What Do You Want to Do in an RPG?

[Sustenus Paul]

Some people might say the key to a good RPG is to give the players as many options as possible. I'd say this is true as far as it goes, but would instead say the key to making an RPG someone enjoys is to give him the option to do as many things he wants to as possible. Does that make sense, sort of? The former follows from the latter, unless you know everyone who will be playing the game well enough to tailor to their interests and leave out the options you knew none of them would take.

On the other hand, there are a finite number of options you can code for in development time. There are an even smaller number of options you can code for well in a finite development time. So, what options are most important to you?

Would you be willing to forgo, say, a decent thieving system, if it meant you could own property (ala Daggerfall)? Are NPC romances a neat feature or a sappy and overscripted distraction? Are lots of nifty opportunities for villainy absolutely vital for your gaming experience? Do you want your ultimate goal to involve "saving the world" (or something comperably epic), or are smaller, perhaps even entirely personal triumphs what rock your socks off?

On the flipside, are there any options you decidedly wouldn't want included? By this, I don't mean options you simply wouldn't take if offered, but which you simply wouldn't be comfortable knowing they were available. For instance, I know a lot of people were bothered by the fact that you could kill children in the two Fallouts, resulting in a bizarrely aged population in Arcanum. Anything like that upset you?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Things I never want to see in a CRPG..

Romances. They're just plain trite.

 

[JJ86]

I'd say it is of more importance to have things that relate to the story in some way. An rpg is still essentially an interactive story. So for example in Fallout it might be cool to have an option to buy a house that you could safely store things in or rest in but it really doesn't relate to the story. While there should be several directions in the framework of the story it shouldn't be entirely freeform like The Sims which doesn't really have a story.

One thing that shouldn't be included is political correctness!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd say it is of more importance to have things that relate to the story in some way. An rpg is still essentially an interactive story. So for example in Fallout it might be cool to have an option to buy a house that you could safely store things in or rest in but it really doesn't relate to the story. While there should be several directions in the framework of the story it shouldn't be entirely freeform like The Sims which doesn't really have a story.

You know, one thing I've always felt would have made Fallout Tactics better was if they had centered it around the concept of bunker building. You start with a puny squad of three after the wreck, find a burned out bunker similar to the one in Fallout 2's toxic caves, and over the course of the game, you build it up. You find computer parts to fix the computer. A decent fusion generator to power the base. A digger and additional vault walls to expand it. Salvagable defense turrets that you could repair and use to hold off would be attackers. Things like that.

Yeah, I know, kind of off topic, but I think Fallout Tactics would have been the best choice for base type building of any of the Fallout games.

 

[SexExitium]

 

[thathmew]

I really enjoy interesting combat and tactical situations that aren't just kill-all-the-enemies.

I enjoy making choices and having to choose betweefactions, but only if I feel like my choice matters and will have an impact on the storyline or outcome. For that matter I vastly prefer immediately responsive quests or situations. Things where I make a choice and the result is immediately apparent, I hate making choices that seem significant, but then not knowing quickly whether or not they had any effect. The whole outcome doesn't have to be immediately apparent, but I want at least hints as to what it will be, particularly when it's not readily apparent before I make a choice. Which leads me to: I hate "guessing" what the best response is when faced with multiple choices.

I enjoy solving problems that require a bit of thought, but aren't absurd or illogical, i.e. I don't like having to guess how a designer thought a problem would be solved.

I enjoy building up my characters and having choices in how they do so. I don't want to feel that my party or character is the same as everyone else who's playing the game. For that matter I generally enjoy a party a lot more than a single character.

blah, blah, blah,
-m

 

[Killzig]

I enjoy games that stick me into a world that lives independent of the main story line See: Fallout, Arcanum... , I despise games that have a world built only to serve the main story line. See: Diablo, IWDs...

 

[Chadeo]

For me things have to be all or nothing.

If I can steal, then MAKE STEALING WORK RIGHT! I want a game where if I get caught in the wrong part of a house, the alarm goes off. I want a game where if I steal from a merchant, he knows he is missing stuff. I want pickpocket to only work during dialog, so I have to distract them before I can try it. Not some super goofy system where I just walk up to some one and pick their pocket. I want locks that can jam permanently, I want traps that can really hurt you or that destroy what you are looking for. I want to be arrested and tossed in jail not just attacked on site. I want the ability to break out of jail before a given time or I go to trial and either pay a fine or get a hand chopped off. Finally I want to climb walls, or at least have some option to enter the house that does not involve the front door all the time (windows are a good start).

If you make a romance in the game, I had better damn well care about the characters. The same goes for any other NPC interaction. If there is no character build up over time, then I could care less if random person I meet in a random town has some huge problem/romance. At best I will just see it as a way to get exp, at worst it will bug me that I have to watch a bunch of dialog that I do not care about.

I love it when party members will react to things in the game, but if you do it, make it consistent. If the NPC will react to a bunch of things in the first town, but then ignore 3 towns, and then have a handful of reaction in town 4, it feels forced and silly.

If you piss someone off make sure they stay pissed off. At the same time make it rather clear what will piss them off and lock them out for you. I totally agree with matt about making things clear, and not having to second guess the designer.

