Zero Combat RPGs

[Hory]

First of all, I don't think that you should have a zero-combat RPG simply as a goal to have zero-combat RPG. Combat is a realistic option in most situations, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid it. Make it challenging (as it is) and make it have realistic consequences (as it should).

The beauty of a non-combat RPG (and potentially any RPG) is in the choices & consequences. There shouldn't be only character-irrelevant open choices or player-irrelevant restricted choices. You could say the same thing about combat (eg. if I can't shoot arrows for being a ranger, I just make character-irrelevant choices, but if I can use a bow effectively, I will, as it would make no sense not to use it, so I become irrelevant as a player).

In a RPG not focused on combat, there should be a multitude of restricting choices, and a multitude of conflicting open-choices - and that's where the player comes in. Doing the best with what he has been given, taking a path that has distinct consequences, changing the world and being changed by it.

C&C aren't required for RPGs, but they are for good RPGs.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

First of all, I don't think that you should have a zero-combat rpg simply as a goal to have zero-combat RPG. Combat is a realistic option in most situations, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid it. Make it challenging (as it is) and make it have realistic consequences (as it should).

Yes, but it'd be cool if there could be, you know, a game which isn't about killing rats and orcs. Something like, say, a cop RPG where you'd investigate stuff, interrogate suspects and, hm, well occasionally fight criminals. And chase them with cars. Hey, why's there no rpg about cops?

And how is combat a realistic option in most situations, if you don't make a generic power fantasy game about rats and orcs?

 

[Andhaira]

I suggest you play the Police Quest series of games from Sierra. I recommend police quest 3.

 

[Hory]

And how is combat a realistic option in most situations, if you don't make a generic power fantasy game about rats and orcs?

It's realistic in the sense that in almost any interaction you have the option to escalate physically, but in a realistic game, it usually isn't a beneficial alternative.

 

[Norfleet]

I think that the idea of creating an RPG specifically for the singular purpose of disallowing combat is a bad idea, but I also think that the current breed of RPGs overly encourages combat, often meaningless combat. It would be nice if it was more frequently possible to conduct at least a given story arc without the Obligatory Random Combat.

 

[Joe Krow]

The beauty of a non-combat RPG (and potentially any RPG) is in the choices & consequences. There shouldn't be only character-irrelevant open choices or player-irrelevant restricted choices.

What would those look like? Limited options that have nothing to do with the character? It has to be one or the other, right? Or is this more of that story time bull shit? How is that even roleplaying? You should really go buy yourself some "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. They'll be in the children's section.

Have you ever wondered why combat is the focus of most rpgs? I'll give you a hint: combat does not use a script. You create more variety, options, and opportunity in the first five minutes of combat then you get in a whole games worth of "choice and consequence" faggotry. No two fights are identical. Until you can say the same of scripted dialogue it will not be a realistic alternative.

"But I want non-violent interactive fiction"... go change your tampon.

You could say the same thing about combat (eg. if I can't shoot arrows for being a ranger, I just make character-irrelevant choices, but if I can use a bow effectively, I will, as it would make no sense not to use it, so I become irrelevant as a player).

?? I guess you picked the best response here. Your options were limited. You're an idiot.

 

[mondblut]

RPGs are all about freedom of making choices. Including a choice of kicking anyone's butt. No combat = not RPG.

 

[Hory]

What would those look like? Limited options that have nothing to do with the character? It has to be one or the other, right? Or is this more of that story time bull shit? How is that even roleplaying?

How about writing a coherent argument?

You should really go buy yourself some "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. They'll be in the children's section.

Oh, as opposed to combat, which is so "adult-oriented". No, wait, every JRPG and WoW retard does that.

Have you ever wondered why combat is the focus of most rpgs? I'll give you a hint: combat does not use a script.

No, that's not the main reason. For one thing, any combat action (and the combat as a whole) can be pre-scripted. In fact, if you did, it could even turn out better, because you could also add particular actions relevant to that combat only (eg. push the enemy in that spike in the wall). But for a combat-oriented RPG, it's not time-efficient to manually script every fight, so a bunch of general rules and actions are defined.

