trash combat or no combat

[rusty_shackleford]

It's like a book having a bad story, why am I reading it?

- For its compositional structure and style;
- For its philosohical meitations;
- Might be a non-fiction book.

I'm not a hipster who pretends to read obscure literature at Starbucks though.

 

[Nyx]

The problem with dialogue is that it isn't abstracted, if you abstracted it like combat is then RPGs wouldn't turn into VNs when you removed the combat and you could still have the same depth and fun.

The problem is how to do that in a way that won't end up mechanically identical to combat and thus just combat by another name.

What's wrong with combat by another name? By virtue of what it is about it would by necessity be somewhat different, even if many of the core mechanics would be similar. Don't you think it's worth exploring?

Nothing wrong, but "RPG with reskinned combat" isn't the same as "RPG with no combat". The whole point of non-combat gameplay is that it plays differently from combat.

It would be different, just not totally so. If anything there are much more different states you could achieve rather than the binary kill or be killed thingy in combat-centric games for example. The approach to winning over enemies would also differ, you wouldn't have the warrior-mage-thief trio but other and very different approaches, different archetypes, different mechanics, even if you basically use dice-rolls to solve different things you attempt and achieve synergies between stuff just as in combat. I'm not sure if anyone has actually tried that in an RPG, so I don't know exactly what that would look like.

Just look at matrix hacking in, well, most cyberpunk games - Shadowrun or StarCrawlers. SR:HongKong even tries to make it different from its regular combat by adding real-time stealth element. Still isn't as different as e.g. stealth in Deus Ex or solving puzzles as a magic user in Quest for Glory. Not fundamentally different.

Isn't that it tho? If it is fundamentally different then you have another kind of game on your hands? I just think it would be a nice flavor and sort of different from the super shallow stat checks you get with completely canned lines that don't ever feel as reactive as the combat does. Like playing a talky character in Age of Decadence isn't very satisfying, but if talking was as involved as the combat it would be more exciting y'know? Does it have to be fundamentally different to be worthwhile?

The question is identical to, would you eat shit or rather go hungry. I would go hungry.

Trash combat or more accurately Trash encounters are just bad, they add nothing whatsoever. The common argument in their defence is that trash combat helps the player feel how powerful they have become. That is a terrible argument simply because I do not need to eradicate rats to prove that my numbers have gone up or if I have more abilities. To prove that all I need to do is to use them against a challenging opponent that is present for a thematic reason in a given area.

This does beg the question if level scaling is okay though. It's easy to get OP if it isn't there, making combat a joke, but otoh if enemies get better as you do then what is the point? If you make an efficient and good character doesn't all combat then become trash if it isn't super hard?

Level scaling is never okay. The simple solution to avoid level scaling is designing the game such that each encounter is balanced for a given level and its vicinity. Too much below that and you can not win and too much above it, the enemy is either non-existent (the game treats as if the encounter never happened) or the enemy simply runs away at your sight (a la Mount & Blade).

So you're basically saying games should be balanced so you can't be OP and if you against all odds are there shouldn't be any combat with weak enemies? I could see how that would work in some games but it doesn't seem like an universal solution to the problem. Like in open world games and stuff.

 

[Nyx]

You can be OP and that translates as lower-level mobs flee from you unless you chase them down just to prove how big your cigar is.

Hear me out, ok? Let's say you have a starting area and it is a big chunk of the game, there are quests and stuff here and everything is balanced. Some player makes this super cheesy character and goes and kills a big bad dragon and levels up a lot from the huge xp it gives on death. Basically the entire area is now a combat free zone and all the quests there are now useless. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? Considering how wide the gulf is between casual players and meganerd grognards how do you even balance a game like that? Make it too easy and the skilled players will basically only have to fight a couple of battles and that's it, or make it too hard and you have alienated a huge chunk of your audience that actually showers.

 

[Nyx]

You can be OP and that translates as lower-level mobs flee from you unless you chase them down just to prove how big your cigar is.

