Things you'd like to see in PE that haven't been done before in a cRPG

[norolim]

MARRY ME!

 

On condition that you are a sexy magic wielding goddess, but judging from your nick, you are not

I thought a more interesting and better way to handle "deaths" in combat would be to have it so that instead of you or your companions simply dying when they reach 0HP like the more classic RPGs and instead of them just being incapacitated and then getting back up, instead they'd go into a "Critical Condition" that requires healing to get back on their feet, but that they could not heal any more than a quarter of their total HP. Then they'd be stuck in that condition until they had been either taken to a temple and healed by magic (which would cost a fair amount of gold) or taken to a hospital to recover, which would not cost as much, but have them out of commission for a certain period of time while they recuperated, in which case the player would need to use alternate companions until they had. However, the player would still have to get them to one of these healing locations, and while a companion is in "Critical Condition" they would be more vulnerable, and upon dying while in that condition they really would die, in which case only a resurrection spell of some kind could bring them back.

 

I personally thought something like this would be the best of both worlds: not as punishing as the old "0HP = death" style, and not as hand-holding as "they just get up after combat, right as rain!" modern approach, and still adding some tactics and depth to the whole thing, as well as a little realism. Players would have to be more careful with Critical Condition companions if they wanted them alive, and would still have a price to pay (either monetary or time-based) to retain them.

An interesting idea. Something similar, I believe, was done in a Diabloclone called Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition (or Kult: Heretic Kingdoms in Europe). In my opinion though, this would complicate things to much. A better solution could be to have fighting characters collapse before their HP reaches 0. After all, who would be able to stand and fight, if they had so little strength left in them? It would make the game more realistic, if party members became incapacitated at 15-20% of their HP (less on higher levels) and died when they lost all health points. The enemies would stop attacking them when they collapse, unless they were a particularly mean kind, that like to mutilate bodies, and you would have a chance to heal them after the battle. Of course if they are unlucky enough and have their remaining HP taken with a single blow...well that's life. But I feel such a system would make things easier (also from the mechanics point of view) and still less punishing, when it comes to your characters dying.

Since the gods in Project Eternity are seemingly going to play a role in the story, it would be interesting to have a mechanic similar to Darklands where you could pray to saints to get temporary boons (here saints being replaced with gods). This should have consequences however; the more you pray to one the less likely his/her/its rivals are to be willing to grant you boons, possibly to the point of a rival sending a champion or creature to punish you, etc. A faction system of sorts for the deities. There could also be negatives to praying; pray to a god of war for increased prowess could lead to a berserk rage during or after a battle.

I am actually expecting to see something like this in Project Eternity.

Edited September 27, 2012 by norolim

[Baudolino05]

I always wanted to play an RPG that would be characterised by hardcore realism. I don't think Project Eternity is going to be that game, but the OP's question is what I would like, not what I expect. This super realism could be reflected in many ways:

• hunger and thirst mechanics: it's necessary to eat & drink to survive (recenty done in Eschalon series very well); of course the game would have to provide ways of acquiring food, e.g. hunting; also cooking mechanics (more below);
  
• sleep/rest mechanics: every hero has to rest and sleep, they are not machines (unless they are); therefore, sleeping every X hours should be obligatory -> staying in action for too long without sleep would result in significantly reduced effectivness (negative modifiers); again the game would have to provide suitable funcionalities, like the ability to set up camps; it would also need to make resting less of a drag; there are many ways to make it interesting...you just need to be inventive (I have lots of ideas, but it would take to much space to describe them all );
  
• setting up camps: this is associated with the above; it would allow the party to rest, eat and also cook their food over fire for additional bonuses; in camp characters could repair equipment/make simple equipment (e.g. arrows), heal wounds, gather herbs for alchemical mixtures etc;
  
• wounds don't heal themselves; magical healing potions are a rarity and are extremely expensive and/or can only help up to a certain degree; healing would be done by using special non-combat abilities, healing kits and spells when camping; healing serious wounds would take a reasonable amount of time; you could also go to a specialist to be healed quicker for a price; minor wounds would heal quickly, as usual;
  
• the party should consist of more characters than the maximum allowed in combat; if e.g. your PC walks around with a maximum of 5 characters, the whole party should have 10 members, so that if some of them are too seriously injured (and remember: healing takes time), you can substitute them with others (the old X-Com games anyone?);
  