You create more variety, options, and opportunity in the first five minutes of combat then you get in a whole games worth of "choice and consequence" faggotry.

A variety of inartistic, undramatic, predictable and repetitive moments. I'd rather have a few interesting paths implemented by the human writer than a bunch of computer-generated numerical results.
It's also interesting how your great variety of combat moments have pretty much the same two outcomes: dead or alive. The point of "choice and consequence faggotry" is to make the role-playing experience deeper, and if you don't want that, go back to your 9 to 5, conveyor-belt product processing job you probably love.

No two fights are identical.

They are largely identical, and there is a limited number of possible outcomes. The most variety actually comes from scripted elements: the number, type and power of enemies. The only random element is the dice roll. Without that, they would be exactly the same.

Until you can say the same of scripted dialogue it will not be a realistic alternative.

I can say the same about scripted dialogue, because it can use dice rolls as well.
But you don't understand that this isn't even about dialogue vs combat. There are other ways for interacting with the game world, the point is that combat doesn't have to be the predominant.

"But I want non-violent interactive fiction"... go change your tampon.

Yeah, because virtual dungeon-crawling in so manly.

?? I guess you picked the best response here. Your options were limited. You're an idiot.

Yes, I was acting as an idiot, because I was trying to apply your way of thinking to combat.

 

[Norfleet]

The option for violence must exist for nonviolence to be a meaningful choice. If you cannot choose to be violent, then the choice of nonviolence is meaningless. For instance, in NWN1, you could arbitrarily go and attack just about any NPC you wanted, barring the extremely plot-critical. In NWN2, you couldn't attack anyone who wasn't red, even if you knew he was an enemy. The choice to intentionally and deliberately launch a surprise attack on a known foe rather than walk stupidly into a tactically disadvantageous position was entirely removed from you. You have no idea how annoying this is. And ultimately? You didn't even get an option for nonviolence half the time. The resulting combat was mandatory, the entire event designed to force you to walk into an obvious trap rather than opening up at range with bombardment.

 

[RK47]

Yeah I never understood forcing casters to talk in front of everyone. That really gets me .

 

[mjorkerina]

Have you ever wondered why combat is the focus of most rpgs? I'll give you a hint: combat does not use a script. You create more variety, options, and opportunity in the first five minutes of combat then you get in a whole games worth of "choice and consequence" faggotry. No two fights are identical.

Not all combat oriented cRPG fall into your description. Baldur's Gate 2 for example uses a *lot* of scripting working around the ruleset, did you ever wonder why even low level enemy wizards cast a lot of magic protections just right when they go hostile even though they shouldn't be able to (simulating the effect of high level spell contingency) ? in this game beside the dice rolls every fight does indeed feel identical and when you reload after dying you can overcome the enemy just by knowing what the fuck he's going to do anyway.

 

[sheek]

Lol. Joe Krow is for some reason getting upset that we're discussing this - keep it up.

 

[elander_]

Dialog focused games tend to work better with adventures and puzzles. In an rpg you usually focus on a few abstract characters and deliver your gameplay and char gen choices around those characters. The normal is to focus on stealth and combat. Some games also offer dialog and crafting as a reward to exploration. The reason why you see more combat and stealth is because there's already plenty of good gameplay mechanics devs can pick up and resource and testing wise is cheaper than say dialog gameplay mechanics.

 

[Alex]

I think I get Joe's point. He simply means that dialogue, as it is in most rpgs nowadays, isn't much of a game. Take fallout's dialogue as an example. Sometimes a dialogue option can solve a quest, or move you halfway to solving a quest. Removing combat would look like a choose your own adventure book. The only problem with that thought is that dialogue could mean a lot more.

Instead of simply determining the outcome of a quest or giving information, dialogue could be used to change the state of the gameworld. The effect of dialogue options could be to change the way npcs act. Different actions would lead to different stories being told, leading to a non scripted result. This is what Chris Crawford wants to do with his storytron system.

Also, removing combat from a game doesn't need to be that much of an artificial restriction. In a lot business simulators, you have no ability to use violence against your foes, but this doesn't make the game seem artificially restricted.

