Editorial Vince D Weller on Non-Combat Gameplay

[Lumpy]

You don't know what an RPG is, Lumpy

I don't give a fuck what an RPG is in your opinion is, really. AoD sounds like a fine game to play - who gives a fuck about the genre?

and I don't think I appreciate your tone.

My sweet talk didn't win you?

Combat is a very important part of RPG.

Yeah, combat is a very important part of 90% of the RPGs so far. Your point is?

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.

And as far as I know, AoD allows you to play it and explore dungeons, kill people and, you know, have an RPG experience. But obviously, everyone should be forced to play it like that - because if you admitted otherwise, you'd ruin your "grumpy old hardcore RPG fan" image, which you so desperately try to create for yourself.

Also, I have no idea what's up with this hostile demeanour.

Hostile demeanor? On the Codex? Blasphemy!

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.

Because lack of "real RPG experience" (= playing tons of crappy dungeon hacks which I don't like) is such a horrible flaw to one. Because discussion MotB without having played the Gold Box games is truly impossible. Fuck you.

 

[caliban]

Jasede, you're retarded.

He might be, but this time he is right. There should be parts of the game that involve combat only. Why?

- Realism. Not every situation can be believably resolved with nonviolent means. I'm not really a fan of pillaging orcs or other random encounters, but sometimes violence IS inevitable, so you can't be a brave diplomat every time. It breaks the suspension of disbelief when you can talk everyone out of attacking you, or alway find a convenient shade to hide in.

- Balance. If there are specific things a diplomatic or knowledgeable character can achieve, there should also be quests than let a combat oriented character use his abilities. Otherwise you get something along the lines of PST, where there was no reason NOT to play a wizard with maxed int/wis/cha.

- Variety. I personally like asymetric quest systems (where some quests/paths are restricted for certain characters, and not the same stuff for everyone with just a "fight/talk/sneak" choice). Fallout is a good example: while there are lots of cool options exclusive for a diplomatic character, there were also "go in with guns blazing" quests.

- Challenge. If combat is inevitable, the character/player must handle it. Prepare himself, perhaps use the environment to his advantage, seek allies. It's good, because it forces the player to do something different for a change of pace (i.e. face an encounter his character is not optimized for).

 

[obediah]

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.

I want freedom and diversity for the sake of realism, not for the sake of freedom and diversity. Having a vent by every door as well as a guard staring at a wall with a key on the back of his belt is worse than just not having locked doors.

That is the main reason I prefer party RPGs. If you give the player 6 characters to manage, you can feel comfortable throwing any challenge you want at the player, and only provide reasonable options for meeting the challenge.

 

[Lumpy]

Jasede, you're retarded.

He might be, but this time he is right. There should be parts of the game that involve combat only. Why?

- Realism. Not every situation can be believably resolved with nonviolent means. I'm not really a fan of pillaging orcs or other random encounters, but sometimes violence IS inevitable, so you can't be a brave diplomat every time. It breaks the suspension of disbelief when you can talk everyone out of attacking you, or alway find a convenient shade to hide in.

Obviously, that would be ridiculous. That's why a diplomat should make sure nobody has any reason to attack him. It should be challenging, just like the combat path should be. Neither should by any means be impossible.
And while an assassin or an imperial legionnaire should, and obviously will, often need to get his hands dirty, a merchant or a grifter should be able to survive without combat skills. Which is not to say that combat skill shouldn't help a merchant at times and accomplish goals unreachable by diplomacy. And the reverse goes for assassins.

- Balance. If there are specific things a diplomatic or knowledgeable character can achieve, there should also be quests than let a combat oriented character use his abilities. Otherwise you get something along the lines of PST, where there was no reason NOT to play a wizard with maxed int/wis/cha.

- Variety. I personally like asymetric quest systems (where some quests/paths are restricted for certain characters, and not the same stuff for everyone with just a "fight/talk/sneak" choice). Fallout is a good example: while there are lots of cool options exclusive for a diplomatic character, there were also "go in with guns blazing" quests.

I fully agree, there should be a number of combat quests and non-combat quests. The majority should allow both means. Why? To save time. Creating a quest with two solutions is faster than creating two different ones.

- Challenge. If combat is inevitable, the character/player must handle it. Prepare himself, perhaps use the environment to his advantage, seek allies. It's good, because it forces the player to do something different for a change of pace (i.e. face an encounter his character is not optimized for).

Why? Why screw non-combat chars over? Why should a combat character easily get through by bashing skulls, yet a non-combat one have to try really hard to use skills he never developed?
Unless, of course, said diplomat used his talents carelessly and pissed off important people who now want him dead. A battle for survival would be appropriate, but it can of course be a battle of wits - quickly collect information, make a plan, and do something before the hitman finds you.