• combat less frequent but more substantial; short skirmishes with weaker opponents, just for the fun of it, could be more frequent;
  
• day-night cycle and dynamic weather affecting NPCs' behaviour: at night they sleep, shops are closed; when raining they seek shelter and complain etc. (recently done very well in The Witcher games)
  
• weather affecting combat and characters: rain makes fire spells less effective and lightning spells more risky; wind makes ranged weapon more difficult to use; plus characters have to mind weather conditions: if they travel in snowy mountains, where temperatures are rather low, a shirt and a chain mail is not enough to protect them; wearing a full plate on a desert might not be a great idea either; if they don't have suitable equipment they suffer penalties, perhaps wounds as well;
  
• I've got more ideas, but I don't want to make this post too long...
  

I'm aware only a limited number of gamers would find such a game interesting, that's why I don't really believe it will ever be made...unless I do it myself ;P

 

You don't need to wait for the RPG of your dreams. You can just play one of the three Realms of Arkania (the second one is my favorite). In these games you have (almost) all the above and even some addictional feature, like item consumption. Once in a while, for instance, party member's boots crack, and if you don't change them ASAP your characters get sick.

 

PS: this high deegre of simulation looks great in the first place, but after 40 hours spent in a game becomes a pain in the ass. For a good designer survivalism should be a sub system of the game, not a mission of life...

Edited September 27, 2012 by Baudolino05

[LucyZephyr]

I also want a complex system of gods and favors etc, but I hope there's an option to go atheist. I particularly liked roleplaying that in Skyrim recently after my friend explained to me "You can't BE an atheist, the gods really exist in TES" and I took that as a challenge.

[Spess Merhenn]

Necromancy

[dandelion]

- Bags/sacks to store stuff must be aquired.

- Map must be aquilred. It has no markers on it.

- No quest log, just a personal journal which lists all possible things you can do, descriptions of all impotant characters you meet, notes about ways to kill beasts and formulas for things.

- Gold has a value, you can't afford nice things by looting corpses and selling stuff. You need a profession.

- Aside from having own party you can join one.

- If members of your party aren't loyal to you they can pick a new leader.

- Fewer, more powerful enemies - you can always avoid confrontation.

[LucyZephyr]

- No quest log, just a personal journal which lists all possible things you can do, descriptions of all impotant characters you meet, notes about ways to kill beasts and formulas for things.

 

That works for a hardcore mode, but as someone who can't play games straight through and often has to drop them for a week or a month at a time.... big no thank you. I rely heavily on quest logs in games to remember what I was doing.

[nikolokolus]

Wow, so what hasn't been done in a cRPG in the last 30 years? I'm not sure I can think of anything.

 

But there are things I would like to see that I don't think have been done particularly well, or have only gotten very shallow treatment in these games.

 

1. More moving parts. Too often game worlds and stories revolve so heavily around the actions of the PC, that the world ends up feeling kind of wooden and lifeless.

2. Big changes should be palpable beyond just some new NPC dialogue. I'd love to see the consequences of killing the local dragon leading to a huge run of scavengers on the old wyrm's lair, perhaps rival adventuring parties raid the PC's party, or the local magistrate tries to tax you, swindlers and scam artists try to get you to invest in some new venture, etc.

3. Misenchanted items. when you craft that magical suit of armor or weapon, there needs to be a chance for screwing up ... not that the item fails to be enchanted, but that unforeseen, negative effects get imbued with the item and you don't know it until you use it for awhile. This might be a nice explanation for how cursed items get into the world.

[Klaleara]

A siege. All sieges are done fairly small, and pretty lame. But a large, un-scripted, epic siege, would be amazing.

[Malcador]

Well, it's been done somewhat, but party members reacting strongly to your actions or statements up to the point where they'll betray, rob, leave or attempt to kill you is always nice. Makes your party seem more fleshed out and real.

 

Also, a world where events have their own schedules rather than being on a discrete path set by player actions.

[nikolokolus]

Well, it's been done somewhat, but party members reacting strongly to your actions or statements up to the point where they'll betray, rob, leave or attempt to kill you is always nice. Makes your party seem more fleshed out and real.

 

Also, a world where events have their own schedules rather than being on a discrete path set by player actions.

