What do you want from an RPG?

[Digit]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently recently. Mainly because lots of games have come out that have levelling and stats, and a big *WHAM* RPG Sticker on the box. Well, sorry to break it to you, but these 2 things, do not entitles you to that sticker. I am sure I am stating an opinion already firmly grounded here at the Codex. Afterall your byline is "Putting the Role back in RPG".

But still, we all think we need roles, choices and so forth, but the whole problem I see with RPGs today is this:

They start out like below, the "O"s represent choices that a players role can influence. Should you join this sect, or company or whatever. Do you fight? Do you run? Etc:

=START=
OOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOO
OOOO
OOO
OO
O
=FINISH=

I don't think this is right, if your role is heading towards the same conclusion, what in god's name is the point? If you flip that upside down, you have what I think is a good build for a real RPG. You start off with very few choices open to you. Then depending on allies you make, groups you join or actions you take, your choices multiply. In fact, I think the perfect RPG would be one, that is quite short, but, with lots of interwoven paths that you can take through it.

Think about it, you could have a game that takes say 8-12 hours to complete. This is by most standards not a very long game. But long isn't necessarily good. The whole problem with RPGs nowadays that offer "unlimited replayability" is that they take 40hrs to complete, and the _decision_ making sections of the game, are few and far between. Essentially it's the same game, except for 4 areas.

BUT, if you make it shorter, you could make it more complex. You could actually put in real consequences and actions in the game, with a variety of endings and resolutions. Then replaying it wouldn't be such a chore, instead it would be like a new story each time. There are prerequisites for success here. The story would need to be such that it is quite flexible, and the game would need some really good writers to weave so many different choices together. I don't think it's impossible, I just think it's a different approach. I am sure you could make a complex 40hr game, but I think from a development point of view, it would be a ridiculous dev cycle and massive risk. Instead a shorter game with true replaybility would be key.

What do you think? Ok, I just re-read this post, and it's not as cohesive as I thought, but still, I think you can get the point.

Digit

 

[Sarvis]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently recently. Mainly because lots of games have come out that have levelling and stats, and a big *WHAM* RPG Sticker on the box.

This occurs because that is what a CRPG <b>is</b>. Well, along with randomization to determine success, and of course things like skills tend to go along with levels.

 

[Human Shield]

I actually think it is like:

=START=
O (Forced tutorial)
OOOOO
OOOO
OOO
OO
O
0
o
.
OOOO (multiple endings!! LOL)
=FINISH=

 

[jiujitsu]

I want:

O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Add like fifty more lines to Jiu's, continuing to expand as you go, and that's what I want. :shock:

 

[Transcendent One]

No. Modern and innovative RPG's are like this:

O
A or B or C or D x4 (cause you have to do all of them eventually)
O
OO

Where A, B, C, and D are

O
O
O
O
O
O
OO

 

[pyrrho12]

I don't think this is right, if your role is heading towards the same conclusion, what in god's name is the point? If you flip that upside down, you have what I think is a good build for a real RPG. You start off with very few choices open to you. Then depending on allies you make, groups you join or actions you take, your choices multiply.

I have to disagree with this. At the beginning of a campaign your character hasn't yet made any enemies or allies. He hasn't been working towards any particular goal. He hasn't set any events in motion that he will later have to deal with the consequences of. To me, this means that he should have a greater number of options near the beginning than he has near the end.

This also makes sense, I think, from a game design perspective. The player is going to replay the beginning of the game more often than he replays the end. He's not going to want to play the first part of the game in exactly the same way over and over again until he gets to the good part at which he finally gets to decide something. I think it's far better to give the player the opportunity to define his character right from the beginning.

My graph for an ideal game would be as follows:

OOO (starting out, just playing through the initial setup)
OOOO (learning some things about the game world)
OOOOO (middle of the game)
OOOO
OOO
OO
OO (ending)

-JH.