 

[Sarvis]

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?

I would say if it doesn't test SOME ability it isn't gameplay. Adventure games test puzzle solving ability.

(Actual adventure games, that is... not Final Fantasy. FF works on light tactical abilities, except for FF12 which I'm not sure qualifies as a game... so we're all consistent here.)

 

[Ander Vinz]

It should be challenging, just like the combat path should be.

Brilliant point. I think there's a big difference between "[diplomacy] give me everything you have and kill yourself" and famous Arcanum's thief disguise in Shrouded Hills.

 

[Ander Vinz]

- Realism. Not every situation can be believably resolved with nonviolent means. I'm not really a fan of pillaging orcs or other random encounters, but sometimes violence IS inevitable, so you can't be a brave diplomat every time. It breaks the suspension of disbelief when you can talk everyone out of attacking you, or alway find a convenient shade to hide in.

Oh, not this realistic crap again. We're not playing games for realism, are we?
I believe that realism doesn't matter as long as it makes sence in game. Why can't everyone be Marco Polo or Garret in rpg? Why is it always Conan we are roleplaying? No Rincewinds, no fat drunks with amazing hacking skills, only slutty chicks in platemail bikinis and genetic-modified swordsmen. Fuck this.

 

[Jasede]

I would just like to add, I don't think Jasede has ever earned his grumpiness.

I'd like to add that I am most likely one of the people on this forum who have played the most RPGs and are in a good position to talk about them because they know a lot of them and have seen how they developed. I might not be fourty but I am well versed in my RPG-fu and I believe I have any right to call out some little kid who hasn't even played ten percent of the RPGs I have.

Also, I don't care if VD has a different RPG paradigm than I or Shagnak (praise!); it's still important that multiple opinions are voiced.

 

[denizsi]

That's true now. Even though I find your viewpoint retarded, diversity is always good, as long as any certain group isn't trying to impose some shit on others.

Jasede's examples on previous page were valid as "wrong choices"; I certainly wouldn't call them "absolutely unavoidable". If you're a diplomatic character, or a rich, or both or something similar, you either hire/convince/blackmail people to escort you, pay/convince/disguise to join an elite travelling group (nobles and whatnot), find the safe routes through maps/reports and so on and so forth. Ending up in his examples as a diplomatic character would just mean that the character failed to follow the necessities of his profession, just like a fighter die in combat because he went in with a butter knife against armored opponents.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

It's a good point, but you have to consider that pretty much every RPG has non-combat options come in a "pick this option to avoid combat" button.

Basically, VD is wrong. Combat is used most often not because people are retarded and like killing things mindlessly, but because people want to do more than simply press a button to solve a problem.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I think retardedness seems to be going around. We've got "combat must be forced on you at some point" and "dialogue is no fun" being stated.

- Challenge. If combat is inevitable, the character/player must handle it. Prepare himself, perhaps use the environment to his advantage, seek allies. It's good, because it forces the player to do something different for a change of pace (i.e. face an encounter his character is not optimized for).

Why not make dialogue inevitable and force characters to be able to handle that?

Basically, VD is wrong. Combat is used most often not because people are retarded and like killing things mindlessly, but because people want to do more than simply press a button to solve a problem.

How is that really any different to what goes on in Diablo? You click on the enemy, hold down the mouse button and your problem is solved. You may have also missed the parts where VD explicitly said there should be more to it than "click the longest dialogue option and win". He talked about finding a book or talking to that character to get the information you need before you could do whatever it was without combat.

I agree that if it is "just a magic button" then there's little enjoyment in that, particularly if there are numerous options available, all of which lead to the same result with little difference between them but VD clearly said you needed to have more than just the magic button.

 

[caliban]

@ Lumpy: I'm reconsidering my view of this matter now. You may have convinced me. I'll make up my mind next thursday and let you know.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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...

JRPGs are RPGs' distant (some say retarded) cousin, so "I've done that in JRPGs and it sucks" is a weak argument.

Non-combat solutions aren't as simple as the combat crowd paint them. How many people figured out that you can blow up the radscorpions cave's entrance and seal it? Convincing the Master that his plan won't work is also a bit more complicated than picking the right dialogue option.

Torment's dialogues are another good example. Plenty of in-game knowledge requirements. As far as I know nobody played that game for its combat.

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" ...

http://www.zero-sum.com/walkthrough/vaunisChild.html
Not gameplay? Note all the options and outcomes.

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.

The reason that most RPGs consist mostly of combat is because people like killing things. Coincidentally, most people are confused by choices and don't like complexity, so RPG combat these days is dreadfully easy and painfully simplistic.

