| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
| Philosophy of RPGs: Combat and "Levelling Up" |
|
This is a shameless plug for my article discussing my feelings about combat as being a limiting factor in RPG development.
Comments are welcome
"I play games; a lot of games. Many of the games I play are computer games. Some of those are of the broad category called "Role-Playing Games," or RPGs. There are many definitions of this, but a simplified one is: if it sounds sort of like Dungeons and Dragons, it's a role playing game. I've been thinking about the mechanics of these games, and I am judging them and finding them wanting. In particular, the concept of "levelling up" in nearly all of these games is tied, in a nearly inextricable way, to combat.
I don't like this."
The rest of the article is here. |
Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:19 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
There are several games where combat can be avoided for the most part. PS-T is the best at this, but the Gothic games and Arx also could be played relatively combat free for large sections.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:58 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Hahaha, have you even PLAYED Gothic and Arx?
Gothic is one of the most violent games out there. I guess combat COULD be avoided for some parts, IF you did NO side quests, NO exploring and wanted to have a difficult time with the end boss.
Arx is a friggin hack'n'slash game. I guess you can sneak past some enemies, but, since dialogue is on diablo-level, and there is virtually nothing else than combat skills, it's like saying the same for Morrowind or Baldur's Gate.
As for leveling up by fighting is the philosophy of RPGs? I'd say that's true, since RPGs were born on the hack'n'slash theme. Although you can gain MUCH by talking around in many RPGs these days.
But without combat, interaction with the world would be limited, there would be little action and thus the game would be boring.
There wouldn't be much strategizing, plus, of course the game would loose its feel of realism if trolls and other evil creatures didn't attack you.
Errrrr... progress is dubious? The whole thing RPGs are based on, the whole feeling of realism, is dubious? Hahaha... ok...
quote:
The one modern example that I know of to follow this path is Rob Bartel's The Witch's Wake, an adventure designed for Bioware's Neverwinter Nights Dungeons and Dragons (D20) game. In Witch's Wake, the character's goal is to discover who they are and to unravel the plot. Experience is meted out specifically for reaching various narrative goals. Combat yields no experience whatsoever; it is a complete distraction. However, since advancement in D20 is not based on exercising skills, the player is free to develop their character to be effective in combat, so that they may survive difficult battles that they are forced in to.
This is a sensible path, and would provide flexibility to all comers. Those who prefer the straightforward hack-and-slash solution should still be able to charge in and fight; those who want to avoid combat should be able to sneak. Diplomatic solutions should be possible in some cases. Rewards should be given to the player characters for accomplishing goals, not for knitting.
Witch's wake sounds great, you can CHOOSE to be able to finish the game, or NOT TO be able to finish it. Sounds kind of like most other RPGs out there.
Not giving anything for killing mosters takes away from realism. If I fight a pack of monsters everyday, shouldn't I get wiser, tougher, faster... MORE EXPERIENCED?
EDITED AGAIN: Hmmm... fiddling around too much with the editing button... oh well... this time I'll get it right...
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance
Last edited by Hexy on Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:25 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:33 am |
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
As for leveling up by fighting is the philosophy of RPGs? I'd say that's true, since RPGs were born on the hack'n'slash theme. Although you can gain MUCH by talking around in many RPGs these days.
But without combat, interaction with the world would be limited, there would be little action and thus the game would be boring.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I necessarily agree. I commented on this in the comments section of the page, but let me give you a specific example.
After playing Wizardry 8 for a while, I went back and played Wizardry 1 just for nostalgia. And I realized that there was a specific reason I found it intolerable: there's no automap.
"So what?" you say.
Well, I remember when Wizardry (no "1" or "2" back then) came out. The box came with graph paper. Mapping, by hand, was considered part of the fun of the game. In fact, there are parts of Wizardry that are intentionally difficult to map (spinning floor sections and the like), to increase the challenge. Hand-mapping was considered an essential part of an RPG -- it was part of the fun! Just like playing P+P D&D.
