RPG cliches you hope to see avoided and/or mocked

[Tsuga C]

Rare magic that isn't rare at all. In fact, it's dirt common and your inventory is soon overflowing with baubles and trinkets of medium to medium-high magical power. *yawn* So much for magic being "rare and special" in this world...

 

Mages and arcane magic are feared in this world. While wandering around, though, you never encounter any significant problems with two mages in your party.

 

The paladin-like character who is a complete sphincter instead of a fundamental, unshakable force for good. It'd be nice to see one or two of these paladins actually live up to their billing.

 

Gods that are nothing more than powerful spirits (and sometimes hardly even that). Let's have some gods worthy of the moniker in terms of not only their raw power, but also the depth and breadth of their vision, wisdom, and majesty vis a vis their respective portfolios. Players might be able to challenge a demi-god when they're ultra-high level-wise, but the real deities should be utterly beyond them.

 

Wild "normal" animals that automatically attack, attack, attack the party and do so until death. As a forester I've spent a fair amount of time in the sticks while on the job and while hunting and fishing. This psychotic-animal syndrome is a complete load of crap that really rubs me the wrong way.

 

Black is really gray because all things are subjective anyway. What a load of horse s***! Anyone who's ever had the misfortune to deal with genuinely vicious, nasty, rotten people knows the difference between selfish or disinterested people and the borderline sociopaths who take a great deal of satisfaction from viewing life as a zero sum game.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Joukehainen]

I'm not saying that every quests have to be like this, but 5-10 missable quests are not bad. Maybe you can even skip the final quest and leave it to another adventurers

 

Missable quests are cool - but imo should be more or less stated that there is a time-limit in the quest description, sort of like Fallout 1. I mean, I'm not totally against the idea of missable quests where you're not informed of a time limit, but then people will just tell one another what that time limit was and you'll just be looking it up online and delaying it by no more than the max amount of time. So I mean, an NPC might as well say "but I need this done within a fortnight, otherwise..."

 

Of course, I'm very much against quest-trackers so I'd appreciate if the game didn't remind you of this time-limit past stating it once, let's say.

 

Find an epic chest at the end of a dungeon -> find empty chest with a digged exit nearby -> use tracking and follow the **** who stole things from this chest

 

Fight an epic boss at the end of a dungeon -> encounter a group of adventurers who came from the other side -> choose to combine forces or choose to kill the group while fighting a 3 sided battle between you, another group and the boss.

 

These would be awesome! :D

 

As for myself, I hope the aforementioned cliches will be avoided: you're the "chosen one" (already confirmed this won't be the case) unless it's handled in the way, say, BGII handled it, ie with some measure of depth, freshness and creativity (even cynicism).

 

The whole villains thing - totally. Villains that are just "evil" for no reason are such lazy tropes in fiction - even moreso entire species or races that are just all "evil." Just pure examples of lazy writing. I'm pretty sure we won't get such black and white treatment from Obsidian, though.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Joukehainen

[eselle28]

I'd like to see at least a few old tropes subverted, or at least avoided. I've never been a fan of the constantly-attacking wolves and bears in some fantasy worlds. Fine, if you go to sleep in the wilderness, a chance for a random encounter with a bear makes sense. But I'd rather see other critters used for insta-hostiles in the open world. There are enough mythological nasties to pick from for there to be other, more entertaining, substitutes.

 

And while I'm fine with there being a "mook" species that's automatically hostile and a stock enemy, I wouldn't mine a game throwing in one side quest where you got to work with a member of that species or see the world from their point of view.

 

Tropes I'd rather not see subverted include many of the combat-related ones. PS:T was refreshing considering all the other similar games that had been released recently, but given how long it's been since there was a IE-type game, I think people who like to play with long, pointy pieces of metal should get a good selection of weapons for their fighters and paladins.

Edited October 28, 2012 by eselle28

[JFSOCC]

Yeah and Planescape sold, like, millions of units right?

