an adventure game does not HAVE to be linear, that is just how most of them are made... you could use the same format, but throw in several ways to solve each problem, some red herrings, and other problems which you don''t necessarily have to solve but will help you out with later ones, which otherwise would be harder.
for example, you could get the old guy his cat so he gives you a key to the tower; or you could slap him around until he spits up the key without his cat; or you could pick the lock yourself (after learning how by helping someone else); or you could befriend the Andre The Giant character (from The Princess Bride) and have him beat eh door down for you.
the problem isn''t the type of game, it is the poor designing by their publishers. if you stick to your guns, though, and are willing to put in hundreds of puzzles that you know players will only bother with a third of, you could create a great game with great replayability, and no fighting.

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

First of all... RPG stands for role playing game. Therefore, you take the role of a charecter and play through a part ( or all ) of his life, ultimately determining his fate.

Secondly, you do not need a party, though sometimes it makes your game more interesting... a young adult trying to find his soulmate for example. Why would you need a party there?

Diablo was an Action/RPG, not just an RPG.

You could make a myst-final fantasy combination... where you need to reach a certain goal by reaching other goals, not really killing or fighting physically, but mentally.

Finally, games are entertainment. It has to be fun for a certain group of people, or interesting I guess.

If your game isn't fun, why bother making it?

There has to be a point to your game, something different than what you could do in reality.

The idea is interesting, but I don't think you would have a fun time getting it published, if you intend on doing so. A few people would like this idea. ( maybe a couple thousand at the most ) but the general public is looking for voilence in these days.

( The governments still trying to figure out why kids are carrying guns... parents are watching thier 10 year old son play Rainbow Six.... hmmm, I wonder )

Good Luck.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you..."~Friedrich Nietzsche

Edited by - Drizzt DoUrden on October 11, 2001 5:05:52 PM

*sigh*

As Oluseyi so graciously pointed out, I have started a thread which proposes an RPG type of game which completely changes the flavor, typical strategy, and defined roles present in most all RPGS to date.

I have added more detail and ideas/concepts in my most recent posts to that thread. Yes, this is flat out promotion of that thread here. There is a reason though. It directly addresses the staleness persent in standard fighting/experiece collecting RPGs.

My proposed idea essentially sideskirts the issue of 3d or 2d terrains and animated characters cavorting about in said landscapes. This is because the idea tackles the political and social issues of empire building, and the role one might play in that arena. The information necessary to play such a game is not a view of the land and your character, but an assimilation of hte viewpoints, opinions, political bents and objectives of your opponents and proponents alike.

One does not wield a sword or laser pistol. Instead, one wields a pulpit, thier reputation, their vote, their mind, their persuasivness, and their ability to assimilate and affect the state of an emerging society, government, and its doctrine.

about post from Hase (10 October 2001)

The idea about 10 ways to get rid of the Troll is fine, but you are practicaly saying - dont make rpg, make it adventure.

Yes it is easy. When you dont want killing in rpg, dont make RPG But imo this is not solution to change genre of the game.

Yes its cool making rpg with lot of stuff like this and there are titles with it already (i remember things like this in Icewind Dale - there was some Giant you can kill\perusade\heal to get pass him). But there was still main goal and it was killing thru hordes of creatures which made game complete. And we ar on the beginning - what to do with fighting.

Not to calculate exp from how many enemies you slay is good idea. But about Quest for Glory system - I remember playing Heroes Quest 3 year ago. I remember also that i hate when i need to click thousands of thousands times on tree (or what was that thing in the willage to learn 2 points of climbing skill. Imo its not a good idea cause its at last rally boring for the player.

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

God, I just hope you dont mean that Sims are RPG
(And i dont like the game anyway.)

--------

"And the other ideas.. like gaining experience for doing others stuff.. Hello?? Baldurs Gate, do you people even play RPG''s on the computer?"