 

Just so long as they aren't like the water chip countdown in Fallout 1, they would really add to the atmosphere of the game. It would be like hearing rumors of war and things like that, or some geopolitical shift that doesn't directly affect the outcome of the game, but would add flavor and give the game world a pulse.

[Malcador]

Well yeah, I'll concede the critical path of the plot shouldn't move along in real time, it steals from the game to be rushing along against a clock. Unless you can keep doing actions to stall your village being burned or your King dying to some curse or whatever the "We must go!" reason is.

[ogrezilla]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Edited September 27, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shardbearer]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Don't forget personal hygiene, Charisma goes down the more you forget to brush your teeth/clean your nails...

 

I think there's a limit to the realism of the game. I play games to escape the mundanity (probably not a word) of my life, and giving me a second platform in which to worry about where I'm getting lunch wouldn't be very much fun for me.

[kenup]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Don't forget personal hygiene, Charisma goes down the more you forget to brush your teeth/clean your nails...

 

I think there's a limit to the realism of the game. I play games to escape the mundanity (probably not a word) of my life, and giving me a second platform in which to worry about where I'm getting lunch wouldn't be very much fun for me.

We should also use toothpicks(too much and you ruin your mouth hygiene) after every meal. Also make sure you always have a pair of toilet paper rolls with you, cause you know... you never know when nature calls.

Edited September 27, 2012 by kenup

[LucyZephyr]

Well, it's been done somewhat, but party members reacting strongly to your actions or statements up to the point where they'll betray, rob, leave or attempt to kill you is always nice. Makes your party seem more fleshed out and real.

 

Oh god, having flashbacks to leaving Morrigan in camp because MORRIGAN DISAPPROVES -5.

 

I doubt this dev team would make such an approval system so irritating, and I like the idea a lot, but man, talk about bad memories.

[norolim]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Don't forget personal hygiene, Charisma goes down the more you forget to brush your teeth/clean your nails...

 

I think there's a limit to the realism of the game. I play games to escape the mundanity (probably not a word) of my life, and giving me a second platform in which to worry about where I'm getting lunch wouldn't be very much fun for me.

We should also use toothpicks(too much and you ruin your mouth hygiene) after every meal. Also make sure you always have a pair of toilet paper rolls with you, cause you know... you never know when nature calls.

 

As I said before, realism in RPGs is not for everyone. There aren't too many gamers, that would enjoy the level of realism I like in my games.

Edited September 27, 2012 by norolim

[ogrezilla]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Don't forget personal hygiene, Charisma goes down the more you forget to brush your teeth/clean your nails...

 

I think there's a limit to the realism of the game. I play games to escape the mundanity (probably not a word) of my life, and giving me a second platform in which to worry about where I'm getting lunch wouldn't be very much fun for me.

We should also use toothpicks(too much and you ruin your mouth hygiene) after every meal. Also make sure you always have a pair of toilet paper rolls with you, cause you know... you never know when nature calls.

 

As I said before, realism in RPGs is not for everyone. There aren't too many gamers, that would enjoy the level of realism I like in my games.

Considering the games this is trying to pay homage to, I don't think we should expect that type of realism in this game. I have said a few times I want this to be a fantasy game, not an adventure simulator. I would actually very much enjoy an adventure simulator. I just don't want this to be it.

[lordgizka]

Well, I would like to see a setting that would feel fundamentally alien at least in one particular aspect: be it structure of sentient society, nature, cosmology or anything else, really. Very few fantasy and sci-fi writers go this route. Definitely not Bioware, who simply take ALL modern sensibilities in every subject conceivable and slap into their games.

Edited September 27, 2012 by lordgizka

[GhostofAnakin]

What I'd like to call "A chain reaction of events". Basically, through your decisions and corresponding actions, you can change the landscape of the game world.

 

For example, you've got two different factions at odds with one another, but an action against one could have consequences for both scenarios.

 

The first scenario sees two individuals vying to become King of a given area. One is more of a "good" person, while the other one relies on intimidation and fear to rule. The latter's strength comes from his association with the assassin's guild, which he uses to methodically eliminate anyone who opposes his challenge to the throne.

 

The second scenario sees that aforementioned assassin's guild being threatened by a rogue group of assassins trying to take over as the preeminent guild. The thing is, the rogue group is a lot more violent, a lot less discriminating about what contracts they'll take on, while the current guild, while not "good", have a code of conduct about who they'll kill (ie. no children, no priests, etc.).

