Non-mondblutian RPGs

[Tramboi]

Betrayal at Krondor should please you, OP, if you ignore the character creation aspect.

 

[villain of the story]

When and where did I miss a probable wall of text by mondblut where he possibly made a case for combat being integral and perhaps even central to RPGs so even though the only circumstantial argument against the idea of RPGs without combat is the lack of such games thus far in history of CRPGs, he possibly makes up some bullshit to pass that as the truth, to the point that even if one were to make such a game, it couldn't be classified as an RPG in his view, so that this attitude ridiculously came to be called "mondblutian"?

I mean it's pretty fucking annoying, as if he set the precedence for the argument.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Lord Chambers, here is an interesting result of the Old Codex's marginalisation of those who ever said otherwise.

Relatively new gamers who never played any RPG before 2002 got the idea that old games were full of the theoretical features that Old Codex idealized. Anyone who thought otherwise was obviously wrong, because he was ridiculed.

This led them to bashing even games they previously liked, while getting the idea that old games were different. The result? See this thread:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=31859

Alright, the choices in KotOR: Should I paint my wall in White or Black?

THAT TOTALLY CHANGES TEH OUTCOME!

Compared to the choices in Fallout:

Should I help Killian or Gizmo? OMG THAT TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING. ONE OF THE ENDING SLIDES IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!

Should I fight the Master or talk him out of it? THAT TOTALLY CHANGES...well actually that doesn't change anything at all.

Ssh, they genuinely believe the fabled choice and consequences actually existed to a great degree in the past. Don't spoil it for them.

Can you believe the hypocrisy of *some* people on RPG Codex? Racofer, who was a KotOR fan before he came to RPG Codex during his AVault days, got the idea from the Saint Proverbius crowd that it was his fundamental duty to dislike KotOR. Why? Because it lacked features that never existed in old games. He had not even played Fallout, Torment,.etc at the time, but he believed the mythology related to them.

It's halfway new, halway old posters such as Dark Matter and Admiral Jimbob who have been the voice of sanity and reason here, while pre-2006 and post-2007 periods have been times of trendy hipsters.

This came to its most hilarious climax with Alpha Protocol. There's lots of things you could criticise that game, but it has C+C coming out the whazoo. Much much more than the 'choices' in Deus Ex, where at most you get a bonus throw-away line by a character, or (if you kill a character) a different NPC saying exactly the same thing as the old one would have if you hadn't killed him. In AP you get an insane degree of different allies, different bosses, different difficulty of enemies, sometimes you might get backup soldiers where otherwise you'd have none, and the different factions' soldiers would have radically different equipment and tactics - and it was all 'lol...red shirts v blue shirts'. Overlooking the fact that even if it was just red shirts v blue shirts (and it wasn't), that's still a MUCH bigger consequence than 95% of the choices in the lauded older games (which I also played and loved).

It was the exact same when I was talking about NWN2 a while ago.

I said that NWN2 was bad despite its abundance of fabled choices and consequences. Somebody countered that NWN2 had superficial choices and consequences, so it's not a good example.

But compared to what? Fallout and Torment didn't even have the system for siding with entirely different factions at every step as NWN2, so to what standards are people holding NWN2 as far as "C&C" is concerned? Of course, Fallout and Torment were highly enjoyable for other reasons, but that's only a reminder that this C&C is a trivial issue.

 

[mondblut]

When and where did I miss a probable wall of text by mondblut where he possibly made a case for combat being integral and perhaps even central to RPGs so even though the only circumstantial argument against the idea of RPGs without combat is the lack of such games thus far in history of CRPGs, he possibly makes up some bullshit to pass that as the truth, to the point that even if one were to make such a game, it couldn't be classified as an RPG in his view, so that this attitude ridiculously came to be called "mondblutian"?

There is no need for walls of text, other than the two very obvious axioms:

One, RPGs have been invented as a subtype of tactical wargames characterized by players' complete freedom to act (improvise) and do whatever they want within and in between the combat scenarios;
Two, said freedom naturally includes freedom to stomp anybody the players wish into the pavement.

"RPG without combat" is a car without engine AND wheels. Enjoy the drive

 

[almondblight]

But compared to what? Fallout and Torment didn't even have the system for siding with entirely different factions at every step as NWN2, so to what standards are people holding NWN2 as far as "C&C" is concerned? Of course, Fallout and Torment were highly enjoyable for other reasons, but that's only a reminder that this C&C is a trivial issue.

Pretty much. What were the choices and consequences in Fallout, really? I can only think of two examples where you had to pick sides, one was in the Junkyard (Gizmo vs. Killian) and one in the Boneyard (Regulators vs. Blades). Hell, when I got the mission to deal with the rebellion in Vault 13, I wanted to join it, but was only allowed to talk them out of it.

