Balance; Is it necessary in single player CRPGs?

[Norfleet]

Isn't total non-violence actually a playable style? People have apparently done that. Naturally, I was somewhat astonished that someone would even think to *DO* such a thing. That entire nonviolence thing is some kind of weird alien mentality as far as I'm concerned. After all, violence is the last resort of the stupid: If you were smart, you'd have used it earlier before you ran out of options. Alternatively, if violence wasn't your last resort, you didn't resort to enough.

 

[Drakron]

Well depends really ... for example in Deus Ex you had a choice, stealth could be used to bypass enemies and you could always put human enemies to sleep.

Of course at points you had no choice but take the "kill word" that allowed a alternative to actual combat.

I have to say character sould at least have a funtional combat option, a completly "non combat character" ends up being a liability ... in a "party system" that can funtion but in a single system ...

 

[galsiah]

...and you could always put human enemies to sleep.

True, but I found it kind of annoying that one of the only times anyone reacts directly to the amount of humans you kill, "sleeping" enemies are considered dead. You can carefully put to sleep a load of NSF guys on liberty island, only for Paul to accuse you of being a heartless butcher.

I have to say character sould at least have a funtional combat option, a completly "non combat character" ends up being a liability...

That rather depends on the game environment and the options available to the player. Not every RPG even needs to include combat. Non-combat isn't really supported in Fallout, but if VD is to be believed, it is in AoD.

In many RPGs, combat is considered a central element of the game. Catering to a small market who might like to avoid combat is probably seen as a lot of work (there needs to be something to replace it) for little gain. [You can argue that the non-combat option adds significantly to the experience even for people who don't use it, simply by offering a choice. I don't think publishers tend to take this view though.]

I don't think that needs to be true of most RPGs - it just happens to be true for practical development/marketing reasons.

 

[Drakron]

Sorry galsiah but that is not true, the game does reacts to then being asleep but its a "all or nothing", kill just one and you get that comment.

And I can say because I completed put every single one asleep multi times and Paul always commended me for it.

Besides I never did it to hear that comment, knowing the game I knew they were the good guys and I only killed the ones I consider to the the bad guys, even the security in the Hong Kong building were spared because I did not view then as "bad guys" (Majestic 12 on the other hand ... and MIBs ... of course MIBs self destruct if they are put to sleep so ...)

 

[galsiah]

Perhaps you're right - though I was fairly sure I didn't kill anyone... Perhaps the sentivity depends on the difficulty level?? I might have increased the difficulty level the second time through, killed one guy and expected to get the "aren't you nice" comment.

Generally I tried not to kill anyone anyway, but I was annoyed when Paul wrongly (it seemed to me at the time) accused me of trigger-happiness.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

In the original Deus Ex there are one or two people you have to kill. In the sequel you can kill nobody or everybody (but, of course, not both in one run-through). You can also beat the original without ever using any skills, weapons or items that go into your inventory.

I say, the more options the better. Not being able to win violently doesn't mean it's not an RPG, but not as good as one in which you can (ceteris paribus).

 

[DarkUnderlord]

That's balance...

Seems to me that you’ve described choice more than balance.

That's because choice is a fundamental part of balance. If there were no choice, what would there be to balance?

Is the point that you’re making that it doesn’t really matter if it’s phenomenally hard to gamble and make enough cash to pay the mercenary, or if its frighteningly easy to heal your way through the game as a Doctor – as long as its theoretically possible?

There are limits. That's the balancing part. Running with your example, if a Doctor has an easier time through the game than a Gambler, that doesn't mean the game is necessarily unbalanced. The crucial issue is that it's not phenomenally hard or phenomenally easy but it's possible never-the-less within what one would be expect to be reasonable limits. At some point both play-types have their advantages and disadvantages and over the course of the game, they balance out. So for example, while a Doctor might have a reasonably easy way through, his options towards the end might be limited. He might only have one way to stop the bad guy and that's by healing the bad guy's sister and by doing so, ending the cause for the Orc war. If the Doctor fails, he might be punished brutally and his game will end with him being clapped in chains and taken away to be the honoured guest at the next ritual sacrifice. The question is whether such an ending is too harsh on the Doctor but ideally, the Doctor had an easy play through the game only to face his most difficult challenge at the end, so he better be prepared.