 

[crakkie]

I don't think this is right, if your role is heading towards the same conclusion, what in god's name is the point? If you flip that upside down, you have what I think is a good build for a real RPG. You start off with very few choices open to you. Then depending on allies you make, groups you join or actions you take, your choices multiply. In fact, I think the perfect RPG would be one, that is quite short, but, with lots of interwoven paths that you can take through it.

Even if these paths interwove, they're still paths. Choosing allies/making choices/choosing actions will give you new choices but disallow others, am I right? So if you have five 'things' to choose from in the beginning, you'll have ten later on, based on your inital choice? Then fifteen based on that choice? Even if there's a lot of overlap (which is not what you want) that's a whole hell of a lot of content and choice-management for the developers (growing exponentially as you progress).

Why would anyone make a game that difficult to develop when they could just make the game Trancendent One described + prettiness and have it sell 2 million copies?

That being said, I've been trying to make a (very shitty little text-based) rpg clone of Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, which would be primarily about replayability. You would have a lot of locations and only enough time to visit a few. At each location you could find something, fight something, talk to someone, or interact with the place somehow depending on who you started out as, what you've done at previous locations, your stats, your inventory, etc. It's pretty simple, but a bunch of pros (not me) could probably make it into a game similar to what you want. You might also have a location/quest generating system to get that number of choices, but I don't imagine it would be very immersive or involving.

 

[Digit]

Yeah sure they are still paths. But doesn't anyone want to have multiple complex choices, with genuine replayability? As I said, for development time, you would need to make the game quite short, but each play could tell a different story, or a different sequence of events in the same story. It would require some really good planning, but I don't think it's impossible. I just think it's a different way of doing things and it will be a very different game, simply because you would probably finish it really quickly. BUT, you could play again, and not know what would happen, simply because of the way the choices and paths affect each other.

Hmm, it's hard to explain. It would definitely be a fun experiment.

Digit

 

[crufty]

Didn't lucasgames try this at one point, with that Yoda Stories game? I believe it was a game that was designed to present a different one hour quest each time you played. Probably not at the same scope in discussion here, but...there you have it.

 

[Digit]

No. Modern and innovative RPG's are like this:

O
A or B or C or D x4 (cause you have to do all of them eventually)
O
OO

Where A, B, C, and D are

O
O
O
O
O
O
OO

Ok regardless of the exact pattern of the little O's, what I was trying to get across was that you always start out with loads of options, only to have them get fewer and fewer as the game progresses. I think it would be better if this was done differently. No one ever gets bored of starting a game over, it's when they have made all the decision making choices already and know for sure, that the rest of the game is exactly the same.

This is just a small element of it though, because this is more about how you want an RPG to approach the role aspect of a game, rather than how you make a game replayable.

Digit

 

[Transcendent One]

Nah you misunderstood. My post was not to correct your idea, but rather to make fun of a certain modern (maybe not so modern anymore) and, according to the media, innovative RPG.

Anyways, I don't think there should be a drastic decline in options towards the end. But I do think that all the choices made earlier should, towards the end, more or less start adding up to one of the several possible conclusion scenarios. It shouldn't be entirely freeform, cause that'd just mean that half of the roleplaying done is pointless and could've easily been replaced with something else. Choices I made earlier have to have impact later on, possibly closing some opportunities etc.

 

[Digit]

Ah ok cool. Heh I read it in a rush, so that was just me being stupid. You know in games like Deus Ex etc, you wanted the chance to say screw the NSA (I think they were called that) and side with the evil guys? However that may result in a totally different game, hence why I think it would have to be a shorter game, hours wise. Unfortunately the game forced you to a certain path, it would be nice to have some really different choices like this. Totally different factions, with different quests, requirements and rules.