Today, if I buy an RPG and start playing it, and find that it doesn't have an automap, I chuck it on the pile of never-to-be-played games. Life is too short for me to waste my time doing that shit. The game should assume that my hero is travelling with a goddamn peasant scribe whose job it is is to make a map for me.
So that's a pretty essential paradigm shift. If I had said to Robert Woodhead and Andrew Greenberg "Hey, in the future, mapping won't be part of this genre," they would simply have not understood. "But mapping is fun!" they would have said. "Why wouldn't you want to make a map?"
I'm suggesting -- not insisting, just suggesting -- that as our technology grows more sophisticated, "role playing" will require more than combat. Like I say in the article, I'm not saying that games should never have fights in them. I love a good hackfest. But I can envision games where combat is a rare, outlier (if significant) event.
quote:
There wouldn't be much strategizing, plus, of course the game would loose its feel of realism if trolls and other evil creatures didn't attack you.
Ok, you need to read that sentence again. I don't worry too much about whether my trolls are realistic.... 
Last edited by peterb on Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:04 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
A pretty good article, Peter. I disagree that levelling is at all a bad thing but I agree that combat is often the only method of progression and this should be advanced. Although there are good examples of games that allow true multiple paths (such as Fallout) there certainly aren't enough of them.
The biggest problem is the difficulty in making non-combat scenarios interactive and interesting, as Hexy suggested. Sneaking past a guard is cool - but often it involves little more than having the right stats and walking past. Having extra dialogue options to talk your way out of a conflict is cool, but again, just having that option appear because your char has 50 points in Diplomacy is non-interactive. It adds depth to a roleplay world (and lots of players enjoy it), but for many others it's boring.
All this is more complex which adds to development costs. Meanwhile developers watch Blizzard rake in $750 million a year on nothing but combat.
But it's a noble pursuit. I look forward to more games that make non-combat progression viable and fun. Still, exciting gameplay requires competition or conflict and combat is the very essence of this - it will always be fun and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that non-combat options are somehow inherently 'superior'. |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:15 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
I agree that some depth SHOULD come from dialogues, and non-combat things. In many games, you sometimes get a little exp bonus for doing things the diplomatic way, which is good.
But, of course you shouldn't be able to talk your way out of a fight with an iron golem guarding the treasure you want, or with a pack of undead creatures attacking you in the wilderness or in a dungeon, which IS what much of the combat in RPGs are all about.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:39 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
I wish RPGs would concentrate on things other than combat. I've never played Morrowind for more than five minutes at a time, but from what I hear, you can have plenty of fun without completing quests or killing monsters. You can do some of that in Gothic, but it gets a bit boring that way.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:03 am |
|
|
Drunkenstein
Village Dweller
Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 15
Location: Star City |
Without levelling we get games like Doom or Max Payne. Though the levelling is actually quite stupid (think realism), it's the only thing that distinguishes rpgs from other genres at this point of history.
Is it real when I go and kill a bunch of monsters, then come back to some people-populated area and train diplomacy? How stupid is that? Solution: No overall progression bar. Instead, gained XP is divided into groups, based on what you do: talk or fight (+ possible extra categories).
The stats may be interesting to investigate, but its all mathematics after all. In my vision, future rpgs should use 'seamless levelling'. No stats, but progression is visible visually. Like growing muscles? Bigger brain?  Noble hero walks with his/her back straight. Villain types have suspicious eyesight etc.
Future game called Project Ego has growing muscles and scars! |
|
Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:59 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Hello guys & gals. I disappeared for a while, now I'm back. I missed you all terribly.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Hahaha, have you even PLAYED Gothic and Arx?
Now now, Hexy, don't laugh at Corwin... he's played & completed more games in his 300 years than you've even heard of, and he actually invented the computer (but they were called difference engines back then).
quote:
Errrrr... progress is dubious? The whole thing RPGs are based on, the whole feeling of realism, is dubious? Hahaha... ok...
Well, you've misunderstood what peterb's article said... not that progress is dubious, but that the concept of levelling up (which is not the only way to convey progress) is dubious, and I wholeheartedly agree. Of course a feeling of progress is desirable in any RPG, but there are more realistic and less intrusive ways to achieve it than by levelling up.
