What's the one RPG trope you can deal without in PE?

[TRX850]

Drinking alcohol and it having no real gameplay consequences other than the short "drunk" phase which you just walk off.

 

It could have other minor effects, like a save bonus vs fear effects, or a -INT/+CHA effect? I'm actually looking into this as part of a thug feat/kit/playstyle I'll be suggesting a bit later.

[Tauron]

chainmail bikins...unless we are in a brothel...it is your money, your fantasies, knock yourself out.

[Hormalakh]

Drinking alcohol and it having no real gameplay consequences other than the short "drunk" phase which you just walk off.

 

It could have other minor effects, like a save bonus vs fear effects, or a -INT/+CHA effect? I'm actually looking into this as part of a thug feat/kit/playstyle I'll be suggesting a bit later.

 

Even allowing drinking to give rumors would be nice. The taverns in most games are sort of just a place to go and get quests. The actual innkeeper is pretty much redundant and unnecessary with useless game mechanics (drinking and resting) that add no value whatsoever. A little odd I think...

Edited January 13, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

The actual innkeeper is pretty much redundant and unnecessary with useless game mechanics (drinking and resting) that add no value whatsoever. A little odd I think...

 

I know what you mean. Some of them do offer adventuring equipment, but if anything it should probably be limited to certain types of equipment. Leave the arms and armour to the blacksmiths, the gems and jewelry to a jeweler, scrolls and magic items to appropriate specialists. Now, what are we left with? Rations, alcohol, rumours and information, basically.

 

Maybe by NOT consuming alcohol in certain quest-potential inns, it will lower your initial reputation with that surly dwarf in the corner, or those conniving thieves near the fireplace, all with their nefarious proposals for the right sort of adventurer. But if you did spend a few silvers on pints of "Blackadder's Bowel Basher" and a flagon of "Old Roger" so that you "look the part", then it might trigger a positive reaction with them, and off you go questing.

 

Of course, the opposite might also be true, and frowned upon by sanctimonious quest-givers. It doesn't mean you lose the quest, it just might mean price negotiations will differ, and you have to roleplay your way through it better.

Edited January 13, 2013 by TRX850

[Melanchior]

I would have named 'elves and dwarves', but alas, it is too late for that.

 

 

A trope I don't want to see is perfect looking females who are almost exclusively mages/clerics.

 

Short ugly berserker women please!

 

I really liked Aveline from Dragon Age 2 and Samara from Mass Effect 2 because they had no sex appeal. It never got into the way of their personality, and I think it is a very humane and decent approach.

 

 

Also, undead. Ghosts and liches are okay. Skeletons and ESPECIALLY zombies are not!

[tychokepler]

I hate it when you get party members who only represent one class or gender of their race. Like you'll only get the one elven partner who is a male rogue and the one dwarf warrior. I want variety of every race and class to join me.

[Balzeron]

I really liked Aveline from Dragon Age 2 and Samara from Mass Effect 2 because they had no sex appeal.

Aside from Samara's ENORMOUS and generously exposed bosom. Which I found tacky, since, as you say, she was not a sexually driven character in the slightest.

 

I hate it when you get party members who only represent one class or gender of their race. Like you'll only get the one elven partner who is a male rogue and the one dwarf warrior. I want variety of every race and class to join me.

 

psst.....Adventurer's Hall!!

[Alec20]

I kind of like the special main character approach. Pretty much all Obsidian games use it anyway, and their stories usually revolve around that character.

[Melanchior]

I really liked Aveline from Dragon Age 2 and Samara from Mass Effect 2 because they had no sex appeal.

Aside from Samara's ENORMOUS and generously exposed bosom. Which I found tacky, since, as you say, she was not a sexually driven character in the slightest.

 

I think that was added either to emphasize her motherness, or as a compromise with Morinth, since they had to look identical.

[Inertia]

I'm not sure if its a distraction to post this here but it seemed appropriate since a lot of people seem to be against it. My opinions are pretty much synonymous with his but i feel his definition probably isn't what most people think of when they think of the trope.

 

"It seems like a lot of people are getting tired of the "chosen one" archetype in rpgs. I for one don't mind it and like to at the very least have some sort of unique ability that sets me apart in the world whats your take on the common rpg ego stroking."

 

George Ziets

 

"The Chosen One archetype is one of the few RPG clichés that I like. I agree with you that it’s good to have something that sets my player apart from other people in the world. I don’t play RPGs to feel like just another random guy – when I want that, I’ll play an MMO.

 

More importantly, I think an RPG should be the player’s story – not somebody else’s story, where the player happens to blunder in and help out with the action sequences. To the greatest extent possible, an RPG should be *about* the player, and the player should find him/herself at the center of the narrative, making most or all of the critical decisions. If that’s the case, the player is probably going to feel like a Chosen One, no matter how the trope is framed.

