Isn't it ironic?

[Wrath of Dagon]

But now there are much better tactical combat simulators, I've never seen an RPG I'd play just for the combat.

[Xard]

That's because CRPG's haven't had great combat since IWD

 

edit: and what's example of "much better tactical combat simulator"? If you mean games like Jagged Alliance 2 they have incorporated so heavily RPG elements some regard them as such

Edited August 4, 2008 by Xard

[Monte Carlo]

^ I take Josh and Gromnir's points on this completely. Of course you can track how many times Bob the adventurer used Shield Parry, Battleaxe Attack and Open Lock in one pen & paper gaming session.

 

I don't see why you can't use a variant in a CRPG.

 

1. The "Diablo" XP bar you see going up everytime you kill a monster. Except it doesn't represent levelling at all - it represents your skill bonus with that weapon type and that mode of attack. So you aren't 'levelling up' in the traditional way, you're just improving your skills.

 

2. How to control this to counter "Mudcrab Murder" syndrome as described by Crashgirl? I'd have a number of mechanisms, i.e. perhaps only certain battles allow for skill experience gain (set a challenge rating - i.e. bashing up rats and goblins earns you nothing).

 

3. You could build in all sorts of 'hidden' skill advantages / disadvantages contingent on how you play (i.e. somebody who takes repeated hits to the head could get tougher but dumber, someone who prefers light weapons and sneaking could get even sneakier but have a penalty to heavier weapons and armour). The fun is figuring out what they are and how they work.

 

4. Forget quest based XP... you could 'win' perks, bonuses or experience instead depending on how you completed a battle or a quest. For example, if Bob chooses to hack up the ogre guarding the bridge he gets a bonus in axe use (and a hidden mechanic is tracking his ogre-massacre count to eventually unlock a hidden 'favoured enemy' bonus) whereas if Dave talks his way out of it his reward isn't XP, it's a boost to his dialogue skills and perhaps a hidden mechanic tracking his ogre-sweet-talking skills to eventually unlock a dialogue bonus versus monstrous humanoids. Lastly, Boris does something extraordinarily wacky, unusual and doomed ot failure. The "Heroic Failure" feat timer is activated which might lead to something entirely different happening, maybe a karmic sympathy bonus from ogres bear with me, I'm making this up on the fly).

 

Basically, the mechanics are hidden. Allow the player to play the way they want and let them find out how it develops their character.

 

Probably crazy to code and implement, but I throw it in for discussion.

 

Cheers

MC

[J.E. Sawyer]

Honestly, I think it's really sad that RPGs essentially get a pass on having fundamentally junk core gameplay. And yes, I do consider combat to be a core gameplay element of most RPGs. Even in Fallout, combat was one of the core elements.

[Monte Carlo]

Like I say time and again, the challenge is to please the story-junkies and the tactics junkies at the same time.

 

A CRPG without combat is just a talking book. Planescape is a brave exception that proves the rule. My views on PS:T are on the record: My eyes bled and I didn't finish it.

 

Having said that, a brilliant combat engine without a story or atmosphere is also lame - look at Troika's ToEE. The combat was excellent, really really good. The game sucked.

 

Personally, a fantasy version of JA:2, a hundred hours long with some witty NPCs and dialogue would be my ideal game. D&D: Tactics with attitude.

 

Cheers

MC

[Gromnir]

"I'd have a number of mechanisms"

 

mc said lots more than this, so it may seem unfair that we lift one phrase out, but lifted bit illustrates the big difference 'tween Gromnir pov and mc's.

 

quest xp is simple and results in all players getting equal xp regardless o' their character build or the manner in which they choose to solve quests and play game. 1 simple and elegant solution.

 

mc, on the other hand, would have developers apply a number o' mechanisms to attempt to achieve largely the same end. the more complex and numerous the mechanisms, the more likely they is to break.... is virtually axiomatic.

 

Gromnir, being a dull person with limited imagination and having a preference for elegant simplicity, would much prefer the straightforward and less complicated approach, so that developers can then spend time and efforts on adding meaningful content to game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's because CRPG's haven't had great combat since IWD

 

edit: and what's example of "much better tactical combat simulator"? If you mean games like Jagged Alliance 2 they have incorporated so heavily RPG elements some regard them as such

RTS games would be one, military simulators another.

 

It's tough for RPG combat to compete with a game that's dedicated to combat, although RPG combat should at least be fun. I play RPG's for elements other than combat, too much combat can actually get in the way.

[J.E. Sawyer]

It's true that, by the simple nature of allocated time, a game that splits focus between multiple types of gameplay will have a lot of difficulty matching a game dedicated to a single (or at least fewer) types of gameplay. But you can still use a focused subset of features. For example, I think Oblivion's stealth was pretty enjoyable. It was honestly the first time in ages that I've enjoyed using stealth in an RPG. Their stealth mechanics were nowhere near as robust as those in Splinter Cell or Thief, but they were still satisfying.

[Kelverin]

too much combat can actually get in the way.

Yep, it come to the point that it seems nothing but fluff to stretch games length, rather than anything memorable or challenging