPG''s, but I do miss those days. I think the best thing I got out of RPG''s was a sense of creativity and ad-libbing. I was more often than not a GM when I played RPG''s, and I played virtually every RPG system you could think of from 1985-1992:

Villains and Vigilantes, Champions, Justice Inc, Bushido, Rune, Elric, Call of Cthulu, Chill, Twillight 2000, Morrow Project, Aftermath, Mechwarrior, Mekton, Cyberpunk, Timelords, Shadowrun, Palladium, Recon, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Robotech, Middle Earth RPG, SpaceTech, Skyrealms of Jorune, Harn, Warhammer, Space Opera, Traveller, Traveller 2300, MegaTraveller, Star Wars, Beyond the Supernatural, Heroes Unlimited, Paranoia, Mystic China, Vmpire, Werewolf, Mage, Ars Magica, Castle Falkenstein, Millenium''s End, Amber, Delta Force, Rifts, Gurps, Top Secret, James Bond....to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head and I''m sure I''m leaving out a ton of games. I even still have most of these games and at one time I estimated that between those years, I had more than 2000$ worth of RPG games, modules, supplements and add-ons.

But what I''d like to see in RPG games is the ability to have moderated game play. What I found most fun about PPRPG''s was having a GM that set the stage and could guide the play along. The best thing about having a GM is that he could create the illusion of freedom for the players, while still directing the course of events to fit the campaign. I also miss being able to act out in character. Not to the extreme that White Wolf introduced with "live roleplaying" (and I quickly got out of the White Wolf game scene when I saw the kinds of gothic or nihilistic audience it attracted) but just "acting" in character.

The funniest and best times I ever had with RPG''s was just interacting in certain situation with other PC''s or NPC''s. I still laugh to this day when I think about characters like Magico the Magician...an Indian swami-mystic who used sleight of hand and con techniques to get out of dangerous situations (ala Eddie Murphy with an Indian accent) or of Ed "the razor" Ricket. A character played by a naive and ineperienced roleplayer who chose "Hunted by the Mafia" as a flaw to gain points. But when a black Model T ford pulled up to him with its headlights blinding him, and a croaky voice asking him if he was Ed Ricket, the player answered, "yeah?", with drastic consequence (the other players ribbed him mercilessly for weeks). What made them fun wasn''t cool weapons, equipment or powers...but simply acting character situations. You really had to think fast on your feet, or you could be penalized for it in one way or another.

I think the best way to do this is with voice chat capabilities and a moderator who sets up the campaign. This offers the ability to allow for PPRPG style gaming and the acting and camraderie of actually talking to other real people.

my list is short.
i really would like it if some games were multiplayer.
like Grandia II.
that game could have been multiplayer i mean damn...
why should i sit there and takes turn when i could be running
around a ship destroying bad guys.
it''s not like PSO where i could run everywhere and anywhere.
also some of the battle scenes i wish the characters (players or
enemy) could interact with somehow, and not be there just for
background decoration.

my point is alot of these 4 - 6 person parties controlled by
one player is silly. they should allow multiplayers control.
also allow them to interact with the environment in the battle
stage/area.

just because a RPG is mulitplayer doesn''t mean it has to be an
Everquest or PSO...

also when players "split, to do different quests" in a game why
can''t one player play as one party and the other as the second
party, then meet up later in the game? as opposed to splitting
up and losing 3-4 of your members, only to get them back 2 hours
later.

this is my list/rant.


thanks, bye.

IMO the MUST in a RPG is the immersive feeling to be in another world. I mean a COMPLEX world which seems to live without you being in here. It has to be a lof of items, a lot of creatures, a lot of places to see... this maybe kinda related to the "choice" parameter, but not completely.

For example: I've found out a lot of pleasure to see NPC's sleeping in their bed during the night (the Ultima series did that perfectly well). It really adds an interesting immersive part in your game to see all this little world moving, going to the tavern, go working near the farm... without waiting for some scripted action from the player.

It's also a great pleasure when you open a drawer and you find clothes your character is able to wear, some item that can be used as a weapon without actually being one (let's say a fork for example. Why wouldn't I put that fork in the @$$ of that NPC ? Or: Hey I want to throw that apple at the king's face...)