 

Personally, I don’t necessarily think we need to actively ego-stroke the player, in the sense of constantly telling the player that s/he is great. But I do think we need to emphasize the impact of the player’s decisions and make sure that the cause-effect is clear. Consequences aren’t nearly as effective if the player isn’t informed, in one way or another, that they’re the direct result of the player’s choice. “Hey player, you did X, so Y and Z happened.”

 

One other point – Chosen One can mean a lot of different things (to me, anyway). I think there are many ways to implement the trope, not all of which are “on the nose.” The player doesn’t have to be the son of a god or the Dragonborn. The player could be catapulted into the center of events because something bad happened him/her – like the curse in MotB. Or the player could be the “chosen one” simply because the game is a personal story, and everyone is the Chosen One in their own personal narrative. E.g., I felt like a Chosen One in Planescape: Torment, but I really wasn’t – the narrative revolved around me because the story was about my character."

 

Source: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/403241607962327378

[IndiraLightfoot]

Inertia, citing me favourite game writer is a plus in my book!

 

And George's points about the concept of the Chosen Ose are valid ones. I think it worked reasonably well in NWN2 vanilla the first two chapters but then it went south. MotB was insanely well written, so of course I will say that it works there! So, inspired by mr Ziets, but filling it with my own opinions, here are my Chosen One-lists:

 

Chosen One, good things:

-PC gets to make the critical decisions

-strong motives, preferrably bound to strong powers

-some special relation(s) to some ontological aspect of the world: some dimension, some rare ability or being

-PC actions do make a significant difference in the world

 

Chosen One, depends on quality of game:

-World revolves round PC (In, say, MotB or Dishonored, it worked great. In, e.g., Kingdoms of Amalur, not so great)

-PC and the cause-n-effect system around her/him come across as bombastic, bigger-than-thou and more-urgent-than-all-else in nature: untouchable Titans on a mission, while most of the NPCs are insignificant. In Skyrim and Fallout NV, this was done nicely, but in DS III it felt a bit contrived.

 

Chosen One, no-nos:

-ego-stroking PC

-PC as some knight in shining armour who saves the day, and the world while he's/she's at it

-Knowing too much, inexplicable or exaggerated access to the world's epistemology

-PC is all the time dragged thru the story, almost forced to do certain things, whether it be moral choices or "necessary" actions

Edited January 13, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[TMTVL]

The two RPG tropes I hate: "RPGS equal Combat" because I think action adventure games already have the "story with combat" type of game covered.

The other one is the one were being good gets you everything you could want and being evil nets you almost nothing.

[Umberlin]

Barging into people's houses without consequences.

 

I think it was Gothic II that seemed to handle this fairly well. For a game where the houses didn't have doors, in a lot of cases, it was surprisingly hard to get in a house. Houses were a legitimate thing that NPCs protected, and they didn't like it when they caught you invading their homes. Playing a stealth based character, that snuck into homes, and stole things, was legitimately challenging.

 

I'd add 'stealth' characters not just going 'invisible' to the list now . . .

 

Being able to rest anywhere and at any time without consequences. Having taverns all over the place where you can pay for resting, but nobody really uses it.

 

I can't agree more an approach where you typically rested at an Inn, and resting elsewhere was either risky or forbidden is a great thing, and I've only seen a few games out there do it well. I really liked the Quest for Glory series for this sometimes, though it wasn't perfect.

 

The two RPG tropes I hate: "RPGS equal Combat" because I think action adventure games already have the "story with combat" type of game covered.

 

I think Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines, as one example, did this right early on. True, it did devolve into combat later, but a great deal of your early content could be solved socially. It didn't have to be, but it was 100% viable in about the first . . . say, half, of the game. Before the sewer.

 

The other one is the one were being good gets you everything you could want and being evil nets you almost nothing.

 

There is another thread where we talked about intent, action and consequence. I like the idea of your intent being read by your friends/allies in one way or another, but I also prefer it when strangers who have only heard of you, and vaillains, look at your action/consequence rather than your intent. They likely don't even know your intent, so, really, why would they, especially in the case of a total stranger who has only heard about you prior, but now comes across you. They look at the consequence of your actions, and judge you on that. Good intentions can have horrific consequences, and a person of ill intent can . . . actually do good, if not intentionally, in terms of the fallout of their action - in some cases. Of course the opposite is true, and obviously things should never be black and white or good and evil in an absolute sense.

 

I'd like to think after Light/Dark side points and the Paragon/Renegade system we're ready for something that isn't insanely polarized.

[Tamerlane]

Wild animals as enemies.