I played Icewind Dale for some time (hope its quite the same - sorry if im wrong) and i think its exactly the game where you are gaining exp pts by killing tons of creatures. Correct me if im wrong or missed something. So i dont really know what you ment in your post.
--------

So we have 2 ways sugested here:

1. make game that contains lots of adventure puzzles like persuading troll and then its more adventure then rpg.

I personaly dont like this simply cause its not much rpg anymore and thats why i dont like to neither make it nor play it.

And i like my writer too much to put him thru living hell of creating thousands of nonlinear situatios to keep player busy so he dont get to killing.

2. make game where gaining exps \ skills is not based on combatt but on "doin things". I like the idea but there is problem of creating some new exciting system where player have enough oportunities to "do things" and still dont need to click tousand times on tree to get next level of climbing.

------

Ok and i have one more idea (so you cant say im just askin a questios ) - what about something like Messiah ? Main hero can be ghost on the beginnig which means all he can do is hovering around and POSSES any living creature depending from his inner energy. So he start with 1pt of enery - he can get controll of something like squirrel. As squirrel he can move around and do some task (dont know what - this is the point i dont have any idea about ): to get more essence points so he ca posses some higher creatures (like sprites and after that finaly humans etc.)

(Uff its relly somethig when i must write in english - im not very good in it so sorry about some weird looking sentences

I think the best way to think about this is to look at the film industry. There are tons of movies out there in all sort of different genres that don''t involve any killing or death at all. If you think of a game was more of a way of telling an interesting story or as something that''s meant to entertain, you can open up whole new threads of ideas for games.

Right now the gaming industry is still super young compared to most other entertainment industries. Think of todays games as being the music version of banging on a tan drum or a black and white musical.

Developers are still stuck in this rut of ''genres'' and me-too cash in clones. What makes an RPG and RPG? Or an Adventure game and Adventure game?

If you take just the term RPG (Role Playing Game). You end up with a game that''s about taking on the role of another character (or group of characters). For me this means being able to make decisions that effect the devopement of ther abilities and personalities of the characters I control.

For some reason the second you take away stats an RPG gets labeled an Adventure game. Or if you let you character fight in an adventure game, it becomes either an action/adventure or rpg/adventure.

I think it''s completely and totally possible to make an ''RPG'' that doesn''t involve any fighting at all. Your character could develope morally, changing him/herself depending on the choices you make.

Think about a Private Eye RPG, where you gain skills like picking locks, noticing evidence, learning to ask the right questions to suspects etc. You''d have ''quests'' that would involve solving cases... which, as you solved them, would give you better case solving skills and abilities. The money you get could allow you to buy better detective equipment (night vision goggles, etc.).

I think games that blur the lines between Genres are the way of the future. How many games where you kill giant rats and goblins do there have to be before someone gets BORED OUT OF THERE BLOODY MIND with it and comes up with something different.

The industry is stuck in the mindset that all new games should be just like (but sligly ''better'' than) the popular games of the year before. It''s a miserable trend...

there was a old game (dos) that was a rpg (i guess) that i tried
called Void (by ribbonsoft, i think)

it had no fighting and you just collected items and talk
it was stupid because it had no fighting, consider that

I think most people here are still thinking inside the box. You are trying to distance yourself from the concept of fighting, but you still think in terms of stats and die rolls. In effect, you are taking fighting, and laying its template onto another action.

The other suggestions seem to also be somewhat constrained by the fighting scenario, but with a different solution. I would still call this thinking within the box. These suggestions are essentially saying that instead of fighting, let''s use a different tactic to circumvent the situation that ordinarily requires fighting.

Instead, I suggest looking towards exploiting the role potential in RPGs by using the elements of sociology. In an RPG, if you wish to truly personify and give life to the role you play, there should exist the mechanisms to build your character as a social entity within the framework of a greater social context. Your character must be able to express who he is, what he stands for, and have the ability to create a niche within a greater infrastructure which makes that infrastructure rely on him. By doing so, his role becomes thouroughly integrated into a larger structure.

Role playing should deemphasize stats, minutia, and random statistics, and emphasize integration, real person impact, and interaction within the social structure of a greater world.

