Harvest Moon games are some of my favourite ever RPG and there is little to no combat in them (unless you consider hitting your dog with the hammer/hoe/axe fighting) instead other things are involved like the accumulation of wealth/Winning the heart of your beloved/levelling up tools. My favourite of the series "Harvest Moon:Back to Nature" on the playstation had events such as horse racing, chicken sumo and swimming races as well as huge recipe books to fill. I spent tons of hours on this game (notice i didnt say wasted, i dont consider playing games you love a waste of time)

There were a couple of neat tricks you could do in that game with two memory cards, like duplicating livestock xD (...not that i ever did that) but yeah, no combat involved a VERY fun game.

Same goes for survival kids on the gameboy color; a ton of fun to play, multiple endings barely any combat involved. In fact something like that on a grander scale would be an amazing game.*dreams of Survival Kids:back to nature* a merge of both these games with various features implemented from each other would be pretty hard to resist if done correctly.

One game in this vein I found difficult to play for long periods of time was Animal Crossing, I just never felt like there was enough to do. sure there was a ton of things to collect etc. but events were few and far between. I think if there had been more interactive events the game would have worked better. nonetheless I still bought it (cube version) and had a ton of fun playing it but I never played it for more then 30 minutes at a time or more than 2 hours a day.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Quote: Original post by: Eric Seiler In many RPGs the world is a place of strife and you, through the player character, must fulfill some form of hero's story to save it. This typically means starting out small or weak and relatively unknown, overcoming many obstacles which leads to growth, to eventually overcome the antagonist in some sort of climactic battle. In this you have already assumed combat needs to take place (that is: "some sort of climactic battle"). So it is therefore impossible to not have combat in the resulting game. Also, the "Hero's Journy" is only one plot progression, and this also strongly suggests combat.

I am calling out the most used plot line, not saying that it has to be done this way. I'll hazard a guess and say the aforementioned Hero's Journey roughly describes 9 out of 10, or at least the vast majority, of single player computer RPGs. There are reasons for that, not just a lack of creativity, which have to do with creating systems that can be utilized repeatedly across the entire scope of a game (as outlined in my previous post)

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan By only using plots that are geared towards combat, it is obvious that trying to not have combat in such situations will be hard. But, if you instead start from a plot pattern that does not requier combat, then it is also equally obvious that making it without combat will be much easier.

I think we are actually in complete agreement here.

Quote:

Original post by EdtharanAnd besides, ti is not that combat occurs at all in these game, it is that the central focus of these game seems to be about combat (dungeon crawling). Combat, might occur in these other types of games, but it is no longer the central focus of the game (and the central focus of a role playing game should be about playing a role).

I think this is the classic view of what RPGs are, or should be; however, I hesitate to say that most players look at it that way these days. Since the vast majority of computer RPGs use some form of combat as their core gameplay mechanic this definition has become muddied. A lot of players now automatically associate dungeon crawling, loot drops, and combat in general with an RPG experience. Like I said though, that isn't MY definition of role-playing, just the one that is implied these days by the games currently in the marketplace.

Maybe the most important question isn't whether or not combat CAN be removed from an RPG (it is pretty obvious that it can be), but whether or not your target audience wants that.

Quote:

Maybe the most important question isn't whether or not combat CAN be removed from an RPG (it is pretty obvious that it can be), but whether or not your target audience wants that.

I think this has almost hit the nail on the head.

Big AAA companies are reluctant to try too radical a change as the money involved in these large projects presents too much of a risk to try anyhting too far from what is currently selling. This is not to say that they won't try for some variations, it is just that this variation is more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary.

Indi developers are more free to try revolutionary designs, and if successful can cause changes in the AAA companies practices. This ia actually good because it limits risk while still allowing for changes to what players whant. The down side is that the big AAA titles will never accomodate everyone (but then you have indi games to accomodate them too and it provides motivation for new develoeprs to enter into the market). And, the audience can only decide what it wants from what it is presented with, so constant change and experiementation is needed to create new options for players to choose from.

Although a player might want to play a certain style of game, what they have to do is choose from what is available, but the game industry then looks at what is selling (what the players choose) and see that as what the players want.

ALso, there are many different players and they all have different wants from games. This wamsn there is always going to be some players that want something different to what is available. The querstion then comes down to whether or not there is enough players that want what you produce.

All this means is that what players choose is not necesarily what they want. So although players might choose RPGs with high hack and slash combat, what they want might be something different.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about an idea somewhat similar to what the OP is discussing (RPG w/o combat). I was considering different ideas for a board game and after reading about games like Hero Quest, I thought "what if instead of a dungeon, you had a particularly interesting 'social setting' and instead of Barbarians, Elves, etc, you had Socialities, the socially inept, etc?" I think it would be entirelly possible, and fascinating, to craft a setting in which there is still all the conflict and strife of an average RPG but without resorting to "combat" to make it flow or seem interesting. Think of all the ways someone can manuever and manipulate others socially--lying, seducing, honesty, propaganda, w/e. You'd just have to provide an excellent set of goals, and a way to allow players to play more "unique" roles (like Clue, but where your choice of who you play as actually matters). The people I used to play D&D with loved the game, but disliked role-playing itself (I know, seems odd) so that's where you can come in and provide semi-outlined character types for them to play and if allowed, even "level up" or switch around abilities, giving them some control of the character and allowing them to invest the time into playing the game.

