RPG elements that I would die for

[Hassat Hunter]

I know the meaning of RPG is discussionable, but some here suggested entire building sims or RTS here... while they might like that (heck I might even if executed right), I personally don't think it's a good idea to go that far into details. Adding minigames for an AAA+ game, okaaayish (depends on the game), but with such a budget and trying to get a BG-type RPG out amist the modern games, I rather they focus on the main package rather than said diversatories...

[Djantari]

I do not have any illusions that they will implement a thing in this thread. I just want to discuss which rpg element that people would like to see in a crpg.

And of course I do not anyone want PoE to be a sim game.

 

I have no doubt that they will succeed with the adventure part of the rpg, as they never do. But playing their games for most of my adult life I do miss some things that would not take so much extra coding but add a lot to the experience. Hopefully there will be modding tools available and then we all can customize it to get what we want.

[Djantari]

Sorry so much mistake in my last post that it is almost unreadable. I hope you get my point.

[Silent Winter]

I hope you get my point.

...said the assassin to his prey

 

sorry, OT from the quoted post but:

 

I'd like to be able to use assassin techniques in an assassiny way - I mean, being able to sneak in, past the guards, quietly dispose of a victim by knife/poison/whatever and then sneak out.  Having my handiwork only discovered later.

There was an "Assassins" mod for BG2 and whilst it was a fun diversion with a little story, every 'assassination' turned into a regular fight against a group.

[DCParry]

What I am looking for is to give some more focus to what you are wearing and when. Of course you should not be forced to have a wardrobe for each situation if that is not your play style. But if you are in to that you should get something for it.

 

One way would be to have a kind of set bonus in the same way as for amour also for normal cloth. For example if you have the newest and most expensive fashion in the city it should give a bonus to diplomacy and can generate some more conversation options with some characters. The same would go if you look like a trader when you haggle or a blacksmith at the smith.

 

A cloak that shows that you are a captain of the city guard would give a bonus to intimidation in some situation and with some characters.

If you are dressed in rags and walks in to a noble house they should comment your clothing. They might not even want to address you, without using a skill as diplomacy or intimidation to get their attention.

 

I would also love to see a reputation system that is connected to an alias. What I mean is that you can choose to call yourself something else than your character’s real name. This means that you can create one alias that might be a famous villain and another alias that is a loved hero. Your skills in subterfuge and disguises for example would see if you get away with it. Otherwise you get found out and you get famous as being a fraud, and both aliases are ruined or merged.

 

I like this idea, but I wonder how to deal with this in a party situation. Would everyone have to have an outfit? Of course, this leads to a particular type of micro-managing or issues arise (just like when I would forget in FONV to change FelciaWhatsoherdayface out of BoS armor and NRC would shoot me, although I thought they weren't supposed to do that, and that was with one character - knowing my luck I would outfit my party in uniforms from every faction so no matter where I go someone hates me!). 

 

 

I would love re-activity for disguises, but I imagine that would be a crap tonne of dev time. 

[TrashMan]

That would depend if you can bluff the guards/whatever.

 

If you are posing as a merchant, you can:

- go in alone

- get merchant disguises for everyone

- try to pass them off as bodyguards

 

 

So again, LOGIC.

Sometimes everyone going into an area would need a disguise, someone only 1 person would suffice (as long as your other party members aren't incredibly conspicious or recognizable)

 

Also, items getting fame/being recognizable - at least by some people. If you wield the "sword of divine judgment" somebody would notice.

A more trickier thing is association. That means if you do a crime, how do they recongnize you? Personally I'd have items have stats such as memorability (how much they stand out ... hmmm better yet a memorable yes/no flag) and a "conceals face" yes/no flag.

 

That way, if you rob a guy while wearing a common armor with a full helmet, the authorities are unlikely to find you. Heck, the victim is unlikely to ever recognize you.

Buuut.. if you go around with your face exposed and in bright pink armor.... the authorities will not have a hard time finding you.

 

Could be something as simple as the NPC tracking if he knows your face or not AND a a chance to add a big memorable item to his list of items he associates with you.