Still was a fun game. Also, I'm not sure I would really like a game where every area is filled with 2 - 5 different factions waiting for a wandering stranger to change sides. It would feel...gimmicky.

 

[villain of the story]

When and where did I miss a probable wall of text by mondblut where he possibly made a case for combat being integral and perhaps even central to RPGs so even though the only circumstantial argument against the idea of RPGs without combat is the lack of such games thus far in history of CRPGs, he possibly makes up some bullshit to pass that as the truth, to the point that even if one were to make such a game, it couldn't be classified as an RPG in his view, so that this attitude ridiculously came to be called "mondblutian"?

There is no need for walls of text, other than the two very obvious axioms:

One, RPGs have been invented as a subtype of tactical wargames characterized by players' complete freedom to act (improvise) and do whatever they want within and in between the combat scenarios;
Two, said freedom naturally includes freedom to stomp anybody the players wish into the pavement.

"RPG without combat" is a car without engine AND wheels. Enjoy the drive

So basically it's what I said, "because all CRPGs had combat". And axiom, you say? That's pushing it. What about pnp RPGs that allow ignoring combat completely in a game and not in a "giving the option but discouring against it" way but entirely ruling it out as an option? There is still player freedom, skills and rolls and whatnot.

Initially everything is invented as something and then transforms into many different things. Things we call evolving and maturing. Combat is just a very predominant gimmick we haven't managed to get rid of because of how the industry works.

 

[kaizoku]

What would be the point?

If you want to solve non-combat problems that are actually challenging, they need to be puzzles designed for YOU to solve, not your character. If you only need a WIS > 10 to solve a given puzzle then that's not challenging... you're just playing a CYA book.

One of the reasons why the old Codex never got the game they wanted.

They want both a) use of stats, and b) challenging non-combat problems. The two are fundamentally different things.

Jeff Vogel often said that people on forums keep giving him some advice about how to make a roleplaying game, and he keeps disregarding them. Obviously, it is impossible to follow one suggestion without going against another; gamers have contradictory suggestions, as the above case shows. That's why he sticks to the fundamentals - getting more powerful and getting more equipment - and irrespective of what gamers keep claiming about how much importance they give to those features, their demonstrated preference (in terms of sales and post-release feedback) shows that this is exactly what they want.

RPG gamers are just like woeminz.
They say they want a nice guy that treats them right, but in the end they always go for the big black guy that pounds them and slaps them in the face, impregnates her, pimps her out, and leaves her dying with AIDS


OP, there are a couple of adventure games that have good story, offer different solutions to puzzles, and multiple endings as well.
Can't remember any names now When I read about such games I simply DL them and put then on my to play list.

Your argument on PS:T "hurr dur INT and WIS" doesn't make sense at all and makes me think you trollin'.
If you don't want combat, then combat related stats are useless, only remaining the INT and WIS (ok, you can imagine some related ones, but not much more).

 

[mondblut]

entirely ruling something out as an option... There is still player freedom

Does not compute.

If punching someone in the face is "entirely ruled out as an option", there is no player freedom period.

Initially everything is invented as something and then transforms into many different things. Things we call evolving and maturing.

That's called "A Bethesda-Bioware argument". For a reason.

(but yeah, you are right. It indeed transforms into many different things. Different from RPGs)

 

[Roguey]

It was the exact same when I was talking about NWN2 a while ago.

I said that NWN2 was bad despite its abundance of fabled choices and consequences. Somebody countered that NWN2 had superficial choices and consequences, so it's not a good example.

That was me and I think that was still an utterly stupid thing to say because no one, no one has ever actually praised NWN2's abundance of choices. You could just as easily say that BG2 also has an abundance of c&c because you can side with thieves or vampires, or side with the fish prince or the fish king or give the dragon its eggs back or sacrifice them to a demon. And so on.

But compared to what? Fallout and Torment didn't even have the system for siding with entirely different factions at every step as NWN2, so to what standards are people holding NWN2 as far as "C&C" is concerned?

Well it's a good thing that there are more games out there than Fallout and Torment. And every step? As far I know the only mutually exclusive lines are the thieves/watch at the beginning and with/against the Shadow King at the end.

And since you must know here's an incomplete list of better RPGs with better c&c than NWN2 that were released beforehand: Arcanum, Wizardry 8, Prelude to Darkness, Bloodlines.

 

[Gord]

If punching someone in the face is "entirely ruled out as an option", there is no player freedom period.

Initially everything is invented as something and then transforms into many different things. Things we call evolving and maturing.

That's called "A Bethesda-Bioware argument". For a reason.