Hear me out, ok? Let's say you have a starting area and it is a big chunk of the game, there are quests and stuff here and everything is balanced. Some player makes this super cheesy character and goes and kills a big bad dragon and levels up a lot from the huge xp it gives on death. Basically the entire area is now a combat free zone and all the quests there are now useless. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? Considering how wide the gulf is between casual players and meganerd grognards how do you even balance a game like that? Make it too easy and the skilled players will basically only have to fight a couple of battles and that's it, or make it too hard and you have alienated a huge chunk of your audience that actually showers.

I think you do not understand simple things:

1. Cheese character creating issues is NOT normal. That is abnormal and no idiot designs game against abnormal tendencies. Unless that idiot is named Soyyer.
2. You should read what I wrote again. The enemies *flee* from you if they are under your level. You can still if you are a masochist for trash mobs, catch them up and beat them up and feel your e-peen being satisfied. I could not care less.

1. I just used that as an extreme example, but the same goes for differing characters, that some would have more game than others. The rift between casual players and the more involved ones, not just the cheesers, remains big.
2. No, no, you misunderstand me, that's the thing, if you say go for a run or do things in the *wrong* order then you basically skip large parts of the game. Are you actually rewarding the player for being good or are you punishing them by basically taking things away? I understand the concept fine, stop calling me stupid, if you're a big bad knight or something small weak goblins run away, I geddit. But if you kill Gnork the goblin chief before say doing quests in the area then the quests become irrelevant. Don't you see? I'm talking about content.

 

[Harthwain]

If your plan is to have 95% of combat to be trash just for the sake of saying "But it has combat!", then don't bother. Either do it well or not at all.

 

[Guvide]

If I had to choose between a game with lots of boring uninteresting combat and one with none I would choose the latter. Coincidentally there are plenty of game genres without any sort of combat whatsoever.

 

[Nyx]

You can be OP and that translates as lower-level mobs flee from you unless you chase them down just to prove how big your cigar is.

Hear me out, ok? Let's say you have a starting area and it is a big chunk of the game, there are quests and stuff here and everything is balanced. Some player makes this super cheesy character and goes and kills a big bad dragon and levels up a lot from the huge xp it gives on death. Basically the entire area is now a combat free zone and all the quests there are now useless. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? Considering how wide the gulf is between casual players and meganerd grognards how do you even balance a game like that? Make it too easy and the skilled players will basically only have to fight a couple of battles and that's it, or make it too hard and you have alienated a huge chunk of your audience that actually showers.

I think you do not understand simple things:

1. Cheese character creating issues is NOT normal. That is abnormal and no idiot designs game against abnormal tendencies. Unless that idiot is named Soyyer.
2. You should read what I wrote again. The enemies *flee* from you if they are under your level. You can still if you are a masochist for trash mobs, catch them up and beat them up and feel your e-peen being satisfied. I could not care less.

1. I just used that as an extreme example, but the same goes for differing characters, that some would have more game than others. The rift between casual players and the more involved ones, not just the cheesers, remains big.
2. No, no, you misunderstand me, that's the thing, if you say go for a run or do things in the *wrong* order then you basically skip large parts of the game. Are you actually rewarding the player for being good or are you punishing them by basically taking things away? I understand the concept fine, stop calling me stupid, if you're a big bad knight or something small weak goblins run away, I geddit. But if you kill Gnork the goblin chief before say doing quests in the area then the quests become irrelevant. Don't you see? I'm talking about content.

I think once again your reading fails you.

1. I specifically said that leave a margin around the level difference required to "avoid" NOT skip an encounter. Here is the relevant piece:

The simple solution to avoid level scaling is designing the game such that each encounter is balanced for a given level and its vicinity.

In the vicinity can be adjusted by the player in the game options. If you enjoy fighting mobs under your level, then, by all means, set it to 0, so no mob runs from you. For most normal people, it will be adjusted to what the designer thinks is appropriate.

2. I am not sure what your complaint is? So you kill the boss Goblin and then the other goblins run away at your sight. Is that not normal? Also, you can always chase after them and kill them in the way it is presented. So where is the issue again?

