Is there a game after combat

EverythingXen, 2002-04-29

The thrill of victory. The cries of anguish. The crash of sword banging off shield or armor and the crackling of magical power and thunderous chanting of a wizard. These are tried and true images of combat in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG. Yet are they needed? Is it possible to make a good CRPG without focusing on combat?

In order to answer that let's look back to the origins of computer role playing games. In order to do that, we have to look back even farther to the origins of roleplaying games in general.

RPGs were originally based on tabletop war games. All RPGs are designed with combat in mind... it has to be a serious consideration. RPGs are about playing heroes... and what makes a hero? The willingness to stand up for the rights and lives of others. Can you do this in real life without combat and killing? I certainly hope so!

But in an RPG? It all comes down to the resolution of conflict. If there is no conflict, then one could argue there is no need for heroes. Unless you based an RPG on real life... for example, a firefighter or doctor RPG, you need to step into the role of a person willing to lay their lives on the line in the heat of combat.

It's been proven you can design a RPG without killing (a lot of superhero RPGs only have you 'knock out' an opponent by default... killing is optional). However, could you create one without combat? Yes. You can. You can design an RPG based around diplomats, doctors, firefighters, and negotiators. With a certain type of gamer this would work.

But would this approach work in a CRPG? Not likely. Perhaps in a game like the Sims... but for the dedicated masses of computer roleplayers I don't believe so. People want to overthrow the dark overlord, beat his best warriors, spell-battle his greatest wizards. Less people want to work on usurping his political power base, severing his resource lines, and convincing his most powerful allies that what he is doing is wrong. Yes, there may be players who want to do that... but a CRPG has to appeal to the masses.

Let's make it clear that I like combat in RPGs. I want to drive my boot of justice into the teeth of evil. I don't want it to be the focus of the game, no... a good story is always better than lots of combat... but I want it there. In that game of diplomats, I quite freely admit I would want to play a bodyguard. I enjoyed taking the 'we're cops' minimal violence approach to Deus Ex (I was disappointed when enemies started appearing in large packs that left no choice to isolate and knock out)... but I also enjoyed getting a target lock with the GEP and blowing a robot into a billion micro fragments.

So a CRPG without combat seems unlikely. But how about reducing the emphasis on it?

More than just combat
I believe it's all about moderation. Lately, game developers seem to have been getting that hint... and that can only be a good thing for the future of our favourite genre. Traditionally, what has separated 'computer' RPGs and 'table top' or 'pen and paper' RPGs is the amount of combat involved in either setting. A computer processes numbers faster than a human does. That's what we designed them to do, after all. Since all RPG combat systems to date involve the use of numbers, a computer will run combat faster and more efficiently than a 'live' games master. It's unlikely that a living games master will run you through 3 random encounters with 30 kobolds in 5 minutes... yet that's exactly the odds one faced in the original Pools of Radiance (Damn Slums of Phlan!). A 'live' game is typically paced to take several years to 'complete' (hit maximum level, etc). A computer game is geared to compress those hundreds of hours of gaming into 40 to 60 hours of play... in the past, this has led to 'endless' fights.

Recently, however, there have been signs that this mentality is changing. This may be a result of the people who played the original CRPGs back in the 80s now being the ones who are designing today's games or playing them and giving feedback to these companies. Developers seem to be realizing that people want 'more' than combat... they want depth and story and twists. They want to play a book, not a more complicated version of the classic Gauntlet.

Let's look back on games 15 years ago and games today. 15 years ago (give or take) the original Pool of Radiance was released. Utilizing the 'new' AD&D rules, it 'revolutionalized' the genre, according to its box. OK… Graphics aside (as you cannot judge them fairly to today's games, obviously), let's deconstruct this revolutionary game.

You fought. You fought, and fought, and fought. You also got to read descriptive bits (well written) and follow a straight line of a story (not badly written). Did you get a say in the matter? No. Dialogue trees? No. Multiple endings? No. Did anyone care about these things? Evidently not... it was played and loved by many.

How would such a game fare today? Well, for the answer to that one doesn't need to look any further than the success of Diablo, Diablo II, and Dungeon Siege. So I believe if it looked nice and played smoothly it would still be competitive.