 

[Hory]

Sometimes a dialogue option can solve a quest, or move you halfway to solving a quest. Removing combat would look like a choose your own adventure book.

Yes, it would look similar, because the interface would be similar, but the gameplay? not necessarily. While in both systems you are given a textual list of choices, those in RPGs are of a different scope, at a different frequency, and with different consequences. And, most importantly, a non-combat RPG doesn't have to mean "dialogue only". The range of actions can be greater, and most of them don't have to be CYOA-style (textual).

This is what Chris Crawford wants to do with his storytron system.

Well, I've been following the Storytron forum on and off for about an year, and I can say that I still have no idea how such a story would be played, how artificial it would feel, how unique the emerging results would be, or a whole lot of other things. The constant delays in development don't help clear things up either.

Also, removing combat from a game doesn't need to be that much of an artificial restriction. In a lot business simulators, you have no ability to use violence against your foes, but this doesn't make the game seem artificially restricted.

The players of such games consciously play them with entirely different expectations, and don't mind the limited scope of the game (character-wise). If actually role-playing a business tycoon, you'd very likely not get into combat, but that's still far from the "playing a business simulator" experience.
As a side-note, a business simulator with business-related role-playing elements can work. Pizza Tycoon is a great example and game.

 

[Schauman]

Business-related role-playing with zero combat would work rather well.

Office Space - The RPG
The firm is at the verge of bankruptcy, can you save the wor..the firm?
- C&C: From sacking senior employees to hiring new interns. Pass the cake or leave none for Milton and other life turning choices that affect the future of the firm.
- Skills: Delegation, Speechcraft, Paperwork, Micromanagment, Butt Grope and whole plethora of other office related talents.
- Politics: The firm is a ship at it's maiden voyage. Who do you side with? Do you trust the fellow seniors not to screw you up or do you team with the underdog employees?
- Challenge: It is constant competion with other firms in the region. Do what you must to secure success or atleast work up a nice nest egg for yourself.

You really cant avoid combat though. The moment that Xerox starts to dumbfuck around, it tosses you to turn-based combat. What will you do? Fists, keyboards, fire, baseball bats or gasoline?

A zero combat RPG is doable, even outside of the business model games. Just need to come up with alternative methods to deal with challenges that would usually get executed in combat. Then again combat could be masked as well, why would it have to be blood and guts when replacing the inkjet cartridge takes more than a mere man to pull off. Creating a functional combat system for that would be a challenge but hell, it would be different and somewhat nonviolent.

*Slam!* *Pull* *Push* *Push* *[Inkjet cartridge] is punctured!* *[Inkjet cartridge] begins to leak!* *Your [White] [Shirt] is covered in ink!*

 

[Alex]

Sometimes a dialogue option can solve a quest, or move you halfway to solving a quest. Removing combat would look like a choose your own adventure book.

Yes, it would look similar, because the interface would be similar, but the gameplay? not necessarily. While in both systems you are given a textual list of choices, those in RPGs are of a different scope, at a different frequency, and with different consequences. And, most importantly, a non-combat RPG doesn't have to mean "dialogue only". The range of actions can be greater, and most of them don't have to be CYOA-style (textual).

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. While I don't think that dialogue has to be so limited as to be like CYOA, I think that no game up to now has given us an example that shows something different from that. And while I agree that the rpg doesn't need to be dialogue only, I think that it is an option.

This is what Chris Crawford wants to do with his storytron system.

Well, I've been following the Storytron forum on and off for about an year, and I can say that I still have no idea how such a story would be played, how artificial it would feel, how unique the emerging results would be, or a whole lot of other things. The constant delays in development don't help clear things up either.

I guess we can get an idea from any games whose story is built by the small actions you take there. Almost any 4X game would qualify, but actions in these games can be too abstract sometimes. Another example might be that real lives game.

Also, removing combat from a game doesn't need to be that much of an artificial restriction. In a lot business simulators, you have no ability to use violence against your foes, but this doesn't make the game seem artificially restricted.

The players of such games consciously play them with entirely different expectations, and don't mind the limited scope of the game (character-wise). If actually role-playing a business tycoon, you'd very likely not get into combat, but that's still far from the "playing a business simulator" experience.
As a side-note, a business simulator with business-related role-playing elements can work. Pizza Tycoon is a great example and game.

