Larian Studios Forums Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis (English) Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis Requiring fights to the death: cool, or lazy?

In the ideas thread, I suggested that people be able to end combat in more ways than just "flee". I didn't want to spam the ideas thread with discussion on it though: the idea itself is enough, and discussion was getting lengthy, hence this thread.

A game can have a combat system without requiring you to fight every creature you meet to the death. You can spare them. Heck, they might even spare you.

NetHack, the Ultimas (uncluding Ultima Online), Deus Ex, and many other games allow you to complete the game without killing, despite their combat systems. Bethesda claims that other than random encounters, every encounter would be resolvable without combat in Fallout 3, including the endgame.

The act of "passing the combat on to someone else" by sparing an evil dude is a moral choice. If the children of evil dudes ever feature in the game, should we be required to massacre them, too? Otherwise we're just passing that combat on to someone else.

This is not incompatible with the Larian games. Receiving evil orders from an evil mad undead dude does not automatically cause people to become irredeemably evil themselves, and even being irredeemably evil does not cause people to want to fight to the death even when they are clearly losing horribly and near death.

Clearly, some think nonfatal combat isn't important, and prefer monty haul dungeonbashes to scenarios that have any moral depth. I can understand that, and respect it as an opinion, but I couldn't feel more differently about what RP is about. It isn't about combat, nor about phat lewt.

Diablo is a bland, soulless game for me after about the third randomly generated, monster-packed room. As you progress through the levels, things do vary: the scenery, layout, types of attacks and colour of the monsters you harvest... and that's it. Oblivion's dungeons and wilderness encounters are no better. But a very similar game, NetHack, along with Deus Ex, the Fallouts and the Ultimas, all remain replayable, purely because they allow me to explore not just the world, but through my non-scripted choices of how to play the game, to explore myself.

One argument against allowing people to have more options than kill/die/flee is that it takes effort on the part of the game designer. Allowing a "surrender" option requires coding in a response, for instance: does your opponent keep fighting, or take your weapons and release you, or take you directly to the camp that you were trying to infiltrate, but lock you up? But I don't feel that this "Game designers shouldn't have to think" argument holds any water whatsoever. If it did, we'd still be playing Pong.

A "spare opponent's life" option is the one I really want, though, as it adds a huge moral dimension. What do you do if the opponent keeps fighting, even though he's crazily weaker than you? Just walk away with him following you and attracting other foes by hammering out a tattoo on your backplate? Smack him upside the head and try again? Try for a "disarm" or "stun" move? Cast a sleep spell? Lure him into a net trap?

Or just kill him anyway? There's nothing to say you can't play a rpg as if it was a dungeonbash. I just argue that you shouldn't have to, and any combat which just has "kill or be killed" as the options is lazy game design.

Role playing isn't about lethal vrs non-lethal combat, either. It's about you developing a personality for your character. If you can't do that, it's not an RPG regardless of any other things the system may have for or against it.

I don't honestly mind if combat is always lethal or has other options. It has no real bearing on whether something is an RPG or not. Too much fighting is tedious regardless of surrender options, and it's variety and atmosphere I like to see.

Show me a world that could be real, let me develop the personality of my main character the way I want, and I'm happy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This has been a very well put piece.
I like its build-up and flow of thoughts a lot
- and i´m largely with you.
Always been hoping for a "disarm" option with substantial game relevance quite some, believe me.
[ And how does it continue from there?
Can you tie the guy up and inquire him for important information? Can you take him with and maybe deliver him to any officials later on... perhaps even for a little reward? Or might he make a move for a deal so you release him in exchange for something he thinks might be of value to you? And will you accept the offer? ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ]


However, as the story goes with nowadays RPG - and predominantly budgets and market demand <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> - i have little hopes for changes in this department any time soon, if ever! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />


But just keep it coming and discuss.
Maybe s.o. will come up with a few elegant and practical solutions for this dilemma. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />


Regards,
Ragon, The Mage

[color:"orange"]even being irredeemably evil does not cause people to want to fight to the death even when they are clearly losing horribly and near death.[/color]

They might fear what their masters do to people who fail more than they fear death, or they have no fear of death because of what they have been promised as a reward for dying in battle. They may simply hate enough that they would rather die than accept mercy.