 

So with those two scenarios in mind, this is where the player's choice could set off a chain of events. If the player decides to take sides in the assassins guild conflict, his choice could affect the battle for king even if the player isn't even aware yet that there *is* a battle for the throne, simply by siding with one or the other assassin group. If they side with the current guild, then the "evil" potential-king takes the throne because of his alliance with the guild. If the player sides with the rogue assassins, then the "evil" potential-king is weakened and the good king takes the throne, but at the expense of a violent, uncontrollable guild of assassins now running around.

 

This has two main selling points for me:

1-The player has a noticeable impact on the game world without even knowing it. It could provide a "holy crap, what did I just do" moment later on in the game when you learn about what your actions earlier with regards to the guild wars had on an entire kingdom.

2-The player has to think choices through more carefully, and more importantly, pay attention. Perhaps there are hints throughout the quest to side with one guild over another about the alliance to the "evil" would-be king, so the player has to take that into account when deciding who to side with.

[kenup]

I really don't want to have to eat and drink. Do we have to go to the bathroom too? If I don't stop and shave should my party grow beards?

Don't forget personal hygiene, Charisma goes down the more you forget to brush your teeth/clean your nails...

 

I think there's a limit to the realism of the game. I play games to escape the mundanity (probably not a word) of my life, and giving me a second platform in which to worry about where I'm getting lunch wouldn't be very much fun for me.

We should also use toothpicks(too much and you ruin your mouth hygiene) after every meal. Also make sure you always have a pair of toilet paper rolls with you, cause you know... you never know when nature calls.

 

As I said before, realism in RPGs is not for everyone. There aren't too many gamers, that would enjoy the level of realism I like in my games.

Considering the games this is trying to pay homage to, I don't think we should expect that type of realism in this game. I have said a few times I want this to be a fantasy game, not an adventure simulator. I would actually very much enjoy an adventure simulator. I just don't want this to be it.

Sense of humor, begone...... His original post has great suggestions, but what we suggested(except for the fewer encounters/enemies per encounters) was just joking around.

 

Imagine The Witcher games having the above suggestions

Edited September 27, 2012 by kenup

[LucyZephyr]

Well, I would like to see a setting that would feel fundamentally alien at least in one particular aspect: be it structure of sentient society, nature, cosmology or anything else, really. Very few fantasy and sci-fi writers go this route. Definitely not Bioware, who simply take ALL modern sensibilities in every subject conceivable and slap into their games.

 

Probably the best thing Bioware ever did, in my opinion, was the Geth and the narrative throughline about the dangers of imposing one's own morality on an entirely different life form.

 

"Treating every species like one's own is racist. Even benign anthropomorphism."

 

Since BW didn't want to explore that deeply enough (goddamnit Bioware), I'd love to see PE take a stab at that concept in depth.

Edited September 27, 2012 by LucyZephyr

[curryinahurry]

What I'd like to call "A chain reaction of events". Basically, through your decisions and corresponding actions, you can change the landscape of the game world.

 

For example, you've got two different factions at odds with one another, but an action against one could have consequences for both scenarios.

 

The first scenario sees two individuals vying to become King of a given area. One is more of a "good" person, while the other one relies on intimidation and fear to rule. The latter's strength comes from his association with the assassin's guild, which he uses to methodically eliminate anyone who opposes his challenge to the throne.

 

The second scenario sees that aforementioned assassin's guild being threatened by a rogue group of assassins trying to take over as the preeminent guild. The thing is, the rogue group is a lot more violent, a lot less discriminating about what contracts they'll take on, while the current guild, while not "good", have a code of conduct about who they'll kill (ie. no children, no priests, etc.).

 

So with those two scenarios in mind, this is where the player's choice could set off a chain of events. If the player decides to take sides in the assassins guild conflict, his choice could affect the battle for king even if the player isn't even aware yet that there *is* a battle for the throne, simply by siding with one or the other assassin group. If they side with the current guild, then the "evil" potential-king takes the throne because of his alliance with the guild. If the player sides with the rogue assassins, then the "evil" potential-king is weakened and the good king takes the throne, but at the expense of a violent, uncontrollable guild of assassins now running around.