That was my point, and sorry if I couldn't get it across. The expectation of combat comes from the norms of the genre and the setting presented. While we can't do much about the first, a setting like a modern day city would already help take away the player from the "must kill xp containers" mindset.

 

[DraQ]

Also, removing combat from a game doesn't need to be that much of an artificial restriction. In a lot business simulators, you have no ability to use violence against your foes, but this doesn't make the game seem artificially restricted.

FPS games don't feel artificialy restricted because you can't negotiate with combine/skaarj/puke-coloured-blobs-from-outer-space either.
We are talking about RPGs, though. Unless you're Jasede, you will probably agree that the core concept here is game reacting to your choices and your character's stats. It'd take a lot of fine-tuning to create an RPG where bashing someone over the head won't be perceived as potential solution by gamers.

Edit:
I'm all for RPGs where combat is marginalized, but completely combat free RPG just doesn't seem to be viable design except for few rather specific games.

 

[Joe Krow]

Sometimes a dialogue option can solve a quest, or move you halfway to solving a quest. Removing combat would look like a choose your own adventure book.

Yes, it would look similar, because the interface would be similar, but the gameplay? not necessarily. While in both systems you are given a textual list of choices, those in RPGs are of a different scope, at a different frequency, and with different consequences.

Care to elaborate? So adventure games with multiple paths to achieve objectives are really rpgs? Scope? Frequency? Consequences? Can you be more vague?

The difference between a combat-free rpg and an adventure game with path options would be what? I played Return to Mysterious Island not too long ago; I could trap the snake, blow it up, or lure it away... so many choices. What a great rpg! I thought it was pretty lame adventure game; I had no idea. The funny part is you did have stats in that game (albeit rudimentary) and could only take certain actions if they were high enough, even better, there was no dialogue. Go figure.

I've noticed a few people here who can't tell a text adventure from an rpg. Are you one of them? I'd take a stat heavy dungeon crawl over a text adventure any day.

 

[Hory]

Care to elaborate? So adventure games with multiple paths to achieve objectives are really rpgs?

Who said anything about adventure games? Oh, you think RPGs without combat are adventure games? From all genres, adventure games are the closest to RPGs, but strip away all the combat from a real RPG, and you'll see it won't play like an adventure game.

Scope? Frequency? Consequences? Can you be more vague?

In CYOA books, you are only making radical (but unclear) choices at rare story-checkpoints. From a five-word action that you take, you are presented with several paragraphs which may have a scope much bigger than the small action that you took. In role-playing, choices are more realistic - as frequent as possible (as to not become boring) - and with natural consequences.

The difference in interactivity between a CRPG and a CYOA book is great, but CRPGs don't even have true role-playing. P&P RPGs do.

The difference between a combat-free rpg and an adventure game with path options would be what? I played Return to Mysterious Island not too long ago; I could trap the snake, blow it up, or lure it away... so many choices. What a great rpg! I thought it was pretty lame adventure game; I had no idea. The funny part is you did have stats in that game (albeit rudimentary) and could only take certain actions if they were high enough, even better, there was no dialogue. Go figure.

And who says that there has to be a clear, impassible barrier between adventure games and RPGs? Yes, if you keep adding RPG features to adventures they may become RPGs. The difference is that adventure games are usually designed around puzzle-solving. The player character has little significance. You may never see it, hear it, or know anything about it. What's the difference between the Myst PC and a PC in a FPS? Also, in Myst, you don't even have character interaction, and it's still an adventure game, because it still has puzzle-solving.

I've noticed a few people here who can't tell a text adventure from an rpg. Are you one of them?

In text adventures you mainly do puzzle solving. In RPGs you mainly do role-playing. When a game is clearly focused on one of the two actions, I can tell the difference. When it's a hybrid, it's hard to say, as it should be.

I'd take a stat heavy dungeon crawl over a text adventure any day.

So? Neither fantasy tactical games or text-mode puzzle solving games are RPGs.

 

[DraQ]

The difference between a combat-free rpg and an adventure game with path options would be what?