Digit

 

[RGE]

What I've been enjoying most in RPGs is the opportunity to explore areas, explore NPCs and explore dialogues. So what I want is a huge area filled with many interesting things, and with different beginnings and a few different endings. Kind of like chinese checkers I suppose, except that you could choose which one of the opposing areas to move your pegs into. I've been playing Civilization III lately, and it provides something similar to this. I get to pick a civilization, then randomize a world where the computer picks my starting position, and then I can win the game in a number of different ways. Translated to an RPG there would be less of a focus on a story and instead more opportunities for the player to pick which goals to have the character strive for, which places to go to, and which people to interact with. Like a huge dungeon crawl, but with much less focus on combat, and with more than one 'end boss'. And probably without the dungeon too.

But I suppose that this would be like several RPGs rolled into one, since any one story is apparently good enough to sell as an RPG. Just as long as it's saturated with combat.

 

[Screaming_life]

-------------------------------------------0-------------------------------------------------------
-------1----------------2-----------3--------------4----------------5----------------------6----
---0--0---0--------0---0---0------0---------- 0 0 0 0------------0 0-----------------00000-


hmmm not enough space!!


I'd like an RPG where you have many choices which then lead to other choices but not all choices are available at every stage... it depends what choice or series of choices you made before hand!

Also, rather than the crappy 4 endings being decided at the end of the game, i'd want even your very first choice to influence it.

Also rather than "Main Quest" i'd want several ongoing storylines and you have to choose which you consider more important but with the ability to chop and change between them..... so rather than being "the chosen one" it's really up to you how much influence you have.... also maybe if you decide not to participate in one story it changes the outcome of it.

And i would want the option to not participate in any of the storylines but instead observe their outcomes..... or maybe i could be evil and disrupt each mission that happens without me!

 

[Kamaz]

While it is not ideal RPG, still its approx. like this -

OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO

and so on wherever in the game you are. I am not saying this should be path every RPG takes, since there are cases totally linear stuff does it aswell, but - hey - you asked for ideal RPG.

More realistic approach would be (still for very good RPG) -

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOO
OOOOO
O
OOOOO
...
OOO

and so on.

I do realize its fucking hard to implement this all - believe me, I have experience with that - though that does not change ideal or aim to go for.

 

[DarkSign]

But I suppose that this would be like several RPGs rolled into one, since any one story is apparently good enough to sell as an RPG. Just as long as it's saturated with combat.

Perfectly said. I think what everyone is saying on the most basic level is "WE WANT MORE CONTENT"

We've hit a stage in the development of videogames where the ratio of writers to programmers needs to SHIFT. Seriously, though it would cost more to make a game, we need 3 or 4 times the writers they are putting on these projects.

I personally would love to see a development house use a team of say 5 novellists who get together and under the direction of the game designer, agree upon a world and 5 major NPCs. Each of those has another 4 major NPCs in their story arc...and each of the original 5 major characters gets 5 short stories written about them. These short stories turn into the various ways that the player can affect his over arching story in turn.

Yes, lots more writing involved and therefore cost, but the industry has gotten to a point where fun is on diminishing returns because we, the consumer, have gotten more sophisticated. Its time to up the ante, Devs.

 

[RGE]

We've hit a stage in the development of videogames where the ratio of writers to programmers needs to SHIFT. Seriously, though it would cost more to make a game, we need 3 or 4 times the writers they are putting on these projects.

I don't know about that. For every writer you'd need one or more programmers to program the stuff that the writer comes up with, because it'd be a real drag if it's all text and no consequences. So the ratio wouldn't really change that much. The number of artists could stay roughly the same though, assuming that the writers don't keep coming up with all new monsters, NPCs and environments. Voiceacting would grow with the writers though, assuming that there would be voiceacting.

I've come up with a new way of explaining what I would like to see. I'd like to see a number of events, say 50, with at least two outcomes each. And these outcomes would depend on or be significantly affected by at least one other event among these 50. And the player could start with any of 25 of these events, while the other 25 wouldn't come into play until the player had already done some stuff. I figure something like that would be interesting, because unless the player follows the exact same path every time, there would be small or big changes that may or may not have obvious sources or consequences. I was going to make an Arcanum module based on a similar idea, where which of the 16 skills the PC wanted to master would steer the events. I made a (real nice) map, but that's all.

