Editorial Vince D Weller on Non-Combat Gameplay

[Section8]

Tags: Iron Tower; Vault Dweller

Vault "Vince" Dweller has been busy finding ways to distract himself from completing Age of Decadence, and the most recent fruit of his loins is a <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=231.0">FAQ-like article</a> championing the all too rare ideal of non-combat gameplay.
<br>
<blockquote>As we all know RPG usually means a game where you kill things. If you are role-playing a good character, you kills things in the name of justice and general goodness, weeping for every life taken. If you are role-playing an evil character, you kill with glee because you are evil (duh!), and finally, if you are playing an undecided character, you kill things and shrug.</blockquote>
<br>
He forgot to mention the Bioware option, where you kill things to unlock full digital nudity , but the rest of the article is well worth a read.
<br>
<br>
Spotted on the <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php">Iron Tower Forums</a>.
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Azarkon]

Vince D. Weller forgot to mention that combat in most CRPGs suck donkey balls, but I guess he was going for the diplomatic approach.

I do want to point out, though, that the last question in the faux FAQ was not satisfactorily rebuffed. A true belligerent would have argued that while Vince's example is nice and good, it requires no player skill. "Inherently," the combat lover would duly note, "non-combat solutions are just multiple-choice questions. There is no skill involved - you just pick through the options until you get the combination right, or you go around town and talk to everyone until you pick up the right clue. I've done that before in JRPGs and it's teh ghey. Like it or not, only combat is complex enough to pose a challenge, and games without challenges are teh bore... Geez, did I really write that much text? Fuck, I must now go headshot some noobs to cleanse myself!"

 

[slipgate_angel]

Pretty good read, even though I felt like VD was treating the reader as if he or she was retarted. Why bother in spilling blood, when you can try a different route, and save those potions for later?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I felt like VD was treating the reader as if he or she was retarted.

These days he or she probably is retarded.

 

[sabishii]

I felt like VD was treating the reader as if he or she was retarted.

These days he or she probably is retarded.

I was about to say something along those lines.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

VD sounds... excited.

Good read though.

 

[spacemoose]

when's the game coming out, eggman

 

[fastpunk]

Good old VD! Twas an interesting read packed with some history and humor along the way. "Rodent-looking motherfucker!"

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

March 10: The Corsican ogre has landed at Cape Juan.
March 11: The tiger is in Gap. Troops are on their way and will stop him. He will end his miserable adventure as a homeless refugee in the mountains.
March 12: The monster succeeded in proceeding to Grenoble.
March 13: The tyrant is now in Lyon. Horror has caught the people.
March 18: The usurper is some days’ march distant from Paris.
March 19: Bonaparte approaches in a hurry, but he will not succeed in advancing to Paris.
March 20: Napoleon will be in Paris tomorrow.
March 21: Emperor Napoleon is in Fontainebleau.
March 22: Yesterday evening His Majesty celebrated his arrival in Paris. The jubilation cannot be described.

Always loved this episode of French history.

 

[Xerxos]

Ah, my beloved Non-Combat Gameplay!

It's nice as long as
1) XP is granted "per successful quest" not "per kill + per quest"
(or else non-combat answer weaken your character compared to a combat oriented one)
2) there is allways a non-combat way to solve things
3) the non-combat way is still fun

Vampire: Bloodlines was sooo near to that goal, just failed at option 2) - Well we won't see a sequel, RIP Troika

And the nice BG2 even failed at 1) and 2)

 

[Hazelnut]

2) there is allways a non-combat way to solve things

This doesn't need to be that strict, and is better if it's not IMHO. I'm perfectly happy for some situations to arise that can only be solved via combat, as long as there are ways to deal with them without relying on the PC's combat ability - because they may not have any.

(this may have been what you meant of course)

 

[denizsi]

I'd rather have situations where the non-combat way to solve things can mean keeping your tail between your legs and succumb to whatever lets you live without going into combat, instead of having some magical way to walk/talk around every encounter.

 

[Andhaira]

VeeDee is as full of shit as always.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

VeeDee is as full of shit as always.

The irony!

 

[Crichton]

I like all the examples, but none of them are gameplay.

"You meet the requirements for dialog option X, press it to make your foe grovel"

is not gameplay, by that standard, "combat gameplay" would consist of a dialog box with options like:

Swing your sword
[Strength] Swing you sword in a mighty arc, decapitating your foe
Block
[Swordskill] Parry, neatly disarming your opponent and then run him through
Flee

The reason that most RPGs consist mostly of combat is that it's the only part of the system complicated enough to provoke actual choices. If combat consisted of four different types of attacks and the option to flee, it wouldn't be worth playing.