 

There's a thin line between mocking tried, tested and much-loved tropes and being condescending.

 

You people don't really get why they went to kickstarter to pitch this game do you? Quit appealing to mass market trends for your arguments, you're going to ruin this game with that ****. What does how many units PST sold have to do with anything?

Nobody is here because they aren't looking forward to an oldschool RPG experience. The argument that you can get your enjoyment differently is no less valid than yours.(and indeed mine)

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I'd rather leave the story and the clichés that are or aren't used now firmly in the hands of the developers. They all have a great creative nous and the experience to know what they're doing, it seems unnecessary to instruct them continuously as they well aware of how to make a good story.

 

Are they not currently firmly in the hands of the developers? Did I miss something?

 

This is a forum. It is not a manual for the developers and not a list of demands about what they need to add to make their game any good. We are all powerless in what they choose to add, and thankfully so, since if we did have any actual power over content our collective and contradictory nagging would probably make the developers long for the good old days of publisher control.

 

Yet if, given this reality, we choose to say nothing at all about our hopes and expectations for the creative direction of this game, why are we even here? Again, this is a forum. We discuss things here. it doesn't mean we are demanding things be added or removed; it means we express our views and, maybe every once in a rare while, a developer passes through, sees and agrees. Or doesn't agree. Or doesn't think twice about it. Whichever. We aren't discussing it so a developer can see it but because we're interested in the game, do not currently have the game, and so instead channel that excitement and interest into chatting about it and what it may or may not do.

 

So yeah, I hope we see a lot more threads in which people talk about what they want to see in the story or what they want to see from the characters. Just so long as they lack any power to enforce those views, the more the merrier, and it would be pretty dull around here without such discussions.

[Utukka]

I'd like to see at least a few old tropes subverted, or at least avoided. I've never been a fan of the constantly-attacking wolves and bears in some fantasy worlds. Fine, if you go to sleep in the wilderness, a chance for a random encounter with a bear makes sense. But I'd rather see other critters used for insta-hostiles in the open world. There are enough mythological nasties to pick from for there to be other, more entertaining, substitutes.

 

And while I'm fine with there being a "mook" species that's automatically hostile and a stock enemy, I wouldn't mine a game throwing in one side quest where you got to work with a member of that species or see the world from their point of view.

 

Tropes I'd rather not see subverted include many of the combat-related ones. PS:T was refreshing considering all the other similar games that had been released recently, but given how long it's been since there was a IE-type game, I think people who like to play with long, pointy pieces of metal should get a good selection of weapons for their fighters and paladins.

 

I'll agree with the "animals attack" approach, at the very least, give a good reason to why these animals are behaving the way they are.

 

As for the "mook" species such as Orcs being pure evil from OUR standpoint....it "slightly" makes sense in my opinion. Humans can't even get along with each other yet alone a different species that could potentially replace us on top of the food chain. Pretty sure if Orcs were real, we'd be at war with them, hell, it would probably be a uniting cause amongst humans to destroy the threat before we resume our war with each other. Yet if you take this view, what about teh dwarves n such??? Fantasy is the only answer. I know you are ok with it but I just wanted to touch on this subject without going further back.

 

All that aside, I don't see these guys going Diablo 3s route.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Utukka

[Sylvius the Mad]

Reluctant Heroes. I hate reluctant heroes. Why can't the heroes be the one with ambition once in a while?

 

Instead, it's always the villains with ambition, which, to me, usually makes the villain the more sympathetic character.

[JFSOCC]

I'd rather leave the story and the clichés that are or aren't used now firmly in the hands of the developers. They all have a great creative nous and the experience to know what they're doing, it seems unnecessary to instruct them continuously as they well aware of how to make a good story.

 

Are they not currently firmly in the hands of the developers? Did I miss something?

 

This is a forum. It is not a manual for the developers and not a list of demands about what they need to add to make their game any good. We are all powerless in what they choose to add, and thankfully so, since if we did have any actual power over content our collective and contradictory nagging would probably make the developers long for the good old days of publisher control.