Oh, and I wouldn't keep saying things like "hahaha... ok" to indicate disagreement, it's a little impolite.
quote:
Witch's wake sounds great, you can CHOOSE to be able to finish the game, or NOT TO be able to finish it. Sounds kind of like most other RPGs out there.
This sounds like you are assuming that a choice of non-combat specialisation = a choice not to be able to complete the game. That is not so; again the article makes it clear that alternatives are viable. If you've played a D&D-based game, you should recognise how this will work - say, for example, you want to play a thief. In most D&D-based games, the stealth skill is pretty reliable at high levels, but the incentive to kill monsters will still be hard to resist because of the experience on offer. But in Witch's Wake, since there is no monster xp, players are free to use stealth in a truly thief-like manner, rather than as a set-up for repeated sneak attacks. If you do get forced into battle, you can still use the old hide/backstab tactic, but thankfully you don't feel obliged to do it for every single monster you see.
But I think the point is this: if the purpose of a game is to tell a story, and that story can be told without combat, then there is no reason at all to litter that game with mandatory battles. In filmmaking, if a scene doesn't benefit the film than it is dropped, simple as that. The same should be done with game design IMO - if a game is not explicitly about fighting (and most RPGs are not), then forced combat should never occur. By all means, allow it for those who want it, but don't force it on those who don't. This raises concerns about the alternatives to combat...
quote:
Originally posted by Dhurin
...Sneaking past a guard is cool - but often it involves little more than having the right stats and walking past. Having extra dialogue options to talk your way out of a conflict is cool, but again, just having that option appear because your char has 50 points in Diplomacy is non-interactive. It adds depth to a roleplay world (and lots of players enjoy it), but for many others it's boring.
...but I belive that with a little thought these issues can be tackled. I agree that entirely stat-based stealth and conversation systems are not very engaging (at least not for long), but introducing puzzle or reflex elements to these pursuits can restore the feeling that the player, and not just the character, is responsible for success or failure. Also, rather than just offering the one "right" solution to a character with the appropriate stats, you can offer choices with moral/ethical implications, and no clear-cut right or wrong. Even if these choices have little or no repercussions in story or gameplay, their mere presence is enough to spice things up a great deal. [spoilers ahead] PS:T is full of them, but the best example to my mind is the moment in Deus Ex when you have to choose whether to stay and defend your brother, or save yourself and leave him to his fate. Your decision made no difference in the long run, but everyone I know who played this game found it a tough decision to make, and I believe it made players care more about the characters.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Not giving anything for killing mosters takes away from realism. If I fight a pack of monsters everyday, shouldn't I get wiser, tougher, faster... MORE EXPERIENCED?
quote:
Originally posted by Drunkenstein
Without levelling we get games like Doom or Max Payne. Though the levelling is actually quite stupid (think realism), it's the only thing that distinguishes rpgs from other genres at this point of history.
I disagree - if we're talking realism, I would have to say that the RPGs in the Looking Glass mould (the Ultima Underworlds, the System Shocks, and Deus Ex) are top of the bill, by quite a long way. And none of these feature character levels or monster xp. The original System Shock didn't even have stats or skills, only implants and items to indicate character development (and Zelda - OoT is another brilliant RPG that similarly ignored so many of the genre's conventions). Yet all of these games still managed to create the pace and sense of acheivement that RPGers expect - your characters would still improve measurably throughout the game, there was still a feeling of being rewarded for perseverence, and IMO the removal of unrealistic conventions - like levelling up and an artificial incentive to kill (monster xp) - vastly improved the sense of immersion and realism I experienced when playing these games.
Anyway... great article peterb, I enjoyed it and agree with it almost wholeheartedly. 
The only thing I don't agree with is this:
"Sometimes, in an adventure, you're going to have to fight."