Anyway, however common these things may be, they wouldn't be universal (especially a lone thief or random animals, etc not under some form of compulsion). You would think animals should withdraw from prolonged fights or avoid humans wearing armour and carrying weapons (based on sight or the noise that makes). Animals (or common thieves) tend to be fairly low level opponents, though, so only last a couple hits anyway, for the most part. Perhaps a flee response doesn't seem worth the effort of programming for the amount it would be used, especially if it is just going to annoy players. Actually, if you got the same experience for a wounded creature that fled, that would mitigate most of the annoyance of having an opponent run away. You would not get any meat, claws, scales, or whatever from animals (unless you tracked them down), but fleeing people could still drop excess loot, etc.


[color:"orange"]Clearly, some think nonfatal combat isn't important, and prefer monty haul dungeonbashes to scenarios that have any moral depth.[/color]

I think it is a great idea, but wouldn't feel terribly constricted in play style if it wasn't widely implemented throughout a game.

I never finished Diablo, and only got as far as I did due to the novelty (for me) of multi-player, and being able to play with my brother (when our schedules matched).
DD had a good mixture of combat and non-combat quests. For most of the game I could explore and clear areas when I felt like hack and slash, or explore in towns and do non-violent quests when I didn't.


[color:"orange"]One argument against allowing people to have more options than kill/die/flee is that it takes effort on the part of the game designer.
...
But I don't feel that this "Game designers shouldn't have to think" argument holds any water whatsoever. If it did, we'd still be playing Pong.[/color]

I don't think it is a question of having to think, but (in part) of diminishing returns on investment. Some options for non-combat quest solving are good; more are better. At some point, though, most people would not see a significant difference.

The increased complexity also makes it more difficult to debug the game, and increases the costs of translating it. I'm not saying these are reasons not to have non-combat options, but they are factors to consider when developing a game.


[color:"orange"]any combat which just has "kill or be killed" as the options is lazy game design.[/color]

While this can be true, it is certainly not always true. People still buy Diablo clones with better graphics, unfortunately. Since these action 'RPGs' are cheaper and quicker to make than anything having an actual plot, let alone multiple ways of solving quests, many publishers are going to see them as safer investments with better marketing potential, with a wider audience than the 'hard core' RPG gamer that wants more than just hack and slash.

The option to letting some of your opponents live might be a good thing, but might as well be very bad.

For example: Let's say you are a 'good' guy and you're pissing off some of the powerfull bad guys. So they hire an assassin to get you.
The assassin will attack you...and let's say you beat him.

You can either think like: "Hey that guy tried to kill me, why should I spare his life".
Or you could decide to let him live after you've proven to him that there is no way he can beat you. The game will have some moral dilemmas in it and this could be one of them.
Now there have to be consequenses based on your choice (else it wouldn't be much of a choice imo).

Maybe that assassin could prove to be a powerfull ally because you spared his life. (and because he can't go back to the bad guys after failing a mission)
Or maybe you could even capture him and torture valuable enemy information out of him. (Would you torture someone to save another man's life ?)
Or he could teach you a trick, a skill or give you some information about where you can find a treasure or valuable item.
This information could be true or false and that would lead to a next dilemma (if the information was false).
Do you kill the assassin after all ? Will you go find him and just give him a beating ? Or maybe you will tip off the bad guys about his whereabouts and offcourse the option to just ignore him and think: "good for him that he fooled me but I don't really care".

So there really could be good things about sparing someones life, but it can't happen too much else you will just be worrying if the game wants you to save his life or not.
I wouldn't want scenario's where I have to save the game go in the fight and try what happens if I kill him or not.
Or sparing everyone's life just for the possible benefit they could give you.
(That would take out the moral issue and would make you base your decision on greed)

Unless there is a good way to counter that with let's say a reputation system.
But that's hard with the option to spare someone's life, will people think you are soft for sparing them (and very soft for finishing the game without a single kill, except maybe some random encounters) Or do you earn respect because you never lose a fight and still you have never killed a man.

I'm getting tired now and my post is getting long enough so maybe I will edit it or make a new post tomorrow.

That is very possibly the best definition I've yet read of what makes something a "roleplaying game". To me, at least. Very, very well put.

So by this definition, BioShock and Max Payne aren't RPGs. Good. The character has character development, but it's plot-driven at the whim of the game designer, not the player. Diablo lacks sufficient scope or choice for the PC to develop anything other than a combat strategy and an inventory packing policy: these aren't enough to constitute a personality.

