Vapourware Is combat-centrism an inevitability in Fallout-type CRPGs?

[shihonage]

Is it naive to expect a Fallout-style game to provide solid non-combat gameplay paths? Let's say I want to have 3 viable skill trees: Combat, Medic, and Engineer. Ideally, the game should be passable by someone who specializes in Medic and Engineer trees, with minimal investment in the Combat tree.

But there are 2 things which I can't get my head around.

1. Implementation. Let's say you're leaving the Fallout rat cave with shit combat stats, specializing in Engineer from the start. Rats will kill you. So what's the Engineer solution? Oh look, there's a broken auto-turret in the corner, you Repair it, and it kills all the rats! Problem solved! Except it isn't. Since the world is full of hostiles, you still solved it through combat mechanics, just by delegating them to something else.
   Maybe later you find a broken robot which you fix and it acts like Cyber-Ian, ventilating your enemies for you. Or, similarly, as Medic, you get an NPC to fight for you, whom you keep alive by constantly healing them. Where's the pacifism one would expect from such characters? Nowhere to be found. These are just variations of the Combat Path.
   So, the real solution is some kind of variation of Rat Diplomacy? Making beast NPCs sentient so they can intelligently benefit from your Engineering or Healing in dialogue skill checks?
   Or should Medic and Engineer automatically get Stealth points so they can tip-toe around combat areas?
2. Believability. Tandi has been kidnapped by the Raiders! But don't worry Aradesh, I am a trained Medic who will go and rescue her!
   You go to the Raiders. You are not combat capable, so you try to negotiate. You don't have the money to buy her out, but you spot a wounded Raider in a tent. You use your semi-advanced Medical Skills to heal the raider and in return they give Tandi back to you.
   Okay.
   So now every potential conflict situation should include someone who is wounded so you can move forward?
   What is the realistic likely outcome of this scenario? Your pacifism presents zero threat. Raiders say "we need a medic" and you end up their slave. If you're a woman, you also get raped.

No matter which way I poke this issue, it seems that combat is simply integral to a hostile post-apocalyptic world. Either you're strong enough to survive, or you get enslaved, raped, killed. If you're smart, you get more NPCs to help you do combat, but combat remains the driving defensive power of the player in any sort of Wasteland-ish environment.

You may want to play as "The Commish" but in a wasteland reality, you'll always be in "The Shield" instead.

Is there a way to develop non-combat mechanics, specialties, FUN gameplay paths? Sure, we can forget about Medic and Engineer being dominant skills/trees/paths, and give player also the option to level up some kind of PSI powers... so he can avoid combat by altering the minds of potential combatants. Make them fight each other, make them dose off?

Do a martial arts tree with a Vulkan Neck Pinch in it, so you non-lethally neutralize enemies?

What other paths are there? Is there a way to develop unique non-combat mechanics which are actually fun to play, and carve different paths thru the gameworld?

Deeper focus on Stealth, to the point where it is a complete mechanic just like combat, which can be used to overcome all combat paths? Will that be actually as fun as shooting Raiders in the dick?

Or maybe we should accept that combat in some form is mandatory, accept that there's no gameplay replacement for the visceral satisfaction of being an armored badass who kills things, and always expect the player to pump up combat stats, and also give him some optional pacifist skill-based solutions for when his secondary stats and a specific quest allow it?

The idea of being Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman who gracefully navigates a brutal world without killing a single living being, always appealed to me, or rather, the idea of the player being fully able to align his gameplay with a specific philosophy which goes beyond "Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando but he also knows something about medicine". But is it actually possible? Or will the gameplay be dull, unappealing, and Dr. Quinn will just end up being a Raiders sex slave?

I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas on this topic. Thank you.

 

[Hammer Of The Heretics]

Hmm. The raiders rape and enslave you. They make you cook for them. Your medical knowledge lets you poison their food, either killing them or weakening them to the point where a slave uprising can be successful.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Case A - play Age of Decadence with any non-combat build
Case B - https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/fallout-2-pacifist.137727/

 

[shihonage]

Case A - play Age of Decadence with any non-combat build
Case B - https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/fallout-2-pacifist.137727/

I already mentioned rat diplomacy and stealth.

Can you play through Fallout 2 as a doctor, who survives through their nature of being a doctor, as opposed to acting like a commando or a ninja?