Likewise the gambler might have a had time making money at first but by the end of the game, he has accumulated a vast fortune which allows him several options to complete the game such as buying an army or bribing the enemy army. Hell if you wanted, he might even be able to gamble directly for everyone's lives with the bad guy. If the gambler wins, the bad guy goes home and if the Gambler loses, he dies.

So yes, as long as its possible (within reason) for such a character (made under the game's character system) to complete the game without feeling unfairly punished for his decisions, then you have balance.

In any gameworld where Doctors are so much in demand, any rational player or character is going to become a doctor.

Don't confuse choice with rationality. Surley any rational human being would want to become President of the United States in order to weild the power of the "free world"? The reality is people decide different things. What's fun for you isn't fun for me and remember, that's why I'm playing this thing in the first place. For me, fun is running around chopping Orc's heads off with an axe. For you, it's peacefully negotiating with them because "Orcs are people too". For someone else, it's raping and pillaging the country side as an Orc. The point is, I need to be confident that the game is challenging and will provide enough "fun" for any choice I decide to make within the system. If I choose to run for President, I might face some tough challenges but to me, it will be rewarding. On the other hand, the pure fighter might have an easier time "winning the game" but at the end of the day, they too have had a rewarding experience.

Some skills are obviously side skills. I don't think anyone expects a Gambling, Outdoorsman, Barter character to be able to finish the game, or have any fun, by using only those skills.

Now that we've played Fallout no, but to someone who had never played Fallout, there's reason to believe that such skills might be viable. After all, if combat was so important, how come I'm not forced to choose at least one combat skill? As has been said though, the game allows me the opportunity to tweak my character during play. Under the Fallout system, whether I choose to do that or not is up to me indicating that a Bartering, Outdoorsman, Gambler could complete the game. They just have to play to their strengths. That means gambling to get money so they can buy the best equipment early. Then buy some books to increase thier small arms skill to 95% (the max books will take it). I can use my high Outdoorsman skill to avoid most encounters which would otherwise harm me and the barter skill just gives me even more money to buy even better equipment. The game is relatively balanced in that it provides me the opportunity to play to my character's strengths like that and still complete the game. I'll have a hard time taking out the Master in combat mind you but that's why I said relatively balanced.

Fallout is great in the respect of the balance that it provides. Even though we can all pick Gifted, tag Small Guns and take fast shot, I personally prefer not to because I know that with Energy Weapons, a bunch of increased chance at critical perks and aimed shots to the eyes, I can take monsters out in a single shot with a 200hp+ damage shot. It might not be as much damage as I could've caused had I taken fast shot and upped my Agility so that I could take 4 shots per turn but the point is, I can still do it. I can still complete the game the way I chose to. My character is just as much a viable character as yours.

The problem comes when they meet online but I'm sure with my "move first" perk, I'll get the first turn of combat and kill you in one shot, where-as you'll have to try and hit me with 4 shots in order to do the job. Then again, I'm sure you're just as convinced that you'll be able to survive my well-aimed shot and retaliate with a burst of fire that puts me under. Question is, who's more of a threat to you? Saint_Proverbius standing over there in his T-51b and weilding the Super Sledge, me with my Plasma Rifle aimed at your eyes or that guy standing behind you with the Vindicator Minigun, ready to unload 2 bursts into your back and cause some collateral damage to the rest of us?

Of course, that's just the combat side...

 

[Lumpy]

Then, you can't really argue that your game allows you to win with a doctor, but that it allows you to change a doctor into a fighter during gameplay and win.
Also, how's Fan Made Fallout? What character paths are available? Can you finish quests through science like in Van Buren?

 

[Jora]

Doctors could really have lots of options. Remember Rasputin? He was a wandering mystic who cured the blood disease of the emperor's son and gained much influence in the court. Imagine what kind of opportunities a situation like that could offer in a role-playing game. As the ruler's most trusted man certain people would be less likely to attack you and your name would open doors that would otherwise remain closed. Others would envy you and you would get new problems etc.

 

[Norfleet]

Don't confuse choice with rationality. Surley any rational human being would want to become President of the United States in order to weild the power of the "free world"? The reality is people decide different things. What's fun for you isn't fun for me and remember, that's why I'm playing this thing in the first place. For me, fun is running around chopping Orc's heads off with an axe. For you, it's peacefully negotiating with them because "Orcs are people too". For someone else, it's raping and pillaging the country side as an Orc. The point is, I need to be confident that the game is challenging and will provide enough "fun" for any choice I decide to make within the system. If I choose to run for President, I might face some tough challenges but to me, it will be rewarding. On the other hand, the pure fighter might have an easier time "winning the game" but at the end of the day, they too have had a rewarding experience.

