Crispy™ Controversial opinions about RPGs that you know deep down are true.

[smaug]

Some people on here push that, but I’m not sure it’s true.

While an RPG doesn’t need combat, I don’t think anyone wants to make an RPG, let alone play one without it.

 

[Egosphere]

if it's to work, you need good mechanics to replace the combat. It probably can be done, but there'd be too much brainstorming to do as to what can you replace it with

 

[undecaf]

I don’t think anyone wants to make an RPG, let alone play one without it.

I suppose so, but that doesn't make those "unwanted" games less credible as RPG's. The point of an RPG is to interact with the world and the narrative as your chosen character can, if that doesn't include combat, so what?

I think the big disagreement here is due to that people have a very narrow view on what an RPG should be, that they don't think past their noses.

 

[smaug]

If you can make a fun/interesting RPG without combat, be my guest.

But, yes. Combat is something I always look forward to.

 

[undecaf]

If you can make a fun/interesting RPG without combat, be my guest.

But, yes. Combat is something I always look forward to.

Go right ahead, that's no what I'm arguing about.

 

[smaug]

I agree you don’t need combat for an RPG.

But, yes it comes down to what we believe an RPG should be.

 

[Saduj]

How is an Adventure Game different from an RPG with no combat?

No character building that affects gameplay. C’mon you knew that already, right?

 

[undecaf]

But, yes it comes down to what we believe an RPG should be.

That's really the gist of it. We don't look beyond combat. Do you, do I? Well, yes I do, I try.

But whether or not you do, we should. Because there's a world out there, of gameplay, to be unleahed. If you've ever played PnP, you'd know there's more to it than combat. And that's not to say combat is bad. NOT AT ALL. But there are things to think about beyond combat.

 

[smaug]

But, yes it comes down to what we believe an RPG should be.

That's really the gist of it. We don't look beyond combat. Do you, do I? Well, yes I do, I try.

But whether or not you do, we should. Because there's a world out there, of gameplay, to be unleahed. If you've ever played PnP, you'd know there's more to it than combat. And that's not to say combat is bad. NOT AT ALL. But there are things to think about beyond combat.

I just have a hard time thinking about what could replace combat and also be fun.

 

[anvi]

if it's to work, you need good mechanics to replace the combat. It probably can be done, but there'd be too much brainstorming to do as to what can you replace it with

I don’t think anyone wants to make an RPG, let alone play one without it.

I suppose so, but that doesn't make those "unwanted" games less credible as RPG's. The point of an RPG is to interact with the world and the narrative as your chosen character can, if that doesn't include combat, so what?

I think the big disagreement here is due to that people have a very narrow view on what an RPG should be, that they don't think past their noses.

I didn't wanna sidetrack this thread too much but never mind.

Adventure Games already do a good job of having no combat. Instead you mostly have puzzles to solve. You have to talk to people in the right order, a guy might not talk to you unless you met his buddy first and then he can trust you. You have to say the right things with a dialogue tree no different to an RPG. You have to explore the world, find items, you have an inventory of stuff, and you can use items from it or combine them with other items to make something. You interact with the environment too, "use lockpick on prison door", etc. The only thing it seems to be lacking is dice rolls on the using of items, but that isn't much. My point is that these games are already narrative and dialogue focused, had exploration, puzzles, items and an inventory. So they are pretty damn close to an RPG without the combat!

To me it makes more sense to have modern Adventure Games with a bit more scope, than it does to take so much away from an RPG. It's not that I can't fathom an RPG without combat, just that I think it is like trying to make a bike from a car by chopping it to pieces, when you could just buy a bike.

Also there are some modern Adventure Games that have sold quite well. Although mostly they seem to aim them at kids. Thimbleweed Park etc, have such cartoony graphics and that isn't necessary. Firewatch is an example of a modern Adventure Game that is a bit more grown up and would appeal to a lot more people. Although I thought it was pretty shit for other reasons... But my point is that it I think it makes more sense to add 2% more to an Adventure Game to make it exactly what you want, than it does to chop 80% out of an RPG.

 

[undecaf]

I didn't wanna sidetrack this thread too much but never mind.
....

I just have a hard time thinking about what could replace combat and also be fun.
...

That is the big question. What would replace it?

But what if you look at PnP, what if you looked at your own life?

What then? Would you change something?

 

[deuxhero]

I’m sure an RPG without combat would be so exciting

Depends on how you define combat. There's some sports RPGs out there with competition but no "combat".

 

[drgames]

RTwP is more exciting and funnier than TB, even tho chaotic at times.