Under this definition, Oblivion and GTA:SA are quite down at the "shallow end" of the RPG pool: you very rarely have the ability in their quests to make any decisions that affect you character's development: you kill who you're told, you progress to the next quest. Character development happens mostly in the "free time" activities you do in between the scripted quest stuff.

Deus Ex and the Ultimas are more like RPGs, because of the variety of possible ways to complete each task and quest (even little stuff like "get past the camera without getting shot dead"), and because of the variety of repercussions of your actions: kill people in the first level, make one faction happy; use nonlethal weaponry, and you make another happy.

I agree that in itself, killing has no bearing on whether something's an RPG or not (combatless RPGs are still RPGs). But how many options you have to deal with an encounter has a huge amount of bearing on how easy it is to develop your character in relation to combat. If you have no choice but to fight, then your character must develop into a warrior and a killer: your control over these aspects of your character has been taken away by the game designer. In magic alone, how does a mage deal with a goblin? Kill it with a Fireball? Take it out of action with a sleep spell? "Confuse" and sneak past? "Confuse" and talk your way past? Each one allows your character to be developed. You might be irked if "Fireball until dead" were the only option.


But I also argue the other side of the coin: if you can't kill the defenceless, then your character must be a "good guy". And by having that choice taken from you, even if you choose not to take it, you lose depth to your character's "goodness".

An example of this shallowness from lack of choice was in BioShock, early on. I was defenceless, and carefully edged my way along a fragile, high walkway, below which there was a ferocious beast. And then I thought "I'm gonna do it! I'll jump down and face my fears!" And... and nothing! I didn't fall, as there was an invisible wall stopping me jumping off the walkway. The remainder of the walkway was boring for me: I was "on rails". Along with the chance of doing it "wrong", the fear had gone too. This was the point, fairly early on, where it became "just another shooter" for me.

Remove the possibility of doing bad, and you remove the meaning of being good. GTA, where you have little choice but to do "bad", doesn't cause me moral problems, as I'm "on rails", being led by the game designer. Deus Ex and BioShock, however, give me the option: be bad or be good, and the outcome is on my head.

And choice is the root of all player-driven character development.

That I completely and totally agree with. This is why Planescape: Torment remains my favourite example of 'how to do it right' for RPGs. There is fighting, yes, but most of it can be avoided, and you really can decide what your character will be like, morally speaking, within enormous margins.

There's bound to be fighting in an RPG, but I don't think the main emphasis of the game should ever be on combat. That's why combat being mainly to the death doesn't really bother me.

Which actually reminds me - there IS one encounter in PS:T I recall where the creature you are fighting surrenders...



Completely agree with this one, too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Good points about fleeing there: there are ways to make it less annoying. Though, people will always be looking for ways to exploit any mechanic, so have to make sure that cornering something and making it flee repeatedly into a healing fountain didn't make it repeatedly drop its loot and give you XP <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />I know. But I do, and I always have done.

Perhaps it's because I started out with paper & pen roleplaying, with a GM. And I was lucky enough to get GMs who were not addicted to monty haul campaigns, but instead served up campaigns where we could experience political intrigue and Machiavellian machinations, go to strange and exotic places, meet fascinating people... and then not kill them.

For a long time we felt lucky if computer games gave us the option to "flee", or to talk our way out before combat started. Then we got "sneak" and more recently, "yield". Now I'm asking for the next logical step: speech in combat. If a game engine already has speech, and combat, it shouldn't be critically complex.For the majority of RPGs, combat-based encounters are the majority of the encounters in the game, taking up a majority of the playtime (sadly). Adding an easy-to code, generic, scalable way to deal with combat encounters that uses an existing mechanism (dialog) to add to both player choice and character depth? Sounds like a fine investment of time to me.

The costs in terms of art, music, game design, area design, character and monster design, dialog design, coding, translation, voice-acting, game-balancing, QA, support and all those other aspects of game dev seem to me like they would be a significant cost if you tacked it on at the end as an extra feature, but if you design the game from the ground up with the idea "every encounter can be resolved without player-generated fatalities", then it should add nothing to any of them other than gamedev and QA: and even those should not be even close to prohibitive.

Nothing I've suggested requires more work than the existing non-fatal options already seen in games, like casting sleep/freeze/stun/repel undead, throwing gas bombs, knock-outs with blunt weapons, disarm attacks, traps, taunting and so on. We have all these things, but they have no real repercussions.

