Hory
Erudite
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 3,002
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.
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.