 

[Ol' Willy]

Can you play through Fallout 2 as a doctor, who survives through their nature of being a doctor, as opposed to acting like a commando or a ninja?

No because such playthrough possibility is not coded into the game. Which could be done for another game or added to Fallout 2 via mod - if someone wishes to make it

 

[behold_a_man]

Your pacifism presents zero threat. Raiders say "we need a medic" and you end up their slave.

You might be a pacifist, but your friends may be war criminals. What if you could become a medic for an army? Get made after helping a local mobster? Organized raiders may have a good reason to avoid troubling your great friends in Little Romania, lest their camp might disappear one day.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Wasn't Fallout itself one of the first CRPGs that are not combat-centric?

 

[mondblut]

Can you play through Fallout 2 as a doctor, who survives through their nature of being a doctor, as opposed to acting like a commando or a ninja?

You reach the nearest settlement, secure a decent gig as a doctor, and live happily for the rest of your life treating locals. Game over.

An RPG means a game about adventuring life. And adventuring life means having to constantly overcome adversity in form of hostile life forms and silly obstacles. The later is not particularly fitting for a turn-based, stat-driven gameplay experience.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

It is hard to believe that someone in such a world would not learn some basic means of self-defense, even if they are becoming a doctor, scientist or engineer. Anyone should be able to slug a few rats with a bat, or shoot someone at an arms-length. That is still different from being a trained soldier who can handle heavy ordinance and hit targets at long range.
I think there is enough room to make it interesting. Lets say you want to free someone from a raider base. The soldier could take the direct approach, blow up the wall with explosives and storm the premise. A doctor could propose to drug the water or food supply of the raiders to put the raiders to sleep, and then decide what to do with them. An engineer could tamper with the raiders electricity (lets assume the raiders are in an old army camp that still has some working stuff) and cause a fire in their camp to cause a diversion then open the gate with some machinery, and fight a smaller force that is not busy with putting out the fire.
The game could leave you with pacifist option, i.e. trying to negotiate. The raiders would likely make unreasonable demands or fire at you at first sight, and the hostages end up dead. That could be implemented a few times, but I think it would get old quickly. I don't think players like losing most of the time.

 

[Damned Registrations]

You're looking at this through the wrong lens to begin with. The solution isn't 'make every path viable for every quest'. That's dumb. It's dumb when combat lets you shoot your way through a bunker that could have just closed it's doors and waited for backup, and it's dumb when there are convenient turrets everywhere to hack or repair.

The proper way to do things is make exclusive quests that cater to each specialty. Tandi got kidnapped? Well, I guess she's fucked. But elsewhere is a settlement suffering from a plague and the doctor can diagnose them to start a quest to find the right medicine to save them, and the engineer can repair a bus and drive them to doctor that could treat them, while combat/stealth guy is utterly fucked.

 

[Hydro]

Pacifist paths will always be an options and flavors. RPGs and gaming in general are about guns, swords and beating shit out of something.

 

[jakkis]

Does anyone go into a brand-spanking new RPG and go pacifist healer doctor as their first char to beat the game? This is something to do on a later playthrough for challenge and shits and giggles. Combat should be the focus in a hostile world and nothing wrong with that. Would be nice to save the world with friendship and love but that might not always be an option.

 

[Nikanuur]

Actually, there's this film about this guy called Desmond Doss, during the second world war. Based on true story, too. This dude objected against carrying a firearm / killing. Conscientious reasons. He still had to go to the lines, and was initially mocked and hated. But he pulled it off; surviving, never killing a single enemy, and actually ended up awarded with one of the highest military awards.

I daresay his life was pretty damn interesting—at least the film was—so, it might just work in a game, too.

 

[mondblut]

Actually, there's this film about this guy called Desmond Doss, during the second world war. Based on true story, too. This dude objected against carrying a firearm / killing. Conscientious reasons. He still had to go to the lines, and was initially mocked and hated. But he pulled it off; surviving, never killing a single enemy, and actually ended up awarded with one of the highest military awards.

I daresay his life was pretty damn interesting—at least the film was—so, it might just work in a game, too.

You just described a healer in MMO.

 

[Hydro]

Actually, there's this film about this guy called Desmond Doss, during the second world war. Based on true story, too. This dude objected against carrying a firearm / killing. Conscientious reasons. He still had to go to the lines, and was initially mocked and hated. But he pulled it off; surviving, never killing a single enemy, and actually ended up awarded with one of the highest military awards.

