Which items should enemies drop

[Knott]

If there are plenty of potions in the shops and a lot of them in the world at large, then it would make sense that enemies who expect to be in combat carry them and should also drop them. But it also means that opponents should be able to use the potions they have have should the opportunity present itself.

[Kissamies]

Enemies should drop all useful items what they carry, but armours should have restriction that player can use them only after smith or tanner is make them to fit for those characters who wants to wear them.

Yeah, realistically you shouldn't be able to wear other man's armour unless you are exactly same height and build. Could still sell them for scrap, but if you wanted to wear them, you'd actually have to pay for adjustments. I don't think most players would like this level of realism, however. Just pretend it's all munition armour designed to fit a wide range of wearers.

[Gatt9]

There are RPGs with no logical connection between an enemy and the items left behind after death.

 

Like, for example, wolves that mysteriously carry not only some kind of weapon or an armor but also lots of gold.

 

On the other hand you maybe kill a full plated, axe-wielding death knight and he leaves nothing but 25 pieces of gold and a potion of health.

 

In my personal opinion, this is not only rather disappointing, but also really kills the atmosphere.

 

I would like to see a logical connection in between the enemy and the loot:

 

- A wolf should drop nothing, unless you maybe have a skill that allows you to take the pelt or maybe use something as an alchemical ingredient.

- A humanoid enemy should drop the weapons, clothes and armor he was wearing.

If, for example, a town guard attacks you with a pike and wears chain mail, you should at least find something like: a pair of boots, pants, a shirt, chain mail, helmet, the pike and maybe some coin on him.

- etc.

 

To prevent people from power-selling tons of items, you could, for example add the possibility, that the weapons etc. get damaged in the fight.

If the before mentioned death knight was killed by ten heavy blows of a two handed warhammer, it would be obvious that the full plate armor is in a rather bad shape after the fight, etc.

 

I am aware that this might lead to balancing issues, but on the other hand I think, that the guys at Obsidian would be able to solve them.

 

What is your opinion an this? Should there be a chance that monsters drop all kind of stuff, or should there be a logical connection in bewteen an enemy and the loot?

 

pipboy2000

 

You're misunderstanding what is happening, though it's not your fault, as CRPG's badly implement it.

 

What's happening is what PnP RPG's term as "Incidental loot". The way it works is, some critters cannot or would not carry treasure, but you're not the first they assaulted. So lying around on the ground will be the remains of previous victims and their valueables. The wolf isn't "Carrying treasure", it's what is left in the area from past victims.

 

CRPG's have traditionally handled this very badly. Early CRPG's just gave you text that told you "You've found this!" after fights. As the years progressed, implementation didn't improve, loot came on corpses or boxes, so those wolves had the incidental treasure stuck on their bodies. Today, there still hasn't been a good implementation of Incidental Loot.

 

So it's not the loot that's the problem, but CRPG's failure to improve presentation.

[MinotaurWarrior]

probably going to be the only one, but I'd like for the enemies to drop a realistic and complete equipment, but I'd also like realistic carriage capacities for our characters: 1 armour (the equipped one), max. 3/4 weapons, including shields, bows and guns, and a few other smaller objects.

 

kinda like the inventory system in The Witcher

Which is why we should have a cart, or chests & a boat.

 

I've been reading Egil's Saga (real story of a turn-of-the-millenium viking with a rare bone disorder), and no real adventurer would enter hostile territory without the proper equipment with which to extract loot.

 

Enemies should drop all useful items what they carry, but armours should have restriction that player can use them only after smith or tanner is make them to fit for those characters who wants to wear them.

Yeah, realistically you shouldn't be able to wear other man's armour unless you are exactly same height and build. Could still sell them for scrap, but if you wanted to wear them, you'd actually have to pay for adjustments. I don't think most players would like this level of realism, however. Just pretend it's all munition armour designed to fit a wide range of wearers.

 

That completely depends on the sort of armor, and is only really true for articulated plate. Chainmail, for instance requires only as much fitting as a cloth shirt.

[Humanoid]

Mostly rehashing a previous post from about a week ago, but my preference is basically for as little as possible. Other attempted solutions haven't really done much to address the issue. The common approach of limiting carry weight (another thing I think could potentially be cut altogether) only encourages people to ferry stuff back and forth to a vendor. Alternative solutions such as DXHR's conversion of duplicate guns into ammo did the same.

 

The principle for lootable stuff I'd prefer is that you'd want to represent the most liquid stuff first:

1) Gold and other-stuff-so-close-to-gold-that-it-may-as-well-be-gold. I don't see the value in separating out little pocketable mundane valuables. Gems, jewellery, gold tooth fillings - just abstract it all into a gold sum. It's really not a big leap from your copper and silver coins magically turning into gold ones after you hold a hundred of them in close proximity to each other.

P.S. don't make the player have to manually click on the gold in the loot window please.

 

2) Weapons and other universally wieldable gear. This is the one I'm torn about most, really. It's not just stuff you can zap away, and a sword is a sword, anyone can use it so it's easily enough sold. But it's a chore, and difficult to determine how much of a realistic load it is. At the moment I'm favouring a compromise where low quality weaponry is not lootable: consider a rusty sword a zero-value item.

 

3) Bulky bespoke gear like armour.* The post is fairly old so I won't bump it, but in summary, I'd take the undoubtedly controversial option of making it completely unlootable. The primary reason is a gameplay one of trying to minimise ridiculous loot hauling, but I think it's not *too* difficult to justify from an in-universe perspective. Heavily battle-damaged, crude running repairs over the years, parts cobbled together from bits and pieces in the first place, and probably very bad BO. It's not too hard to imagine that this stuff is just scrap, and unless there's a crafting mechanic where you'd want to be collecting scrap metal, a'la Vegas, then just leave it there to rot.