But now you have those who say that games like Diablo II aren't 'really' Roleplaying games. Then the question must be asked... what was or is?

'Roleplayers' today are looking for 'depth'. They want a detailed story, consequences for their decisions in the game, multiple endings. In short, they want a tabletop game... with a computer games master.

It has been done before
There have been attempts at this in the past few years... some successful, others not. Games like Fallout, Fallout 2, and Arcanum all offer skills that are outside the realm of combat and influence the game's advancement and conclusion. Games like Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II offer multiple endings based on decisions made in the game.

These games still involve healthy doses of combat. In fact, the Baldur's Gate series (like most CRPGs) is written around a predetermined set of encounters. In what order you reach some of them is up to you... but if you play the 'complete' game you'll hit them.

Is this intense combat needed or wanted by today's CRPG players? Can a game be 'good' and appeal to enough people without it?

I believe so. In tabletop RPGs, taking the focus off of combat ultimately resides in your players and games masters rather than on the game itself. Let's take a look at a few games often regarded as 'combat heavy' RPGs and see if we can take some of the bite out and still find the game enjoyable:

Vampire and Mage from White Wolf. Fighting in either tends to lead to grisly demise. You can play a magical tank blowing things to pieces, yes... but with a good Storyteller, you don't need to. Working on living in the shadows gathering information and power and achieving personal enlightenment is its own reward in these games, and it pays off from a 'statistical' point of view for your characters as well.

Shadowrun and Cyberpunk: Oh yes... you CAN Rambo rather nicely in these games. You might even make it home alive if you're lucky. But once again, with a good games master the games can easily be more about stealth, information gathering, and getting the job done without a body count. After all... in Shadowrun if you case the target properly, have a great plan, slip in and out and get the target all without firing a single shot... you're rewarded in more ways than one. No hospital time or magic healing. No cyberware replacements. No ammo replacement fees. More experience. A better rep for being efficient. All tangible rewards in Shadowrun.

D&D 3rd Ed: "What? Is he nuts???? D&D is the STAPLE of INTENSE COMBAT TO ADVANCE!!!". Yes... that is true. But 3rd edition introduces the marvellous Challenge Rating system. Monsters have challenge ratings, yes... but you can assign the same ratings to everything else in the game. Sneak into the orc camp and rescue the kings daughter without alerting the orcs? Give it a challenge rating. Picking a lock? Challenge rating. Persuading the Ogre to leave the bridge. Challenge rating. Persuading the Ogre to join your party. HIGHER challenge rating.

Challenge Ratings = Experience points. You could have a bard go to level 20 without every swinging a sword if you have a creative DM. As for classes like the fighter? Well...

So arguably with a good games master, you can de-emphasize the combat aspects of a RPG and still end up with a game that's enjoyable to play. That's table-top gaming. But can this work for CRPGs? I believe so. Remember, the game developers are the 'games masters' in a CRPG. We're seeing more and more games being designed with more non-combat options.

You can win Fallout without firing a bullet at the end. Most of the important things in Arcanum can be accomplished without killing things (though unfortunately you do need to kill things if you want to explore any dungeon or advance past level 20).

Where do we stand
So it appears that you can.
But then you have to look at the other side of the market.

A game developer wants their product to sell. Who wouldn't? If you invested so much time in something, you want it to appeal to as many people as it can. There are those who don't WANT detailed story or less emphasis on combat and a successful CRPG has to take that factor into consideration as well.

I believe CRPGs are moving in the right direction. Games like Fallout where you could win by talking your way through most of the game if you so desired, or could win by shooting everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING... I've done it) in the game have the right formula. Hopefully in the future more and more CRPGs will pick up on this fact.

After two decades of implementation, I believe the developers have the combat aspect of CRPGs down to a science. Now it's time to see a little work on the other half of the markets wishes. Since combat will always be with us in CRPGs let's find a way to make it 'play nice' with a good story and fulfilling character development. By doing so we'll end up with a winning game not only for those players on the extreme ends of the combat vs content argument, but for the legions of gamers in between as well.
The tools are in place. I've had enough 'revolution' for a while... let's see a little 'evolution' and see if game developers can improve on the excellent precedents they already have.