(but yeah, you are right. It indeed transforms into many different things. Different from RPGs)

One could indeed asume from your posts that Mondbluts definition of cRPG = dungeon crawler.
Go play a roguelike, it's easily offering all you are looking for in an rpg.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Except it's not and you should know that, so lurk more. If you remove combat from an RPG, you remove player freedom - just as introducing un-killable NPCs into RPGs removed player freedom. Arguing whether it makes any sense to kill all NPCs is just trying to sidestep the actual argument - that player freedom should be priority, not on-rails cinematic experience.

And Wyrmie is gleefully misrepresenting Fallout for some reason. Fallout wasn't praised just because you could side with Gizmo or Killian but because quests had multiple solutions as well - that's C&C as well even if on a lower scale. It's not just "which faction should I join" and the reason why NWN2 got slammed was that it was completely meaningless which faction you joined as you still ended up going to the exact same maps and doing the exact same things (killing trash mobs) but their shirt colours changed. Whereas in Fallout you do entirely different things if you side with Gizmo versus siding with Killian. If you cannot see the difference here, you are a fucking moron.

 

[coldcrow]

This is the point where I have to question the ability of some posters to actually read and comprehend.
Total freedom is the ability to choose. You cannot choose if there is no combat option. A good RPG would have a good (preferably TB) combat system + well done story hooks, which could be expanded upon and not turned into some biowarian faggotry.
I fail to see how challenging and rewarding combat takes away from a good story. I am also amazed how you easily take away the oen aspect that rpgs have over many other genres, that is player freedom. Starting with immortal nps to actually not being able to target said npcs. What the fuck.

 

[Carrion]

Total freedom is the ability to choose. You cannot choose if there is no combat option.

That's a pretty retarded statement since combat is just one of the theoretically infinite amount of possible choices you might have in a game ("total freedom" is never going to happen in games anyway). But if there's not a non-combat option, you can't really choose either. And I think this is what the OP is looking for: a game that has RPG elements that transcend the entire setting instead of just the combat part, which, if executed properly, would naturally mean more choice for the player.

But you are right that having the possibility to choose (to fight) is important, and that makes the "play adventure games instead" suggestions pretty useless. If there's no choice involved, playing a pacifist doesn't matter. Just like killing someone doesn't matter if it's something you simply have to do.

 

[coldcrow]

I was responding not to the OP, but stroy villain for example.
Also freedom of choice pretty much implies a non-combat option, but not taking away the possibility ot use more neolithic means either. Anyways saying a "normal" rpg could be completed without combat is quite stupid, since there alot of easy to imagine situations in which you have to defend your character.

Exception would be games designed around stealth diplomacy whatever, thief, AP or adventure games, but please don't touch the genre I came to like which is based on combat.

 

[Zomg]

My alternate RPG critical framework, stated for the millionth time: "RPG mechanics" are a wrapper you can put over any gameplay. You can have an RPG racing game if you want, with means to characterize and parameterize elements describing the driver or racing team, to make them persistent over multiple races/plays, or whatever. The traditional game the RPG mechanics wrapper was put on is the small or single unit turn-based fantasy tactics game (blobbers and roguelikes both use effectively a single unit). This was completely contingent on the fact that nerds with a table top medieval wargame felt like extending the rules to make Conan and the Grey Mouser of the Dying Earth Rings, i.e. to make a game that emulated their favorite literature.

So in this case, if you want a non-violent RPG, don't expect to get it from a squad tactics game modified to generate permutations of violent fantasy novels.

 

[CappenVarra]

I merely say, "No game has actually had the qualities you demand from it, so why are you using your fake, made-up, arbitrary criteria, instead of just looking at the features that RPGs actually have? Do you even like this genre?"

I am not prophesising. Do you know that those criteria are based on contradictory demands that negate themselves? They have made it logically impossible for their ideal game to exist. On grounds of "roleplaying", they may idealise one-character games, and on grounds of tactics they may idealise challenging turn-based combat, but then they want challenging turn-based combat with only one character?

Old Codex turned its preference in RPGs into a religious doctrine, not realizing that this has been a genre with broad room for anything ranging from Dungeon Master/Eye of the Beholder to Daggerfall/Ultima Underworld to Realms of Arkania/Darklands to Fallout/Arcanum to Gold Box to Ultima/Torment to MM/Wizardry. Yet, by the rigid criteria that some of them hold, they reject 95% of RPGs ever made.

Gee Wormfood (to reuse Shannow's "honorific"), for a guy worthy of appearing in jimbob's comics, you sure seem to have a peculiar view of the matter. I'm sure you've just been waiting for an ill-informed 2011 newfag's drunk post about the topic, so here goes:

"old" codex = a fringe sect split off the church of RPG fandom, saying "cRPGs could/should be so much more than the shit that gets released these days", spending months debating workshoppy ideas about what could make that fabled "worthwhile cRPG", using a mythical unholy hybrid of the best ideas from the Holy Trinity and 80s games as the yardstick. Yes, it's essentially religious (based on pipe dreams more than rational observance of real world game development), and yes, it's essentially contradictory in its requirements (as religions often are), and yes, it's essentially unrealistic (valuing fringe considerations of "makes for a good cRPG" over realistic considerations of "sells more copies"). Hopes to some day reach the phantasmal promised land of cRPG rapture, and is willing to burn all contemporary releases on its altar. Doesn't mind spending an enormous amount of energy working towards that fabled (and most likely unreachable) promised land...