The whole game would end up being something like an online deathmatch module, but focused on roleplaying and combat rather than only combat. That way one would be able to create a character and fool around with it for a while and see what happens. Kind of like GTA3 I suppose, though I've never played it.

According to the statistics however, the vast majority of gamers only play through a game once in singleplayer and then don't play the game again. So for the vast majority, replay value is pointless. The only cash value I see in offering choices is if those choices are likely to lead to a gaming session that the player likes better, thus making the player enjoy the game more and consider buying a sequel while also recommending the game to their friends. And as long as the majority wants to kill monsters it'll be easy enough to offer them what they enjoy. And trust me, killing stuff will never go out of style. Death and sex are still the two most important things in life. So when game developers sometimes make a game that offers replay value and plenty of non-combat stuff to do, it's probably because that's what the developers wanted to do and not because the demand is so huge.

 

[DarkSign]

We've hit a stage in the development of videogames where the ratio of writers to programmers needs to SHIFT. Seriously, though it would cost more to make a game, we need 3 or 4 times the writers they are putting on these projects.

I don't know about that. For every writer you'd need one or more programmers to program the stuff that the writer comes up with, because it'd be a real drag if it's all text and no consequences. So the ratio wouldn't really change that much. The number of artists could stay roughly the same though, assuming that the writers don't keep coming up with all new monsters, NPCs and environments. Voiceacting would grow with the writers though, assuming that there would be voiceacting.

Good point. The ratio stays the same, but the size grows.

I've come up with a new way of explaining what I would like to see. I'd like to see a number of events, say 50, with at least two outcomes each. And these outcomes would depend on or be significantly affected by at least one other event among these 50. And the player could start with any of 25 of these events, while the other 25 wouldn't come into play until the player had already done some stuff. I figure something like that would be interesting, because unless the player follows the exact same path every time, there would be small or big changes that may or may not have obvious sources or consequences. I was going to make an Arcanum module based on a similar idea, where which of the 16 skills the PC wanted to master would steer the events. I made a (real nice) map, but that's all.

im not quite understanding this action/storytelling system, could you elaborate please?

The only cash value I see in offering choices is if those choices are likely to lead to a gaming session that the player likes better, thus making the player enjoy the game more and consider buying a sequel while also recommending the game to their friends.

Agreed. More choices = more personal interaction.

So when game developers sometimes make a game that offers replay value and plenty of non-combat stuff to do, it's probably because that's what the developers wanted to do and not because the demand is so huge.

Ahhhh, but you're discounting the ability for a great game to influence what people want. It happens once in a blue moon - a game changes so radically that it makes people want to play ITS way, not the way they are used to.

 

[sparrowtm]

No more OOOOO´s and ooooo´s please

What I´d especially like to see in RPGs is:

1. A realistic time-frame in which you develop your character. Not Baldurs-Gate style: "I-roam-for-90-days-and-become-level-40-uber-half-god", but rather that your skills develop over several years.

2. To make the above point possible, a storyline that lasts several of your characters years. I want to see my character age, get married, have children, lose a leg, forget about the mean evil guy that tries to make his life miserable for a couple of months only to continue to hunt him down several months later ... who says the storyline can only last two ingame-weeks?

3. OMG DON´T COLOR MY SPECIAL DIALOGUE OPTIONS!

Well, I had a couple of more things in mind - but I forgot. :idea:

 

[jiujitsu]

A realistic time-frame in which you develop your character. Not Baldurs-Gate style: "I-roam-for-90-days-and-become-level-40-uber-half-god", but rather that your skills develop over several years.

Fable.

To make the above point possible, a storyline that lasts several of your characters years. I want to see my character age, get married, have children, lose a leg, forget about the mean evil guy that tries to make his life miserable for a couple of months only to continue to hunt him down several months later ... who says the storyline can only last two ingame-weeks?

Fable.

