The idea is good, but keep in mind that your story must be long and drawn out if you are going to remove the charctor building associated with combat. You want to keep the players attention as long as possable, and while no combat MAY accomplish this, it will generaly shrink gameplay (time) greatly. Compensate this with a powerfull, and long, storyline, and you will do fine. Mind you, battle after battle, all being the same, will bore the player to death and they will lose interest. Its balance that is a necessity to get the most out of the player. Also, make sure that if you remove combat, add another form of charactor building, as that is vital to making a GOOD RPG.

whenn copy nd pastee get rigghht the first time/
whenn copy nd pastee get rigghht the first time/

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
That would depend entirely on the point of the RPG in question. Baldur''s Gate without combat would sell exactly ZERO copies. The whole point of the game is combat. Might and Magic? You''d have to rename it Walking and Sleeping.

Can you imagine Diablo with no combat? *laugh*

On the other hand, games like MYST can get away with having no combat because people are playing to see pretty pictures. Solitare and Mine Sweeper are also games where people aren''t expecting combat to play a large part of the game.

---

This is probly the least helpful comment I''ve ever read. If your just going to be insulting then why post?


But like you said in your post those games are all about combat, if the entire game is about combat you can''t remove combat from it that. But an rpg doesn''t have to be about combat in fact any good rpg has very little to do with combat.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

I really, really like this idea. I''m definatly one of those people who likes to play RPGs for the story rather than the battles. This would give each player the choice of how to play and honestly if there is a real choice between each of the given options then what is there to complain about. If you don''t like one of the options simply don''t choose it.

For the experience problem you could go the way of Planescape Torment and allow nice big xp gains for non-combat related things. Such as completing a quest or getting some important information from someone. These xp gains would be different depending which setting you are playing the game on, so combat free people would get a lot more xp from this than the action hero. It also gives the no combat player a sense of actual progression, of their character as well, since their character will gain levels almost as much as those players who play on other settings.

Someone mentioned the enc-none abiltiy in FF8, I actually really liked this skill. You could get it very early if you wanted to (basically just after getting the magic lamp). It didn''t overly matter if you didn''t gain many levels throughout the game as the monsters abilities were matched to your level (most of the time). Also if you needed to gain a few quick levels for a certain fight then it was very easy since the amount of xp needed was not a great amount and was the same for each level.

quote:

---

Original post by Blacksmith_Tony
I really, really like this idea. I''m definatly one of those people who likes to play RPGs for the story rather than the battles. This would give each player the choice of how to play and honestly if there is a real choice between each of the given options then what is there to complain about. If you don''t like one of the options simply don''t choose it.

For the experience problem you could go the way of Planescape Torment and allow nice big xp gains for non-combat related things. Such as completing a quest or getting some important information from someone. These xp gains would be different depending which setting you are playing the game on, so combat free people would get a lot more xp from this than the action hero. It also gives the no combat player a sense of actual progression, of their character as well, since their character will gain levels almost as much as those players who play on other settings.

---

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Basically you''d have 3 modes:
Quest Mode
Normal Mode
Extreme Mode

You''ll still want to have Key Battles no matter what because they help add to the story-line if implemented right. (Think of the battle with Genova in FF7 right after Aeris Get''s run through . That battle helped to finalize things for the player and set the mood very well (the music especially) for the scene to come. A few Movie Production classes and psychology classes will take you a long way in making an excellent story for your game.

You HAVE to balance the classes though. Make quests that give some decent experience, but maybe throw in a boss battle for a lot of them to keep some action in the game. Make the battles meaningfull though...basically what you''re doing is getting rid of the pointless battles in the game. You could also make your Bosses follow a class system similar to your characters (all stats times the number of party members with a bit of modification to make it challenging(I''d say a battle should last at least 10 rounds if not more.)) and then set your Bosses to be the same level as the player''s characters. That will solve any problems you should have as far as balance goes as long as you playtest extensively.

Just a side note: FFXs battles were a joke at best. I didn''t die once until Yunalesca used that cheep ass Mega Death spell that kills everyone in your party (stupid me sold all my death ward stuff). Don''t do that! Who wants to fight 2 20 minute battles only to be instantly killed during the third? At least give a chance to resist it. After that the only troubles I had were the Monster Arena creations. The last boss died in one hit and I still had 3 more turns before it even got to go (I wasted lots of time in the Omega Dungeon). My point is don''t make the battles too easy...call me weird, but I like to die once in a while in a game. It gives a better sense of accomplishment when you go back the next time and kick the shit out of that boss.