"new" codex = a shitty counter-reformation movement, saying "you said cRPGs could be so much more, but it never happened; you discussed all obvious workshoppy ideas so we either have to move beyond the low-hanging fruit or give up - r00fles!", spending hours making brain-dead disillusioned posts trolling the "old" standards ("Fallout is shit! Arcanum is shit! Torment is shit!"), using contemporary releases (e.g. an unusually large and only partially rotten potato) as the yardstick. Hopes to some day get an AAA cinematic release that will be "approved" by other "demanding cRPG fans", and is willing to burn all "old codex hopes" on its altar. Likes ponies. Doesn't mind spending an enormous amount of energy slouching towards the lulz... And triumphantly pointing out how the "old" codex was nothing but an unrealistic religious fantasy.

But as I said, pardon an ill-informed drunk post - I'm sure your pointing out that the emperor is naked contributes towards the bright future of cRPGs... somehow

 

[jancobblepot]

Do NOT take away my combat from my RPGs

I want more options, not less, that's why I don't care about adventure games (I admit it, I really don't know about the best of the genre, I only played the first Monkey Island, Veil of Darkness and little more). Combat is the dumbest way to solve problems, it must exist in all RPGs, but I want to punish those pinheads who only know about that.... If you kill an NPC just to get his boots, the guards should be chasing you for some time.

I also want to create my own character, and make some mistakes. I want to talk like a retard because of my low INT, or get drown too early because of my low Willpower and/or Constitution. If my character has no Luck, I want a piano falling over him!

IMO "C&C" is all about that, not just a buzzword to describe different ending slides. But I'm the newfag and consoletard here, so I must be wrong


But yeah, gimme an adventure game like that, and I will play it... But in my mind it will be an RPG.

Your argument on PS:T "hurr dur INT and WIS" doesn't make sense at all and makes me think you trollin'.
If you don't want combat, then combat related stats are useless, only remaining the INT and WIS (ok, you can imagine some related ones, but not much more).

Actually, all six D&D attributes can (and should) be used outside combat. A PC will need Strenght to move a boulder, Dexterity to catch a moving object or Constitution to not get sick often, just to name some lazy examples.

Think outside D&D and you can have Perception, Willpower, Intuition, Appearance, Luck, etc, etc. Or maybe some skills and even phobias. Look at RoA (using TDE rules):

Or Darklands...

Instead, "Planescape: Torment" only gave us two real options: Fighter and Diplomat. And the first one sucked.



PD: Yes, my english is terrible... Get used to it.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

bro you're not a happy drunk I must say I prefer you sober
no homo

 

[mondblut]

Go play a roguelike, it's easily offering all you are looking for in an rpg.

No parties. Shitty pacman combat. Fighting alphabet.

 

[Gord]

This is the point where I have to question the ability of some posters to actually read and comprehend.
Total freedom is the ability to choose. You cannot choose if there is no combat option. A good RPG would have a good (preferably TB) combat system + well done story hooks, which could be expanded upon and not turned into some biowarian faggotry.

Absolutely, but I didn't get the impression someone was saying that a rpg shouldn't have a combat option (preferably it should). Merely that it shouldn't be combat-centric, as most cRPGs are.

 

[Excidium]

Go play a roguelike, it's easily offering all you are looking for in an rpg.

No parties. Shitty pacman combat. Fighting alphabet.

 

[villain of the story]

The arrogance of this "RPG = combat" folk matches that of "TB is obsolete shit" crowd in a way.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Yeah, because there is totally no arrogance and lecturing from the narrativist crowd, who have defined the entire genre in a tiny space between 1997 and 1999.

At least RPG = combat crowd is a far broader and more open-ended crowd. Combat-based RPG can mean anything - first-person real time party-based, first-person turn-based party-based, first-person real-time single, top-down turn-based party-based, top-down real-timee party-based, and so on.

And you know what? There are good to decent examples of ALL of these forms in this genre (although the first-person real-time party-based is rather weird). Whether it is Ultima Underworld or Lands of Lore or Wizardry or Realms of Arkania, as log as you are ready to fight, you will get exactly what you want.

Being open only to combat is still being open to everything, while being open only to dialogue is being open to as many games as you can count on your fingers.

 

[kaizoku]

...

Good call on the attributes issue.
As for the C&C, for me it's both things: choices on how to get past obstacles and consequences from your actions (during gameplay and the "ending slides").

AoD will deliver.