RPG Mechanics Made Pointless By Game Features

[Storyfag]

Indeed. What I would like to see is CRPGs offering proper simulation of a PnP party. That is: one character controlled by you, others by the AI, but competently, with perhaps slight input on your part. Pretty much the opposite of coop games.

 

[Tyranicon]

Indeed. What I would like to see is CRPGs offering proper simulation of a PnP party. That is: one character controlled by you, others by the AI, but competently, with perhaps slight input on your part. Pretty much the opposite of coop games.

"but competently"

Yeah, there's the rub.

 

[Quillon]

Indeed. What I would like to see is CRPGs offering proper simulation of a PnP party. That is: one character controlled by you, others by the AI, but competently, with perhaps slight input on your part. Pretty much the opposite of coop games.

"but competently"

Yeah, there's the rub.

I don't understand why people are so irritated by AI party-mates. Enemies are controlled by the same "shit AI" also, it'd be more fair if you have AIs on your side instead of controlling everybody besides it making complete sense.

There should at least be a command-system in party based RPGs; as a party leader you command them to do something as you normally do but it should be up to them to do either what you say or something else or flee etc depending on PC's relative skills, relation with them, what you want them to do etc. This way narrative would have tangible influence on gameplay also.

 

[Karellen]

Indeed. What I would like to see is CRPGs offering proper simulation of a PnP party. That is: one character controlled by you, others by the AI, but competently, with perhaps slight input on your part. Pretty much the opposite of coop games.

I'm not sure if that would be particularly desirable even if it could be done, to be honest. In general I tend to be of the opinion that cRPGs should not particularly try to imitate PnP RPGs in the first place, but even setting that aside, I think that the party dynamic is the one thing that can't be done in a cRPG. Pen and paper roleplaying is a social activity, and a lot that goes on in a party is fun because of that; dealing with other characters' idiosyncrasies and goofy decisions is interesting because they're played by real people with their own goals, agendas, hopes and dreams and whatnot. In that context, it makes sense that other players are your equals and have just as much say in the game as you do. On the other hand, characters who are in the party but aren't played by players are hirelings and allies, or worse, GMPCs, and it is not particularly pleasant to play second fiddle to them. Ultimately, if I'm playing a game all on my lonesome, I'd prefer it if my input is the decisive element in what happens in the game. It doesn't matter if the other characters are played competently; it's just not terribly interesting to participate in combat in which you, as a player, have negligible impact unless it is a team effort with real human beings.

That said, I think cRPGs also suffer, to some extent, from the player being the sole entity with agency in the world; that's one of the the things that leads to metagaming being so prevalent in cRPGs. I think having more world simulation and strategy elements leading to unexpected, even random changes in the game state that are outside of the player's control could very well be desirable, since that would at least partially eliminate some of the major things that incentivise degenerate play. I just don't think that the party is the place to do that, because the actual act of playing an RPG consists of the things that the party does, and having your role in that reduced is not only annoying, it threatens to make the whole act of playing the game pointless.

 

[Tyranicon]

Indeed. What I would like to see is CRPGs offering proper simulation of a PnP party. That is: one character controlled by you, others by the AI, but competently, with perhaps slight input on your part. Pretty much the opposite of coop games.

"but competently"

Yeah, there's the rub.

I don't understand why people are so irritated by AI party-mates. Enemies are controlled by the same "shit AI" also, it'd be more fair if you have AIs on your side instead of controlling everybody besides it making complete sense.

It's because bad party AI is much more noticeable than bad enemy AI. Players expect to be able to pull off organized combat tactics with their party, while most game AI aren't quite capable of much more than [Frontlines rush forward, supports cast buff, damage classes go pew pew].

I actually really like games that allow party AI toggle, it's just that any kind of challenging combat will require you to micromanage your characters anyways.

 

[Quillon]

So called RPG fans are more interested in playing tactical combat with unrealistic amount of control than playing RPGs.

 

[Karellen]

So called RPG fans are more interested in playing tactical combat with unrealistic amount of control than playing RPGs.

Or maybe it's just that computers are pretty good at handling tactical combat and not very good at roleplaying? Look, if I want to engage in good roleplaying, I get together with friends or interesting strangers and play a roleplaying game. Computer games have their own strengths, and I think it's generally preferable that they concentrate on those instead of drawing excessive attention on the things they do poorly.

 

[Storyfag]

So called RPG fans are more interested in playing tactical combat with unrealistic amount of control than playing RPGs.

Or maybe it's just that computers are pretty good at handling tactical combat and not very good at roleplaying?

I am not aware of anyone ever trying something along the lines I proposed. Fallout, perhaps, but it'd be a stretch.