-Dave Mandrella
thedavil@hotmail.com

I don''t like the mode idea. It sort of cheapens the feeling you get when you win a (normal) battle - you''ll just think, "What''s the point? I could have picked the other mode and I wouldn''t have had to fight any other battles." Too much choice is bad sometimes.

Dying is defeintly something that needs to be balanced, in action rpgs like diablo diying is very easy if you don''t level build. But on the other hand most console style rpgs you can play the whole game and never, die or lose a battle.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

hello every body

hey guys, you are too conservative and "narrow gaming"

there is game like giftopia, animal crossing and harvest moon without combat but if that you want??

i think the matter is you want the same damn epic story without too much obstacle which slow the story but still have a little feelings of discovery the story through the "story quest" gameplay (find element to trigger the next story part) which give a kind of interactivity to have the illusion of participation

well a better version of interactive cinema not really rpg (Final fantasy goes this way, the combat system become more and more a disturbance, they must find another way to make it)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Odd the Hermit : sorry I was just trying to point out that using items to avoid combat can be done, has been done, and in my opinion is pretty useful. Like I illustrated, it allows the players to avoid the boring fights that dont present any more challenge in an elegant manner.
By no way is it a perfect solution, otherwise this thread would have no reason to be, would it

---

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

quote:

---

Original post by ahw
Odd the Hermit : sorry I was just trying to point out that using items to avoid combat can be done, has been done, and in my opinion is pretty useful. Like I illustrated, it allows the players to avoid the boring fights that dont present any more challenge in an elegant manner.
By no way is it a perfect solution, otherwise this thread would have no reason to be, would it

---

True. I was just surprised that you sounded like you were disagreeing with me, even though we were stating the same side...

quote:

---

Original post by Tron3k
I don''t like the mode idea. It sort of cheapens the feeling you get when you win a (normal) battle - you''ll just think, "What''s the point? I could have picked the other mode and I wouldn''t have had to fight any other battles." Too much choice is bad sometimes.

---

Wabout games like Doom & Quake, with their "Easy/Normal/Hard/Nightmare/You''ve got to be f-ing kidding me" modes? When you blast through a monster (or a bot) on the harder difficulties, do you think, "Well, yeah, but I could''ve just gone with an easier mode, and this would''ve been cake"? Is the higher difficulty level "cheapenned"? Or do you find yourself saying, "Hmm, that wasn''t too bad--maybe I should try a higher difficulty next time."--and thus the higher difficulty level has more of an ego-boosting attraction? It''s the same thing here.

Also (no longer responding to Tron3k), this system could allow RPGs to have much more replay value. In current RPGs, even when there''re branches in the storyline, multiple endings, etc., people will generally play through once before shelving the game and moving on to the next one in their pile. (Many will, in fact, use a FAQ or strategy guide to find the ending they want!) If, however, the player were able to go through without combat, he/she could do a full runthrough in a few hours of gametime, and thus explore and find the various storyline options for himself/herself, without worrying that he/she would just be wasting 40+ hours of his/her life to get the same exact ending all over again. This would allow someone who''s played through the full 40+ hour game to run through and re-live the storyline, find new storylines, etc., as well as allow someone to explore, try out various options, get comfortable with the game, and then go back through with combat turned on. I can see people using the system both ways...

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.

-Odd the Hermit

I definetly agree with odd hermit most, rpgs I play once and never again, well except for Fallout 2. In fact many rpgs I never finish because I get bored before the end.

I think me and many other people would appreciate the choice of game modes. Being able to choose to fight only key battles means I can play through the entire game in a few hours and enjoy the hopefully compelling storyline. And if the game has multile ending all the better. Afterall how many time have you found out about something really interesting in a game, that you missed or overlooked. But you don''t want to start over again simply because of the time involed in playing the game over.

Also the kind of people who will play on extreme or normal arn''t going to feel cheapend by the game having an easier mode simply because thats not the kind of gaming experince they are looking for. There are poeple who like nothing more then to kill 10,000 enimies through the course of the game and see the story and other aspects as just a side note.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document