Me being the big history buff that I am, and enjoying small amounts of various "anything" knowledge, I had once set up a design document for an RPG that was denoted as more of a time traveling setting. You would visit various times in history where you would then piece together puzzles and find clues about a much greater storyline, tying everything together nicely. In fact, Assassin's Creed II is a general example for the most part of what I'm talking about, but without the combat.

It can be done, and I suspect if done well it would be "different" enough from the main stream "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope" story that you get in every RPG it seems now, that it might actually sell.

It's lovely to see this discussion going on here.

I'm a table-top game master, programmer, and computer gamer who has become disillusioned by console and computer RPGs as well as table-top games like AD&D 4th edition. Developers need to get the memo: some of us are through with hack and slash. A great number of RPG series' left my friends and I behind when graphics/combat took the driver's seat to a good story.

My gaming group regularly laments that it's hard to find a good game that isn't combat-driven outside of table-top role-playing. The final nail in the coffin for us was when even 'kids games' like pokemon continued to use combat as the primary tool for game progression.

I feel like most games that have tried to avoid or downplay combat fail. Maybe it's a lack of creativity or time/budget constraints. As one poster mentioned, Animal Crossing started to break the mold, but other than collecting items there just wasn't much to do. The Sims games fell into the same trap (though, building houses was kinda fun). The market is obviously ready for sandbox games without combat, as they have embraced the two games I mentioned, even though they lack real depth.

As an indie developer I'm looking for the right story or game mechanic to come bite me on the butt. I can see a wave breaking here, and I think a lot of us are watching it and would love to ride it into the market.

Back in the late 1990s Square put out Racing Lagoon for the PSX1. Simplest way to describe it is they removed the battle system from typical JRPGs, replaceing it with car racing. Winning gets you race points (think money) and allows you to pick a part off the loosers car as well as gaining experience points for your own car parts. It had a story (IIRC about the main character winning back his girlfriend while trying to become the "street king"). Odd little game, kinda like a Midnight Club type thing with a story and heavier RPG elements.

Combat in a RPG is basicly conflict resolution. And if you think in terms of designing gameplay around the many other forms of conflict resolution, then a noncombat centric RPG could be built from that.

Elaborating on what MSW suggested: Sports.

You get the competitiveness without the violence (depending on the sport in question). Soccer/football, tennis, fictional animal racing, whatever.

I think the main problem is putting in something the player can obviously get better at without it being boring (ie, fetch quests). For example, with a racing game the player could progress by upgrading vehicles/mounts and also becoming better at the basic gameplay. Managing a team, you could get new players, train them harder, get them new undetectable steroids, etc.
You need progression, but in a more subtle way than "You just got the level 16 crowbar! You can now perform fetch quests for things behind really heavy doors."

Choose an environment where "fighting" just doesn't/can't happen. How would you make a game that takes place in: A Monastery, the stock exchange, or tight and closed space(spaceship/submarine).

You're just going to have to simulate other things "semi-dynamically" rather than combat. And it's probably going to be kind of weird to start with. It's not that great of an intuitive leap that you can swing a sword more than once at something. How do you manage the same thing verbally or similar.

Quote:

Original post by GavinRPG It's lovely to see this discussion going on here. I'm a table-top game master, programmer, and computer gamer who has become disillusioned by console and computer RPGs as well as table-top games like AD&D 4th edition. Developers need to get the memo: some of us are through with hack and slash. A great number of RPG series' left my friends and I behind when graphics/combat took the driver's seat to a good story. My gaming group regularly laments that it's hard to find a good game that isn't combat-driven outside of table-top role-playing. The final nail in the coffin for us was when even 'kids games' like pokemon continued to use combat as the primary tool for game progression. I feel like most games that have tried to avoid or downplay combat fail. Maybe it's a lack of creativity or time/budget constraints. As one poster mentioned, Animal Crossing started to break the mold, but other than collecting items there just wasn't much to do. The Sims games fell into the same trap (though, building houses was kinda fun). The market is obviously ready for sandbox games without combat, as they have embraced the two games I mentioned, even though they lack real depth. As an indie developer I'm looking for the right story or game mechanic to come bite me on the butt. I can see a wave breaking here, and I think a lot of us are watching it and would love to ride it into the market.

I'm assuming you have never heard of Sim City, Flight Simulator, Tropico, Myst (one of the TOP SELLING and most succesful adventure games of all time), pretty much the entire adventure genre, many platforming games, the entire puzzle game genre, farmville, harvest moon, etc...

I would go as far as to say that there are more non-combat oriented games out there (especially if we inlcude board games) than there are combat oriented games. You just have to open your eyes and see them.

And Sims is increadibly good, and it's sales reflect this. It's one of those games that are fun to play by anyone. Hell I have had plenty of fun playing sims and I generally play more combat-oriented games than anything else. To say that it's a bad example of how non-combat oriented games can be just shows that you might be pretty ignorant of the genre or topic.