I don't believe this should be true. Good RPGs are all about making choices, and I personally feel that those which offer the most non-violent possibilities are the most rewarding - having experienced the Fallouts, PS:T and Deus Ex, I now shy away from combat-heavy RPGs (even the best ones like the BG series). Not because I always want to play as a pacifist (not the case), nor because I think combat has no place in RPGs (not true either), but because I believe player choice is what makes RPGs what they are, and whenever a player is forced to play out-of-character, the RPG experience suffers. Moreover, I think it is remiss of developers to allow players to make choices during character creation, and then fail to support those choices throughout the game (for example: Fallout 1&2's incredible range of abilities and player approaches are compromised by the pointless and totally unenjoyable vermin-killing sequences; Daggerfall had a fantastically flexible character creation system, followed by an opening "tutorial" sequence that you could only survive if you'd picked some decent fighting skills).
As for levelling and monster xp, there is no doubt in my mind that an RPG can work perfectly well without them. I believe it has already been done successfully in some of the games I mentioned; I'm also very fond of Daggerfall/Morrowind's skill-based approach, as it rewards players for playing to their chosen strengths, and I believe that this kind of system could work just fine without character levels. |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:06 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Why bring back a 2 month dead thread? SOME people...
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Oh, and I wouldn't keep saying things like "hahaha... ok" to indicate disagreement, it's a little impolite.
Ha... oh wait...
quote:
Originally posted by piln
This sounds like you are assuming that a choice of non-combat specialisation = a choice not to be able to complete the game. That is not so; again the article makes it clear that alternatives are viable. If you've played a D&D-based game, you should recognise how this will work - say, for example, you want to play a thief. In most D&D-based games, the stealth skill is pretty reliable at high levels, but the incentive to kill monsters will still be hard to resist because of the experience on offer. But in Witch's Wake, since there is no monster xp, players are free to use stealth in a truly thief-like manner, rather than as a set-up for repeated sneak attacks. If you do get forced into battle, you can still use the old hide/backstab tactic, but thankfully you don't feel obliged to do it for every single monster you see.
But I think the point is this: if the purpose of a game is to tell a story, and that story can be told without combat, then there is no reason at all to litter that game with mandatory battles. In filmmaking, if a scene doesn't benefit the film than it is dropped, simple as that. The same should be done with game design IMO - if a game is not explicitly about fighting (and most RPGs are not), then forced combat should never occur. By all means, allow it for those who want it, but don't force it on those who don't. This raises concerns about the alternatives to combat...
Uh... wow...
Did you actually READ the part I quoted? You know, the part that stated that you are free to prepare for the DIFFICULT BATTLES you are FORCED into? You following? Yes... watch 'em synapses fly...
quote:
I disagree - if we're talking realism, I would have to say that the RPGs in the Looking Glass mould (the Ultima Underworlds, the System Shocks, and Deus Ex) are top of the bill, by quite a long way. And none of these feature character levels or monster xp. The original System Shock didn't even have stats or skills, only implants and items to indicate character development (and Zelda - OoT is another brilliant RPG that similarly ignored so many of the genre's conventions). Yet all of these games still managed to create the pace and sense of acheivement that RPGers expect - your characters would still improve measurably throughout the game, there was still a feeling of being rewarded for perseverence, and IMO the removal of unrealistic conventions - like levelling up and an artificial incentive to kill (monster xp) - vastly improved the sense of immersion and realism I experienced when playing these games.
First off, System Shock is about as much of an RPG as Quake 2. Some people desperately try to hold System Shock to a higher image than an ugly, repetetive and quirky shoot-em-up.
But if that is the case, I must stress that Starcraft was an excellent RPG, you advance by getting better troops!
And, do I get this right? Are you actually saying that I don't become better at fighting if I fight every day?
Leveling is an easy and very game-related way of improving. Continuous skill risings like in Morrowind can be easily abused.
quote:
Anyway... great article peterb, I enjoyed it and agree with it almost wholeheartedly.
The only thing I don't agree with is this:
"Sometimes, in an adventure, you're going to have to fight."