I agree that beyond a certain point, most people would not see a significant difference - it's a point I've made myself about how complex the rules should be for whether an NPC would attack you or not: they probably shouldn't take into account whether your socks match. But I feel that "certain point" lies some way beyond my fairly trivial suggestions:

1) Let an NPC who's about to attack someone first size the victim up and decide "...nah, not today".

2) Let people who are fighting, PC and NPC both, decide to say "hey, this hurts. Please stop" or "OK, you've learned your lesson, now sod off before I draw my weapon and stop beating you with my left hand".

3) Let your PC's approach to combat be reflected in his reputation.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> wow! nothing to add here really but to welcome DewiMorgan to the forum.

thanks! u brighten up the place! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]Good points about fleeing there: there are ways to make it less annoying. Though, people will always be looking for ways to exploit any mechanic[/color]

I was thinking of something like a game I don't recall the name of, where sneaking past an opponent gave you half experience points, and if you went back later and killed it, you got the other half. I'd want the full experience for a fleeing opponent, though, since for most practical purposes that is almost as good as defeat.

Speaking of repeated fleeing, though, that should be limited in the interest of realism and reducing annoyance. Animals fleeing more than a couple times in a short while are going to become too tired to flee again, even if they have not been seriously wounded. Perhaps a summoned demon hunting dog could fetch whatever meat, claws, etc the animal may drop when killed, avoiding the necessity of chasing it down at all (assuming it was successful in catching its prey).
For humanoids, if you keep coming after them and they can not hide or outrun you, they should stop running to either attack or try to beg / bribe you to stop. Anyone not fairly confident in their fighting abilities would probably keep a spare invisibility potion (etc) handy, though, if they intended to engage in any risky behaviour.

@janggut: Thanks <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

@Raze: Ooh, nice system. Give 'em effectively a bag of XP in their inventory, and a bag of gold, and once they're gone, they're gone. Hrm - what about resurrections? Should being resurrected refill their "XP bag"? It always bugs me in games where bad necromancers raise their fallen comrades, and they drop loot every time you kill 'em, though I can see the reason: some players will want a reward for every kill, even if they already killed it once.

I really like the idea of giving people a partial reward even if they don't kill - that's just plain cool <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]what about resurrections? Should being resurrected refill their "XP bag"?[/color]

In DD you could resurrect a fallen opponent, and it would fight for you, though would not follow you unless you cast a spell on it. If you resurrected something and walked far enough (or teleported) away, it would turn hostile and you could return and re-kill it, for experience points and possible loot.

Opponents in DD do not respawn, so this resurrection trick can come in handy if you need to level up, but there aren't any handy monster filled areas around. For example, there are several level bonuses in the game, which will give you enough experience points to reach the next level. If you wait until you just level up before getting the bonus, you will maximize the effect. One of the level bonuses is in a small area which you can only visit once. When I discovered the level bonus, I reloaded, and put off doing that quest until later. I tried to time it so I was just about to go up a level, and that clearing the area would do so, but I didn't get it quite right, and had to resurrect and re-kill a couple monsters 4 or 5 times to level up. If resurrecting was not possible, I would have had to reload again, or accept a tiny experience bonus rather than a full level's worth.

In DD the experience points required to reach a particular level are proportional to the cube of the level. The experience points gained from defeating opponents is proportional to the level difference between your character and your opponent; if you are at a much higher level than your opponent, you recieve less or no experience points. I never checked this in DD, but BD had the same experience points required per level formula, and there if you were 8 or more levels above an opponent you did not get experience points for it.
Between these two effects, resurrecting and re-killing opponents can help level early in the game and assist in specific circumstances, but in general it is slow and tedious. If done with a strong opponent that always drops something, it can be a slow way to generate loot, but money isn't really a problem as the game progresses, anyway.


BD does not have a resurrect spell, but it does have battlefields. These are areas outside the normal game area with some merchants and randomly generated dungeons. The dungeons are completely optional (I only visited the battlefields for the merchants); the monsters there do not respawn, but there are more than enough opponents there if you need to level, or are in the mood for some hack and slash. The dungeons in the BF become available as you find certain keys in the main game; if you wait too long to clear the lower level dungeons, you might not get much (or any) experience points for them.