 

[Open Path]

I just have a hard time thinking about what could replace combat and also be fun.

As crpgs traditional mechanics we have exploration and puzzles. We have also the more recent mechanics linked with post-1995 rpgs*: Stealth & thievery, Cyoa dialogue-based non combat gameplay -cheat, convince, etc-, other interactive non combat mechanics -build, repair, fetch, sabotage, etc-, lore & in-game texts or storyfaggotry.

Also, with a little of imagination could be possible to implement every activity in which different people is interested, for example, I'm interested in linguistics and decipherment which wasn't implemented in a game in complex way, but I think is something not so hard to include. The same is possible with all sort of economic, political or societal struggles as a true crpg and in every imaginable setting.

Violence and certain joy to figth is common human instinct and most people can enjoy a little of virtual violence. Violence is probably the second more shared instinct after sexual urges. But on the other hand only a minority of crpg players enjoy as hobby in real life or they are involved professionally in combat and weapons and that's simply because for the vast majority of humanity, violence is a little more than a primal instinct which can only offer a basic enjoyment, and they find far more interesting all sort of non combat situations, both as real activities or as mere interests, desires or dreams.

*All those mechanics were already present in 80s and first 90s crpgs but in less usual and more basic way.

 

[tenki]

I'm interested in linguistics and decipherment which wasn't implemented in a game in complex way

Daggerfall Linguist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp-wjw6lssYlfw3htF0I4uBqfvooDLoYI

 

[Martyr]

if we take the purist (= ) approach, then no, a RPG without cambot is NOT a RPG.

here we've got the question "what is a RPG" again, to which the answer is:

Spoiler

Pen & Paper:

Computer:

also:

A "RPG" is a code word for "plays like Wizardry".

Wizardry without combat .... what's there left to do? it's certainly not a RPG any more.
D&D, the father of all RPGs: a medieval fantasy WARGAME. would a wargame without combat still be a wargame? nope. and if RPGs are wargames by definition of their creators, neither would they.

also a quick reminder that everything that plays different from the likes of Wizardry, Pool of Radiance, Dark Sun etc. is a RPG hybrid, not a pure RPG.

 

[tenki]

^
D&D: lower-scale miniature wargaming + unit advancement (xp)

 

[mondblut]

^
D&D: lower-scale miniature wargaming + unit advancement (xp)

Don't also forget about freedom (originally of looting bodies, stealing from chests and poking environment for traps). And when you cannot stomp a cunt you don't like into the pavement, freedom it is not. Storyfags, stop pretending your glorified point and click adventures are anything more than they are.

 

[Open Path]

Daggerfall Linguist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp-wjw6lssYlfw3htF0I4uBqfvooDLoYI

Thanks, but Daggerfall linguistics skills are not about linguistics at all, only calm creature spell in a skill form. What a revolutionary language learning method: Speak giantish in two weeks by killing an entire clan of giants!

if we take the purist (= ) approach, then no, a RPG without cambot is NOT a RPG.

here we've got the question "what is a RPG" again, to which the answer is:

Combat as the main focus and setting is in the origins and history of crpgs. No doubt about it. Also in the origin of pen & paper rpgs. But I prefer to put the skills governing action success and character progression as the main pillar of what defines an crpg and that's because since the beginning there were other -minoritary- approaches than combat in those games in which skills and character level are relevant and especially because there is a bigger conceptual limit between action-simulation in which one or several character skills govern success rate vs games more focused in pure luck, strategical approaches without avatar managing, player reflexes or coordination, etc, than in the less defining limit on character/party tactical combat simulation vs whatever else.

The question is: If non combat mechanics use the same general design and limitations than combat mechanics -character/party stats, progression, success rates- and had a minoritary presence in first crpgs, why could anyone consideer a pure stealth, diplomacy, trade or investigation game with avatar/s stats governing triumph and a progression on those stats not a crpg because there is no combat?

Wizardry without combat .... what's there left to do? it's certainly not a RPG any more.

Combat is the main core of gameplay in nearlly all crpgs since 1975. However there are dozens of crpgs and series before 1990 -some as old as first Wizardry- who add more relevance to non combat mechanics and activities than Wyzardrys -who also had such non-combat content anyways-.

 

[Open Path]

Don't also forget about freedom (originally of looting bodies, stealing from chests and poking environment for traps). And when you cannot stomp a cunt you don't like into the pavement, freedom it is not.

So freedom is about the possibility to kill something, but not the opposite? What exactly isn't rpgish in solve some conflict with some character stat-based bribing, deceit, stealth, persuade, drug, etc? Obviously there are contexts in which violence is the only reasonable solution, but there are a world of possibilities to implement with rpg design.