 

Yet if, given this reality, we choose to say nothing at all about our hopes and expectations for the creative direction of this game, why are we even here? Again, this is a forum. We discuss things here. it doesn't mean we are demanding things be added or removed; it means we express our views and, maybe every once in a rare while, a developer passes through, sees and agrees. Or doesn't agree. Or doesn't think twice about it. Whichever. We aren't discussing it so a developer can see it but because we're interested in the game, do not currently have the game, and so instead channel that excitement and interest into chatting about it and what it may or may not do.

 

So yeah, I hope we see a lot more threads in which people talk about what they want to see in the story or what they want to see from the characters. Just so long as they lack any power to enforce those views, the more the merrier, and it would be pretty dull around here without such discussions.

This is true, and we can decide what kind of a forum we make it. We can make it a forum where ideas can be discussed and brought up without fear of being hounded because opinion went against popular opinion. I've been to those kinds of forums, they aren't fun when you disagree and your opinions are no less valid than theirs and your suggestions get shut down instead of considered, alternatives pondered, and argued for and against.

The way we treat can determine whether it becomes a forum filled with vitriol and spite, where opinions divide people in camps and fight over who is a truer fan and understands RPG's better. Or we can do what I'm happy to see we've so far been doing, mostly, which is for discussion to build a rich pool of inspiration and opinions for the developers to consider.

The other day I even found myself agreeing on something with Monte Carlo, because there's a wide range of different things we discuss. I've found myself considering ideas opposite my own. and I'm one of those argumentative pricks that often refuses to be convinced. Here I feel I can argue points and not persons.

[eselle28]

Reluctant Heroes. I hate reluctant heroes. Why can't the heroes be the one with ambition once in a while?

 

Instead, it's always the villains with ambition, which, to me, usually makes the villain the more sympathetic character.

 

Yeah, I'm the person who's fouling it all up for you because I want the option of being reluctant. Being forced to be an eager champion (or more likely at the beginning, a happy lackey) tends to make it hard for me to play my favorite character types.

 

But one of the benefits of unvoiced dialogue is that there can be more response options, and I'm assuming there will be lines included both for proactive characters and ones who go around complaining, "Do I haaaaaaave to?"

[PsychoBlonde]

I'd like to see a quest where you get assigned to escort an NPC and they bitch about how much you suck and how hard it will be to keep you alive--and it turns out to be true.

 

At some point, they really ought to call you a noob.

[Ignatius]

Romance isn't a cliche. That's like saying Romeo and Juliet is just like every other terrible chick flick ever made because it has romance. It's far too broad of a concept to say that two people falling in love is cliche. The only problem I have with romance in a game like this is that it always seems implausible, probably because it's badly written. And probably because writing a good love story is really freaking hard.

 

Attempting to buck cliches at every turn can be just as bad as embracing them. Sometimes a cliche works as good foundation for a story so long as something interesting is done with the cliche. Devils in the details and all that.

[XenoReaper]

Romance isn't a cliche. That's like saying Romeo and Juliet is just like every other terrible chick flick ever made because it has romance. It's far too broad of a concept to say that two people falling in love is cliche. The only problem I have with romance in a game like this is that it always seems implausible, probably because it's badly written. And probably because writing a good love story is really freaking hard.

 

Attempting to buck cliches at every turn can be just as bad as embracing them. Sometimes a cliche works as good foundation for a story so long as something interesting is done with the cliche. Devils in the details and all that.

 

I agree. For me, romances in an RPG come across as cliche in terms of the execution rather than the concept of "love" itself. MCA did say in one of his PE interviews, though (I think it was on Reddit... not sure) that he believes that there should be more "relationship" types than just romance. In other words, having a companion be a rival to the main character, and handle it like a "romance" in that there are branching dialogue options, et cetera that are triggered at certain parts of the story.