I don't believe this should be true. Good RPGs are all about making choices, and I personally feel that those which offer the most non-violent possibilities are the most rewarding - having experienced the Fallouts, PS:T and Deus Ex, I now shy away from combat-heavy RPGs (even the best ones like the BG series). Not because I always want to play as a pacifist (not the case), nor because I think combat has no place in RPGs (not true either), but because I believe player choice is what makes RPGs what they are, and whenever a player is forced to play out-of-character, the RPG experience suffers. Moreover, I think it is remiss of developers to allow players to make choices during character creation, and then fail to support those choices throughout the game (for example: Fallout 1&2's incredible range of abilities and player approaches are compromised by the pointless and totally unenjoyable vermin-killing sequences; Daggerfall had a fantastically flexible character creation system, followed by an opening "tutorial" sequence that you could only survive if you'd picked some decent fighting skills).
When you're adventuring you SHOULD most definately be forced to fight, depending on what situations you are in. When fighting a mindless beast, trying to get that quest item deperately, you simply should be forced to fight, no questions. To pretend that everything should be resolvable without violence is... well... silly in the real world.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:41 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
It's a good topic and deserves to be discussed further.
quote:
Originally posted by Piln
...but I belive that with a little thought these issues can be tackled. I agree that entirely stat-based stealth and conversation systems are not very engaging (at least not for long), but introducing puzzle or reflex elements to these pursuits can restore the feeling that the player, and not just the character, is responsible for success or failure. Also, rather than just offering the one "right" solution to a character with the appropriate stats, you can offer choices with moral/ethical implications, and no clear-cut right or wrong. Even if these choices have little or no repercussions in story or gameplay, their mere presence is enough to spice things up a great deal. [spoilers ahead] PS:T is full of them, but the best example to my mind is the moment in Deus Ex when you have to choose whether to stay and defend your brother, or save yourself and leave him to his fate. Your decision made no difference in the long run, but everyone I know who played this game found it a tough decision to make, and I believe it made players care more about the characters.
This was pretty much the point I was making. Introducing reflex elements is another subject (in general an RPG should have a heavier reliance on char stats than player dexterity but I'll leave that for the moment [c'mon Roqua - that's your cue]).
I thoroughly enjoyed SS, SS2, DX etc but they're not RPGs - action/RPG-light hybrids by all means but not genuine RPGs. In my opinion a true RPG requires char stats because that's how the role is defined.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
When you're adventuring you SHOULD most definately be forced to fight, depending on what situations you are in. When fighting a mindless beast, trying to get that quest item deperately, you simply should be forced to fight, no questions. To pretend that everything should be resolvable without violence is... well... silly in the real world.
Hexy is right - sometimes you have to fight. In addition, a life and death situation is the most intense and dramatic situation a person can face - it simply makes sense to include combat (or at least the threat of combat if other means can't resolve the issue) or there's little motivation. The example of Deus Ex and saving J.C's brother only exists because of the threat of death. ie., combat.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:25 pm |
|
|
pauk
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
I thoroughly enjoyed SS, SS2, DX etc but they're not RPGs - action/RPG-light hybrids by all means but not genuine RPGs. In my opinion a true RPG requires char stats because that's how the role is defined.
UW, SS, DX, Gothic etc. (being technically advanced games) only have more influences from live action genre, and less influences from p&p genre. This is a good thing, attention is drawed from stupid numbers to playing a role.
I like live action games more than p&p games. |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:43 pm |
|
|
pauk
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 38
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
I believe player choice is what makes RPGs what they are, and whenever a player is forced to play out-of-character, the RPG experience suffers.
Exactly. In solo adventure books you have the choice at the end of each page to decide what to do. Without the choice those would be only ordinary linear books, not rpg's. Of course it is also necessary (in a game) to battle with encounters and if you lose then close the book. |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:43 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Uh... wow...
Did you actually READ the part I quoted? You know, the part that stated that you are free to prepare for the DIFFICULT BATTLES you are FORCED into? You following? Yes... watch 'em synapses fly...