 

God damn I hate wild animals as enemies. Real-life creatures with complex and varied reactions to human encounters always get dumbed down into "run at the guy and bite him" (wolf, large cat) or "walk up to the guy and bite him" (bear). If you can't do it right - and most RPGs are not wildlife simulators, so I sure as hell wouldn't expect them to get it right - I'd rather they just not bother. Just turn the wolves into goblins and the bears into golems or something. Or humour me and call them "hell bears" and give them a red tint and a fire attack or something. Just... just no grizzlies lumbering up to a party of six to whack away, alright?

I really liked Aveline from Dragon Age 2 and Samara from Mass Effect 2 because they had no sex appeal.

Aside from Samara's ENORMOUS and generously exposed bosom. Which I found tacky, since, as you say, she was not a sexually driven character in the slightest.

 

I think that was added either to emphasize her motherness, or as a compromise with Morinth, since they had to look identical.

Whichever they were trying to do, it was turrible. Samara's cool and all, but she looked silly as hell.

[Hormalakh]

The wildlife never really poses much of a challenge either. Unless there's some extra adjective in front of their name (dires, vampirics, hell, etc)

[Gavinfoxx]

Hey Bears in Red Dead Redemption are no joke!

[AW8]

Prophecies. Would love to have my character be some random schlub, not the Destined One, stopping an evil plot, not the Preordained Plot.

Aye. The thousand year old prophecy of the Chosen One I can do without.

 

Luckily, I'm 99% sure that Obsidian have stated that you're a victim of circumstance in this story.

Edited January 14, 2013 by AW8

[Lephys]

Whichever they were trying to do, it was turrible. Samara's cool and all, but she looked silly as hell.

 

Well, she was obligated to kill anyone who stood in her way, but she didn't much care to kill everyone who stood in her way, so maybe her "defective" torso "armor" was intended to weed out as many bosom-susceptible folks as possible from the "get in my way" pool. *shrug*, Haha.

 

But, anywho, I totally get what you mean about wild animals. Thing is... you could have some pretty basic AI running for that. Most wolves are going to rely on pack numbers, and circle you (flank you), for instance. And if there are 6 of you, and 12 of them, and you take out 5, they might honestly all just pull a strategic retreat. They're not all vicious, starving creatures with a vendetta against humanoids. I know we talked about enemies' fleeing behavior in reaction to the changing of battle factors in another thread, but I really want to see a lot of wild animals not even engage you unless you're charging them or are approaching their lair, or they happen to be really, really hungry (more of a random encounter than "every single wolf you ever see in the woods.")

[bonarbill]

Wild animals as enemies.

 

God damn I hate wild animals as enemies. Real-life creatures with complex and varied reactions to human encounters always get dumbed down into "run at the guy and bite him" (wolf, large cat) or "walk up to the guy and bite him" (bear). If you can't do it right - and most RPGs are not wildlife simulators, so I sure as hell wouldn't expect them to get it right - I'd rather they just not bother. Just turn the wolves into goblins and the bears into golems or something. Or humour me and call them "hell bears" and give them a red tint and a fire attack or something. Just... just no grizzlies lumbering up to a party of six to whack away, alright?

I really liked Aveline from Dragon Age 2 and Samara from Mass Effect 2 because they had no sex appeal.

Aside from Samara's ENORMOUS and generously exposed bosom. Which I found tacky, since, as you say, she was not a sexually driven character in the slightest.

 

I think that was added either to emphasize her motherness, or as a compromise with Morinth, since they had to look identical.

Whichever they were trying to do, it was turrible. Samara's cool and all, but she looked silly as hell.

 

Don't know where you're from, but bears over here attack people on sight.

[Tamerlane]

Well, this is enough of a thing that I (and pretty much but not quite only I) care about that I already did a big-ass bearbehaviour.txt post:

 

Mother****, people were discussing bear behaviour? And nobody told me?

 

This is one of those irrelevant things that bugs me in so many video games, so forgive me as I sperg out a bit on the topic.

 

First off, let me just say that most bears hate being around humans. There are exceptions, and they can be acclimatized to humans (see: that youtube video with the waving bear), and I'll confess that I don't know **** about polar or panda bears, but those don't ever really come up in videogames. Black bears (which may or may not actually be black) are relatively small, relatively numerous, and by far the most likely to be aggressive. Brown bears (which may or may not be brown, again, it's just a name), which includes grizzlies, are quite rare, hold very large territory, and are far less likely to aggressively attack a human. Bears are also particularly afraid of noise and large groups, so a party of six people clanking through the woods would be enough to scare off most any black or brown bear, especially once they start throwing fire and lightning around. They may make a night-time visit and try and raid your camp, though.