Gameplay is not less important: In my RPG I'm implementing that marvellous option: you can EXAMINE everything, every part of the ceiling, of an item, of anyone, anything. This makes the game richer, kinda more interactive. Interactivity is critical in a RPG (that's why I don't like baldur's gate or diablo).

IMMERSION and GAMEPLAY are my best wishes for a good RPG. (My favourite one are Ultima Underworld (just the best for me), Ultima 7 and Daggerfall / Morrowind).





[edited by - Cahaan on February 4, 2003 1:52:55 AM]

Scaught, I''m with you.

"No story whatsoever. I want to play a game, not watch a movie."

I agree, generally. I''ll admit to enjoying Septerra Core, which is a mostly linear romp. But a well done movie can be fun sometimes. Generally, though, I hate being forced to swap characters just because the "story line" requires it.

"- Graphics do not matter. (see any roguelike for proof)
- Sound does not matter. (I''d rather have winamp going)"

Hear, hear! I''m all in favor of good gfx/sfx, but it''s a waaaay lower priority than just about everything else. I played games in ''76. They were fun back then, in their 200x100x1 spendor. [gs]fx doesn''t make the game.

"Enemies should not get stronger because you are."
[and]
"Saving the world implies ending. I don''t want to shut down."

Have you played Darklands? Reading your recent posts, you''d be a shoe-in for it. Of course, it''s a game from 1992, so good luck finding a copy of it. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/darklands)

"Most of the drivel that passes for RPG these days is very little RP, very little G, and a lot of story that you get to pretend to interact with."

"non-linear" became a meaningless keyword a long time ago. Basically it means "there''s something in the game that there are two ways to solve". Wheee...

So, I have to ask Scott: given your game preferences, what games do you prefer:? As an example for what makes RPGs fun...

quote: Original post by Lunatic Raven
More open-ended games like Morrowind. I think no more has to be said =P

The worst RPG ever to me.
So I think not everyone agrees with you on this one.
And seeing the number of sells for each FF, I can safely say that I''m not the only one to prefer story driven games.

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

Ingenu: Yeah sure, the number of sells is really determining the quality of a game. That''s why Britney Spears is soooo damn talented.

Bullshit.

I think whats critical is that the character''s actions have some visible and lasting impact on the world. Whether the game has a strong central story or not, the player has to feel like all the hours they put into the game have some meaning. My character''s long sword skill going from 75 to 76 doesn''t really mean much to me. But if I know that I can always get cheap equipment in town XYZ because I helped them in a trade dispute, man that''s cool. It feels more like a real world and less like a spreadsheet or checklist of quests to complete before being ''done'' with the game.

One scenario common to CRPGs I hate is where you run into a dungeon, clean out a few rooms, then run back to town to heal for a week. You repeat this until the dungeon is clear. Never in all this time do the monsters think to call for help, or attack you in larger groups. This, plus the ability to continually save and reload makes getting through RPGs more a measure of patience than skill.

quote: Srekel: I want a FUN tactical combat system. From what I''ve seen of FF games, there doesn''t seem to be any tactics involved, except choosing attacks. But since the only thing that changes is your opponent, it seems like it''s hella easy to choose the optimal fighting style.

True, most FF games don''t involve much thinking, but the game Final Fantasy Tactics *did* have a tactical battle engine (much like tactics ogre if you''ve ever heard of it). It was fun, but one (possible) issue was the sheer length of time it could take to conclude a battle (also, leveling up was too easy - you could develop a party of minor deities if you weren''t careful).

quote: EasyRaider: Offer many opportunities to role-play. Let''s say you can choose between a polite or a smart-ass thing to say to an NPC. Even if the choice only gives different phrases in response, it allows the player to express himself. It would be even better if it had some gameplay difference, though.

Let the player decide all signifant things player characters do and say. Don''t make the character say "I''ve come to destroy you!" if the player may have wanted to say hello. It''s not role playing.

