PC Gamer - Playing RPG's Without Combat

Originally Posted by Morbus
RPGs are about choosing your own adventure, not about combat.
That's why The Age of Decadence is the best RPG of the year for sure, and one of the bests ever in my opinion.

If it's just about combat and level ups, than StarCraft 2 is an RPG. Far Cry 3 is an RPG. Final Fantasy is an RPG.

(ahah)

If you think RPGs are just about combat and level-up then it's hopeless even debating with you, because you've completely lost the plot. You don't 'completely' choose your own adventure in AoD, you navigate a finite set of paths laid down by the developer to which you learn how to navigate each path, like a robot. The use of the word 'choose' is so inept as to be laughable, that is, however, the name of the genre and I'm happy for it to have that name.

Just because derivative games pick and choose what elements of cRPGs they fancy for their gameplay does not mean the original cRPG concept "is like" the derivatives. That's like saying a cat is like a dog because it has four legs and a tail, so they should both be called the same thing - utterly moronic and if your next post is equally flaccid I'll be putting you straight to ignore as I don't waste time on hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Morbus
RPGs are about choosing your own adventure, not about combat.
If it's just about combat and level ups, than StarCraft 2 is an RPG. Far Cry 3 is an RPG. Final Fantasy is an RPG.
(ahah)

You are right, but althought some humans can be excellent RPG Masters no AI can do it not even equal than the worst human.
That is the reason why all these "choose your own adventures" must be scripted. Simple mechanical actions like combat or lockpicking need no scripts: they only need rules. This is why all computer RPG are about these kind of things. But most actions of life are so complex that we don´t know what are the rules behind them (if any), so it is not possible recreate them in a game. The only way is scripting all. And a scripted adventure is NOT YOUR OWN adventure, it is only choosing between some few adventures of the designers.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
It's just an illusion of freedom if all you do is kill.

All illusions are relatively speaking. One person's actual choice might be another's illusion. Generally speaking in video games, if there are different routes leading to different outcomes--preferably world state changing, it can be considered player choices.

Originally Posted by Swann
Totally agree. And I don´t feel any kind of freedom in games like AoD or graphic adventures/visual novels. These games build a tree with some branches that eventualy diverge into other sub-branches. Devs can´t go much further in this system because they must foresee and script each feasible branch and finally this is exhausting and little rewarding in terms of time of programming/fun. No wonder all the years the game take to finish.
A game so combat oriented like Skyrim allows much more freedom. In Skyrim you don´t have 2, 4 or 12 programmed ways to solve a quest. You have an indeterminate number of them, much of them wasn´t even imagined by devs -and that´s the reason of the multiple exploits gamers find and use in this kind of "open" games.
AoD is a "closed" game, a really meritorious and intrincated labyrinth of paths, but for me this does not give any sensation of freedom.

Older Elder Scrolls installments were more engaging back to the days where combat is one of the choices, like in Daggerfall and Morrowind. Obviously neither games was shy of combat, but combat is just one paradigm out of the few. I remember there were even language skills, using which you can talking out of certain situations against an enemy type.

Originally Posted by Swann
A game so combat oriented like Skyrim allows much more freedom. In Skyrim you don´t have 2, 4 or 12 programmed ways to solve a quest. You have an indeterminate number of them, much of them wasn´t even imagined by devs -and that´s the reason of the multiple exploits gamers find and use in this kind of "open" games.

I'm not sure what kind of "freedom" are you talking about here…that is simple use of combat mechanics. In that sense Dark Souls offer far greater opportunities than Skyrim. You can even "roleplay" this way in GTA…from shotgun to rocket launcher in how you can blast your target.
Far better example for clever and rewarding use of game play mechanics is Deus Ex or Dishonored.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Far better example for clever and rewarding use of game play mechanics is Deus Ex or Dishonored.

Dishonored is a good example of what I'm trying to convey. The level with the aristocratic party is the best example of non-violent role-play opportunity in the game, and uses the idea of disguise I mentioned as a potential option, allowing the player to hide in plain view. This option isn't without risk, however, as the challenge comes from not being too brazen and revealing that you aren't really a guest at all.