 

[Greenskin13]

I don't like the romances in RPGs where I the main character must fall in love with the lead woman. Like in Final Fantasy games, the romance was forced. I like the romance in Torment, because it gave me a choice. I didn't have to love Annah, I didn't have to love Fall From Grace, it was up to me.

 

[Megatron]

I'd like to see an rpg where the ending doesn't involve saving the world from evil. Mabye a game where you have to do a smaller thing like running a store and eliminating your competition, or an rpg wich requires you to get revenge/go on a rampage thoughtfully. Stuff like tipping your neighbours car onto its roof or poisoning your mother so you can get some money.

What I don't want to see in a rpg are people under 5ft. Anything under that size is either a dwarf, a child or something else annoying.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Well, PS:T's ending you did not save the world.
And stuff.
Historic environments.
Give me the ancient Mediterranean, damnit!
I want my Hoplon, I want my division of Cataphracts and I DO want my Spartan made Corinthian helmet!

I enjoy games that stick me into a world that lives independent of the main story line See: Fallout, Arcanum... , I despise games that have a world built only to serve the main story line. See: Diablo, IWDs...

Very true, and one of my main problems with Morrorwind was that I got the feeling that I was the center of the universe, being the Neveraine Iam and all.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I enjoy games that stick me into a world that lives independent of the main story line See: Fallout, Arcanum... , I despise games that have a world built only to serve the main story line. See: Diablo, IWDs...

I agree here. The problem with these games is that everything is already laid out for you. They're just too.. planned. Too.. controlling.

I thought it was fairly amusing that the NWN expansion, one of the first interviews on it, the developers said they weren't going to have many side quests so they'd be able to plan the game based on what level they knew the player would be at when he got to any point in the game. That way they could make it more "challenging".

That reads to me like, "We're basically taking the NWN Aurora engine and making ProgressQuest out of it." Then again, maybe that's demonstrating the satirical nature of ProgressQuest is more rooted in truth than I care to believe.

I'd much rather have the world feel more fleshed out. The kind of environment that attempts to make the player feel like he's a part of it, rather than the "This is all designed for me to travel from point A to point B in". A world where I can do things, or NOT do them.

Well, PS:T's ending you did not save the world.
And stuff.
Historic environments.
Give me the ancient Mediterranean, damnit!
I want my Hoplon, I want my division of Cataphracts and I DO want my Spartan made Corinthian helmet!

Nethergate is a CRPG that Spiderweb made that's set in 60AD that deals with Romans versus the Celtic tribes. That's almost close to what you're asking for.

It's also important to mention that the game was designed to be played from either side. You can be Celtic or Roman, and the game is different depending on which you are.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

O thank god!
Thank god!
I was seriously considering starting a Hellenistic mod for Morrorwind, before I realized that the majority of exsisting armors in Mor where from the late Imperial age, and from the later (200ad) at that.
Looks great, am about to play.
It looks older than Geneforge.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

It's a pretty fun game. I think it was made before Avernum, but the character system is mostly the same. You'll probably want to play the Romans first since that's what you were after. One tip is load up on all the good traits and forget the disadvantages. The experience penalty really isn't that big of a deal, and you can buy skill points later on by dumping 100 potions at a time into the faerie cauldrons. My Romans were so uber at the end it wasn't even funny.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

I have been playing it, and so far have mixed feelings.
While I enjoy the obvious Heart of Darkness influence, why on earth would the world have magic?
I do not remember the line in Campaigns where Caesar remarks on the Celt's magic prowess.
Also, this is my first time sense Darklands that I have played a fully TB RPG.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Well, obviously it's not meant to be a historical reenactment. More like history with a twist, like Lionheart.

And if you never play TB RPG's, what are you doing hanging around Fallout forums.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Fallout was TB combat (which is fantastic) with RT other stuff.
People moved around at the same time, and you did not have the turn based system on all the time.
Same with Arcanum.

 

[Jed]

What I'd Like to Do in a CRPG.

Something I'd really like to do in a CRPG is begin, and then be forced to deal with the consequences of, a dynasty.

A game paradigm I would like to see would be one where you start as you do in most games: create a single character, quest, level up, choose factions, career paths, families (not unlike Morrowind), and then start a family (not necessarily a romance). One then could have a number of children and begin to raise them.

The next part would be a little contrived, as your PC would be forced to leave his family for some reason, whether imprisoned, conscripted into a war on foreign land, whatever. This is less important, as it only serves as a way to "kill the time" needed for your progeny to grow into adulthood and begin their individual lives, for better or for worse.

Then when the PC returns the fun begins: depending on a mulititude of variables based on your choices when choosing your PC's background, the factions your PC joins, the choices your PC makes while following various quests or story lines, etc.--you now have to track down your children and deal with the consequences of their lives, as influenced by the above actions of the PC.

It's got roleplaying, it's got consequences, it's got non-linearity, and it's got replayability! A little "sim-y" perhaps, but I'd be curious to hear what you folks think about this idea.