Combat is the core of crpgs by pure tradition, not by meaningful conceptual delimitation linked with definitive reasons. The most meaninful border of what makes some game an rpg is in actions governed by character/party stats and the progression of those stats/actions.

Storyfags, stop pretending your glorified point and click adventures are anything more than they are.

I mostly agree on this. Story, setting, good writing, etc, can be great or shit, but aren't rpg defining features.

On the other hand neither tactical combat or c&c are truly defining of rpgs, but only some limited approaches to a genre that offer far more possibilities than choosing between paths and accept the consequences or destroying enemies in a minimally tactical way.

 

[smaug]

the rpgs I like are just combat simulators tbh

 

[Lemming42]

I wouldn't mind an RPG without combat, mainly because combat is so frequently shit. I can't think of an RPG where every combat encounter is fun - I like the original Fallout's combat more than a lot of people do but they manage to run it straight into the fucking ground in both games (if you try the combat option for Mariposa and the Cathedral, they're both much more tedious and boring than fun, and the tanker basement in Fallout 2 really deserves all the hate it gets). Same for other RPGs - Albion's combat is unique and fun but the assassin's complex near the end of the game just utterly ruins it by throwing trash encounter after trash encounter at you. All blobbers have bad combat, no, I'm not going to justify this claim with examples, it's just literally true and you know it. Darklands combat is an actual living nightmare. The list goes on.

All Infinity Engine games have awful combat - undeniable FACT.

Similarly, all jRPGs have bad combat - if not through bad systems, then through absolutely unacceptable overuse of combat. Final Fantasy IV has a fun and functional combat system, but it wears itself out about two hours into the game when you're finally bored of getting attacked by the same four enemies every 3 steps.

Shadowrun? Again, fun combat ruined by endless trash mob spam. The worst thing about Dragonfall is the knowledge that every single mission is going to devolve into stupid bullshit at some point or another, and that no matter what you do, you'll have to shoot your way through a totally unchallenging but still lengthy and tedious gun battle.

I liked Age of Decadence combat and enjoyed Dungeon Rats a lot, I guess, but part of why it's so fun in AoD is because you know there's always another way to proceed without it.

 

[smaug]

I wouldn't mind an RPG without combat, mainly because combat is so frequently shit. I can't think of an RPG where every combat encounter is fun - I like the original Fallout's combat more than a lot of people do but they manage to run it straight into the fucking ground in both games (if you try the combat option for Mariposa and the Cathedral, they're both much more tedious and boring than fun, and the tanker basement in Fallout 2 really deserves all the hate it gets). Same for other RPGs - Albion's combat is unique and fun but the assassin's complex near the end of the game just utterly ruins it by throwing trash encounter after trash encounter at you. All blobbers have bad combat, no, I'm not going to justify this claim with examples, it's just literally true and you know it. Darklands combat is an actual living nightmare. The list goes on.

All Infinity Engine games have awful combat - undeniable FACT.

Similarly, all jRPGs have bad combat - if not through bad systems, then through absolutely unacceptable overuse of combat. Final Fantasy IV has a fun and functional combat system, but it wears itself out about two hours into the game when you're finally bored of getting attacked by the same four enemies every 3 steps.

Shadowrun? Again, fun combat ruined by endless trash mob spam. The worst thing about Dragonfall is the knowledge that every single mission is going to devolve into stupid bullshit at some point or another, and that no matter what you do, you'll have to shoot your way through a totally unchallenging but still lengthy and tedious gun battle.

I liked Age of Decadence combat and enjoyed Dungeon Rats a lot, I guess, but part of why it's so fun in AoD is because you know there's always another way to proceed without it.

I would also think part of the issue is an excessive focus on combat, like IE games.

 

[sputtering fart balloon]

There are plenty of tabletop RPGs without combat like Golden Sky Stories where you're a bunch of fruity little nature spirits who play pranks on people and violent actions are actually penalized. I would like to see such CRPGs, but the main problem is nobody has figured out what mechanics should exist instead of combat, because these non-combat pnps are pretty much universally freeform narrative stuff with a handful of dice rolls here and there. Turns out, there's no activity where you regularly get cool items and defeat others and take their stuff and explore dangerous but interesting worlds and influence politics and win wars and best your enemies (and therefore have a lot of crunch,) besides killing enemies.

 

[wyes gull]

JRPGs are good.

If you like movies, then yeah I guess.

Movies don't stop every 5 minutes so the good guys and bad guys can do a dance off and- oh right, there's bollywood.