I was just trying to make the case for why level scaling might not be terrible. Like, if you take my example, if you kill the goblin chief and get a ton of XP from that fight you can still take the quest to save a kidnapped pet pig from the goblin camp, which would be a non-quest at higher levels where enemies run from you and they stay the same. Why can't the goblins be as elite as goblins can be then just to make the pig rescue quest work? I don't see what is to be gained by making areas so compartmentalized.

 

[V_K]

If it is fundamentally different then you have another kind of game on your hands?

I've cited some examples, haven't I? It boils down to certain systems, like stealth and combat, or puzzles and combat, having shared elements and enhancing each other despite being fundamentally different. In principle, you can even merge diplomacy with combat quite well, we've discussed this a little bit in this thread. So no, having fundamentally different gameplay styles doesn't mean you have two games in one - it just means creating a more intricate core system.

Does it have to be fundamentally different to be worthwhile?

I've already answered that too:

Nothing wrong, but "RPG with reskinned combat" isn't the same as "RPG with no combat".

What you're suggesting is kinda like Puzzle Quest, only the other way around: Puzzle Quest took match-3 gameplay and reskinned it as RPG combat, and you're talking about reskinning RPG combat as diplomacy. It sure could make for an interesting experiment, but it would remain a kind of combat, just like Puzzle Quest remains a kind of match-3 game.

 

[Nyx]

If it is fundamentally different then you have another kind of game on your hands?

I've cited some examples, haven't I? It boils down to certain systems, like stealth and combat, or puzzles and combat, having shared elements and enhancing each other despite being fundamentally different. In principle, you can even merge diplomacy with combat quite well, we've discussed this a little bit in this thread. So no, having fundamentally different gameplay styles doesn't mean you have two games in one - it just means creating a more intricate core system.

Does it have to be fundamentally different to be worthwhile?

I've already answered that too:

Nothing wrong, but "RPG with reskinned combat" isn't the same as "RPG with no combat".

What you're suggesting is kinda like Puzzle Quest, only the other way around: Puzzle Quest took match-3 gameplay and reskinned it as RPG combat, and you're talking about reskinning RPG combat as diplomacy. It sure could make for an interesting experiment, but it would remain a kind of combat, just like Puzzle Quest remains a kind of match-3 game.

So basically you agree but think it should still be called combat? I don't know about that, it's conflict resolution, sure, but since you're not whacking people or monsters it can't be called combat anymore imho. I do like the idea of making the usually very separated diplomacy skills useful during combat though. Seems like a neat idea and then CHA wouldn't be a dump-stat for efficient players.

 

[Nyx]

I was just trying to make the case for why level scaling might not be terrible. Like, if you take my example, if you kill the goblin chief and get a ton of XP from that fight you can still take the quest to save a kidnapped pet pig from the goblin camp, which would be a non-quest at higher levels where enemies run from you and they stay the same. Why can't the goblins be as elite as goblins can be then just to make the pig rescue quest work? I don't see what is to be gained by making areas so compartmentalized.

Idiotic quests like "rescue the piggy of XP" with no consequences are absolutely a curse and should be gotten rid off anyway.

That was just an example, usually non-MMOs have more involved quests and the more involved they are the more you are missing out on by being too good for certain areas and stuff. A good writer and designer could put together a quest for a lost pig that was really involved and exciting. Kinda like a good salesman could sell you a pen even if pencils are trivial things and you don't really need one. It's all in how you go about it, just add some misdirection, some surprise and do it with style and it will be good. All that is besides the point though, the quest could be anything, a murder mystery, anything, and you'd miss out on it due to being over-leveled. If the game is only about combat without much of a pretense in regards to story and context then sure, it can be like an arcade game where you get a bigger highscore the less you grind. But if the game is more varied then I see many problems with the approach you describe.

 

[Nyx]

An encounter that is fundamentally implicated in a quest and thematically appropriate for it, is by definition not trash. Thus, that encounter can simply be flagged not to have the mob running away from you. Problem solved.

Ok, have any game actually done what you propose? I'd like to see what it looks like in action.