And there's the rub, isn't it? People also don't share the same belief on "challenge". Some people like to stomp through the game and feel their godlike power. Others want a game that challenges them so they feel pressure, but ultimately triumph. Others are masochistic and want the game to be hard enough to hand them their ass in spite of their best efforts. Others don't give a rat's ass about the challenge level itself, they just want want the game to conform to their vision of how things should work, be it realism or "RPG-ness". The bottom line is that people who pick Doctor, Outdoorsman, and Gambling as their three tagged skills ARE ASKING FOR IT. It is simply not rational to expect that you can take 3 skills that are obviously support skills, and then expect that your game will not become significant harder if you doggedly stick to those skills in the face of everything else, never developing any meaningful capability. The underlying nature of supporting skills is that while they may be useful, they exist to SUPPORT something. The underlying nature of any game is that you WILL be faced with parties that are opposed to your goals. Your classic solutions are combat, stealth, and diplomacy, but let's face it: In real life, the only solution that universally works provided you apply enough of it is violence. There are things you just can't sneak around. There are things you can't negotiate with. But in real life, enough explosives will get anyone and anything. And this is why if you insist on playing purely "noncombat" skills, you have likely just increased your game difficulty. Maybe you like it that way. Either way, you DID ask for it.

 

[Bar Tec]

In the original Deus Ex there are one or two people you have to kill.

In fact, game designers assumed that it is impossible to finish the game without killing some characters, but players found the way around it. You can finish original Deus Ex without killing anyone - for example, while escaping from UNATCO you can use gas grenade against A. Navarre - she will run away and open the door for you. Later on, the game assumes that you killed her, though

Generally, I think there is nothing wrong if a game requires some combat skills, total pacifism is gay :D In my opinion, reasonable balance is achieved if you need combat skills against common critters (giant spiders, skeletons) but all human oponents may be bypassed with the help of "combat avoidance" skills like stealth, diplomacy etc.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Then, you can't really argue that your game allows you to win with a doctor, but that it allows you to change a doctor into a fighter during gameplay and win.

That's why it's indirect. Fighting is always "the easiest" path to provide for developers. I mean really, who ever heard of a Doctor who saved the world? Or a Gambling Drug Addicted Scout? As Norfleet said, you've chosen something which is a little out there so expect a tough challenge. I believe you should still be able to win the game (or perhaps more appropriately, that developers specifically provide some options which allow me to win the game with that character so that it's not all combat) but it doesn't need to be "easy".

Then there's the problem of skill combination. Say you want a nuclear device sitting in the bottom of the bad guy's base that the player can blow up if he's got the right parts and a high enough repair and science skill. How does he get to the device if he doesn't have speech to talk his way in or stealth to sneak his way through or combat skills which prove him worthy to the group so that they let him join? Should the PC be able to get in based on his science skill alone? "Hey there. Here to fix the bomb. Got this science skill..."

And what about that Frankenstein monster you're planning to let Mad Scientist PCs build out of spare parts from their followers, using the Doctor skill? What if the PC is a soloist and doesn't get any followers? What if the player feels that such a creation conflicts with his desire to play a "good Doctor" as opposed to an evil one? Should you provide a "good" alternative as well? Or what about those quests you designed which maximise the players stealth skills that are all crime related? What if the player wants to use his stealth skills for the forces of good? Do certain skills railroad a player into a path of good or evil despite their intentions?

What about those options you're planning that allow a player to bribe or outright buy his way through certain sections of the game? Is that for the gambling characters or barter characters or both? Is it really allowing the player to use his gambling skill if it's simply just another way to get money, even if that money does allow them things that other characters won't be able to get? Is it enough to provide a series of interesting side quests that allow the player to use this skill? Do they need to use it directly on the end game boss in order to feel that the skill is justified?

Of course, all of this touches on the story you have in the game which is why you've got those quests in the first place. What's more important, a deep story with rich characters that require different skills from the PC for their quests based on what logically that story would provide, or the game mechanics of simply making sure the player gets to use their XYZ skill on the ABC? Will the story be compelling enough for the player to proceed, even if the character they've built only means they'll be able to accomplish a certain type of quest and in fact, will almost force them into only one or two of a series of planned endings? Should every ending be available to every character, regardless of skills? Should the game be balanced and provide real alternatives for both good and bad and all sorts of other things inbetween or is it okay if the only way the PC gets to use their Widgit skill is by joining the Watchamatahtahs?