 

Frankly, that's what I'd like to see more of- deep relationships with mechanics to back it that don't just exist for your romance options. The fact that romance options in RPGs tend to be much more complex than any other party members... it strikes me as a missed opportunity. Have the friendly (or not so friendly) rival actually challenge the main character once in a while, rather than mope along as we travel together.

[XenoReaper]

One other thing- I've always wanted a party member that actually reacts to the level of equipment you give them. In other words, the thuggish rogue (not lithe at all, but more like a bar brawler with street smarts) gets irritated if you give him a sub-par weapon, but is just plain giddy if you give him the best bladed weapon in the party... something like that. Obviously the main character's equipment wouldn't be counted in this, since it does make sense for the leader to have the best weapon should he/she wish to use it.

[UncleBourbon]

One other thing- I've always wanted a party member that actually reacts to the level of equipment you give them. In other words, the thuggish rogue (not lithe at all, but more like a bar brawler with street smarts) gets irritated if you give him a sub-par weapon, but is just plain giddy if you give him the best bladed weapon in the party... something like that. Obviously the main character's equipment wouldn't be counted in this, since it does make sense for the leader to have the best weapon should he/she wish to use it.

 

I really like this concept, but I imagine the coding for it would be a nightmare. Maybe a few unique/artifact items could be coded to trigger a dialog with certain companions when acquired, hinting at them wanting to use it, and getting upset if refused.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

There is a chainmail bikini in the game but every time you try to equip it on a non player female character she reverts back to her original armour and tells you to sod off.

[GhostofAnakin]

There is a chainmail bikini in the game but every time you try to equip it on a non player female character she reverts back to her original armour and tells you to sod off.

 

This actually would be quite humorous, especially if the NPC's personality is that of one who hates being treated like a girly girl.

[eselle28]

One other thing- I've always wanted a party member that actually reacts to the level of equipment you give them. In other words, the thuggish rogue (not lithe at all, but more like a bar brawler with street smarts) gets irritated if you give him a sub-par weapon, but is just plain giddy if you give him the best bladed weapon in the party... something like that. Obviously the main character's equipment wouldn't be counted in this, since it does make sense for the leader to have the best weapon should he/she wish to use it.

 

I really like this concept, but I imagine the coding for it would be a nightmare. Maybe a few unique/artifact items could be coded to trigger a dialog with certain companions when acquired, hinting at them wanting to use it, and getting upset if refused.

 

I also really like this, and it's far superior to the annoying gift-giving mechanic I've seen elsewhere. I can see it being difficult to implement on any sort of large scale, but it would be nice if an NPC noticed when I finally obtained some hard-to-find artifact and equipped it on his character.

[XenoReaper]

One other thing- I've always wanted a party member that actually reacts to the level of equipment you give them. In other words, the thuggish rogue (not lithe at all, but more like a bar brawler with street smarts) gets irritated if you give him a sub-par weapon, but is just plain giddy if you give him the best bladed weapon in the party... something like that. Obviously the main character's equipment wouldn't be counted in this, since it does make sense for the leader to have the best weapon should he/she wish to use it.

 

I really like this concept, but I imagine the coding for it would be a nightmare. Maybe a few unique/artifact items could be coded to trigger a dialog with certain companions when acquired, hinting at them wanting to use it, and getting upset if refused.

 

I also really like this, and it's far superior to the annoying gift-giving mechanic I've seen elsewhere. I can see it being difficult to implement on any sort of large scale, but it would be nice if an NPC noticed when I finally obtained some hard-to-find artifact and equipped it on his character.

 

Implementation would depend on item mechanics... but here's an "easy" example. If items in the game have an assigned (likely hidden) "item level" then you could have the character get irritated if his weapon's "level" lags behind his own. If you give him an item that is equal to or even above his own level, it triggers a reaction when first equipped.

 

There could also be a conditional reputation-modifier with that partner. You have a mild penalty to your relationship with them if their weapon is lackluster or "low level" but you get a bonus if they have the highest weapon level out of all of your party members' (insert weapon type here), et cetera.

