ID:265297
![]() Sep 14 2004, 7:45 am
|
|
I just want to know what you really find fun in a rpg exculding combat. Magic, Blacksmithing, or even collecting rare items? What keeps your attention that doesn't have to do with an attack verb?
|
You know, I was just thinking about that and was about to start a thread on some of my thoughts, but might as well put them here.
First off, I think most so-called "RPGs" work off a flawed model that assumes mortal combat is a core activity of existence, which it really isn't. Living beings are driven by needs and may come into conflict or competition, but rarely seek it out unless their is a compelling benefit. The same is true of most human societies. Humans, at least in pre-industrial societies, generally spend most of their time collecting food. Indeed, it is only when a surplus emerges that more specialized activities such as crafts can occur. Of course, with stockpiles also come a need to protect such resources. This is more or less the basis of the feudal model. Land is the source of food and hence the fundamental source of wealth (not coin). In time, a warrior class evolves whose primary role is securing the safety of the land and its workers (who provide the support for such soldiery). But even the warriors are such not out of some inherent desire to fight, but to protect the core of their society. Over time, governance of increasingly large populations becomes necessary and growing stores allow larger numbers of non food gatherers. However, famine and disease are always a huge risk. So what does this have to do with games? Well, if most human activities are motivated by something other than a desire to fight, shouldn't any game that wishes to be more than a hack'n'slash reflect that? I would like to see RPGs that are more broad based simulators. Perhaps the game should track factors such as hunger, fatigue, comfort, and the lack in addition to health. Skills and crafts should be a core of the game, not just "something else you can do". A player should be able to have his character lead a successful career without ever having to learn swordsmanship if he wishes. More detailed nutrition could also be neat. IE if you do more activities, your caloric requirements go up or if you want to build muscle, you will have increeased protein requirements. On combat, I think more realistic combat might also be interesting. I was considering a model that tracked individual injuries to specicific regions and could have both short term (IE leg wounds slow you down) and long term effects (such as muscular damage lowering carrying capacity and power or infections being possible if the wound is not properly cleaned). And while skill is a big factor in armed combat, a lucky blow can always seriously wound or be fatal, hence the reluctance of many to casually step into fights (sadly, a local boy was recently killed when another young man struck him in the head only once). Non-humans should have similar motivations. IE most animals wander around looking for food and possibly a mate, but avoid predators while predators seek out easy prey. Humanoid creatures probably recognize the value of tools and so balance food gathering with crafts and defense. |
Exploration and discovery. I like exploring vast worlds all by myself (without having to fight all the way) and discovering treasures of some kind or another. Either item or information or just a nice scene.
[Being able to build things, items or houses or whatever, is also nice.] |
Merciless Warrior wrote:
I just want to know what you really find fun in a rpg exculding combat. Magic, Blacksmithing, or even collecting rare items? What keeps your attention that doesn't have to do with an attack verb? I like RPGs with real market and trade systems. It seems that when the average game designer hears player say "I want an RPG with a detailed economy to play with!", they immediately think of craft systems and just leave it at that. If I want to play a merchant-type character, I do not want to sit through a crafting process over and over; I want to invest, to make business ventures. |
If you're going to do forging like that, it should consist of groups of 5 connected blocks (pentominos) which can either be in the background or the foreground, and you'd have to create a sword with 2-layers. Even better, you'd repeat the process over and over (you're folding the sword each time).
|
I have yet to seen a game with realistic interaction. Let's take Morrowind for example. Here you see people walking around doing nothing, and if you go near them you hear a random phrase like "Speak outlander, but be quick about it." Does that adds to the atmosphere to the game? Does it feel natural? I think not.
Instead, how about making the NPCs point, maybe taunt, whisper to each other, make the player *feel* like an outlander instead of listening to a very unnatural monologue. Another thing on my wishlist is more dialouges started by NPCs. Deus Ex does this quite well, but that's about the only game I've seen that feature in. Can't be too hard to implement. I also miss crowded scenes immensely. Ever seen a town square in a medieval RPG that is loaded with people? Me neither. If we talk Byond, a crowd doesn't have to be mobs, they can be turfs to be less CPU-intensive, and not very interactive as well, but they would sure add to the atmosphere. A living world is what I want! With in-game tutorials, small but effectful events, making the player feel that he's part of a world but not really the center of it. Not being in the center of attraction all the time adds to the realism, I think. It's 1 am, so this will be a short rambling. Maybe one day I'll do something about the terrible lack of realistic interaction in RPGs. Unless someone beats me to it. ;) /Gazoot |
Jmurph wrote:
You know, I was just thinking about that and was about to start a thread on some of my thoughts, but might as well put them here. Talking about wounds I love the parts where a warrior in an RPG just goes to the bed and sleeps for like a couple seconds with no long term damage. LOL if some one is struck in the arm with a broad sword and that arm has no armor. Inless your superman your going to be one armed from then on ;P I also hate archers in an Rpg. Like a person could get struck by 5 arrows or less and then go down. Inless they are struck in the head or neck it would take like 8-15 arrows and thats if they dont have armor. Archers should travel in packs if any thing. |
I always like the idea of combat being totally skill based. You have offensive skill and defensive skill. When you attack someone, it generates a random number between 0 and the target's defense, and another random number from 0 to the attacker's offense. If the offense is higher than the defense, the target is struck, doing the typical 1-6 damage or dependant on the weapon. Give each mob 1-6 hit points, and people will likely be inclined to avoid combat. (The skilled fellow can brag, but all it takes is one unskilled fellow with a lucky roll and he's history.)
