Think about skill based RPG without fighting/killing mobs. What about something new you can gain exp for. What will you substitute for killing ? Do you know about game titles like this ?

Move away from the idea of exp points. Change the objective; say, the accumulation of resources or influence, which is dependent on your trade, barter, negotiation and persuasion skills rather than killing.

Look at bishop_pass'' thread in this forum; there were a few interesting ideas in there, and the game still qualifies as RPG.

I was thinking about something more like say Ultima series - the game with the similiar system just withou actualy killing anybody. Its just an inde.

With RPGs, you need to get down to the main focus of the genre. Thats having control over a group of characters and following them through to some goal(s). If you want to remove killing from the gameplay, you''d need to replace the gameplay element, just like with any other genre. As bad as an idea this sounds like, play Pokemon for at least 15 minutes. You''ll see that Nintendo thought it would be a good idea to replace killing with Tiajuana style chicken fighting. Whether or not we agree, its one way to replace the killing without replacing the gameplay element.

Though, another a related subject, read the Gamasutra article about Drama. Ideally, a story should help mold gameplay elements. You may find that your ideas might not even warrant the game being an RPG.

:: Inmate2993
:: William C. Bubel
"Please refrain from bothering Booster."

In most rpgs, the reason for gaining skills and experience is only to be better in battle. If you want to avoid battles i think the most appropriate genre would be "adventure game" instead of rpg, since character statistics wont be important anymore.

I cant remember any rpg game i''ve seen which doesnt include combat and killing as the main element.

I'll be more concrete. Look at DiabloII game (its not much RPG but its fair simple so good as example).

You have simple chain of what player have to do to be succesfull in game:

you kill mobs >> you receive experience >> you level up >> you increase your hero's atributes ((should) make killing easier)

What just about to replace >killing\fighting< with something different. Imagine the same game (with same izo gfx and skilling system) just without fighting. Game where player cant even use weapons.

Maybe something like main hero is healer. He walkx the world and instead killing healthy demon minions his task is to heal wounded warriors, sick or bewildered (crazy) people etc.

Or what about replace killing with "banishing" demons. Hero can be Angel send by heaven to banish escaping hell spawn demons back to burning hell. Yes maybe this is too close to killing mobs we started with but its just another idea.

And finaly do you know tale about "Pied Piper" ? It was typical rpg character but he never killed anybody (at last using weapons .

About accumulating resources or influence - imo it fits more to strategy game then to clasic rpg. How can hero or party accumulate resources while they walk some fantasy realm and how it can actually help them in the game ?

Some followups on this ideas ?

Edited by - riva on October 8, 2001 10:26:11 AM

I was thinking about this last night and came up with what I think is a fairly good idea. Replace fighting with "mini-games." When you meet an "enemy" in an encounter he challenges you to a game of... something. There could be lots of different games:

tic-tac-toe
rock-scissors-paper
connect four
etc.

You could also use twitch games like a Tetris or Columns clone. Or even sports games like tennis. In fact, the way I arrived at this idea was trying to think of ways in which people compete, but don''t hurt each other, and of course sports came immediately to mind. The more different kinds of games you had, the better your RPG would be.

Here''s the best part... as your character advances, the games could get harder, just like in a combat-oriented RPG! The checkers AI opponent gets harder and harder... the Tetris pieces fall faster, etc.

Also, the goal of equipment in the game changes somewhat. In a traditionally RPG you are constantly looking for the best armor and weapon. In this game you are looking for the items that give you an advantage in games. For instance, the Tennis shoes help you run faster, so they help you defeat Count MacEnroe, Evil Tennis Overlord. Or the Glasses of Alexi let you see what the next piece in the Tetris game is going to be.

FF VII sort of had this, to a very limited degree... but their mini-games were just diversions with minor rewards, the game wasn''t focused around them.

Is this a great idea or what!?

So you can''t kill people, that sounds fine. Doesn''t mean you can''t have enemies, and thet the enemies'' demise be met by, say, environmental challenges? Even old skool Pengo had death by ice-block. It wasn''t a weapon, but it sure got the job done.

There are lots of ways you can replace the combative element of a clickfest game. I also assure you that the US Congress will be doing everything in it''s vast myopic vision to enforce fewer "kill-it" games and focus on other genre.

-----------
-WarMage
...2,3,5,8,13,21... (finbonacci''s neighbor, the fibonacci prime ...

I think some of you are going at this from the wrong angle. YOu´re trying to find substitutes for fighting, where substitutes are not necessary.

If anyone can remember Alex Kidd in Miracle World on the Master system? (stone/scissors/paper).. bwaH!

If the story requires confrontation, if the story requires fights, then you can´t substitute them. I think what this should be about is not how to remove fighting/killing by making it into something different (whith the same mechanics), but how to build a rpg-world which is not based on fighting as the primary gain of exp.

Personally I like fights in a game, some kind of confrontation is part of every good tale. I think what we should focus on is finding alternatives to fights, not replacements. There will always be the players who like to hack and slay, and I say let them. But the more puzzle or roleplay oriented players should have ample options to explore other paths. As long as the exp gain reflects that, there won´t be any problems.

I think that you don´t have to reinvent the RPG as a genre, some slight modification and a bit more depth will have the same effect, whith the added bonus of not alienating the old school hack and slayers.


Problem: Ogre won´t let me through the door

possible solutions:

1) the classic: kill the ogre
2) convince the ogre to let you through
3) put something in the ogres food to make him sleep, then sneak by
4) even ogres have to go to the toilet sometime, so just stick around and wait for an opportunity
5) find another entrance entirely
6) go talk to the ogres wife, go back to him telling him that she´s murderously pissed at him and that he should get his sorry ass back home THIS INSTANT.
7) bribe him
8) ...


as long as the exp gain is not calculated by "creatures killed", but by "creativity of solution", then players will readily accept the new possibilites.

I think that a good thing would be to take the experience system away from the players control, at least to some extent. I never could figure out why killing 87 hobgoblins would give you greater knowledge of medicine...
If you remember Quest for Glory (Sierra RPG/adventure), you had a specific character class, which was ONLY defined by its skills (so you could pick a fighter with lots of strength and a big sword and still try the thieves way through the adventure). This gave you a lot of freedom in the choice of solutions.
You also had (except the initial stats) no influence on your skills EXCEPT training.
If you wanted to become really good at climbing, you´d find a tree and practise. If you wanted to become good at swordfights, you´d have to do a lot of fighting, or pay a swordsmaster to teach you...

I think this could work well for newer RPGs as well, the people would focus more on the game, and less on the stat sheets.

Riva maybe you should take a close look at the sims.