 

 

 

* Without wanting to go into any great detail, the larger point in context from the previous proposal was to make armour in general a non-item: it would be an attribute on your character sheet instead of on the inventory screen, with progressive upgrading done over the course of the game. Imagine it like say, upgrading your spaceship in a space trader game.

[Dragoonlordz]

Killing stray dogs should give you fleas.

[nikolokolus]

Most people in the world are probably poor, so most of the stuff they do possess should be shoddy or of inferior quality. Absolutely let it be lootable, but it should be balanced within the game's built-in economy.

[Dragoonlordz]

On a more serious note I think like many others here there should be corrolation between the animal, creature or enemy you kill and what they are carrying that gets dropped. When I step on an beetle I don't expect it to poop out a broadsword.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Tuco Benedicto]

Weapons should always be lootable stuff, armors should be very rare unless for specific enemies (most of the times the game should just imply that what enemy thugs were wearing went ruined during the battle, if you really care for that sort of stuff) and yeah, beasts should "drop" their pelts/scales/teeth according to how useful that stuff can be and nothing more.

[Dragoonlordz]

Weapons should always be lootable stuff, armors should be very rare unless for specific enemies (most of the times the game should just imply that what enemy thugs were wearing went ruined during the battle, if you really care for that sort of stuff) and yeah, beasts should "drop" their pelts/scales/teeth according to how useful that stuff can be and nothing more.

 

There is room for beast to drop things other than their body parts like teeth etc. But depends on the scale of the beast itself. For example I imagine a Krakken or a Dragon would of ate it's fair share of people in it's time so might have some bling in it's belly but small beasts that really would never digest armour or weapons don't make sense for them to drop such.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Wombat]

Related with lore, people in a certain cultures may value a specific animal's fang/fur, especially if such items have gotten important roles in their daily lives/beliefs.* Likewise, groups with advanced technology compared with the standards of other areas may find other usages to a certain materials.

 

*Maybe, some items price can be high during the time of their festivals/rituals but I wonder if Obsidian is going this far. A possible quest with such flavor would be nice. I liked some quests in Morrowind, which reflects people's lives and beliefs.

[Humanoid]

Going against my own preference for having no vendor selling restrictions; but I do have to say that loot bloat is a serious enough fun-killer such that I'm backing the approach of making no vendors accept the majority of lootable crap. Even trade goods would have no direct vendor value for this purpose, let alone animal parts.

 

My nirvana is being able to walk away from a big melee having looted nothing but "gold" and perhaps the sword of the foe's leader.

[Wombat]

I think that the designers will choose somewhere in between since they are talking of even "mining" skill (not confirmed as a skill but just mentioned as an example in Tim Cain's video), for example. It may basically work like FONV but the prices of vendors buying the item may vary depending on the conditions and local needs. I know Arcanum's crafting system was not popular among some people, too.

 

In any case, in general, if I, or any other person thought that the designer should do exactly what we stated, then, they wouldn't be able to make a game. They are game masters and we are telling our opinions and views as their players. Actually, I think Sawyer and Cain are one of the best possible combinations when it comes to this type of game design.

[SnideCipher]

The only thing a rat should drop is a rat's tail. If you are fighting the god of rats however, it may drop some rat's fangs + 8.

[Gorth]

The only thing a rat should drop is a rat's tail. If you are fighting the god of rats however, it may drop some rat's fangs + 8.

...or just a rat tail large enough to use as a rope

 

I generally dislike the idea of slain opponents "dropping loot". Sure, they may have the odd scrap of metal or strip of leather that can be used after I'm done bashing them, spraying acid at them and then having my esteemed companions fry, freeze, puncture and petrify them. So yeah, I'm of the school that thinks enemies are more important for the experience and whatever they were blocking access to (and possible the odd recycle resource in rare instances).

[Wombat]

I generally dislike the idea of slain opponents "dropping loot". Sure, they may have the odd scrap of metal or strip of leather that can be used after I'm done bashing them, spraying acid at them and then having my esteemed companions fry, freeze, puncture and petrify them. So yeah, I'm of the school that thinks enemies are more important for the experience and whatever they were blocking access to (and possible the odd recycle resource in rare instances).

No EXP for just killing, according to the video by Tim Cain.

[Gorth]

I generally dislike the idea of slain opponents "dropping loot". Sure, they may have the odd scrap of metal or strip of leather that can be used after I'm done bashing them, spraying acid at them and then having my esteemed companions fry, freeze, puncture and petrify them. So yeah, I'm of the school that thinks enemies are more important for the experience and whatever they were blocking access to (and possible the odd recycle resource in rare instances).

No EXP for just killing, according to the video by Tim Cain.

Even better

[khango]

I always assumed wolves were filled the pocket change of all the little children they ate on the way home from grandma's house.

[licketysplit]

It should be contextual. Wolves drop pelts, knights drop gold and armor, monsters drop unique body parts, bookshelves drop books, etc. Sounds obvious but a lot of RPG's don't do this and it bugs the sh*t out of me.

[True_Spike]

I'd like it to be contextual, as well, except that I'd rather if armor was not droppable. If you kill your enemy it's kind of a given his / her armor is ruined. It makes little sense to aquire armor from a dead enemy.

[TrashMan]

Enemies should drop whatever they had on them. Pack rats might have a problem with that, as there would be too many items for them to take, but that is their problem.

 

If the enemy wore armor and you killed him, then chances are that armor is not in a good shape anymore.

Furthermore, I'd probably add armor size - an armor made for na elf won't fit on a human without re-fitting. Heck, even an armor made for a human might be very uncomfortable on another human. Hence why I would have such armor have a penalty to their effectiveness, untill you go to a blacksmith and have it re-fitted for you.