I see us talking here about bows, crossbows, weapons, weapon crafting, etc. when you intend to give importance to non-lethal combat. Non-lethal combat sure is great, and should be mandatory for all non-actiony RPGs, but I find hard to see the way you're going to implement it.
Your skill list only has daggers that would work, maybe throwing. There is absence of pugilism, or maybe you fold it under daggers, as they where often learned together. All the other skills are pretty much aim to kill weapons, and one good hit ends pretty much a combat (well obviously not in current rpgs, but hits mean much less). Unless you put accent on disarming," combat norms" and disabilitating, it's going to be hard to justify. And when talking about bows or crossbows, only with a good skill one can target efficiently parts of an ennemy's body to make it useless.
An easy way to make this is to state that a successful combat ends by having an enemy disarmed or unable to fight back. That's similar to the way Gothic did it, but it was still weird to slash someone with a sword a couple of times and see him come back up like you only triped him. Non-lethal combat was pretty innovative (!) at the time and still is, but it's really only on the surface.
I guess the other way you have is to make combat dangerous. Dangerous combat means less actions taken leading to lethal combat. Dangerous as in the world's views on the act rather than only in a death consequence. If it's just there to annoy the player and make him reload the game, then it's no fun. But if he feels like starting a lethal fight is a non-banal move (unlike in today's games where it's the norm), something that could have great social and maybe political consequences, it becomes a different matter. Verbal threats, small honor conflicts or similar things can all be "solved" in brawls using unarmed combat or daggers.
Well, it all boils down to what are the implications of combat in the game? Is it a way to solve problems and advance in the game like most current games or is it only a possibility, something that should be feared? Does it have consequences other than death? Jail, public execution (that's a good idea instead of a death screen!), forced work, outlaw status, etc... Some of those are not that fun for the player on first sight, but well implemented they can become very interesting. How is a fight viewed by the population of this world? Are there some types of legitimate combat (war) and others which are punished?
All in all, it's just another realism vs. gameplay debate. Or maybe they can work together?
Your skill list only has daggers that would work, maybe throwing. There is absence of pugilism, or maybe you fold it under daggers, as they where often learned together. All the other skills are pretty much aim to kill weapons, and one good hit ends pretty much a combat (well obviously not in current rpgs, but hits mean much less). Unless you put accent on disarming," combat norms" and disabilitating, it's going to be hard to justify. And when talking about bows or crossbows, only with a good skill one can target efficiently parts of an ennemy's body to make it useless.
An easy way to make this is to state that a successful combat ends by having an enemy disarmed or unable to fight back. That's similar to the way Gothic did it, but it was still weird to slash someone with a sword a couple of times and see him come back up like you only triped him. Non-lethal combat was pretty innovative (!) at the time and still is, but it's really only on the surface.
I guess the other way you have is to make combat dangerous. Dangerous combat means less actions taken leading to lethal combat. Dangerous as in the world's views on the act rather than only in a death consequence. If it's just there to annoy the player and make him reload the game, then it's no fun. But if he feels like starting a lethal fight is a non-banal move (unlike in today's games where it's the norm), something that could have great social and maybe political consequences, it becomes a different matter. Verbal threats, small honor conflicts or similar things can all be "solved" in brawls using unarmed combat or daggers.
Well, it all boils down to what are the implications of combat in the game? Is it a way to solve problems and advance in the game like most current games or is it only a possibility, something that should be feared? Does it have consequences other than death? Jail, public execution (that's a good idea instead of a death screen!), forced work, outlaw status, etc... Some of those are not that fun for the player on first sight, but well implemented they can become very interesting. How is a fight viewed by the population of this world? Are there some types of legitimate combat (war) and others which are punished?
All in all, it's just another realism vs. gameplay debate. Or maybe they can work together?
Considering that assassin is a respectful profession, the population doesn't have a problem with figthing. There are consequences though.
Thus, sometimes I miss out on the options offered in games where I have to be beaten to a pulp first. (The surrendering to Deidranna and being imprisoned in the army base in Jagged Alliance 2, for example)
.
