In response to Shades
Shades wrote:
Some of the best books and games, and movies Ive seen were inspired by other works, and thats ok.

Take the Dark Tower series, or what I like to refer to as Gun Slinger by Stephen King. He openly admitted he was inspired by Tolkens Work when he read it for the Dark Tower Series. In many ways, the Dark Tower series is this age's Lord of the Rings, in my eyes in any case.

I never really liked GTA games, except for the first one. And the same with twisted metal. All the other ones, where rehased, recycled crap. I remeber when half of my school pre-order Vice City, and the next day, evey single one of them came back from the weekend pissed off as hell.

"mmm- everytime time I see someone announcing a BYOND RPG set in a fantasy/old-world setting, I just want to cry."

Hey me too man, but thats for ALL rpgs. The simple damn truth is, you don't see Urban RPGS. You get stuff like Shadow Run (future), Final Fantasy (Fantasy), Knave (Midevil), but the only urban rpgs I can think of is Earth Bound (Mother I & II for the fans) and MAYBE Live-A-Live.

I have been having thoughts of late, on trying to work on a urban themed rpg. But Im not sure how well it would turn out.

I'm making a new RPG (I'm basically a newbie coder), and I'm setting it in whatever age allows for super-'mazing-lightsabre-style-swords.
Because they rock.
In response to Kholint
Um, that would more then likely be the future. =P
In response to Shades
I never really liked GTA games, except for the first one. And the same with twisted metal. All the other ones, where rehased, recycled crap. I remeber when half of my school pre-order Vice City, and the next day, evey single one of them came back from the weekend pissed off as hell.

Simple answer: all of the GTA games beyond GTA1 were adult-oriented. GTA1 was teen-oriented.
In response to Kholint
We never were a big fan of roleplaying, were we? The reason the medieval RPGs is because of the lack of "one hit kill" weaponry. It is a lot harder to kill someone with a sword than a pistol.

Even MRPGs are getting bad about this, but you cannot have high level players able to take tonnes of damage and still miraculously not bleed to death. I and a few of my old friends from highschool still play a P&P RPG using system mechanics I invented. The idea is that a player's health never increases, merely his ability to avoid damage.

Look at it this way, in warfare, you get hit once, you are generally a goner. The first hit either kills you, causes an infection that kills you, opens a wound that will bleed you to death, or opens you up to more hits. Plain and simple, it is generally the first person to inflict damage upon an opponent who survives. This sensationalist crap is what ruins most games.


This is also why futuristic, or modern games rarely come together, because either they are unrealistic, and players can be literally filled with bullets and still be running around, or on the polar extreme, a newbie picks up a pistol and clears out a large group of players. Futuristic/modern RPGs rarely work, and if they do, are extremely unappealing.
In response to Ter13
Look at it this way, in warfare, you get hit once, you are generally a goner. The first hit either kills you, causes an infection that kills you, opens a wound that will bleed you to death, or opens you up to more hits. Plain and simple, it is generally the first person to inflict damage upon an opponent who survives. This sensationalist crap is what ruins most games.

And randomly getting a bad die roll, getting hit, and shortly thereafter dying is fun?
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
We never were a big fan of roleplaying, were we? The reason the medieval RPGs is because of the lack of "one hit kill" weaponry. It is a lot harder to kill someone with a sword than a pistol.

Even MRPGs are getting bad about this, but you cannot have high level players able to take tonnes of damage and still miraculously not bleed to death. I and a few of my old friends from highschool still play a P&P RPG using system mechanics I invented. The idea is that a player's health never increases, merely his ability to avoid damage.

Look at it this way, in warfare, you get hit once, you are generally a goner. The first hit either kills you, causes an infection that kills you, opens a wound that will bleed you to death, or opens you up to more hits. Plain and simple, it is generally the first person to inflict damage upon an opponent who survives. This sensationalist crap is what ruins most games.


This is also why futuristic, or modern games rarely come together, because either they are unrealistic, and players can be literally filled with bullets and still be running around, or on the polar extreme, a newbie picks up a pistol and clears out a large group of players. Futuristic/modern RPGs rarely work, and if they do, are extremely unappealing.

See now I disagree. And its just seeing things differently I suppose. I play games to avoid reality. I don't like games that apply too heavily on real world stuff.

I don't like need for speed, but I love Mario Kart for the cube. The driving is too realistic for me, in need for speed.

The same with role playing games. Why the hell would I want my guy to die after one or two hits. Thatd piss me off, especially when I play gurpes with friends, we tear up player sheets.