Combat in RPGs is worth playing because you're dealing with several elements of yours manuvering against a disparate group of opponents each of them with options to give you some combinatorial space. [Party based tactics games]

Or it consists of a few attack and block options that require some manual dexterity to execute [Action games a la Bloodlines, G1+2, Oblivous, Severence, whatever]

Or it just consists of clicking the left mouse button or picking one attack option for one character which is why, come to think of it, combat in RPGs mostly sucks too.

There are a very few games that have real stealth gameplay (Thief, splinter cell, prince of persia TT) and only one marginal RPG that does (Oblivious).

Lock-picking gameplay in RPGs so far consists of guess and test pre-programmed sequences in Gothic 1+2 and the little tumbler game in Oblivous.

I think that some dialog system with as much depth as a combat system is possible, but it's probably not compatible with having cool dialog to read. In any case all we've ever gotten is the god-awful Oblivious mini-game.

Basically it's not gameplay unless you can fail at it which means you either need difficult choices [Tactics or Strategy] or difficulty implementing your choices [Action]. VD's "gameplay" isn't gamplay, it's interactive fiction.

 

[Jasede]

2) there is allways a non-combat way to solve things

Don't be so silly. Not even in real-life are there situations that can ALWAYS be solved without combat. In fact it would be terrible if you could avoid ANY encounter - that would just be terribly unrealistic.

Much better to, instead, have the non-combat diplomat character get his teeth knocked down if he does have to face combat, with maybe a permanent CHA penalty and all his belongings stolen.

"You travel. Hungry feral wolves attack and you have nothing to scare them off!" Combat encounter you can't avoid unless you have some survival or tracking skill or whatever - and I don't see a diplomat having that.

"Plundering orcs spot and surround you!" - Bloody carnage going to ensue because it's likely your diplomat doesn't have any stealth skill. And bloodthirsty monsters will not listen to reason. Maybe there could be a "bribe" option, though.

The point is, there's way too many situations one can think of that SHOULD be impossible to avoid without conflict.

 

[elander_]

Combat in RPGs is worth playing because you're dealing with several elements of yours manuvering against a disparate group of opponents each of them with options to give you some combinatorial space. [Party based tactics games]

I would say party based TB combat is what makes it worth. Once you play games like XCom and Jagged Alliance 2 you start to see how every other game with TB combat is crap in comparison. That's the life of a game player.

Or it consists of a few attack and block options that require some manual dexterity to execute [Action games a la Bloodlines, G1+2, Oblivous, Severence, whatever]

Severance - Blade of Darkness needs you to follow different strategies with different enemies and chose your weapons well. It's miles above Oblivion, G? and even Bloodlines.

There are a very few games that have real stealth gameplay (Thief, splinter cell, prince of persia TT) and only one marginal RPG that does (Oblivious).

DeusEx, System Shock 2, Bloodlines?

Lock-picking gameplay in RPGs so far consists of guess and test pre-programmed sequences in Gothic 1+2 and the little tumbler game in Oblivous.

Lock picking shouldn't be a game. Not everything has to be a game. It should simply be a check and a roll, with a chance to break your pick and make noise.

I think that some dialog system with as much depth as a combat system is possible, but it's probably not compatible with having cool dialog to read. In any case all we've ever gotten is the god-awful Oblivious mini-game.

Again does dialog has to be a game at all. Maybe you could had some gambling to it like in Fallout and in this case it would be a game of chance like poker then reward characters who explore and inform themselves better first.

 

[elander_]

2) there is allways a non-combat way to solve things

I think what he is saying is that you will have plenty of ways to do things without combat and that you will be able to achieve your goals that way. NOT that every single quest can be solved without a fight. Some quests should not be resolved unless you flee or fight.

 

[Jasede]

Even then it would be nice if there are unpredictable situations that simply -force- you to fight.

Because an RPG without any combat encounter is...

...not an RPG.

 

[Maia]

There are a very few games that have real stealth gameplay (Thief, splinter cell, prince of persia TT) and only one marginal RPG that does (Oblivious).