<sigh> Yes, Hexy, I read every word. And I understood it. I can't help feeling that you didn't do my post the same courtesy, since at no point did I deny that there are forced battles in WW; in fact, I reiterated it. The point I was trying to make was that non-fighter characters would not feel compelled to go on out-of-character killing sprees for fear of missing out on monster xp, because there is no monster xp.
Try to calm down a bit. You seem to be ranting slightly.
quote:
First off, System Shock is about as much of an RPG as Quake 2. Some people desperately try to hold System Shock to a higher image than an ugly, repetetive and quirky shoot-em-up.
Well, I disagree with everything you say about SS, but it doesn't make a difference to my argument, which was that excellent, realistic RPGs can exist without the traditional monster xp/level-up system. Ultima Underworld alone is irrefutable proof of this. Do you agree?
quote:
And, do I get this right? Are you actually saying that I don't become better at fighting if I fight every day?
Well no, that's not what I said - I was responding to your claim that not getting "anything" (by which I assume you mean experience) from killing monsters detracts from realism. My comment was that the RPGs that I found most realistic were not ones that used a monster xp system, and that this did nothing to lessen my sense of immersion.
One thing I forgot to say (although this has no bearing on what has already been discussed) is that I am in favour of specific-skill improvement systems like Morrowind's - since benefits gained in fighting are only useful for those who want to fight; this way, players are allowed to play to their characters' chosen strengths. This is as opposed to monster-xp systems where every character is given an incentive to fight, even when combat adds nothing to the story and is illogical & undesirable for some characters.
quote:
Leveling is an easy and very game-related way of improving. Continuous skill risings like in Morrowind can be easily abused.
Every system created by a human being can be abused by a human being. Consider two "exploits:"
1. In a skill-based game like Morrowind, I can do nothing for days on end except cast spells to dramatically increase the related skills. This costs me no money, and I can do it in complete safety.
2. In a game like PS:T or BG, there are several opportunities to resolve potentially dangerous quests in non-violent ways. These will yield a substantial xp award (often more than I would get for taking a violent approach), and may get me an item, ability or piece of information that I would not otherwise have access to. I can choose one of these non-violent options, net the rewards, then when the characters involved serve no further purpose to story or gameplay, I can kill them all anyway and collect another chunk of xp and loot.
So, two exploits. Which of these is (a) the least realistic, and (b) the most abusive? The first one is kind of greedy, and certainly doesn't make for good gameplay, but you do still have to spend the time "practising" the skill you want to improve, so is it really an abuse? I'm not so sure. And practise certainly yields rewards in real life, so while the actual amount of improvement may be disproportionate (as it is with some of Morrowind's skills), the method does bear some semblance to reality.
The 2nd one, on the other hand, ensures that players who commit morally reprehensible acts, befriending and then slaughtering every NPC possible, will reap the biggest xp award that it is possible to attain in that game. Now, that's fine if you're playing a morally reprehensible character; otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense at all. And while you do have to work for your xp (some realism there), this kind of action would be way out-of-character for most players (negative impact on realism, I do believe).
So, the traditional system can be abused too. It's up to you which of these exploits would be most harmful to the game experience, I know which I'd choose...
quote:
When you're adventuring you SHOULD most definately be forced to fight, depending on what situations you are in. When fighting a mindless beast, trying to get that quest item deperately, you simply should be forced to fight, no questions. To pretend that everything should be resolvable without violence is... well... silly in the real world.
If you're talking about optional quests/encounters, then I have no problem with forced battles. After all, what would a Fighter's Guild career be like if you could succeed without battles? But if you're talking about events essential to progress in a game, and you're talking about a game that is not an action/RPG like SS2 then I absolutely disagree. Think about it: a typical RPG offers character choices that fit into three broad archetypes: Fighter, Mage and Thief. Where is the logic in offering these choices if only the Fighter is properly equipped to complete the game? In your example (an essential quest item guarded by a tough beast), why can't the thief distract the beast and steal the item stealthily? Why can't the mage use spells of illusion, or telekenesis, or mind control to subdue or outwit the beast? To force these characters into what only the fighter can do well is totally illogical; you might as well force all characters to undergo stealth and magic tests regardless of their skill-sets, it's the same flawed rationale.