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't understand why people are so irritated by AI party-mates. Enemies are controlled by the same "shit AI" also, it'd be more fair if you have AIs on your side instead of controlling everybody besides it making complete sense.

Because I like playing games more than watching games be played by the AI.

AI-controlled party members are ok in a game with combat like Arcanum's. Arcanum had super fast real time combat and not being able to control you companions was fine. I played it in real time and only switched to turn based when necessary. AI-controlled companions weren't irritating there.

But in any turn-based game, you want to control your companions because otherwise the combat is going to consist of you doing one thing, and then watching everyone else do shit while you just sit back. It reduces interactivity and turns companion turns into "watch and pray they don't do anything suicidal" scenarios. Lame. Slow RTwP games like NWN also should have companion control, because if you only control one character it's gonna be slow and boring. Not to mention the AI often doing retarded shit that loses you a fight.

Whether it's "fair" or not to have companions AI-controlled depends on encounter design. Most games with full party control throw enemies at you that require good tactics to overcome. BG2 has plenty of fights where you need to cheese the game to survive, KotC is designed around tough encounters. If your companions are AI-controlled, your encounters need to be easier because you have to expect the companion AI to do dumb shit. So instead of pitting the player against an enemy party with twice as many fighters and higher character levels, you have to pit the player against exactly balanced enemies that are roughly equal in number and level to the player party, because otherwise it's almost guaranteed the party AI gets itself killed.

And besides all the issues of frustration due to AI acting retarded, even in games with a good AI - heck, especially in games with a good AI that can challenge you on a tactical level - it's simply more fun to control a party than it is to watch the AI do things.

Performing a flanking maneuver with your fighters is fun. Coordinating two spellcasters to first use a vulnerability to fire curse, then throw a fireball in the enemy's midst is fun. Setting up suppressive fire with the heavy weapons guy while your light riflemen advance behind enemy lines is fun. None of that is possible when your companions are AI-controlled.

I'm a big fan of simulationism and realism, but when it comes to party control I don't buy the "it's more realistic that you only get to control your own character!" argument. So fucking what? It's more fun and opens up a whole lot of additional gameplay to control multiple dudes. Imagine playing an RTS where you only control one unit and everything else is managed by the AI. Would that be fun? I doubt it. Regular RTS games where you build a base and send squads of units across the map are fun, though.

If you don't want to give me full party control, don't give me a combat system that presumes to be tactical. Give me something quick and dirty like Arcanum or something action-based like Diablo instead. But if you give me anything with a turn based or RTwP system, I want to be able to control my party.

 

[Quillon]

So called RPG fans are more interested in playing tactical combat with unrealistic amount of control than playing RPGs.

Or maybe it's just that computers are pretty good at handling tactical combat and not very good at roleplaying?

I thought computers were good at calculating stuff, thought they were good at simulating stuff and used as such and not yet good at writing narratives.

I'm not saying players should do as little as possible, players can influence a simulation in a lot of ways, every variable you change effects the calculations, changes the outcome.

Performing a flanking maneuver with your fighters is fun. Coordinating two spellcasters to first use a vulnerability to fire curse, then throw a fireball in the enemy's midst is fun. Setting up suppressive fire with the heavy weapons guy while your light riflemen advance behind enemy lines is fun. None of that is possible when your companions are AI-controlled.

I think it would be more fun if you order your fighter to flank enemies' right and see how he/if he carries out your order than ordering him to go to the exact location of the flanking position then do the exact attacking action you desire. Yeah AI is not that advanced but maybe it is :D outside of games people use simulations for everything to decide what to do IRL, devs just have to put more resources on it otherwise AI will always be shit in games.

In a city simulation game vehicle AI is all about going from A to B in the shortest route, disregarding longer but faster roads with less traffic lights etc. but it is still fun to manage the traffic with what's available, you put roundabouts, intersections etc. then see how the AI uses them, it is fun. And that simulation will only get better going forward, devs just have to start somewhere, not all party based RPGs have to be fundamentally played the same way.

 

[Harthwain]

So called RPG fans are more interested in playing tactical combat with unrealistic amount of control than playing RPGs.

The problem is that most of the so-called RPG games are usually combat games with few RPG elements.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Combat is one of the basic elements of Role-Playing Games together with characters (progression, customization, equipment, inventory) and exploration. Specifically, combat derived from miniatures wargaming. People who complain about combat in RPGs largely overlap with the people who want to apply the term RPG to collaborative storytelling or improvisational theatre, which are no doubt rewarding activities for those who like that sort of thing but should in no wise be confused with RPGs.

 

[Harthwain]

Combat is one of the basic elements of Role-Playing Games together with characters (progression, customization, equipment, inventory) and exploration.