 

[Latro]

what is trash combat?

For years, I have longed for an RPG with no combat.

not an RPG, idiot

First, combat avoidance, be it through stealth, finding alternative routes, or alternative ways to take the enemies out, is a gameplay mechanic

is a stealth game like Thief, or a mere combat mechanic (underrail stealth, fallout talking, etc). Codex has a real bad time understanding the distinction between "no combat" and "avoiding combat via skills".

 

[rusty_shackleford]

not an RPG, idiot

It can be, but it's very rare. The only real example I can think of is Harvest Moon.

 

[Latro]

not an RPG, idiot

It can be, but it's very rare. The only real example I can think of is Harvest Moon.

genre muddling; harvest moon is a farming simulator/RPG. no combat mechanics, but RPG-like farming mechanics.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

not an RPG, idiot

It can be, but it's very rare. The only real example I can think of is Harvest Moon.

genre muddling; harvest moon is a farming simulator/RPG. no combat mechanics, but RPG-like farming mechanics.

It's an example of how combat can be replaced with something else. I'll admit the SNES version was simplistic(but great), but it's not like anything else has really attempted it sans descendants of Harvest Moon.
Simply removing the combat just leaves you with an adventure game.

 

[Latro]

It's an example of how combat can be replaced with something else.

Combat cannot be replaced with something else for it to be considered an RPG. Harvest Moon is "-RPG", but not "RPG". It is a farming simulator first and foremost and the RPG suffix can be added or discarded freely.

We can also compare and contrast HM to Rune Factory, which adds RPG combat to the formula and can be intelligibly said to be "more RPG" than HM, because it IS actually an RPG.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I think your starting premise is wrong, lukaszek. While Disco Disco might get a lot of hate from the morons in Shoutbox, need I remind you that is the RPG Codex RPG of the Year for 2019? All the inclined codexers loved it.

 

[Nyx]

Mount and blade has the feature that the low levels mobs flee from you.

That's not an RPG lol, but I will check out Blackguards and the Expeditions games in the future. SoZ I doubt I will ever play, I just don't like the engine of NWN2.

 

[CaffeineConquistador]

not an RPG, idiot

It can be, but it's very rare. The only real example I can think of is Harvest Moon.

genre muddling; harvest moon is a farming simulator/RPG. no combat mechanics, but RPG-like farming mechanics.

It's an example of how combat can be replaced with something else. I'll admit the SNES version was simplistic(but great), but it's not like anything else has really attempted it sans descendants of Harvest Moon.
Simply removing the combat just leaves you with an adventure game.

Stardew Valley? Never played it, but it’s pretty loved.

 

[Ol' Willy]

1. Expeditions series; all trash combat is avoidable with skills or in general avoidable
2. SoZ from NWN2
3. Blackguards
4. Mount and blade has the feature that the low levels mobs flee from you.

And two more titles: HoMM and AoD.

In HoMM, if you outlevel random critters hard enough, they will attempt to flee. You can let them go or fight them.
In AoD, you have bodycount option that allows you to tell some random wankers to fuck off if you don't want to fight them.

 

[octavius]

In HoMM, if you outlevel random critters hard enough, they will attempt to flee. You can let them go or fight them.

Might&Magic 2, as well. One of several feature of that game I really like.

 

[mondblut]

I don't like adventure games and visual novels, so naturally B. Poor gameplay > no gameplay.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

A good example of a trash combat game is Icewind Dale 1. The game just sends you dozens of easily exposable skeletons, lizardmen and yeti's.

They're trash if you play on normal, at higher difficulty they're not so trashy anymore.

In my opinion a RPG should have a balance between easy(trash mobs), medium, hard and super hard(bosses) encounters. Baldur's Gate 2 has the best encounter design in a RPG that i've played so far, just because the encounters are very diverse difficulty wise. In Icewind Dale there's less trash mobs than BG2 but there's also less difficulty spikes, they tried to make every encounter medium to hard and the game can feel a little bit monotonous because of that.

The key is balance.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Lurker47]

Trash combat because if it's turn-based, I can still enjoy it.