I used to frequent the Arx Fatalis board, and there was a moment fairly early on in that game where all players were forced into combat (almost toe-to-toe) with a single, tough enemy, in a room which offered no hiding places, and not much space to evade while casting spells. On the forum, the players who'd come to this point with a strong set of combat skills and the fighter-esque stats required for the use of decent weapons & armour said that they found little to trouble them here. Everyone else hated this encounter, since it was ridiculously difficult for non-fighters; it was simply not balanced fairly for the full range of characters that the game permitted, and therefore was not enjoyable. Making a game less enjoyable for a large proportion of your audience is never a good design decision.
As for pacifism being "silly" in the real world, I have two things to say: firstly, go and watch Gandhi (it's a true story, you know); secondly, even if you were right, we're talking about game design, not real life. So I'll say it again: failing to support choices that you have offered to players, and subjecting them to gameplay which is only enjoyable for those that made the "right" choices is not good game design.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhurin
This was pretty much the point I was making. Introducing reflex elements is another subject (in general an RPG should have a heavier reliance on char stats than player dexterity but I'll leave that for the moment [c'mon Roqua - that's your cue]).
I thoroughly enjoyed SS, SS2, DX etc but they're not RPGs - action/RPG-light hybrids by all means but not genuine RPGs. In my opinion a true RPG requires char stats because that's how the role is defined.
I'm pretty much in agreement here. Talking of the fusion of reflex- and stat-based action, I think DX is one of the best examples: the skills and implants (which were essentially DX's "magic items") affected your character's performance visibly (ie, running speed, lifting strength, steadiness of aim, etc. all changed noticeably as abilities improved), which IMO is much more satisfactory than a system where the stats do all the work (Morrowind). But I understand that some RPGers dislike reflex-based gaming entirely, and I don't have a problem with that. Different things work for different games.
Incidentally, I do believe that DX is a "true" RPG - I always had the impression that it was Ultima Underworld in sci-fi clothing, as IMO the core mechanics of the game (and the things that make it great) are very similar.
I think that the role comes from player choice, and indeed, placement of stat/skill points is one such choice. But I think a good RPG extends the decision-making to gameplay, not just character development, and to me this is more important than the numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhurin
Hexy is right - sometimes you have to fight. In addition, a life and death situation is the most intense and dramatic situation a person can face - it simply makes sense to include combat (or at least the threat of combat if other means can't resolve the issue) or there's little motivation...
I agree that conflict is needed, but I don't think that has to mean combat. [more spoilers] Another example from Arx Fatalis here: the Black Beast chase. Love it or hate it (I myself have mixed feelings), it can't be denied that this encounter created tension, yet it was a puzzle, not a battle. Ever tried using the invisibility spell to sneak past Ylsides, knowing they can kill you in one hit, and hide from them in the shadows just as the spell wears off? How about out-sneaking the ratmen, even pickpocketing one? I can assure you these things make for good, dramatic gameplay, and could easily serve as non-violent goals for quests. As you say, the threat of combat is daunting to a non-fighter character, and a great tool for game developers. Forcing a stealthy character into an area teeming with opponents they can't hope to fight, and then allowing them to negotiate that area through player ingenuity and character skill is a great basis for a tension-filled gameplay sequence. Forcing that same character into that same area and not giving them any opportunity to use the skills they have earned is a great way to make players stop playing, and a waste of an opportunity for good gameplay in favour of bad. You don't have to be actually fighting to experience conflict and tension (ever played Thief?) and in some cases it works better when you're not. |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:38 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
<sigh> Yes, Hexy, I read every word. And I understood it. I can't help feeling that you didn't do my post the same courtesy, since at no point did I deny that there are forced battles in WW; in fact, I reiterated it. The point I was trying to make was that non-fighter characters would not feel compelled to go on out-of-character killing sprees for fear of missing out on monster xp, because there is no monster xp.
Try to calm down a bit. You seem to be ranting slightly.