 

EDIT: Item levels are frequently used in item drop tables to determine what loot you find in a random drop (like a random encounter versus a hand-crafted dungeon) so I think it's likely that a character like this could be worked out.

Edited October 29, 2012 by XenoReaper

[Karkarov]

That was merely inconsistent execution of the details when it comes to enemies with sword graphics. Dak'kon and Trias's swords were meant to be out of the ordinary in the setting. I don't see anything wrong with the attempt to distinguish the equipment from traditional high fantasy, especially as the same design sensibilities extended to the entire setting.

Going to assume you never played the "real" planescape and only know what Torment told you. Cause trust me, buying a sword in Sigil was just as easy as buying anything else there. So, no, the no sword thing had absolutely nothing to do with the setting of the game.

[ddillon]

That which *must* be avoided:

 

The party walks into a room. Several skeletons or corpses are laying about the floor. When we reach the middle of the room (or the spooky altar, or whatever), the undead come to life, surrounding us! Gasp!

 

F*** that noise. If I'm exploring the Lair of Necromancer X or the Cave of Restless Souls or whatever, you can be damn sure that I'll be smashing the skulls (and maybe breaking the arms) of any inactive skeletons that I come across. Corpses? I'll be assuming "potential zombie" and hacking off the heads (and maybe the hands). Ancient king sitting mummified on his throne? I'll be taking that gigantic two-handed sword laying across his knees before I reach for the bejeweled crown.

 

No contrived "surprises" plz!

 

Despite its many flaws, Skyrim does well in this regard: Some undead can be destroyed by a cautious and stealthy player before reanimating and becoming a threat, some shamble out of coffins and sarcophagi, and some are already active before the player arrives.

 

Also irksome:

 

A necromancer (either one of the party or an enemy) utters his spell and poof! Instant skeleton from nowhere! A few more utterances, and poof! Instant zombie from nowhere!

 

Again, Skyrim does this mostly right: Instead of undead summons, there are reanimation spells that require a corpse as a target (although Dawnguard introduces spells which summon a Boneman, Mistman, or Wrathman from the Soul Cairn rather than reanimating a dead body).

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Yeah, I'm the person who's fouling it all up for you because I want the option of being reluctant. Being forced to be an eager champion (or more likely at the beginning, a happy lackey) tends to make it hard for me to play my favorite character types.

I don't mind at all if you're allowed to be a reluctant hero. But I don't want to.

 

I want to be a proactive PC who sees something he wants to change and sets out to change it.

 

This is usually how villains are written. There's something about the world they dislike, and they take it upon themselves to make it different. I'd like to do that. I don't want to be the guy tries to clean up someone else's mess. I want to make the mess.

[Sacred_Path]

One cliché I'd like to see mocked is that, in a low technology environment, physically weak characters always have a way to be just as powerful as stronger characters - magic. Of course this is also done for balancing reasons, but it would be interesting if high INT characters lead by skills instead of magic, like in Fallout. Also casting off a physical attribute like in Arcanum is a good idea.

[TrashMan]

The wizard giving you a quest in an Inn troupe is pretty stale by now.

 

 

[Milten]

Plot fence between PC and main antagonists, when yesterday-peasant PC eagerly searches for famous villain, but finds him (what a coincidence!) only after reaching required level. Though Obsidian did it well enough in KotOR2, when PC fled in the beginning.

This is usually how villains are written. There's something about the world they dislike, and they take it upon themselves to make it different. I'd like to do that. I don't want to be the guy tries to clean up someone else's mess. I want to make the mess.

Heh, looks like I'll die from old age waiting for such game.

[JFSOCC]

NPCs who just stand idly by while I ransack their home for loot, merchants that buy back what I stole from them without comment, merchants that buy a legendary weapon that I can't use with the same amount of caring as if I sold them a half-empty mana potion.