 

So it's kinda "are you wearing any items from his list? Does he know your face?"

[rjshae]

What I am looking for is to give some more focus to what you are wearing and when. Of course you should not be forced to have a wardrobe for each situation if that is not your play style. But if you are in to that you should get something for it.

 

They could create an "Attire" reputation, with the two extremes being armored or casual. Depending on which one you are wearing, you change your faction rating. This would then get a different reaction from certain individuals. Potentially there could be shades of grey--light armor would lie closer to the casual faction than would field plate, for example.

 

Or there could be a more general "Violent nature" reputation, with your current armor and armaments shifting your faction somewhat.

[Lephys]

So it's kinda "are you wearing any items from his list? Does he know your face?"

Regarding the face-recognition, it might also be affected by what approach you took to a situation. Maybe you broke in stealthily (trying to go completely unnoticed) and got spotted briefly by people who know you're out of place. The dilemma of "did they get a good look at your face?" problem ensues. OR, maybe you dress and act appropriately enough to blend right in as a lowly servant, and, while you're blatantly walking around everyone, no one bothers to take note of your face. 8P

[JFSOCC]

I like and support the idea of aliases

Edited February 21, 2014 by JFSOCC

[TrashMan]

 

So it's kinda "are you wearing any items from his list? Does he know your face?"

Regarding the face-recognition, it might also be affected by what approach you took to a situation. Maybe you broke in stealthily (trying to go completely unnoticed) and got spotted briefly by people who know you're out of place. The dilemma of "did they get a good look at your face?" problem ensues. OR, maybe you dress and act appropriately enough to blend right in as a lowly servant, and, while you're blatantly walking around everyone, no one bothers to take note of your face. 8P

 

 

 

I guess you can handle it with perception vs. stealth rolls, probabilities and maybe you can bring in some other stats into play, like charisma.

 

In 90% of cases, unless you're wearing something conspcious, NPC's you don't interact with would not remember your face.

 

Having an "everyman" face (lowers chances of being recongnized) could even be a trait.

 

 

I think we're on to something here.

With just 2 flags and a list check, we have a system that could handle item/face recognition decently enough.

[Lephys]

^ Well, that, and I was also more just thinking about the effects of approaches to a situation (the example basically being an infiltration). Maybe you're able to sneak in (as an intruder who's simply, if you did it right, not spotted), or pose as a noble, OR pose as a servant, for example. Posing as a noble would probably allow you the most access to sensitive information, etc., and free reign of the premises (in general... I'm not saying no one would question anything at all you did). BUT, people are sure to not only see your face, but take note of it. So, anything after that in the game that required being in the presence of those people (as your no-longer-posing-as-a-noble self) would result in trouble. You'd have to avoid certain people, or deal with the trouble of being recognized.

 

And, while sneaking in might leave you unexposed (you can cover your face, or just not get spotted 'cause you're so stealthy, etc.), you maybe have less time to get what you need and less access to the premises/information from important people's mouths (the more of the grounds you cover while sneaking about, the less likely you are to remain unseen, etc.). BUT, you could easily be around any of the people present at that place, in the future, and no one would be the wiser.

 

Posing as a lowly servant would grant you access to the servants, and part of the premises, and maybe you could even overhear some stuff from nobles/important folk, etc. Maybe you could even try to sneak into some other rooms at opportune moments, but you'd be at higher risk of being discovered. And MAYBE some people would recognize you later, but it'd be a lot fewer (mainly people who directly manage the servants, etc. Maybe a guard or two near the servants' entrance or something.)

 

I realize there'd be a lot of other factors at play, but the point I was focused on is how facial recognition plays into your choices and their consequences in approaching a given scenario. That could be pretty awesome. Especially with a system that actually handles item/face recognition, as you've pointed out above.

[JFSOCC]

associating identities with uniforms could work if quests were designed that way, I suppose. but they'd be one offs, not a (semi-)permanent alias of which you could have an alternate character, infiltrating other organisations.