"It was stupid because it didn''t contain fighting"... What kind of observation is that? That''s like saying "Magnolia was stupid because there was no fighting in it!".

At the moment I think that one of the problems with trying to crack this nut of creating games that aren''t relying on combat and violence as their primary element, is that games are being put into categories left and right. RPG? Stats, skills, isometric view and lots of random encounters with monsters. Adventure? Talk and puzzles. FPS? Move, shoot, heal, loop.

What needs to be done in my opinion, is to realize that when you''re designing your game and writing your story you shouldn''t feel confined to not having emphasis on for instance conversations and character development just because you want to have the player play the game from a first person perspective.

You as the designer should try to stop thinking about a situation as being a puzzle to which there are a number of scripted solutions. Instead think of it as a problem to which the player has to apply some sort of solution. Then give him the tools with which he can solve it.

An example is in order. Say we have a house. The house is located in a suburban neighborhood, and the player has to gain entrance into it. So we set up the house with windows, locked doors and so on and so forth. We might have a few windows on the upper floors that are halfway open.

The player has had the chance throughout the game up until this point to ''arm'' himself with a wide variety of items. Let''s say he has a lockpick, a shotgun, a crowbar and of course his fist. (This is keeping it simple, so stay with me).

So instead of giving the player one solution to the problem, we''ve given him the tools with which he can bypass the problem.

He can lockpick the door, but his lockpick might break... He can break a window and crawl in, but the neighbors might hear him and call the police. He can not give a rats ass and blow the shiznatz out of the door with his shotgun and definetly draw some attention onto himself or he can crawl up onto the roof and get in through one of the open windows.

Each playthrough is different.

Okay, we''ve seen that before in games like Deus Ex. But it''s only in its beginning stages today. Tomorrow we''ll not have to think of every way the player can negotiate this problem. We just set up the house, give the player some tools and let him figure it out by himself by simulating as much of the house as possible. (The game knows that a crowbar inflicts damage when thrust, and it knows that glass breaks when inflicted with damage.)

So how do we apply this to a game on a more overall perspective?

Well let''s take a trooper standing guard in front of a door. We need to get past him. Now besides the many other ways of entry into the building that we might have left open to the player, giving the player a range of tools to handle the situation he doesn''t have to resolve to violence.

So he can steal a uniform from another guard that he has rendered unconcious with his tazer. Seeing the uniform the guard lets the player gain access because the AI recognizes the uniform as being a trooper and therefor not a threat.


"Yeah yeah yeah, you talk about a lot of stuff that we have already seen a lot of in games today, what about replacing combat in games like Baldurs Gate?"

Well the ''problem'' with games like for instance Baldurs Gate is that their stories rely on the player increasing his stats and skills throughout the game to beat more and better monsters. As noted before the removing of monsters leads to the removing of stats and skills and... wait... that''s not right.

You can still barter, steal, cook, lockpick, spot traps, charm and so on and so forth. So designing the world you take this into account and change the focus from having the player traverse the world killing stuff to having the player rise in riches by bartering with people in different villages. The challenge for the player is then to gain access to more and more rare items. With the money he earns he can help a village buy the mercenaries they need to protect their caravans from the hellspawn in the woods (thus combat still exists, but is not of the players concern).

This could be merely a small amount of the gameplay. The player might also act as a political representative who has to negotiate with people in other cities on trade route taxations and stuff.

"Taxation... what am I, an idiot?".

Well the way in which to make this interesting is to wrap it into a proper story. Because just as straight on combat games aren''t really interesting in the long run (Fallout Tactics anyone?), this wouldn''t be much fun without the suspence of a story wrapped around it.


The only reason combat is still the prevalent form of gameplay in most games is because it''s such an easy conflict to put the player into.

Whereas a conversation with an NPC usually only has the options that the designer gives you, once you have the AI in Half-Life working properly you can set up countless encounters with Marines in Half-Life and make them all unique by changing the terrain and the players firepower. In that way the player can choose for himself how to negotiate the problem.