And option is the key word here. This isn't forced upon the player, there isn't only one option where the player must read the designer's mind like in a choose-your-own-adventure game, and it doesn't act as a "cheat mode" like what a few posters seem to fear with this sort of idea. The player can decide for themselves, which is true "role-playing."

That sort of design, but in an explorable RPG world, is exactly what I would love to see.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
Dishonored is a good example of what I'm trying to convey. The level with the aristocratic party is the best example of non-violent role-play opportunity in the game, and uses the idea of disguise I mentioned as a potential option, allowing the player to hide in plain view. This option isn't without risk, however, as the challenge comes from not too brazen and revealing that you aren't really a guest at all.

And option is the key word here. This isn't forced upon the player, there isn't only one option where the player must read the designer's mind like in a choose-your-own-adventure game, and it doesn't act as a "cheat mode" like what a few posters seem to fear with this sort of idea. The player can decide for themselves, which is true "role-playing."

That sort of design, but in an explorable RPG world, is exactly what I would love to see.

Alpha Protocol, anyone?

Originally Posted by LordKane
Alpha Protocol, anyone?

I quite liked AP, and consider it a hidden gem. The conversation mechanics and choices, along with an impressive amount of consequences, are the strongest, most praise-worthy aspects of the game. But what I'm arguing for - like the Dishonored example above - relates to gameplay systems. In that regard, in terms of how the game actually plays, AP is a pretty standard action/stealth hybrid once the conversations end.

Well, I have been thinking a lot about this. What can you do other than combat that involves character development, a lot of thinking, excitement and sense of danger, lots of skills and stats. The only other thing I could think of is some sort of sport.. but that would not really fit in an RPG I guess….. maybe it could be let us play a game of baseball to decide who would own this land??? but somehow I think combat would still be more complex and fun compared to that. Anyone have any idea? in that case it is very welcome.

I have some experiments in my game though, with dynamic AI, which means events would not be scripted, but rather AI would act on their own, but I might have to remove it from the game if it turns out it doesn't work. After all most such a attempts has failed. But I am very tired of almost everything except combat being scripted in the games.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, I have been thinking a lot about this. What can you do other than combat that involves character development, a lot of thinking, excitement and sense of danger, lots of skills and stats.

That is the point. You can imagine a lot of things, but you can not implement them because you have neither the algorithms nor the hardware to simulate human or social psychology. You can implement rules for mecanic actions -like combat, sports, thievery and little more.

As far as I am concerned, RPG without combat is an adventure game!

trying to shovel shit down people's trout,
an rpg is an rpg is an rpg. I've been playing them since as long as I can remember and I never do fighter guilds and always try to conn my way through as much shit as possible. But that doesn't mean there's never any fighting to be done; if you don't like it call your game an adventure.

I'm bored of killing people. Not necessarily bored of having people killed, but certainly of doing my own dirty work.

Uh-huh. In other news, it's very characteristic that this guy has to turn to an indie game to find any outlet for his passive-aggressiveness at all.

And the funny thing, I actually liked the combat in AoD. It's very satisfying.

Can't wait for their dungeon crawler.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
As per usual, great game, but it's a Choose Your Own Adventure before it's an RPG. Yes, it's great to have games where you have no combat, but RPGs are just one'o'those ol' combat games, my apologies to people who look for combat-free games and desire to find what they seek in RPGs.

Originally Posted by lostforever
As far as I am concerned, RPG without combat is an adventure game!

Planescape: Torment hits you critically with numerous "Top RPG" awards.
lackblogger just died.
lostforever just died.
Game over.

Originally Posted by Siannah
Planescape: Torment hits you critically with numerous "Top RPG" awards.
lackblogger just died.
lostforever just died.
Game over.

They are talking about "combat-free games", games "without combat".

Planescape: Torment has combat, so game's still on baby.