 

Now, as for what happens when a human-bear encounter does go bad? Well, there are two basic types of bear attacks: aggressive and defencive. Aggressive attacks are usually preceded by stalking behaviour: the bear walks closer to you while you walk and stops when you stop. Actually breaking out and trying to run from it is a terrible idea, as that will trigger a charge, and bears are faster than you over any terrain. The good news about an aggressive attack is that the bear is probably a half-starved yearling black bear, so fighting it is actually a feasible thing for a physically fit adult human with a weapon. Bears don't like going after humans for food because they recognize us as dangerous and if you hurt a hungry black bear enough it will probably run away. A hungry brown bear attacking a human is very rare but unless the human has a rifle is all but guaranteed to end in favour of the bear. But again, party of six, magic, full plate and packing steel, etc.

 

Defencive attacks are a bit more nuanced. They generally occur either because you've surprised the bear, you got too close to its food, or you got too close to its cubs. The good news is that if you notice it before you get to close, you can usually defuse the situation and everyone goes on their way just fine. The bad news here is that if you do end up in a fight, the bear probably isn't going to retreat until you're dead (There are exceptions: a friend of mine survived a charge from a mother brown bear because the fight was protracted enough for the cubs to get the **** out of there and the mother eventually followed after them. He said the most painful part of the whole thing was accidentally pepperspraying himself after it was all over.), which is where the "play dead" tactic comes in to play. Even in the case of a defencive bear, you don't want to run away, because that will still trigger a charge.

 

Bears also sometimes make "bluff charges", where they will run straight at you and veer off a the last moment. They're trying to scare you, and again, the last thing you want to do is run. Climbing a tree is sometimes viable, but most bears can also climb trees, and those that can't can sometimes knock the god damn tree down. My boss loves to tell a story about a guy who used to work for him who climbed a tree to get away from an angry grizzly... only to realize that the bear's cubs were at the top of another tree right beside him. Good times.

 

In conclusion, bears.

 

EDIT:

Whichever they were trying to do, it was turrible. Samara's cool and all, but she looked silly as hell.

 

Well, she was obligated to kill anyone who stood in her way, but she didn't much care to kill everyone who stood in her way, so maybe her "defective" torso "armor" was intended to weed out as many bosom-susceptible folks as possible from the "get in my way" pool. *shrug*, Haha.

 

But, anywho, I totally get what you mean about wild animals. Thing is... you could have some pretty basic AI running for that. Most wolves are going to rely on pack numbers, and circle you (flank you), for instance. And if there are 6 of you, and 12 of them, and you take out 5, they might honestly all just pull a strategic retreat. They're not all vicious, starving creatures with a vendetta against humanoids. I know we talked about enemies' fleeing behavior in reaction to the changing of battle factors in another thread, but I really want to see a lot of wild animals not even engage you unless you're charging them or are approaching their lair, or they happen to be really, really hungry (more of a random encounter than "every single wolf you ever see in the woods.")

See, I think it'd be cool to have an encounter built around a wild animal. Like, you wake up to a hungry yearling sticking its head through your tent, or something. Or, "there is a moose carcass on the road with a bunch of wolves tearing into it and they will defend it if you approach". But if they're sprinkled around a forest, I'd rather they just... y'know, run away as soon as they notice you. Because that is the sort of thing that bothers me in my vidyogaems. Edited January 14, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Luridis]

Here's a few...

• English accents on the voice-overs.
  
• Antagonists that repeatedly dismiss you as a threat in spite of your persistent interference in their plans.
  
• It's your job to fix this or it's the end of the world. (Emphasis on failure means end of the world.)
  
• Quests that you cannot fail without stalling progress in the main story line, instead of the story line changing to reflect your failure.
  
• Assassins you just know are coming that you can't reverse the ambush on. (Looks at Sydney Natale.)
  
• A possibility of making a mistake based upon your own assumption of nefarious intent in the above reverse-ambush.
  
• Companions you can't can't basically tell to GTFO and don't come back.
  
• Arbitrary and useless Achievement Systems that add nothing to the game and drive players to look everything up before hand.
  

Edited January 14, 2013 by Luridis

[Monte Carlo]

Badgers are evil. Wild animal attacks should feature more badgers. Never trust one, or lend it money.

[Tamerlane]

Badgers are evil. Wild animal attacks should feature more badgers. Never trust one, or lend it money.

Given what Hunter S. Thompson has taught me about badgers, this sounds about right.

[Monte Carlo]

Here's a few...

• English accents on the voice-overs.
  

 

Hmmm. Texan knights sound... wrong. Then again most English accents in games are either (a) cut glass posh or (b) comedy **** Van Dyke Londoner that sounds almost Australian. Some proper regional English accents OTOH...

 

I also like Russian accents. They are cool.

[Helm]

English accents on the voice-overs.

God, I hate that, especially when the voice acting is bad. The game has to have American accents too.

 

It can be really good, like Jon Irenicus in Baldur's Gate 2 or Agent 47 in the Hitman series (the voice actor did a really good job in Absolution!!), but most of the time it is just so damn cheesy and sounds like crap, it's this kind of "would you like some crumpets and tea m'lady" kind of accent. Bah.