Random gibberish on RPGs and non combat.

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I was following random links and stumbled on this article by some dude. And after having played the first act of NWN 2 and the first two chapters of BGII recently it got me thinking.

Crpgs are too action orientated, too much combat and not enough role playing. That's the way things seem to me, now I like dungeon crawls, but miss text adventures or any game that not only made me have to think but also keep in character.

I'm fed up with being the chosen one, with being forced to accept npcs that would never travel permanently with my choice of character. Just because the developer can't think of another way to progress the story, of party member only romances or having no option to avoid combat.

More non combat options would be great, but not just to complete quests. How about just having things to do that your character would do? More than just one or two banjo duels for a bard, or grand heists for a thief.

Perhaps the direction crpgs need to go in is to restrict classes. Classless systems rule but they fall into the same trap as class based crpgs trying to be everything to everyone. You can't please all of the people all of the time and all that. Rather than throw in a few side quests for a paladin, ranger, cleric etc to have tailored rpgs for different types of character. They'd still need different paths through the game, different ways to complete quests but surely it would be easier than having to accommodate every type of character.

I know that the NWN games are more toolsets, but imagine future D&D titles being class specific or at least alignment specific. Paladin Quest, play as a Paladin, Lawful Good Cleric, Monk. Imagine the Thief games as crpgs with consequences rather than no killing restrictions, no game over (unless you die). Theatre quest where your troop of wandering minstrels has to go from fete to fete, castle to castle entertaining while still solving nefarious plots and intrigues with rarely a blade being drawn.

I mean there are crpgs that limit you to a specific character, though those tend to still allow choice of fighter, mage, thief etc. But switch that around and allow you to define the character but not the profession?

 

[Ravager69]

I think lots of people would like to see a game like that, but if there'd be more than 2-3 strict ways to play a game, it'd be huge. Maybe too big to be done, I dunno.

Plus, nowadays games tend to be as short as possible, so people will buy a lot of them often. Besides - aren't NWN ,BG, KotOR and Jade Empire games made by the same people (Bioware that is)? They aren't very creative you know, they follow the same scheme for years now and unfortunatly, their games are the better ones in the industry (not that they're great or something, but comparing to what was released recently)

 

[Brother None]

I think you're confusing two things.

It's easier to make a story "as you imagine it" with a single-class system. That doesn't mean it is "the right thing to do", it just removes a bit of complexity for ease-of-use.

And I completely miss what have multiple classes has to do with how much combat there is in cRPGs, which is too much.

 

[Sorrow]

The main problem with non-combat cRPGs is that suddenly worlds would be very empty without random encounters and they would require developers to write more text than for Planescape: Torment to make the game enjoyable and replayable.

Especially for bards and clerics.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

It's easier to make a story "as you imagine it" with a single-class system. That doesn't mean it is "the right thing to do", it just removes a bit of complexity for ease-of-use.

And I completely miss what have multiple classes has to do with how much combat there is in cRPGs, which is too much.

I'm not confusing anything and it has a lot to do with how much combat there is.

Games are getting shorter and in some aspects simpler and by sticking to the same formula then crpgs are going to dumb down as budgets/deadlines won't allow for anything else. But by having tailored rpgs to a specific type of character it would make the logistics easier but then that would allow for more complexity.

Take a typical crpg that has several classes, it has a main story that has to be generic one size fit all then a few side quests that'll be available to each class. There'll also usually be a really motley crew of available npcs to cover most contingencies and if the developers are as uninspired as some you'll be able to recruit virtually any npc no matter your class/alignment and do their quests. Or even worse they'll be forced upon you and you'll find your Paladin stuck with an evil ranger or helping a thief rob and steal a town blind.

This goes a long way to why there's too much combat, if you've got 10 classes to account for the easiest route is to just throw in a lot of combat than dealing with how different characters might handle a situation.

But if the rpg is tailored to a particular class you can have an epic storyline and really go in depth of role playing that character and the consequences of acting out of character. Crpgs can't handle every possibility or adapt to a situation the way a GM can in a PnP game, but if you narrow the number of possibilities then you can widen the number of consequences for each one.

When I used to play D&D my DM wouldn't allow mixed bag parties, if I wanted to play my usual Paladin the others would use their religious/good characters, so we had a Paladin, a monk, a cleric-mage and a bard (to immortalize our heroic deeds in rhyme and song, as well as getting us past deadly traps and locked doors). Playing a module with this party was a totally different experience and allowed us to explore the religious fanatism of our characters.

The main problem with non-combat cRPGs is that suddenly worlds would be very empty without random encounters and they would require developers to write more text than for Planescape: Torment to make the game enjoyable and replayable.

I'm not talking about non combat rpgs, just less combat. Not having to cater for several different classes would mean that you could concentrate on making the best experience possible for one. Just because you had a game about a medieval troop of actors or a modern day rock band wouldn't mean you'd never be beset by bandits or get involved in a bar fight or two.