In general, I don't like respawning monsters, unless they are confined to an area that I don't have to go through again if I don't want to. Allowing resurrection and re-killing is an acceptable alternative if you just need a few more experience points, or a little extra loot to trade for healing potions, or whatever. Realistically, though, resurrected monsters should not keep dropping loot. If they have a random chance of dropping something, and did not do so the first time they were killed, I can see allowing another chance if they are re-killed. Actually, I'd like to see a more realistic item drop system, but that's another topic.
The experience points should at least degrade each time an opponent is killed; perhaps the first time they are resurrected and re-killed they give half experience points, then a quarter, then none. Alternately (or additionally) maybe there could be a limit on the number of times a creature can be resurrected.

With something like the battlefields in a game, re-killing monsters for experience points or loot would be unnecessary, so any resurrection spells should be designed for characters who wanted to either dabble or specialize in a necromancer style of play.

In the Virtues system of Ultima, letting someone flee could be a sign of mercy, empathy or a similar thing.
To keep on fighting can also be interepreted as a sign of - what was it ? strength ?

Both could be used to form a certain reputation.

For example "James the merciless" or "James the merciful", just as examples.

Lionheart gives EXP for sneaking past a foe. But then Lionheart gives EXP for an absolute ton of things, lots of which are not combat related. If Black Isle had actually been able to finish the darn thing properly it would have been brilliant. Unfortunately...

The word is valor, Alrik <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil

Some thoughts: would disarming opponents require a specific skill to be learnt? Perhaps there could be an attack which gad a higher chance of missing and did less damage, but could knock an opponents helmet off. Similarly for knocking an opponents HEAD off. The chance of crushing limbs with blunt weapons, crippling the opponent (reducing his dodge by 1/4 or 1/3?) with normal attacks or critical blows. Slightly off the subject I know.

As it is DD, if you run far enough then the monster chasing you will run back to where it hangs around. A fleeing system wouldn't be too difficult, it would only require the distance and chance to be altered with some monsters. Some could be clever. For instance, if you took up close range combat with a troll, it would suddenly flee after a few seconds. If you chased it then it would turn back and swing with all its might at you, catching you off guard. But if you didn't chase it, it might return and throw rocks at you. Meaning you would have to be more on guard.

I was thinking that perhaps ranged characters could form a line or formation and fire high at you all at once, covering a huge range. Your dodge would reduce the damage somewhat, but you would never be able to entirely avoid it. The same applies for attacking all at once, maybe from different directions.

Speaking of directions, I remember a game called Astonia 3, where if a player was attacked from the behind, their chance to parry or dodge would be greatly reduced. This applied with side on attacks as well I believe, but not so much of a nerf.In Ragnarok Online, your flee is reduced by so much after so many monsters are attacking you. So it is impossible to tank large numbers of monster as a character who focuses on flee unless they are weak.

I think those are good systems. Perhaps something similar could be done with monsters, if not players. If a monster was being attacked by multiple things, then they would flee, if possible. Or they could call for help and all their nearby allies would come to help. Although it is a single player game, you can summon monsters, and there are allied NPCs such as guards in DD.

Sparing an opponents life...they could easily backstab you, or have hidden tools or weapons, or brute strength. Where they are held, what direction you face etc. would depend on these things.

I know that enemies which run away are annoying, but they can also run you into traps. You would have to struggle to survive, and there may even be a special skill or spell cast on you or the enemies.

Hmm... on the one hand, you talk about moral issues in the game... and on the other hand, you talk about saving a game before a fight and about saving everyone's lives just for the benefit.

The problem with that is, in my opinion at least: You can't have moral issues in a game when the player just saves before fights or before important dialogues so that they can try it again if they don't like the outcome. I happen to think that only if the players - so, all of us - change their way of playing and thinking, the games can get more interesting. Cause no matter how striking the moral issues are... how unique dialogues are... how important decisions are... as soon as you save just because you don't want to miss something or because you want to get the maximum points, it doesn't work at all.

In a P&P game, you can't save either... and that's actually the fun with it. You really have to think about what you are going to do before doing it... and if you make a bad decision you face the consequences. Such a way of playing is not really common in computer games...

On the original topic:

Of course I support the idea of not having to kill an opponent... that's not realistic! There are tons of ways how a fight can end. Other people come and intervene... you flee... your opponent flees... you lose and your opponent doesn't kill you... etc. pp.

Sure, that's more work for the game designer but so what? If a game designer could manage to implement such a degree of freedom in the game, I would buy it no matter what. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]as soon as you save just because you don't want to miss something or because you want to get the maximum points, it doesn't work at all.[/color]

That is why Larian are designing the moral dilemma's (and hopefully other plot changes based on your actions or choices) so the outcomes are not immediately obvious.