I daresay his life was pretty damn interesting—at least the film was—so, it might just work in a game, too.

He indirectly killed people one way or another. Every activity in an army facilitates killing people. No wonder western propaganda used him to whitewash their true self — it is of outmost importance for them to appear good guys with broad smile.

 

[Infinitron]

Is combat-centrism an inevitability in Fallout-type CRPGs?​

shihonage Surely this is the real question?

 

[Pink Eye]

An interesting thread that raises some fun questions in regards to RPG design.

Is there a way to develop non-combat mechanics, specialties, FUN gameplay paths?

Two of my favorites RPGs do a very good job of making non-combat playthroughs fun. First is Planescape Torment. In that game, you can invest into non-combat stats which will unlock additional dialogue that'll help uncover past memories of the Nameless One's history - which is very important for the narrative. On top of that, non-combat stats can help you get special tattoos, companions, and unique loots. Non-combat stats provide more utility and are far more superior to invest into, purely because of how much content you can get from them.

My second beloved RPG in this, is Age of Decadence. Investing in non-combat stats is critical for uncovering lore about the past and how it shaped the present setting - certain dialogues is locked behind your understanding of the world. Just like Planescape, there is so much content gated behind your civic skills.

So to answer the question, what makes these paths fun is the type of content you can see that you'll otherwise miss in a combat run. In Age of Decadence you'll be able to finish a quest in a different way, you'll also learn a thing or two about the world that answers some questions. In Planescape you'll learn more about the Nameless One's origins which plays a big part in the narrative.

Deeper focus on Stealth, to the point where it is a complete mechanic just like combat, which can be used to overcome all combat paths? Will that be actually as fun as shooting Raiders in the dick?

I think so. Iron Tower, a favorite studio of mine, does a great job of making non-combat paths fun. In Age of Decadence you can pull off Machiavellian tier manipulation by creating alliances, setting up betrayals, and ruining people by just being a pure talker. My favorite run in AoD was a merchant run where I made alliances then betrayed people. In Colony Ship, doing a pure stealth run is really fun because of how it's portrayed in game. The stealth component in Colony Ship is treated as its own gameplay with stats and feats supported for it. Also it's as satisfying as combat runs because the animations for assassinating people is super cool to watch. Another thing, since the stealth component is its own gameplay, it is also tactical, because it uses turn based - it also has additional systems like enemy awareness, enemy patrols, and the ability to use stealth gadgets.

What makes non-combat paths mechanically interesting is the type of content gated to it and the kind of systems supporting it. In Colony Ship stealth is as in-depth as combat. In Age of Decadence talker builds can do things that result in entertaining scenarios. In Planescape you get content that affects the narrative and type of endings you can get.

 

[Nikanuur]

Actually, there's this film about this guy called Desmond Doss, during the second world war. Based on true story, too. This dude objected against carrying a firearm / killing. Conscientious reasons. He still had to go to the lines, and was initially mocked and hated. But he pulled it off; surviving, never killing a single enemy, and actually ended up awarded with one of the highest military awards.

I daresay his life was pretty damn interesting—at least the film was—so, it might just work in a game, too.

He indirectly killed people one way or another. Every activity in an army facilitates killing people. No wonder western propaganda used him to whitewash their true self — it is of outmost importance for them to appear good guys with broad smile.

I’d say this argument is an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
We have no proof that he killed anyone, either directly or indirectly; we can only speculate.
He spent the entire war saving his injured comrades driven by the mentioned conscientiousness, and that was the extent of his actions
If you’re suggesting that this constitutes indirect killing—such as those soldiers later causing deaths—you could argue that you're responsible for killing people as well, just by taking out the trash. After all, someone somewhere might have developed lung cancer because the trash you disposed of was processed in communal incinerators, contributing to air pollution.

 

[d1r]

RPG's that would branch out in non-combat specific paths eventually will become sims. And then you're not playing Fallout anymore, but Patient Simulator. I mean, how exactly would a doctor playthrough in F2 even look like? Become the medical assistant of Johnson, work your ass off for the next months/years by doing heal patient sub quests, get eventually enough money to hire a group of mercenaries to look out for the GECK, while you're still learning more about medicine and cure even more patients via dialogue checks? Nah. There is a reason why fighting exists, because it's an easy and faster way to progress the story, respectively progress within the game.