Answering all of those questions is part of figuring out just how much "balance" is too much. Give all those things to all the players and you don't have balance, you have the problem raised at the start of this thread. All the choices are the same and you've rendered the player's decisions meaningless.

Also, how's Fan Made Fallout?

In accordance with my 5th Amendment rights, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

What character paths are available?

In accordance with my 5th Amendment rights, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Can you finish quests through science like in Van Buren?

In accordance with my 5th Amendment rights, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

 

[Jora]

It is simply not rational to expect that you can take 3 skills that are obviously support skills, and then expect that your game will not become significant harder if you doggedly stick to those skills in the face of everything else, never developing any meaningful capability.

It's not realistic in a role-playing game that isn't balanced properly. It's not hard to think of ways of achieving that balance. It just requires extra work the developers aren't usually willing to do.

The underlying nature of any game is that you WILL be faced with parties that are opposed to your goals. Your classic solutions are combat, stealth, and diplomacy, but let's face it: In real life, the only solution that universally works provided you apply enough of it is violence.

Violence is also the most lethal of ways. I also haven't met anyone who has challenged a fire dragon with a long sword or survived numerous ambushes by mutants who wield laser weapons and grenade launchers. You also have to be careful with how you use violence. Authorities might not like it and so you might face incarceration or public execution.

Why would violence be the easiest path?

There are things you just can't sneak around.

Why not? Do you mean boss monsters that have to be either killed or spoken to? Maybe a thief character can steal it something it wants, steal the source of its power, find another way through its lair or find a nuclear bomb in its cellar? Maybe the thief doesn't even have to concern himself with the baddie because he's following a different storyline?

There are things you can't negotiate with.

Maybe you can negotiate with the people who can kill those things. Maybe the things don't dare to attack you because of your powerful allies? Perhaps you can say a magic word and send it back to its home dimension? Perhaps it can't be negotiated with because nobody but the player with his high Dead Languages skill can communicate with it? etc etc

But in real life, enough explosives will get anyone and anything.

Enough explosives will get you labeled as a terrorist and killed.

 

[Norfleet]

It's not realistic in a role-playing game that isn't balanced properly. It's not hard to think of ways of achieving that balance. It just requires extra work the developers aren't usually willing to do.

I think it's reasonable to expect that at some point you will be attacked by something and will want some mechanism suitable for defending yourself. Whether that mechanism is evasion or simple direct confrontation is up to you, but some things are more reliable than others.

Violence is also the most lethal of ways. I also haven't met anyone who has challenged a fire dragon with a long sword or survived numerous ambushes by mutants who wield laser weapons and grenade launchers. You also have to be careful with how you use violence. Authorities might not like it and so you might face incarceration or public execution.[.quote]
Yes, but that's because real people don't get to save and reload everytime they die trying, and even the most feeble character can survive punishment that would level a small building in most RPGs, whether or not they're combat-oriented. There's also that factor that since the most people, the developers included, have never experienced any kind of violence of this sort, they are much more likely to want to try it in the game, and will become irate if they can't.

Why not? Do you mean boss monsters that have to be either killed or spoken to? Maybe a thief character can steal it something it wants, steal the source of its power, find another way through its lair or find a nuclear bomb in its cellar? Maybe the thief doesn't even have to concern himself with the baddie because he's following a different storyline?

Let's suppose you have a rampaging monster terrorizing the countryside and eating the locals, one of the all-too-common scenarios. Your objective is to eliminate the problem. Sneaking around the monster may position you for a better attack, but ultimately you will have to deal with this problem. There may be alternative methods of dealing with the problem without killing it yourself, but none of them involve pure stealth. Unless somebody has included the ever so-helpful "switch of instant death" that you just have to sneak past it and pull, which is essentially deus ex machina, stealth may set you up to for a path you might otherwise be less suited at taking, but won't do the job without something backing it.

Maybe you can negotiate with the people who can kill those things. Maybe the things don't dare to attack you because of your powerful allies? Perhaps you can say a magic word and send it back to its home dimension? Perhaps it can't be negotiated with because nobody but the player with his high Dead Languages skill can communicate with it? etc etc

Maybe. It's possible. But can you reasonably expect that every single thing you encounter can be spoken to? Or that the people you can convince to try to help you won't wind up just botching the job anyway? Asking someone else to kill it really just brings us back to killing it, only with less of your guiding hand. When they fail, what then?