Well yeah, thats what I said I don't want. Actions will have consequenses (or at least they should).
But I wouldn't want the game to punish me or limit the gameplay because I made some choices.
(In a way it should offcourse but I wouldn't like killing an important NPC without even realizing it)
But if the rewards for saving someone's life get too big it takes out the morality.

So I think it should all be random who gives a reward and how big it is.
(and who tries to attack you again after you just kept them alive)
That will also increase the replayability of the game.

Oh yeah and if I catch a bad guy, I want to be able to tell him that if I ever catch him in this town (or part of the world) again,
I will kill him or make him regret he came back or something similar.

[color:"orange"]The problem with that is, in my opinion at least: You can't have moral issues in a game when the player just saves before fights or before important dialogues so that they can try it again if they don't like the outcome. I happen to think that only if the players - so, all of us - change their way of playing and thinking, the games can get more interesting. Cause no matter how striking the moral issues are... how unique dialogues are... how important decisions are... as soon as you save just because you don't want to miss something or because you want to get the maximum points, it doesn't work at all.[/color]

I usually save often because I sometimes like to choose dialogue options just for the fun of it - just for seeing how the NPC reacts to a particularly evil, stupid, or hilarious line. Then I reload and resume role-playing. I don't see how this would limit implementing moral dilemmas. Even if saving and reloading is done for maximizing the rewards - why shouldn't it be allowed as long as the player enjoys the game this way? Games should allow for different playing styles. If you like to face your moral dilemmas without saving, that doesn't mean everyone else likes to play that way. If checking what exactly happens ruins moral dilemmas for you, it might still make them more interesting for others.

[color:"orange"]In a P&P game, you can't save either... and that's actually the fun with it. You really have to think about what you are going to do before doing it... and if you make a bad decision you face the consequences. Such a way of playing is not really common in computer games...[/color]

In a P&P game, you can still talk about what would have happened if the PCs had acted differently, and that can be a lot of fun, too. We've often done that after sessions or even directly after making a certain decision.

I think it's partly due to the attention of others (players and GM) that facing the consequences of a bad decision can be quite enjoyable in P&P. In a single-player CRPG, that factor is missing. The "acting" component of role-playing falls short if no-one else is watching.

Of course, you might consider reloading cheating. But since players are only cheating themselves (at least in single player mode), why should anyone else mind? Taken to the extreme, "facing the consequences of a bad decision" would also mean that you don't reload once your character has died.

The only way I can see to prevent this being an issue is to make it clear up front (or at least, intuitive) what the difference is, and then balance the payoffs. People would do the first couple of fights and reload to see the difference. Heck, maybe they'd even read the rulebook that explained it. And then they'd get on with the game once they understood how combat worked.

It's easier in a system like Oblivion's, where you exercise specific skills, rather than just earning generic "XP". Then you can have a system like:

Each character has a store of XP: you can't earn more XP off him than his store.
If you convince a foe not to begin combat, you exercise your speechcraft or animal-handling or whatever.
If you enter a fight, you exercise your combat abilities.
If you kill someone, your weapon abilities get exercised more, and your number of kills increments.
I think perhaps a death should give a certain amount of combat experience, even if you have used up their XP store through other actions.
If you spare them, surrender, flee, or talk them round, you only exercise your weapon skills proportional to the damage you did before you stopped.
Fleeing exercises athletics skills.
Talking them round exercises speechcraft/animal-handling, but less than if you avoided the combat entirely.
Surrendering/sparing exercises no skills and gives no bonus: the only payoff is, someone's not dead.
If anyone saw a deed, or the NPC survived the battle, the deed's considered "reported".
For reported deeds, apply the NPC's defined values for that deed to your reputation network, scaled by the XP you earned from the deed.

Looks complex, but should be fairly intuitive. Easier to understand in play, than it is to explain in speech, hopefully.



Yup <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Just ordered Planescape:Torment, though it looks like I'll be ordering DD after that - I'm really liking what I hear <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

First of all, I didn't say that saving shouldn't be allowed. I said that players should change their way of playing in order to allow better games with more immersion that today. Of course you can get rid of the saving - that wouldn't change much because then people wouldn't play the game because they actually want to play a game in which they can save when they want. So, that wouldn't help at all.