Jed

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Yeah, I think it's a pretty neat idea, too. I remember Phantasy Star III for Sega Genesis about 10 years ago did this, and it was pretty fun. You played 3 generations of heroes. At the end of the first two parts, you got to choose who the hero would marry. One race could use magic but the other was a bit stronger, so your offspring's stats and available spells would be different based on the parents' lineage. Also each hero had a different storyline and different opponents, so there were basically 7 different mini-campaigns. The game world was constant, too, so if your dad cleaned out a chest in his glory days, it would still be empty, and some people would react differently to you based on what he did. It would probably be pretty tough to make a really deep game that way, but it would be nice to see.

 

[Jed]

Yes, this would seem to be a good opportunity to cop to my limited knowledge of game history. I've only been playing games for about five years, starting with Planescape, BG, & Fallout. I've played every CRPG for PC I could get my hands on since, but obviously that leaves out most of the history of CRPGs. Therefore, I hope the more veteran gamers will be gentle on me here if I repeating things that have already been done.

That said, Snails, why do you think it would be particularly hard to create a "really deep" game in this manner?

J

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Just more things to keep up with, I guess. If you wanted a branching storyline like PS3, it would be that much more writing involved for each possible choice given to the player. Not to mention you'd want to program NPC's to react to what your current hero's ancestors did, as well as possibly remake certain areas of the gameworld after large amounts of time pass (you'd probably expect some cities to flourish or decline based on what your ancestors did, for example). It's a pretty tall order when you think about it. Obviously when I mean, deep, it doesn't just mean nothing changes from generation to generation other than your hero has a slightly different face and maybe a few minor differences in stats and skills, and every NPC is just replaced by their child who says and does the exact same thing. You'd basically have no choice but to toss out having a static game world and population, which would be lots of fun to play but no mean feat to create.

 

[Jed]

Yeah, it would definitely be a lot of work, but I still think a deep game could be created with this paradigm. I don't know a lot about the Europa 1400 (or whatever it's called), but it seems some aspects of this are being done in that game.

Also, I'm not sure if you're talking specifically about PS3, or if you misunderstood what I'm proposing, but the world would be changed by/reacting to your children, not your ancestors. Though, if we're only speaking in technical terms, it doesn't make a qualitative difference.

Jed

 

[Greenskin13]

I would like a to see a stable, low income occupation quests in RPGs. Like the one in Quest for Glory 1, where I had to run to the castle, spend the whole day shoveling, earn 10 silvers (not a whole lot, mind you), and sleep in the stables until I finally had enough money to buy chainmail and got my stength and endurance high enough to survive from all that shoveling. Also, in Harvest Moon, I spent the first few weeks going up to the mountain to pick berries for my income. PS:T had a quest where you sold cranium rat tails to that poison control man, but the number of rats were limited and there were many easy, high paying quests availible. I guess I just get a kick when the hero who saves the world started out squishing rats for 10 copper a piece.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

I'd like to see an experience system rooted in at least an attempt to express what your character is actually learning rather than just a quest to see how many points you can rack up. I get rather sick of quests where fetching the old wizard's ring might net you 100 or 100,000 experience simply depending on what level you're expected to be at. Also, you have to wonder exactly what incredible insights your character is going to glean after killing his 100th orc.

Although I thought it was hopelessly complex at times, I thought this was one area Rolemaster got right. You got a huge bonus, like x5, for doing something the first time. After that, it petered off, until you got little to nothing for a task that had become routine. It was also heavily based on things a person might reasonably gain personal insight with, like doing research, trying new spells and rituals, and fighting new enemies. There was always a push to try out new things and grow, not to get stuck in a rut. A mage who rarely got into combat would probably get more for dealing a nice blow to an enemy than a fighter would get for killing it, assuming the fighter had already fought that kind of opponent many times before. You even got experience for screwing up. Funnily enough, dying was treated as a pretty major life experience, especially the first time. You could possibly gain an entire level the first time you died, IIRC. Of course you had to come back to benefit, but it was a neat idea. You also got as much experience (or maybe more, I forget) for recieving wounds, from the mundane to the serious, as you would have gotten for dealing them. You'd also learn from your failures, often more if your character wasn't accustomed to it for whatever particular task you were trying. I think things like this would make gaining experience feel much more immersive and organic rather than the typical level treadmill.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd like to see an experience system rooted in at least an attempt to express what your character is actually learning rather than just a quest to see how many points you can rack up. I get rather sick of quests where fetching the old wizard's ring might net you 100 or 100,000 experience simply depending on what level you're expected to be at.

Yes, this is something I've never really liked. You do something simple, but because it's late in the game, you get lots of experience for it. However, you do something similar in the beginning and it's worth less. Then again, "fetch this ring" later on might be more tricky than the lower level one. As long as the quest is acceptably challenging, and getting the ring is difficult, then fine. Just adding more experience for the same situation because it's later in the game is just silly though.

Also, you have to wonder exactly what incredible insights your character is going to glean after killing his 100th orc.

The problem with not giving experience for something just because you're higher level than it is are the situations where you run across a pack of those things that can kill you. If I'm in a fight where I can die, I want experience for it.