You *might* like Neverwinter Nights. It gave you about five different choices of things to say to an NPC (generally following a rather linear path from good to evil). One issue was that in story related conversations the negative answers led in a loop until you picked the ''correct'' choice.

quote: Dauntless: what I''d like to see in RPG games is the ability to have moderated game play. What I found most fun about PPRPG''s was having a GM that set the stage and could guide the play along. The best thing about having a GM is that he could create the illusion of freedom for the players, while still directing the course of events to fit the campaign. I also miss being able to act out in character.

This would own. If someone came up with an online rpg w/ an NWN style map where the guy on the server could modify the map in real-time and type in the responses for NPCs, there wouldn''t get much better. It would be like actual d&d with the pc gaming experience. (also, if you allowed players to script their own spells, it would rule - it would be like the researching option in d&d)

nother thing: I think rpg''s have become less like role-playing games and more like interactive books w/ lots of pictures. People still play the ''good books'' for the compelling story or whatever, but the rp experience is lost

and snak_attack: I''m totally with ya on the impact thing. what do you think about my previous comment:

quote: wraith20: An rpg should allow you to Cause events based on Choices, choices not selected from a list. This can be extremely hard to do effectively (like in nwn, if you accidently hit some neutral dude who''s helping you out, he turns on you above even the monsters he''s supposed to be fighting), but I think it''s worth taking a few years to do. (I can only assume that they were trying to make nwn more like this, but couldn''t get enough time from the pic''s).

Another, more manageable, alternative would be to ''hide'' the main quest(s). e.g. discover some plot too take down some kingdom with the possibility of having to deal with the kingdom''s downfall if you don''t uncover the plot (opening up more main quests), or maybe join the plot and take up a position of power after in turmoil afterwards.

Home is the realm of darkness.

quote: Original post by Merle
Have you played Darklands? Reading your recent posts, you''d be a shoe-in for it. Of course, it''s a game from 1992, so good luck finding a copy of it. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/darklands)

I *loved* Darklands. In fact, I''ve been meaning to buy it again - you used to be able to get it from this site...but it''s not loading for me now. Crap. You can still get a demo of the game at this site, so maybe some other people can appreciate what you and I both know.

quote: So, I have to ask Scott: given your game preferences, what games do you prefer:? As an example for what makes RPGs fun...

Honestly, the only RPGish game I''ve played recently is Hengband (which is an Angband derivitive). Before that, I spent some time with Tactics Ogre on the PS1, which would''ve been better if it was more free-form. I also messed around a bit with Diablo II, I guess, but the constant feeling of being pushed along stopped me from playing. (Unfortunately, the past couple years have been especially difficult to find the time to explore more games - too many of my coworkers not pulling their weight during crunch time.)

As an aside, I''m also perpetually working on my own hybrid tactical-RPG-business sim game. I''ve gone through a bajillion designs with it, none of which have kept me happy with it for very long...but my current one has remained on my white board at home longer than most, so who knows...maybe this one will fly. (And since we ship the last SKU of our game (at work) next weekend, I''ll have the time to dedicate to it...)

quote: Original post by wraith20
True, most FF games don''t involve much thinking, but the game Final Fantasy Tactics *did* have a tactical battle engine (much like tactics ogre if you''ve ever heard of it). It was fun, but one (possible) issue was the sheer length of time it could take to conclude a battle (also, leveling up was too easy - you could develop a party of minor deities if you weren''t careful).

I have both FFT and TO for my PS1 - I ended up liking TO a lot more. Maybe I just have anti-FF in me or something, but TO just felt better to me.

Did you also try Ogre Battle? (SNES or PS1) It''s another twist on tactical combat games, this time lending itself more to RTS than RPG...even though you don''t directly control the combats. It also still had the same element of ownership in that your hero and his lackeys gained experience and could change classes in the same way as TO.

quote: nother thing: I think rpg''s have become less like role-playing games and more like interactive books w/ lots of pictures. People still play the ''good books'' for the compelling story or whatever, but the rp experience is lost

Ok, so you DO understand what I was getting at. That''s good to know.

The funny thing is, I think most people who like the ''good book'' style RPG would really dig an open-ended, more free-form game, if it was done well. (this ties into a couple other threads about "never ending games" that popped up recently - so I won''t go on about it....)