And secondly, quite honestly, in computer gaming, I don't really care what other people like or not... I don't want to sound too selfish or something but I have even difficulties to sort out what I like, so that I can't be bothered by what other players like. At least not when I am just a customer and state my personal opinion. It's the job of the developers to take that into consideration in the way they want. If I were the game designer, it would be totally different of course... but thank God I am not developing a game yet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

On the subject of what makes an RPG into an RPG: I feel that there are two main things that, if one or the other is there (preferably both) the game can be considered an RPG. These things would be customizing and developing a character's power/skills in a way other than gear, and developing a personality for your character.

Diablo and Diablo 2 do have non-item power growths, and though admittedly it was probably under 1% of the population who actually tried to develop a personality for their character and stuck with it, you very well COULD do so with the way you chat with friends and random other people you played with online.

Developing a personality for your character seems to be the prevailing definition for 'RPG' in this thread, and I agree that a game that allows for personality development truly deserves the title of RPG. The problem is that common usage and the English language being what they are, RPG has also come to mean any game where the character grows in power.

On the subject of realistic item drops: One ActionRPG (like Diablo, as opposed to TrueRPGs) that I sometimes play called Titan Quest actually has a somewhat realistic loot system. Pretty much anything can be in a chest, but you're not getting (for example) any sort of Bow to drop from something obviously using a Sword no matter how high level or powerful the monster is. Also, if the monster is the Minotaur Lord at the bottom of the Minoan Labyrinth, you can't expect it to have any caster robes on it. (though it quite possibly would have some in its associated treasure chests)

On the subject of having non-lethal conflict resolutions: I agree that avoiding fights should not always make the game harder, and can prove to add more points of interest to the same amount of conflicts. The biggest problem with conflicts being resolved by anything other than killing the critter or disabling it in a scripted manner mandated as the ONLY possible method is that no game-designer can ever think of every possible way a player would want to solve it.

Take the ever-popular 'Cult of evil wizards want to summon a demon, and will neither take nor accept quarter from what they see as a lesser being'. Standard course of most 'RPGs' would be to slaughter them all.

• What if you're an evil character who WANTS the world to suffer, can you not prove your loyalty to the destruction of the world?
  What if you believe there is good in even the most evil-hearted, can you not subdue them, somehow restrict their magics (in Dungeons and Dragons, for example, you'd just need to tie them up, take away their spell components, and gag them properly) and attempt to convince them of the errors of their ways?
  If you do decide to just slaughter them all, if their friends and enthusiasts ever find out one would think you'd be likely to have hordes of madmen and madwomen attempting to avenge their brethren.

Most RPGs just leave it at 'You kill the evil wizards, collect your reward from whatever leader is left, and go on about your life.' Even some ones where being of an evil alignment is actually supposed to be an option, like Neverwinter Nights 1 or Knights of the Old Republic 2. Sure, in either of those you can slaughter the innocent within limits, but you're still limited to either defeating a great evil or abandoning the game before the end.

What I'd love to see is the ability to enter any action you wanted to, and have the game respond accordingly, but I understand that that is only possible in simple games like the various text-based Zork games where most of the responses to 'I want to do X' are 'I do not know how to do X' and the rest are highly scripted. The best we can hope for is a sort of open beta stage where all sorts of players can come in and lend ideas for new options they'd like to see.

Oh, and I can highly recommend both Planescape: Torment and Divine Divinity. Their graphics are poor by today's standards, but if gameplay is what you want, go for it. Both are quite advanced for the times they were released, and contain far more 'Roleplay' and 'Moral Choices' than most everything else released later. (especially PS:T) A note is that PS:T is party-based even though the Nameless One is the only one you control the speech of directly. (other party members' non-combat actions can be influenced with diplomatic tactics) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> is entirely a one-PC adventure.

Hmmm... it'd be great to be able to persuade an "enemy" to let you go, or through multiple visits, to be even able to turn him to your side(if you can provide safe harbour from his master) or with suitable skill levels, pry some info from his mouth.

Anyways, fleeing from a battle could have either positive or negative results. For example: in a series I'd played a long time ago, you were allowed to flee from a battle but the monsters could catch up to you or other monsters could be attracted to the current mob and run after you.

This meant that you needed to save often or face death 'cos especially at night, there were fewer but more dangerous monsters. And considering that some of these monsters had highly lethal attacks, even if you won the battle, you could still die from the after-effects. That's 'cos some of these effects could only be got rid of by sleeping or gulping potions(which could be limited).