And what's the difference between FPS and typical dungeon crawl?

</hint>

 

[sheek]

Well actually the traditional CRPG is just a Strategy game (chargen, leveling = upgrades, new buildings, tech) with a weak story thrown in to hold it together.

So according to Joe RPGs don't exist as a separate genre.

 

[Joe Krow]

</hint>

Stats. Period.

Add a progressive stat system, make it determinative of outcomes, and you can turn almost any game into an rpg. Adding C&C, on the other hand, helps camouflage the plot rails you often see but it does not make it any more an rpg.

The problem is that the vast majority of C&C are static... if the character you're playing is irrelevant to your options and their outcome then you are not roleplaying at all. It's a CYOA book. An occasional "bonus" option or stat check in a crpg can give the appearance of roleplaying but the designer is still doing ninety-nine percent of it. The player ends up with 3 or 4 options of which his character might, on occasion, contribute 1. Even in the holy trinity (FO/PS/Arc) it is a joke.

I haven't seen an rpg yet that incorporates real roleplaying into dialogue. If you believe it can be then please elaborate. Scripted options add a nice text adventure element to the game but the roleplaying in crpgs occurs elsewhere. As I said before, there is more "C&C" in five minutes of combat then in even the best dialogue flowchart.

Choice and consequences are a text adventure element.

Determinative stats are an rpg element.

Which would you add to a fps to make it an rpg? You honestly think adding C&C to Halo would make a difference?

 

[eth]

Stats. Period.

Add a progressive stat system, make it determinative of outcomes, and you can turn almost any game into an rpg.

 

[Hory]

Adding C&C, on the other hand, helps camouflage the plot rails you often see but it does not make it any more an rpg.

Wrong. C&C do make it more of a RPG. Choosing between a few options is more of a role-playing experience than going on a 100% linear path with no say whatsoever. 2-3 of these options don't make for PnP-like role-playing, but they bring the game in this direction as much as it's been possible so far on a computer.

The problem is that the vast majority of C&C are static... if the character you're playing is irrelevant to your options and their outcome then you are not roleplaying at all.

True, but on the other hand, not every dialogue option should be character-relevant. Many choices are just rational alternatives which can be available to all rational beings.

An occasional "bonus" option or stat check in a crpg can give the appearance of roleplaying but the designer is still doing ninety-nine percent of it.

It's not the appearance of role-playing, it's a limited form of role-playing.

I haven't seen an rpg yet that incorporates real roleplaying into dialogue.
If you believe it can be then please elaborate.

Wait for Artificial Intelligence to be invented first. Until then, I'll take the limited 3 choices rather than none at all.

Scripted options add a nice text adventure element to the game but the roleplaying in crpgs occurs elsewhere.

Text adventures are usually linear, with the goal of unlocking the one path, rather than having a say (choices) in what should happen next.

As I said before, there is more "C&C" in five minutes of combat then in even the best dialogue flowchart.

Choices such as "use fireball" or "use lightning bolt" are gamist ones and have little value from a role-playing perspective. Also, on a bigger scale, combat only leads to Victory or Defeat. Or, more accurately, Defeat and reload until Victory. Always these same two gamist consequences, as deep and linear as choosing whether to turn the page when reading a book or not.

Choice and consequences are a text adventure element.

Really? Name a few text adventures that continuously offer alternate choices for progressing at the same steps.

Determinative stats are an rpg element.

Combat is the G part in RPG. Stop defining the RP by it.

Which would you add to a fps to make it an rpg?

FPS already have some stats, and they're not RPGs. How does adding even more stats help with "acting out a particular character"?
People can and have been role-playing without the need for stats and character sheets long before D&D.

You honestly think adding C&C to Halo would make a difference?

It depends on the nature and need of C&C. If one of the soldiers in the squad got panicked and refused to fight, and I'd have options such as threatening him at gunpoint, reminding him of his family, giving him a machinegun and telling him to stay put, and so on, then yes, it would be a pretty good start. On the other hand, if I have a 25% bigger change of dodging enemy bullets because of certain stats, it makes little difference to the task of "acting out a role".