And since when would having a lot of text in an rpg be a bad thing? If you didn't have to include text for thieves, fighters, wizards etc then you could right a lot more specific text still with different outcomes.

 

[Wooz]

you can have an epic storyline

*hurls*

 

[Brother None]

Games are getting shorter and in some aspects simpler and by sticking to the same formula then crpgs are going to dumb down as budgets/deadlines won't allow for anything else. But by having tailored rpgs to a specific type of character it would make the logistics easier but then that would allow for more complexity.

Uh-huh, that's what I said, it's a logistic problem, not an inherent one. There's no inherent superiority in single-class cRPGs, and while it makes it easier to focus on storylines and quest design, you're deluding yourself if you think it is production complexity that's led to dumbed down RPGs.

People make dumbed down RPGs because people buy dumbed down RPGs. It's as simple as that. Removing classes from it will have the same dumbed down RPG, but with only one class.

You're identifying the wrong problem.

Take a typical crpg that has several classes, it has a main story that has to be generic one size fit all then a few side quests that'll be available to each class.

Really, it does? I don't see how that's a necessity. You're saying it's impossible for someone to make an RPG in which the game world is reactive to classes? I mean, your suggestion still has a one size fit all storyline, the difference is it can fit all because there is only one. Wouldn't the better solution be to remove one size fit all design wholesale?

Hell, isn't that what Age of Decadence is doing, and without just removing classes wholesale? The kind of build you have will heavily affect the path you follow, but no need to railroad people into one build.

This goes a long way to why there's too much combat, if you've got 10 classes to account for the easiest route is to just throw in a lot of combat than dealing with how different characters might handle a situation.

How do you figure? If people just wanted to make combat the most viable route they would just stick to combat classes. Hell, the only reason there are diplomatic solutions in some games is because there are non-combat classes.

I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse here, honestly.

But if the rpg is tailored to a particular class you can have an epic storyline and really go in depth of role playing that character and the consequences of acting out of character.

You can do all that with multiple classes, too. It's just harder.

When I used to play D&D my DM wouldn't allow mixed bag parties,

Your DM was a retard. There's nothing funnier than forcing opposites together in a good PnP party and then watching the dynamics evolve. Because a good roleplayer can live with a non-religious non-good character, he just won't like it, and he'll act out that his character won't like it.

Seriously, you're just suggesting more rail-roading here. Do you honestly believe that's the answer to shitty RPG design? Let's add more railroading so we know what the player can do? Hell no.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

*hurls*

What you happy with bland uninspired storylines?

Uh-huh, that's what I said, it's a logistic problem, not an inherent one. There's no inherent superiority in single-class cRPGs, and while it makes it easier to focus on storylines and quest design, you're deluding yourself if you think it is production complexity that's led to dumbed down RPGs.

Well someone is certainly deluded, is the industry so uninspired, so insipid that given the time and money to make a game they'd still make a poor product no matter what? That there's no one who could make a decent rpg if they could concentrate on just on character type for a specific game aimed at someone who wants to role play just a thief or just a ranger? That every rpg has to be all things to all people.

Really, it does? I don't see how that's a necessity. You're saying it's impossible for someone to make an RPG in which the game world is reactive to classes? I mean, your suggestion still has a one size fit all storyline, the difference is it can fit all because there is only one. Wouldn't the better solution be to remove one size fit all design wholesale?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it's typical, it's the norm. If the story leans to a good aligned character (and many do) why not play to that and rather than try and shoe horn in an evil path from the start, instead deal with the consequences of the player becoming evil through their decisions?

How do you figure? If people just wanted to make combat the most viable route they would just stick to combat classes. Hell, the only reason there are diplomatic solutions in some games is because there are non-combat classes.

And why are there non combat classes? Why not leave them out? Perhaps because the developer has greater ideals than to sell dumb rpgs to dumb people. Ideals unfortunately they don't always have the time, money or talent to live up to.

You can do all that with multiple classes, too. It's just harder.

Yes it's harder, but are there any mainstream developers left that can cope with harder?

Your DM was a retard. There's nothing funnier than forcing opposites together in a good PnP party and then watching the dynamics evolve. Because a good roleplayer can live with a non-religious non-good character, he just won't like it, and he'll act out that his character won't like it.
.

Well someone might be a retard but it sure wasn't my DM, the party had to be logically composed with a reason to be together at the start of the campaign (not drawn together by fate). That didn't mean that those NPCs we interacted with, and worked with temporarily were always like aligned. Or that just because we were all of similar alignment that there was no dynamic, that each character could stand the others or none thought themselves humble while thinking the others pompous asses.

Seriously, you're just suggesting more rail-roading here. Do you honestly believe that's the answer to shitty RPG design? Let's add more railroading so we know what the player can do? Hell no

Seriously is it rail-roading that in PST you are the Nameless one, or in the Witcher Geralt? Is it rail-roading to make a game role-playing a police officer if you can't create a criminal or a lawyer character at the start but could become a corrupt cop? It's rail-roading if your character can never make a dumb decision, can never fall to the dark side.