Enough explosives will get you labeled as a terrorist and killed.

Enough explosives will also blow the atmosphere off the planet, and kill everyone.
More games, frankly, need the option to cause armageddon as a solution to the world's problems.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I, personally, tend to favor the non-combat approaches to the potential solutions. They just seem more interesting. At the same time, I don't rightly expect a contrived solution that perfectly plays to my abilities for everything. Shit happens. Sometimes you're just going to find yourself pitted against your weaknesses. If you've overspecialized in a skillset that is not at all flexible, you're going to find things that much more difficult. I just don't see this as "wrong". People ARE meant to be versatile, after all. Specialization is for insects. When a bug encounters a problem that falls outside his specialty, he gets killed. This problem isn't really a threat to bug-kind, but it doesn't help YOU any at all!

 

[Lumpy]

Not ALL quests have to be available to all characters. It's reasonable that quests like killing the baddie that's terrorizing the village will only be solvable by a combat character. But that's not a problem, as long as not all quests are like that. Have, say, 20% solvable through combat, 20% through diplomacy, 20% though stealth, and 40% through two or three of those.

 

[Jora]

I think it's reasonable to expect that at some point you will be attacked by something and will want some mechanism suitable for defending yourself. Whether that mechanism is evasion or simple direct confrontation is up to you, but some things are more reliable than others.

I believe it's possible to come up with infinite reasons for non-combat character to avoid violent situations. Getting someone to do the job for you, making a diplomatic peace that affects many possible enemies in the region, being a priest of the sun god that mindless undead fear, disguising yourself in enemy territories, avoiding random encounters with a survival or divination skill, etc. etc.

Of course the setting has to be designed to support thsese skills.

Yes, but that's because real people don't get to save and reload everytime they die trying, and even the most feeble character can survive punishment that would level a small building in most RPGs, whether or not they're combat-oriented. There's also that factor that since the most people, the developers included, have never experienced any kind of violence of this sort, they are much more likely to want to try it in the game, and will become irate if they can't.

So you agree that it's unrealistic for combat characters to survive but it doesn't affect your enjoyment? So why not allow diplomats to make unrealistic deals and make the gameworld to bend to their needs by speaking rather than killing? No skill in CRPGs is realistic; designers can make the gameworld do whatever they want.

Because the risks of dying, period, have been greatly reduced.

They're reduced because that's how the designers want it to be. The same way they can make a non-linear game where playing non-combat characters is impossibly convinient. The local alchemist happens to be so very thankful for your words of encouragement or your help in his research that he comes to your resque and blows up the wall behind an unreasonable foozle just when you were about to be drowned in a barrel of horse piss.

Let's suppose you have a rampaging monster terrorizing the countryside and eating the locals, one of the all-too-common scenarios. Your objective is to eliminate the problem. Sneaking around the monster may position you for a better attack, but ultimately you will have to deal with this problem. There may be alternative methods of dealing with the problem without killing it yourself, but none of them involve pure stealth. Unless somebody has included the ever so-helpful "switch of instant death" that you just have to sneak past it and pull, which is essentially deus ex machina, stealth may set you up to for a path you might otherwise be less suited at taking, but won't do the job without something backing it.

Maybe a ranger can tame the beast or lead it to it's death by leaving food baits behind him? Maybe an alchemist or a doctor or an assassin can poison a bait and let the creature eat it? These could involve sneaking. Maybe a wizard removes its bloodlust with a spell that he spent days to compile from various books? Maybe you've made friends with lords all around the region and can assemble a powerful hunting party? A priest character might perform a complex ritual and prey that the beast god sends the creature away to other areas? Maybe an alchemist kills it with a disease he made in his lab?

But can you reasonably expect that every single thing you encounter can be spoken to?

Vault Dweller says that every creature in Age of Decadence can be talked to, so I'm expecting reasonably. :D

Or that the people you can convince to try to help you won't wind up just botching the job anyway? Asking someone else to kill it really just brings us back to killing it, only with less of your guiding hand. When they fail, what then?