Have you even played Fable? It has both of those points in it, but little else. I like BG and FO style. I got so depressed when my Fable character hit his 50s. I thought: "Fuck I'm old..."

 

[sparrowtm]

No, as I don´t own a XBox and don´t plan on buying one for the occasional game or two I´d like to play on that system. *hugs her PC*

 

[RGE]

Ahhhh, but you're discounting the ability for a great game to influence what people want. It happens once in a blue moon - a game changes so radically that it makes people want to play ITS way, not the way they are used to.

True. Like I heard that GTA3 did. Apparently, after that game everyone wanted some GTA in their games, with an ability to let the player just roam around and do stuff that they thought was cool inside some game area. Which leads to:

im not quite understanding this action/storytelling system, could you elaborate please?

The game area could be a small magical kingdom, with a castle, a town, a few villages. Sprinkled around this kingdom there would be several special people/events, such as some villager who's in trouble, a band of highwaymen causing trouble, a wizard in a tower etc. The player could then run around all over the place with the PC, but every time they do something in a special event it affects something else. If they do a good deed, they might become known for good deeds, and thus approached by someone who's looking for a do-gooder. If they act like a thug, someone who's in need of a thug might appear, or someone might want to punish them for their actions. If they acquire a certain special item, someone might come looking for that item, or it may come in handy in some other event. And so on.

About half of these special events would be accessible right from the start, and thus require nothing, although they might all require that the PC has not done any one particular other event, or they might require that the PC hasn't had a particular outcome in another event. Say for instance that the PC is accosted by highwaymen, and chooses to rob them but let them live after they've been defeated. The game could then automatically or randomly decide that a certain villager is later killed by these (now desperate) highwaymen, and thus the special event with that villager won't be happening, even though the PC could have done it from the start.

The other half of the events would be the ones that require some earlier events, such as the PC gaining a certain reputation, or finding certain information, or something like that. Some of these events could offer to end the game for the PC, such as the PC finding the magical artifact, or the PC sits safely on the throne with all enemies vanquished, or the PC finds true love and settles down. The point with this whole setup would be that the player is the driving force, not some predetermined story. Even though the story would contain pregenerated elements, the player would still be in charge of which goals to pursue, unless earlier events trigger special events which force the player to react in one way or the other. If the PC has enemies that are still alive, they could very well be scheduled for some good old fashioned kidnapping of a loved one, but that loved one would only exist because the player chose to pursue that goal, and not because the story demanded such a plot element. If there is no loved one, these enemies might do something else, or not dare to do anything at all.

I don't know if 50 events is too much or not enough, but I figure that it wouldn't be impossible to do 50 events that range from a small side quest to a large dungeoncrawl. Naturally the larger events should be either the more important ones, or the ones most likely to be availible at some point or another. But maybe this wouldn't work for some reason. Maybe it would actually be impossible to contain the consequences to just a few other events without having the first events snowballing into a rather predictable ending every time. I think it could be done, but this is the first time I've thought about it in this way. It would also be rather pointless if the consequences of the outcomes of events weren't logical, but whether or not something ends up making sense to the player and the PC might depend on what information and abilities the PC has.

 

[DarkSign]

Ok. Im getting it. What youre talking about are triggered and dependent storylines.
Its definitely a good idea.

I think the best way to do it is to write 8 stories and then have 8 side stories per main story. 4 get triggered by finds/actions 4 are dependent upon actions. (8s and 4s are merely my # Im sure youd probably want more)

triggers and dependencies...with a splash of sim (things happening in the background without you really having anything to do with them.

just remember, the more you make the game dependent on multiple triggers, the harder it will be to pull it back into a storyline.

 

[LlamaGod]

I've always wanted it to where the main story always has atleast 3 options at each story point (you know what I mean about story points) and then depending on which you picked, depends on which pool of 3 you can choose at the next story point, and keep doing that until the end. Then combine all the points chosen together to make your story, instead of having a pretederimined one.