So what you need to do is come up with a simulation that can be affected by a variety of properties (and where some of those properties are directly affected by the player).


On a conversation note, there is just no other way of doing it right than doing it the hard way. You just need to script everything baby! Some things can be done on the fly, but overall the only good solution is to do it by hand most of the way.

This is limiting of course, but it does allow you to flavor the game in the way you want it.


---
Hmm... well that whole post certainly doesn''t make as much sense as it does in my head... But some of the point got across anyway I think... or point_s_...

I''ve gotta get some sleep dammit.

Michael Heilemann
---------------------------
Designer on Singularity - Sysop at Nerve Impulse
Let us never allow ourselves the sin of forgetting our dreams!

quote: Original post by Riva

The idea about 10 ways to get rid of the Troll is fine, but you are practicaly saying - dont make rpg, make it adventure.

Yes it is easy. When you dont want killing in rpg, dont make RPG But imo this is not solution to change genre of the game.


So we have 2 ways sugested here:

1. make game that contains lots of adventure puzzles like persuading troll and then its more adventure then rpg.

I personaly dont like this simply cause its not much rpg anymore and thats why i dont like to neither make it nor play it.

And i like my writer too much to put him thru living hell of creating thousands of nonlinear situatios to keep player busy so he dont get to killing.

2. make game where gaining exps \ skills is not based on combatt but on "doin things". I like the idea but there is problem of creating some new exciting system where player have enough oportunities to "do things" and still dont need to click tousand times on tree to get next level of climbing.


Ok and i have one more idea (so you cant say im just askin a questios ) - what about something like Messiah ?

I think you misunderstood, let me try and clear that up:

I was saying: keep making RPGs, but in a way that don´t REQUIRE killing for gaining experience/levels/whatever. I´m not even against the idea of gaining experience by fighting (after all, fighting is an experience ).
The possibilities I included with my somewhat shallow troll-example would of course be modified by your characters stats. If he/she is a good talker, you´d have a better chance trying to talk, if your character were more morally flexible, you might have less trouble killing the troll. I just think that the possibilites should all be there, for the brawler to talk, for the thief to fight, and for the wizard to steal.

And if you like your writer too much to make him write good plot for a good game, then you shouldn´t be the producer/project manager.

To your second point: sure, the "climb the tree a thousand times" option has to be avoided, but that can be achieved by giving only limited experience gain from a tree (after all, there´s only so much you can learn from a tree). In addition to that you have to add more risk to every climbing of the tree (or mountain, if your guy goes for the big experience). When there´s a realistic chance of falling every time, you won´t have situations like that.
And unfortunately this new system (whatever it will be) will definitely require your writer to write thousands and thousands of little non-linear events..

About your idea: I liked Messiah, but I also think that now it´s been done, so anything in that direction would automatically be like, and be compared to Messiah. And since I´ve already played Messiah (which had most of the things you mentioned) I dont think that a game like that would have such a big appeal.

quote: Original post by Eudaimic

On a conversation note, there is just no other way of doing it right than doing it the hard way. You just need to script everything baby! Some things can be done on the fly, but overall the only good solution is to do it by hand most of the way.

yo. the only problem being: new idea=always risk (will ppl like it). risk=always bad, especially when: new idea=costs lotses of money more than old idea.

quote: Original post by Hase
If he/she is a good talker, you´d have a better chance trying to talk, if your character were more morally flexible, you might have less trouble killing the troll. I just think that the possibilites should all be there, for the brawler to talk, for the thief to fight, and for the wizard to steal.

I am not sure this proposal is a solution to what is wrong with RPGs. I think this type of thinking only transplants the problem into new options, as opposed to bringing a conceptually different experience to the player.

I really see no difference in clicking my character''s mouth and wielding my conversation skill against another character and clicking my sword and wielding my fighting ability against another character.

As I said earlier, I think it is time for developers to move away from this stat/skill paradigm and focus more on giving the player the ability to personify within his character real skills through mechanisms which would enable that character to become an integrated element of a larger social infrastructure.