Uhh... Maybe they are designed not to fail? Or maybe the power of your friends depends on your ability to make them (the level of your speech skill, for instance) and on how involved you are in politics. Maybe you can convince a powerful cabal of mages to seal the entrance to the monster's cavern with magic? (I'm getting tired with comig up with examples )

More games, frankly, need the option to cause armageddon as a solution to the world's problems.

Wasn't that part of the designs for Van Buren. IIRC, you had to destroy the whole planet OR some particular area of the United States that you had visited in the game.

I just don't see this as "wrong". People ARE meant to be versatile, after all. Specialization is for insects. When a bug encounters a problem that falls outside his specialty, he gets killed. This problem isn't really a threat to bug-kind, but it doesn't help YOU any at all!

But the more different roles a game allows you to play and experience, the better a role-playing game it is and the more replay value it can offer. I prefer vastly different experience in many adventures to experiencing most of everything but not as much in a single game.

 

[Dreagon]

I think that in certain types of RPGs such as the Morrowind/Oblivion style games, "balance" is actually a bad thing. There should be a lot more skills out there, of varying use and power. The races should not have to be exactly equal, some should be harder to play than others.

"balance" is boring in a game like that.

 

[MacBone]

Let's suppose you have a rampaging monster terrorizing the countryside and eating the locals, one of the all-too-common scenarios. Your objective is to eliminate the problem. Sneaking around the monster may position you for a better attack, but ultimately you will have to deal with this problem. There may be alternative methods of dealing with the problem without killing it yourself, but none of them involve pure stealth. Unless somebody has included the ever so-helpful "switch of instant death" that you just have to sneak past it and pull, which is essentially deus ex machina, stealth may set you up to for a path you might otherwise be less suited at taking, but won't do the job without something backing it.

Ever see that Saturday Night Live skit with Jack Black as a hideous beast that villagers annually offered a virgin sacrifice to so he wouldn't destroy their village? He wasn't your rampaging monster of death, but the villagers lived in terror of him. Really, all the poor beast wanted was an older, experienced woman, not those poor little virgins (who were becoming increasingly rare, by the way). A situation that at first looked like a "swing sword first, ask questions later" kind of deal was resolved instead through just talking to the monster (though I don't know if Jimmy Fallon had to make some sort of CHA or WIS check).

 

[Norfleet]

I believe it's possible to come up with infinite reasons for non-combat character to avoid violent situations. Getting someone to do the job for you, making a diplomatic peace that affects many possible enemies in the region, being a priest of the sun god that mindless undead fear, disguising yourself in enemy territories, avoiding random encounters with a survival or divination skill, etc. etc.

Certainly it's possible for a non-combat character to potentially avoid any single situation which might become violent, but to avoid every single one would require that he be a great many things. At some point he will have spent more skillpoints than is practical just on avoiding combats than if he just bought a few points in combat as a fallback position.

So you agree that it's unrealistic for combat characters to survive but it doesn't affect your enjoyment? So why not allow diplomats to make unrealistic deals and make the gameworld to bend to their needs by speaking rather than killing? No skill in CRPGs is realistic; designers can make the gameworld do whatever they want.

If there's a random element involved here, save-and-reload probably works just as well iin diplomacy and stealth.

They're reduced because that's how the designers want it to be. The same way they can make a non-linear game where playing non-combat characters is impossibly convinient. The local alchemist happens to be so very thankful for your words of encouragement or your help in his research that he comes to your resque and blows up the wall behind an unreasonable foozle just when you were about to be drowned in a barrel of horse piss.

I've made a game like that before, in an express attempt to discourage constant combats. Combat was highly lethal and tended to end in the death of the player.

This did absolutely nothing to discourage people from doing it. If anything, increasing the challenge level of the combat probably made it more attractive. In many JRPGs, for instance, there is a monster that you are either not supposed to engage in combat with, or are not supposed to actually win the combat against. People do it anyway. The thing with combat is that you *DO* combat. When you "do" stealth or diplomacy, all you do is jack up a skill and pick a dialogue option. You essentially do something you have been permitted to do.

It's also worth noting that the set of things that constitute combat is considerably smaller than the set of things which constitutes non-combat.

Maybe a ranger can tame the beast or lead it to it's death by leaving food baits behind him? Maybe an alchemist or a doctor or an assassin can poison a bait and let the creature eat it? These could involve sneaking. Maybe a wizard removes its bloodlust with a spell that he spent days to compile from various books? Maybe you've made friends with lords all around the region and can assemble a powerful hunting party? A priest character might perform a complex ritual and prey that the beast god sends the creature away to other areas? Maybe an alchemist kills it with a disease he made in his lab?