How cute...
Unfortunately, you're arguig a completely different point than I do. Although you probably DID read what I wrote, you simply did not understand it or chose not to. Whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Well, I disagree with everything you say about SS, but it doesn't make a difference to my argument, which was that excellent, realistic RPGs can exist without the traditional monster xp/level-up system. Ultima Underworld alone is irrefutable proof of this. Do you agree?
Funny that System Shock was all about killing monsters... due to the fact that it was a shoot-em-up.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Well no, that's not what I said - I was responding to your claim that not getting "anything" (by which I assume you mean experience) from killing monsters detracts from realism. My comment was that the RPGs that I found most realistic were not ones that used a monster xp system, and that this did nothing to lessen my sense of immersion.
Oh... I read 'I disagree' as a reply to my statement about gaining exp?
Many RPGs that give you exp for killing monsters also give you exp for finishing quests, although quests take long to implement etc. Killing monsters are STILL a completely perfect way to give exp, due to the fact that you DO become more experienced while fighting.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
2. In a game like PS:T or BG, there are several opportunities to resolve potentially dangerous quests in non-violent ways. These will yield a substantial xp award (often more than I would get for taking a violent approach), and may get me an item, ability or piece of information that I would not otherwise have access to. I can choose one of these non-violent options, net the rewards, then when the characters involved serve no further purpose to story or gameplay, I can kill them all anyway and collect another chunk of xp and loot.
So, two exploits. Which of these is (a) the least realistic, and (b) the most abusive? The first one is kind of greedy, and certainly doesn't make for good gameplay, but you do still have to spend the time "practising" the skill you want to improve, so is it really an abuse? I'm not so sure. And practise certainly yields rewards in real life, so while the actual amount of improvement may be disproportionate (as it is with some of Morrowind's skills), the method does bear some semblance to reality.
The 2nd one, on the other hand, ensures that players who commit morally reprehensible acts, befriending and then slaughtering every NPC possible, will reap the biggest xp award that it is possible to attain in that game. Now, that's fine if you're playing a morally reprehensible character; otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense at all. And while you do have to work for your xp (some realism there), this kind of action would be way out-of-character for most players (negative impact on realism, I do believe).
So, the traditional system can be abused too. It's up to you which of these exploits would be most harmful to the game experience, I know which I'd choose...
Either you can spend a long time doing that, or as in Morrowinds case; spend a couple of minutes paying a trainer and basically maximizing your skills.
The classic skill system is not as abusable due to the fact that you often suffer repercussions for killing many NPC (which yield VERY little exp and can sometimes take a good time to kill, depending on how powerful they are) as continously being chased by "the police", which were QUITE powerful and persistent in games like BG 1 and 2.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
If you're talking about optional quests/encounters, then I have no problem with forced battles. After all, what would a Fighter's Guild career be like if you could succeed without battles? But if you're talking about events essential to progress in a game, and you're talking about a game that is not an action/RPG like SS2 then I absolutely disagree. Think about it: a typical RPG offers character choices that fit into three broad archetypes: Fighter, Mage and Thief. Where is the logic in offering these choices if only the Fighter is properly equipped to complete the game? In your example (an essential quest item guarded by a tough beast), why can't the thief distract the beast and steal the item stealthily? Why can't the mage use spells of illusion, or telekenesis, or mind control to subdue or outwit the beast? To force these characters into what only the fighter can do well is totally illogical; you might as well force all characters to undergo stealth and magic tests regardless of their skill-sets, it's the same flawed rationale.
Uh... the mage would be equipped to finish the game with powerful and destructive spells. The thief with abilities like backstab and such.
Ok, maybe a simple mindless beast was a bad example. How about a demi-god? A demon? The main bad guy who is powerful in all aspects and thusly not particuarly easy to fool with a spell or such?
As for Ghandi, yeah. I'm sure sitting down, doing nothing would be a great tactic to use while being attacked by a few iron golems, while trying to get to the quest item. Or protecting the king from assassins, or saving the townspeople from an evil cult etc. etc.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