"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.

As Denizsi pointed out, "ending up in your examples as a diplomatic character would just mean that the character failed to follow the necessities of his profession." You are a diplomatic character. You thrive in safe environments where your eloquence and persuasiveness give you an edge, but you are vulnerable when you travel. So what do you do to avoid unpleasant and usually lethal surprises? Wouldn't an intelligent character think ahead and prepare?

- Realism. Not every situation can be believably resolved with nonviolent means. I'm not really a fan of pillaging orcs or other random encounters, but sometimes violence IS inevitable, so you can't be a brave diplomat every time. It breaks the suspension of disbelief when you can talk everyone out of attacking you...

You can't. See my Bloodlines example.

Basically, VD is wrong. Combat is used most often not because people are retarded and like killing things mindlessly, but because people want to do more than simply press a button to solve a problem.

Is that what I suggested? A big "win with diplomacy!" button?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Is that what I suggested? A big "win with diplomacy!" button?

No, but this is what is almost always done. Even talking the Master out of his plan is clicking a "win with diplomacy" button over and over again. (although Fallout does it so well most people don't notice) That's actually a very well done option. Poorly done "win with diplomacy" buttons exist in Bloodlines, (press the blue/pink text and you won't have to fight, guaranteed) and both Neverwinter Nights games. (hit the option with Persuade/Diplomacy next to it, and win a chance to avoid the encounter!)

From the dialogues I've seen of AoD, the "win with diplomacy" buttons seem to be logically placed and rare, one of the reasons I'm looking forward to it.

I'm sure you'll find me plenty of counter-examples, but most RPGs seem to have plenty of "win with diplomacy!" buttons.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Non-combat solutions aren't as simple as the combat crowd paint them. How many people figured out that you can blow up the radscorpions cave's entrance and seal it? Convincing the Master that his plan won't work is also a bit more complicated than picking the right dialogue option.

Ah, I missed your counter-examples. Yes, Fallout and Torment do more than just add a "win with diplomacy button". If only more RPGs did the same.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

(...)

"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.

You are right in that there are situations that must not have a "diplomatic" way to be solved, but even then there should be options for characters unable, or unwilling to fight. First: if a road or region is plagued by orcs or bandits it should not be a "suprise", as it usually turns out to be. The character should hear about it from people, merchants, et cetera. Then you should have the option to hire mercenaries to protect you through the area, or join a heavily guarded caravan (previous payment from you) that goes through that route, or take an alternative route (pay a lot of money to travel by sea instead of going by foot?), and many more depending on previous choices, allies obtained, character skills and general blah blah. The point is that no character should be forced to fight, not that all situations should be solved by means of a silver tongue.

And a charimastic diplomat would hire a scout, ranger, or whatever before venturing in wolf country... or at least one smart enought to recognize his strenghts lie elsewhere.

 

[hakuroshi]

I don't think VD point is to force non-violent path on everyone (like obligatory combat in most RPGs).
But non-violent paths actually enrich rpg, whatever someone may say about filthy LARPers. But then it should be consistent gamedesign-wise: all plot quests should be solveable both by combat and diplomacy (and stealth and something more, maybe). The trick is to make all three Boys viable options and their paths unique (as much as reasonably possible). Not all quests may be available to all, and some may be more easy to specific build. Like some item may be easily stolen, but hardly barganed for, and to Combat Boy it may be more sense to find some bandits and beat the similar item of question from them, then try to break into governors villa.
Well all of it are pretty obvious and already have been told many times.

 

[Sarvis]

JRPGs are RPGs' distant (some say retarded) cousin,

If by cousin you mean elder brother, maybe. You know, considering the first RPGs on computers were basically what jRPGs are now...

Non-combat solutions aren't as simple as the combat crowd paint them.

Actually, they generally are. Any decent combat can take a half-dozen turns and a ton of decisions to make. Even in the relatively simple (due to only controlling one character) Fallout combat, on a single turn you're deciding between different weapons, different called shots, different targets and different items to use. In a dialog, you get maybe 6 options... half of which are just informational and can be repeated one or two of which might lead to a non-combat solution, but they'll only appear work if skill X is over Y.

It's kind of retarded when you compare the strategy and decision making that go into a simple combat even to a moderately complex dialog tree.

http://www.zero-sum.com/walkthrough/vaunisChild.html
Not gameplay? Note all the options and outcomes.

Wow, 6 options. 6 options which consist of "talk to object, pick option, talk to next object." Sounds thrilling. Really.

The reason that most RPGs consist mostly of combat is because people like killing things. Coincidentally, most people are confused by choices and don't like complexity, so RPG combat these days is dreadfully easy and painfully simplistic.