Don't forget the Commandos series. Which incidentially could have provided the mechanism for a very engaging stealth action in an isometric CRPG. To recapitualte - in Commandos all enemies had cones of vision, which consisted of 2 areas, the smaller of solid color, which guaranteed discovery, while the bigger transparent one would cause an enemy to investigate or at least would delay them becoming agressive - and give the player a chance to run away or to hunker down and maybe get overlooked. There were also ways to distract the enemies by leaving cigarettes near their patrol route, etc.
Anyway, if the size of these cones and of their areas depended on the interplay of the enemies perception stats and stealth (and maybe disguise) stats of the player character and their equipment, then we'd have a CRPG stealth mechanism. Add to that light/dark bonuses, some stat-dependant scripted climbing in visually identifiable areas (both of which were also included in Commandos) and you'd have a very engaging and robust non-combat gameplay for a CRPG - which would depend on stats and on the player actions to the same degree as combat typically does.

Basically it's not gameplay unless you can fail at it which means you either need difficult choices [Tactics or Strategy] or difficulty implementing your choices [Action]. VD's "gameplay" isn't gamplay, it's interactive fiction.

Old text adventures managed to make gameplay out of dialog though. And it was possible to fail in them, too. Why not go for a similar implementation, where stats and previously accumulated knowledge, affiliations and items would open or close various options? And where one can only try a certain approach once, short of reloading.

 

[Ratty]

So is general consensus here that any in-game activity which doesn't test the player's reflexes and/or tactical ability isn't gameplay? If so, are adventure games disqualified as a game genre, or are they somehow magically exempt from the above axiom?

 

[Lumpy]

2) there is allways a non-combat way to solve things

Don't be so silly. Not even in real-life are there situations that can ALWAYS be solved without combat. In fact it would be terrible if you could avoid ANY encounter - that would just be terribly unrealistic.

Much better to, instead, have the non-combat diplomat character get his teeth knocked down if he does have to face combat, with maybe a permanent CHA penalty and all his belongings stolen.

"You travel. Hungry feral wolves attack and you have nothing to scare them off!" Combat encounter you can't avoid unless you have some survival or tracking skill or whatever - and I don't see a diplomat having that.

"Plundering orcs spot and surround you!" - Bloody carnage going to ensue because it's likely your diplomat doesn't have any stealth skill. And bloodthirsty monsters will not listen to reason. Maybe there could be a "bribe" option, though.

The point is, there's way too many situations one can think of that SHOULD be impossible to avoid without conflict.

Even then it would be nice if there are unpredictable situations that simply -force- you to fight.

Because an RPG without any combat encounter is...

...not an RPG.

Jasede, you're retarded.
Yes, there are many situations in real life too where one may be forced to fight.
For example, say you were assaulted by a group of angry feminists with guns that force you to make a choice: get raped, or get killed. As you valiantly refuse, you are killed.
So - how come you aren't dead yet, Jasede?
Could it be that occasions where combat is forced are rare? In an RPG like AoD they should be non-existent.
You're retarded because, despite VD having given several examples of people who succeeded in dangerous situations and lands without firing one bullet or drawing a sword, you insist that in an RPG, there should definitely be forced combat just because you can imagine some examples.
So just shut the fuck up.

 

[Jasede]

You don't know what an RPG is, Lumpy, and I don't think I appreciate your tone.

Combat is a very important part of RPG. In fact it used to be the most important part. It might be hard for you realize but a lot of RPG-fans (those who, unlike you, have already some years of life behind them) do NOT in fact play RPGs to play "choose your own adventure LARP" games where you can be an evil thief or a heroic acrobat with an addiction to booze. They play them to see their stats grow, to explore dungeons and to, you know, have an RPG experience.


Also, I have no idea what's up with this hostile demeanour. You used to be laughed at for being a stupid kid that has no real RPG experience or knowledge to speak of. But some things don't change.

 

[Ander Vinz]

Don't be so silly. Not even in real-life are there situations that can ALWAYS be solved without combat. In fact it would be terrible if you could avoid ANY encounter - that would just be terribly unrealistic.

Much better to, instead, have the non-combat diplomat character get his teeth knocked down if he does have to face combat, with maybe a permanent CHA penalty and all his belongings stolen.

It's bloody computer game, not real life substitute.

 

[Kingston]

I would just like to add, I don't think Jasede has ever earned his grumpiness. Also, sometimes I find it funny when he talks of "you might not remember the old days" when VDweller is a 40-year old guy who has probably seen the whole cycle of video games... maybe. At least many people on this forum have.