Agreed. I am not saying that combat isn't (very) important for RPGs. I am saying that for most RPGs it's the most extensive activity the player has and any other RPG aspect is either not developed as well or play second fiddle to it. I mean the world simulation, agency of the NPCs, player's interactivity with the in-game world, etc.

 

[Chris Koźmik]

Any RPG with consumables such as health potions, scrolls, etc. rendered redundant by inflation in the game economy. You either earn way too much money that there are no hard choices in what you decide to purchase or the items drop too frequently for the items do add a strategic layer to the gameplay.

Out of curiosity, anyone knows an RPG where consumables were not broken? For me, it was either "don't use it because it's too precious, and I will need it later" or "who cares, those can be replenished for cheap in any shop".

 

[V_K]

Any RPG with consumables such as health potions, scrolls, etc. rendered redundant by inflation in the game economy. You either earn way too much money that there are no hard choices in what you decide to purchase or the items drop too frequently for the items do add a strategic layer to the gameplay.

Out of curiosity, anyone knows an RPG where consumables were not broken? For me, it was either "don't use it because it's too precious, and I will need it later" or "who cares, those can be replenished for cheap in any shop".

Unironically, Ruins of Myth Drannor, at least in early levels.

 

[jackofshadows]

Out of curiosity, anyone knows an RPG where consumables were not broken? For me, it was either "don't use it because it's too precious, and I will need it later" or "who cares, those can be replenished for cheap in any shop".

AoD/Dungeon Rats/Colony Ship. ITS games, in short. Underrail does it right too for such an open game.

 

[Harthwain]

Out of curiosity, anyone knows an RPG where consumables were not broken? For me, it was either "don't use it because it's too precious, and I will need it later" or "who cares, those can be replenished for cheap in any shop".

Survival games mostly. NEO Scavenger comes to mind.

Conscript isn't an RPG, but it is the best example of how consumables can be done very well that I have seen. Ever.

 

[Zombra]

Games that allow multiple routes to an objective. Who came up with that idea? You only need one.

 

[Artyoan]

Any RPG with consumables such as health potions, scrolls, etc. rendered redundant by inflation in the game economy. You either earn way too much money that there are no hard choices in what you decide to purchase or the items drop too frequently for the items do add a strategic layer to the gameplay.

Out of curiosity, anyone knows an RPG where consumables were not broken? For me, it was either "don't use it because it's too precious, and I will need it later" or "who cares, those can be replenished for cheap in any shop".

Not that I know of. Best idea I've come up with for consumables is to have a capped set of items the player can use per rest/battle similar to Estus Flasks from Dark Souls only more than just healing. Costs nothing to refill them on rest or between battles but costs materials to change an item to another. That way the player is still accruing resources for consumables, changing consumables as well, but they are only pseudo-consumables since its just changing the set or an item and not permanently disposing of the item. Easier to balance. I think Fell Seal had something like this but not the same. A cap on item usage per battle though.

 

[PapaPetro]

Information skills that become obsolete due to data mining and Wiki knowledge.

 

[Norfleet]

All of it, because you can AFK your way through the entire game. Stats? Classes? Abilities? Equipment? None of it matters in this game because you can just AFK everything without bothering with any of these things.

 

[Norfleet]

I don't understand why people are so irritated by AI party-mates. Enemies are controlled by the same "shit AI" also, it'd be more fair if you have AIs on your side instead of controlling everybody besides it making complete sense.

What's not to understand? People are intrinsically more concerned by threats to them (teammate incompetence) than they are by benefits to them (enemy incompetence), because one directly threatens their survival, and the other is just convenient. It's not so much a question of AI: The same applies to PUGs in MMOs. FAR more vitriol is directed at underperforming teammates than underperforming opponents.

There should at least be a command-system in party based RPGs; as a party leader you command them to do something as you normally do but it should be up to them to do either what you say or something else or flee etc depending on PC's relative skills, relation with them, what you want them to do etc. This way narrative would have tangible influence on gameplay also.

This tends to lead to a meta where predictable obedience to the player's commands often becomes the dominant attribute, as power you can't use is no power at all.

 

[Quillon]

This tends to lead to a meta where predictable obedience to the player's commands often becomes the dominant attribute, as power you can't use is no power at all.

As past me wrote that "depending on PC's relative skills, relations with them, what you want them to do etc"; you just make shit depend on various shit and not make 1 stat to rule them all like "Leadership" skill in some games.

 

[Cryomancer]

Water in Ravenloft : Stone prophet. As longs you have a cleric to cast create water, it is pointless.

 

[Valdetiosi]

Proceeding to make a skill requirements on your quests or objectives, yet allowing player to grind XP to succeed in those.