No, RPGs consist mostly of combat because it's incredibly easy to make that interesting. It takes a lot less time to plan an enemy combat than it does to write a dialog tree.

Is that what I suggested? A big "win with diplomacy!" button?

Yeah, the Vauni's Child quest required so much more... you had to hit the "Win With Diplomacy (or lockpicking)" <b>3</b> times!

 

[RK47]

Yes Sarvis, it seems a little crazy to have non violent shit all the time but violence is still a valid option. And fun too.
So I have no problems with VD inserting many non combat solution as long it fits.

It's better than walking up to people all the time and have 2 choices of convo:
please don't hurt us.
let's fight

 

[Sarvis]

Yes Sarvis, it seems a little crazy to have non violent shit all the time but violence is still a valid option. And fun too.
So I have no problems with VD inserting many non combat solution as long it fits.

It's better than walking up to people all the time and have 2 choices of convo:
please don't hurt us.
let's fight

That wasn't my point. I just don't think anyone's made non-combat interesting yet.

 

[hakuroshi]

That wasn't my point. I just don't think anyone's made non-combat interesting yet.

It depends on what one may find interesting. But it is true that to make a satisfying combat is much easier than to create a complex and convincing non-combat quest. Even in PnP.

 

[kris]

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.

PnP can very much be about socialising. the amount of combat I wanted in RPGs have decreased with my increase in age. My lust for having combat and in particular a lot of it disappeared with my teens.

 

[kris]

- Realism. Not every situation can be believably resolved with nonviolent means. I'm not really a fan of pillaging orcs or other random encounters, but sometimes violence IS inevitable, so you can't be a brave diplomat every time. It breaks the suspension of disbelief when you can talk everyone out of attacking you, or alway find a convenient shade to hide in.

You can always run. Really, this is totally dependant on setting and possibly story. Combat often becomes the only solution because everyone seems to force a conflict, which is just laziness on the developers. Also, most game stories revolve in taking down some sort of large very violent organisation and in most cases that makes combat a natural choice. Combat should be rare in any kind of freeform game, unless the setting is a incredible hostile one.

- Balance. If there are specific things a diplomatic or knowledgeable character can achieve, there should also be quests than let a combat oriented character use his abilities. Otherwise you get something along the lines of PST, where there was no reason NOT to play a wizard with maxed int/wis/cha.

Balance ain't a issue, none proposed a complete removal of combat, if anything every game made should have less combat just for the sake of balance.

- Variety. I personally like asymetric quest systems (where some quests/paths are restricted for certain characters, and not the same stuff for everyone with just a "fight/talk/sneak" choice). Fallout is a good example: while there are lots of cool options exclusive for a diplomatic character, there were also "go in with guns blazing" quests.

I agree to an extent. There should in most cases be a workaround, but sometimes we get those "kill the bandits" quest which simply tells you to kill them (yeah I know it would be more elegant with alternatives to just killing them)

- Challenge. If combat is inevitable, the character/player must handle it. Prepare himself, perhaps use the environment to his advantage, seek allies. It's good, because it forces the player to do something different for a change of pace (i.e. face an encounter his character is not optimized for).

Challenge can be found and put in any gameplay element.

 

[Sarvis]

Challenge can be found and put in any gameplay element.

Yeah! You could make dialogs challenging by having them randomly move around the screen so it's hard to click the response you want...

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Challenge can be found and put in any gameplay element.

Yeah! You could make dialogs challenging by having them randomly move around the screen so it's hard to click the response you want...

No. Just give dialogue design the same resources that go to combat, and create conversational situations with the same detail you design "action" encounters.

Take a conversation with ten "turns", were turn is the moment you are presented with the choice of what to say next. Begin by making options for each skill that could be related to the topic at hand, not only "diplomacy" or "Bluff", and combinations of skills. Then, made a set of those for things the character discovered about the gameworld or situation and that are related to the discussion - And, naturally, also depending on diverse skills. Then add various "moods" or "intentions" to each line were it is called for, making diferent versions of those.

The sheer number of choices in every "turn", diverse paths through the conversation depending on what you say, and the "combination" of every "turn" in the final result makes for both a very complex situation and a certain amount of player skill required - Since the options are so many to be overwhelming, and "feedback" should not be obvious at all. Where usual "trees" have so few options as to the "result" of each becoming obvious, past a certain number of options with very subtle variations (that have a meaning and aren't just cosmetic) it stops being so.

The conversation becomes a puzzle, instead of a "multiple choice" questionary. The problem is the amount of effort required - But if they have the resources to put two thousand repetitive battles, they sure have the resources to put situations like this one and remove some meaningless combat - Something i do not think anyone is going to miss at any rate.