You have come up with a large number of solutions to potentially different problems. Let's supposed you've become the aforementioned doctor. You poison the creature. Congratulations, you've dodged a combat bullet. Now on the skillset of a doctor, how many different forms of combat-bullets can you dodge, anyway? You're going to need an awfully large and varied skillset to be able to dodge every single potential case of combat.

But the more different roles a game allows you to play and experience, the better a role-playing game it is and the more replay value it can offer. I prefer vastly different experience in many adventures to experiencing most of everything but not as much in a single game.

I can agree with that, but nowhere is it written that every single role you can take is going to be equally sane. If you insist on binding yourself into a dogmatic role that is completely inflexible, just as in real life, you're going to make life hard on yourself. Even the most pacifistic person, when thrust into an environment of continual, widespread endemic violence, is going to realize that sometimes, violence is going to be necessary for survival. Of course, survival is optional, after all. Certain roles you're going to play are going to require that you die and fail to "win" the game if you're gonna play them to the hilt.

 

[Lumpy]

In Oblivion, you also "do" diplomacy. And it sucks.

 

[Gambler]

You're going to need an awfully large and varied skillset to be able to dodge every single potential case of combat.

This is nonsense. There should not be so many violent problems in the first place. You're just thinking inside the box and trying to imagine non-violent BG clone. Why the heck are you constantly supposed to kill some terror creatures anyways? It's a lame artificial problem, and it has nothing to do with skills.

The real question is, what activities are interesting enought to replace combat?

 

[Lumpy]

Exactly. Yes, if every quest in the game requires you to kill some big baddie, it's unreasonable to think every single one should be solvable through alternate methods.
But the problem is, you can't think of a combat quest, then think of methods to solve it through other means. You should rather think of a quest that can logically be solved through many means, like the kidnapped noble quest from AoD, or save Tandi from Fallout.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

In the original Deus Ex there are one or two people you have to kill.

In fact, game designers assumed that it is impossible to finish the game without killing some characters, but players found the way around it. You can finish original Deus Ex without killing anyone - for example, while escaping from UNATCO you can use gas grenade against A. Navarre - she will run away and open the door for you. Later on, the game assumes that you killed her, though

If you avoid killing Anna Navarre, Gunther's dialogue changes. So the game is doing a check to see whether or not you killed her and not just assuming. I think Howard Strong has to be killed/knocked out or he screws with a missile launch.

 

[Azael]

If you have "support" or "flavor" skills in a skillset, then they should be labeled as such at character creation, not cost as much to raise, or in some other way compensate for the fact that they aren't all that useful throughout the game. One of the biggest flaw with the way SPECIAL was handled in Fallout was that it did neither of those things, not having played the game there were little reasons to believe that a character focused on Throwing, First Aid and Outdoorsman wouldn't be a viable path. It's certainly possible to finish the game focused on this skillset, but you will have a disproportionate harder time compared to someone focused on Small Arms, Speech and Lockpick. A better balanced game would offer rewarding paths for both skill sets. Don't create skills if you can't bother creating enough uses for them to make them worthwhile. If you do create flavor skills, make sure that the player is aware that they are mainly for flavor and some side quests. Another way is to have synergies between main and support skills (well, skill synergies in general is a good idea. Skilled in Small Arms and Repair? Great, now you can mod your rifle. Science and Energy Weapons? Same deal. Outdoorsman and Melee? Putting some toxins on your blade should spice things up, as well as non-combat uses of course, etc.

 

[denizsi]

True, but I found it kind of annoying that one of the only times anyone reacts directly to the amount of humans you kill, "sleeping" enemies are considered dead. You can carefully put to sleep a load of NSF guys on liberty island, only for Paul to accuse you of being a heartless butcher.

Perhaps you're right - though I was fairly sure I didn't kill anyone... Perhaps the sentivity depends on the difficulty level?? I might have increased the difficulty level the second time through, killed one guy and expected to get the "aren't you nice" comment.

Do you remember the dialogue choice at the very beginning, on the pier? Protagonist's brother (or was it somebody else?) offers either of 2 weapons: the stun gun or the crossbow if I remember correct. Whatever they were, one of them knocked out, and the other killed. What you actually do in the level doesn't matter. If you take the weapons that kills, then you're considered to have killed everyone by the end of the level, and vice versa.