Of course, if you don't want to kill off your players like that, you could just have it to damage to whatever part of them was struck. |
Heh, I toyed with a P&P RPG based on a similar idea. Basically you compared attacker accuracy with defender evasion and, if the attacker was higher, then added and offensive weapon bonus and any defensive weapon bonus. If the attacker still had a higher score, you rolled on an appropriate damage table (which had all sorts of fun wounds from minor cuts to severed limbs or, if appropriate, lower body freezing then shattering instantly, killing the hapless fool shortlt thereafter).
Combat was hideously dangerous, but fun as heck! |
Gazoot rambled: Ever seen a town square in a medieval RPG that is loaded with people?
Priston Tale - the towns are clogged with people :p |
Green Lime wrote:
I also hate archers in an Rpg. Like a person could get struck by 5 arrows or less and then go down. Inless they are struck in the head or neck it would take like 8-15 arrows and thats if they dont have armor. Archers should travel in packs if any thing. I assume you are talking about nerf arrows here. How many arrows have you been shot with? It's true that single archers aren't terrifically effective in the sort of small, close-in engagements typically featured in RPG battles, but this has nothing to do with the stopping power of their shots--just the difficulty of getting enough good hits before their enemies close in. |
I assume you are talking about nerf arrows here. How many arrows have you been shot with? It's true that single archers aren't terrifically effective in the sort of small, close-in engagements typically featured in RPG battles, but this has nothing to do with the stopping power of their shots--just the difficulty of getting enough good hits before their enemies close in. Yup. It has been said that an English longbowman could fell a single (stationary, or predictably moving) target with a single shot to the neck at 300 yards. Arrows are deadly. So are most other weapons. They wouldn't be weapons otherwise. |
Spuzzum wrote:
Arrows are deadly. So are most other weapons. They wouldn't be weapons otherwise. And anyone who says otherwise has played too many RPGs. |
So what does this have to do with games? Well, if most human activities are motivated by something other than a desire to fight, shouldn't any game that wishes to be more than a hack'n'slash reflect that? I would like to see RPGs that are more broad based simulators. Perhaps the game should track factors such as hunger, fatigue, comfort, and the lack in addition to health. Skills and crafts should be a core of the game, not just "something else you can do". A player should be able to have his character lead a successful career without ever having to learn swordsmanship if he wishes. More detailed nutrition could also be neat. IE if you do more activities, your caloric requirements go up or if you want to build muscle, you will have increeased protein requirements. This is more or less exactly my plan for The Haven Seed. If I could ever finish the danged thing, it'd be considered without a doubt a "survival RPG". Players are the archetypes and NPCs are the stereotypes, but nonetheless the society is still based on the commoners, not on the adventurers. It is my full intention to try to make everything -- including combat -- be fun and educational. On combat, I think more realistic combat might also be interesting. I was considering a model that tracked individual injuries to specicific regions and could have both short term (IE leg wounds slow you down) and long term effects (such as muscular damage lowering carrying capacity and power or infections being possible if the wound is not properly cleaned). And while skill is a big factor in armed combat, a lucky blow can always seriously wound or be fatal, hence the reluctance of many to casually step into fights (sadly, a local boy was recently killed when another young man struck him in the head only once). Yup... again, The Haven Seed. Anyone who pages through Gray's Anatomy will realise just how fragile the human body is. There are three types of weapons, and all of them are more or less deadly. Blunt objects are designed to strike a large area with high momentum, crushing bone, pulping flesh, forcing involuntary muscle contractions, and rattling organs within the skeleton. Edged objects are the ubiquitous sword, which is swung from one side to another in order to slice open flesh and expose internal organs to open air (causing infection if the victim survives -- which is rare). Finally, piercing weapons are designed to be driven into an opponent, travelling through the skin and muscles to rupture the internal organs. This makes them some of the most deadly of all. Axes, in a sense, fall under this category, as they are embedded into flesh and then drawn out the same path they entered from -- but axes are shaped more to penetrate armour and not penetrate flesh deeply. Weapons all operate on one of two simple principles: lever action, or augmentation. A lever allows you to exert more momentum on your target, thereby providing more force and allowing you to hit your opponent hard, or hit your opponent with enough strength to cleave bone and destroy internal organs (all internal organs are important -- even redundant organs like the kidneys function very poorly when one fails). It only takes one good strike with a metal object to the head to kill. That same strike with the metal object can kill when it strikes the torso as well. Only the arms and legs are less vulnerable. Augmentation improves the capabilities of humans. A human cannot slice open an opponent with his bare hands, though it is possible for a single fist blow to the head to render his opponent unconscious -- or dead. Give that human a dagger, and suddenly he can, in addition to punching his foe, destroy his foe's internal organs. |
In my game, Chronicles of Istria, when you start out in the game's main town, the ENTIRE world (with the exception of a few small places that require the completion of quests or missions to enter) is open to you to explore, set on fire, destroy, save, build, etc. Also, I've designed my game's system so that there are NO classes and NO levels at all in the game!
The basic theory that I had behind this entire system is that you start with a character that is practically a nobody, no skills, and physically healthy, but not strong in mind or body. With this character, the player is then able to choose how he/she wants the character to grow. If the player starts to use magic spells a lot, his character will slowly turn into a magic user, and their magic will overflow with energy. Likewise, if they fight with weapons and heavy armor, it'll start out unweildy at first, but the character will eventually become a powerful fighter, able to cleave multiple enemies in half over and over. That is what I like, being able to have complete control over your character's development. After all, Character development is THE single most important part of ANY RPG game. Next comes the story. |
The ability of changeing your level gains as the game goes on. Like in SJ, my game, as the game gets harder, your levels will get better as you go on, or else the game would take forever to get from one place to the next. I like adding that idea to my games, because then I can make level ups hard to get, but getting 1 level up doesnt mean 5 pts per stats, it all depends on how advanced in the game you are.
|
Now THAT's fun.