Shadowrun, both for the Snes and Sega, and Mother I & II, I loved them both, and I think its mainly for the different theme. And both of them suffer from what you may think is unappealing.
In response to Theodis
No, but it gives more of a reason to AVOID combat, and a scary this-is-it approach TO combat. In Pure Roleplay, our P&P system mechanics, we base very little on luck. We use a lot more statistics to figure out how something goes, hell, we even have a heart rate statistic! It does get a bit tedious to track statistics, but we stay away from a lot of action-based situations (and we've programmed our calculators to keep track of most of it anyway.)... Roleplaying games are about playing a role, and a soldier's role is to fight and die in servitude of his cause.
In response to Shades
Shades wrote:
Um, that would more then likely be the future. =P


Or a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
RPG(even though I like to write them more than I like to play them)

Story line:
Set in the 100's with a devistating war going on between each elements(fire,water,leaf,elec,ect.) each player joines the element they want and each has there own advantages.I know where to get icons just in case you were wondering.The point of the game is to do quests and regain the peace between the elements.
In response to Ter13
And to think, all this time I thought roleplaying was about playing a role. I guess its really just about combat.

(If that were the case, I'd say people don't like roleplaying in the actual environment in which they live. They'd rather have something different. But I guess combat is really the only important thing, huh?)

(In addition, having magic or advanced technology makes totally unrealistic things happen, uh, realistically.)
In response to Foomer
Pah, then I'll make an RPG in the future just to spite you.
In response to Kholint
How would that spite me?
In response to CodingSkillz2
You know where to get icons? You're supposed to make them.
In response to Foomer
I think that's why he should stick with medieval, his aim is awful... that spiting was intended for me... =P
In response to Foomer
I think i've already stated that I don't think roleplay is about combat, but the fact that most roleplaying games have such an extensive combat engine is the cause of poor "roleplaying games". If you put combat in the face of all characters, it gets very hard to roleplay.
In response to Ter13
I think i've already stated that I don't think roleplay is about combat, but the fact that most roleplaying games have such an extensive combat engine is the cause of poor "roleplaying games".

If heartrate is a factor in your combat system then I'd say it is pretty extensive :P.

If you put combat in the face of all characters, it gets very hard to roleplay.

Uhh in some situations combat is pretty much inevitable. If you remove combat you're only hampering the roleplaying environment unless it doesn't fit the setting and even then players should be able to start conflicts if its part of their character personality to do so.
In response to Theodis
In the face of all characters generally means that it is always present. In most campaign worlds, combat should not always be common. In essence, there is no reason for a swarm of slimes to be hanging out just outside of a town's gate all the time.

Plus, our heartrate variable only affects how your character is thinking. It helps to gague: "How clearly will my character be thinking right about now?" At an elevated heartrate, it is harder to think clearly, and harder to concentrate on things, while at a low heartrate (freezing cold, poisoned, etc.), it is impossible to get a lot of breath, and exceptionally hard to move. This helps to control what a player thinks he can or cannot do. It keeps me from saying "Remember, [player] you are extremely short on time, and you are very nervous.".

I was not talking wholly about a combat system, character statistics can be used just as much for roleplay as they can be used for combat. As a matter of fact, if you don't think statistics have anything to do with roleplay, you are a total idiot. Actors gague their character's intelligence before taking on their role. Intelligence affects how aware a person is, how well they talk, how insightful they are, how fast they can pick up on jokes and innuendos, etc.

Statistics are an essential part of roleplay.
In response to Ter13
In the face of all characters generally means that it is always present. In most campaign worlds, combat should not always be common. In essence, there is no reason for a swarm of slimes to be hanging out just outside of a town's gate all the time.

Of course it depends on the setting. In Dark Sun there's all sorts of nasty stuff you don't want to run into in the desert :).

Plus, our heartrate variable only affects how your character is thinking. It helps to gague: "How clearly will my character be thinking right about now?" At an elevated heartrate, it is harder to think clearly, and harder to concentrate on things, while at a low heartrate (freezing cold, poisoned, etc.), it is impossible to get a lot of breath, and exceptionally hard to move. This helps to control what a player thinks he can or cannot do.

And you were saying combat kills roleplaying :P. It should be up to the player to determine how their character reacts not statistics otherwise you're not really roleplaying but running a simulation.

As a matter of fact, if you don't think statistics have anything to do with roleplay, you are a total idiot.

Statistics work nicer for long term campaigns but certainly aren't neccessary. I have played a few free form roleplaying games in which there are no statistics or rules and the DM just comes up with stuff on the fly.

Actors gague their character's intelligence before taking on their role. Intelligence affects how aware a person is, how well they talk, how insightful they are, how fast they can pick up on jokes and innuendos, etc.

Yeah but statistics should be a guide not restrictions on roleplaying. A good roleplayer will take into account their situation and act accordingly putting too much emphisiss on statistics to determine how the character behaves just takes away from the roleplaying experience.

Statistics are an essential part of roleplay.

Statistics should only be used as a guide not dictate the game. And as I noted you can roleplay with no statistics whatsoever and its still pretty fun.
In response to Dession
Every time someone says that it makes me want to go back to telnet.
In response to Foomer
Says what? You're supposed to make your games graphics?
Page: 1 2 3