 

This has two main selling points for me:

1-The player has a noticeable impact on the game world without even knowing it. It could provide a "holy crap, what did I just do" moment later on in the game when you learn about what your actions earlier with regards to the guild wars had on an entire kingdom.

2-The player has to think choices through more carefully, and more importantly, pay attention. Perhaps there are hints throughout the quest to side with one guild over another about the alliance to the "evil" would-be king, so the player has to take that into account when deciding who to side with.

 

I like this, but instead of good vs bad king, it could be simply the king supported by the assassin's is also supported (unknown to the PC) by a faction that seeks to impede the PC, and if this king gets control of the area in question, the faction could become openly hostile to the PC, attacking with impunity or going after a faction that is allied with the PC.

[GhostofAnakin]

What I'd like to call "A chain reaction of events". Basically, through your decisions and corresponding actions, you can change the landscape of the game world.

 

For example, you've got two different factions at odds with one another, but an action against one could have consequences for both scenarios.

 

The first scenario sees two individuals vying to become King of a given area. One is more of a "good" person, while the other one relies on intimidation and fear to rule. The latter's strength comes from his association with the assassin's guild, which he uses to methodically eliminate anyone who opposes his challenge to the throne.

 

The second scenario sees that aforementioned assassin's guild being threatened by a rogue group of assassins trying to take over as the preeminent guild. The thing is, the rogue group is a lot more violent, a lot less discriminating about what contracts they'll take on, while the current guild, while not "good", have a code of conduct about who they'll kill (ie. no children, no priests, etc.).

 

So with those two scenarios in mind, this is where the player's choice could set off a chain of events. If the player decides to take sides in the assassins guild conflict, his choice could affect the battle for king even if the player isn't even aware yet that there *is* a battle for the throne, simply by siding with one or the other assassin group. If they side with the current guild, then the "evil" potential-king takes the throne because of his alliance with the guild. If the player sides with the rogue assassins, then the "evil" potential-king is weakened and the good king takes the throne, but at the expense of a violent, uncontrollable guild of assassins now running around.

 

This has two main selling points for me:

1-The player has a noticeable impact on the game world without even knowing it. It could provide a "holy crap, what did I just do" moment later on in the game when you learn about what your actions earlier with regards to the guild wars had on an entire kingdom.

2-The player has to think choices through more carefully, and more importantly, pay attention. Perhaps there are hints throughout the quest to side with one guild over another about the alliance to the "evil" would-be king, so the player has to take that into account when deciding who to side with.

 

I like this, but instead of good vs bad king, it could be simply the king supported by the assassin's is also supported (unknown to the PC) by a faction that seeks to impede the PC, and if this king gets control of the area in question, the faction could become openly hostile to the PC, attacking with impunity or going after a faction that is allied with the PC.

 

Well, obviously my scenarios can be tweaked to fit whatever story the devs want to tell. But the overall point being you've got two different "scenarios" that are sort of linked, and the PC has an effect on both scenarios simply by tackling one of them (and potentially without him/her realizing it until later).

[lordgizka]

Probably the best thing Bioware ever did, in my opinion, was the Geth and the narrative throughline about the dangers of imposing one's own morality on an entirely different life form.

 

"Treating every species like one's own is racist. Even benign anthropomorphism."

 

Since BW didn't want to explore that deeply enough (goddamnit Bioware), I'd love to see PE take a stab at that concept in depth.

 

Yeah, Hive minds are always awesome. The problem with Geth and the Geth/Quarian dynamic is that it's basically Battlestar Galactica. I may be looking at this narrowly, but I really can't spot a narrative difference. It's all basically this writing style where you look everywhere to steal storylines and recognizable imagery and then just mix the results a little. Too bad there aren't any proper updates for PE regarding races. Meaning, if the next one's elf, that's not a good start. Or at least a regular one...

[soulsource]

[...]

 

You don't need to wait for the RPG of your dreams. You can just play one of the three Realms of Arkania (the second one is my favorite). In these games you have (almost) all the above and even some addictional feature, like item consumption. Once in a while, for instance, party member's boots crack, and if you don't change them ASAP your characters get sick.

 

PS: this high deegre of simulation looks great in the first place, but after 40 hours spent in a game becomes a pain in the ass. For a good designer survivalism should be a sub system of the game, not a mission of life...

 

 

Hey! I'm the Realms of Arkania (or Nordlandtrilogie, as it was originally called) fan here. You stole my posting