 

So for purposes of fooling guards on patrol duty, you could have an officers uniform, if you wear it, they might think you are an officer from another unit and ignore you as you go about your business. with potential for interaction and stat-based bluff checks.

Or if you wear the cooks uniform, you can move safely in the kitchen, but not elsewhere in the fort.

A prostitute outfit, well, let's not tackle that one.

Would be an alternative approach to stealth.

[Djantari]

I do want to make a difference between stealth and subterfuge. Stealth is focusing on not to be seen at all. Subterfuge and infiltration would need you to make you victims to not pay attention to you or to accept you as a part of the environment. I see it as two completely different approaches.

 

For example I would like to play a noble and therefor dresses like one. I then want other nobles to treat me as a one in conversations. If I am not a noble but tries to pose as one I would need a skill test not to be made.

[Ulquiorra]

I like my RPG to be an RPG.

 

Not a date similator, not a bad RTS, not a magement sim, not a civilisation sim, not an MMO, not a shooter, not a movie.

 

I know it's much to ask for in this time and age, but please?

 

"Role" playing game .. hmmm

 

Date sim = some type of role,

 

RTs = role of a "commander", "chief" that must have good stratedy,

 

menagment sim = Menagment role,

 

Civilisation sim = simulator of the "god" or "chef of that civ" role,

 

mmo = .... i agre no role play .. ,

 

shooter =Mostly action with a possibility od a role (if have writhing and storyline) has pissibility to roleplay character that is shooting,

 

movie = also some role.

 

now what means "play a role", have some influence and react on you own will (like it was you in such situation) ... is there a good rpg without any time of previos elements ? ...no even baldours gate have some sort of money menagment,

 

So you must propably want to role play a doll, or a cat to not having some "menagment" in game ... (but even cat must now how many food he must to eat, to not die with a hunger or die from overfattness ..) ... so i sugest a rock a levels up to be more rockish ..

 

Seriusly ... rpg is not only a "term" for a game that some char is gaining levels ..

 

and im not even taliking about "dateing sim" elements becouse there are at least 6-7 games in western "block" that have those .. (and still people are crying)

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ulquiorra

[^Rayne^]

 

There are no RPG elements worth dying for. But there's perhaps a few for which I'd fork over a little extra coin.

• Creates an emotional response -- like a good book, I want to care about something in the story. Even if it is just taking down the bad guy.
• Worthwhile companions -- traveling with characters who I would actually want to meet in real life.
• Enjoyable interactions -- I prefer that at least some of the denizens feel alive and provide an interesting discourse.
• Explorable, interesting world -- a setting/genre that holds more interest than just a place to find creatures to fight.
• Sense of accomplishment -- at the end I want to feel like I've achieved something more meaningful than just repeatedly clicking a mouse button.

 

As I was reading your post about worthwhile companions, I couldn't help wondering what it would be like to play with a companion you realized was ultimately the true power force in your group?  I mean what if you realized along the way you were Jesse in Breaking Bad with a person like Walter White?  That would be fascinating, especially if that character was an excellent liar and you were unable to see what was really going on until much farther in the game...  Now that would be a particularly compelling companion to travel with because the surprise of it would create a very memorable experience.

[Whitefox789]

A talking sword???

 

 

 

•   I mean what if you realized along the way you were Jesse in Breaking Bad with a person like Walter White?  That would be fascinating, especially if that character was an excellent liar and you were unable to see what was really going on until much farther in the game...  Now that would be a particularly compelling companion to travel with because the surprise of it would create a very memorable experience.

 

An interesting idea though I think there was a character like that in KotOR 2, Atton Rand?

[Chippy]

Weapon's that have a significant purpose or choice in their use. Even if it's just cosmetic. E.g. Weapons in Assassins Creed; dagger felt like quick-kill brutal weapon, longsword was a duelist type choice, two handed implemented for mounted knights and heavily armoured.

 

Yes it all fell apart because the game was easy and you could find ways around enemies resistances, but the flair and animations made those weapons stand out, and I enjoyed outfitting my character to cover most scenarios.

 

So -if I was an entitled gamer- I would like that shiny stuff implemented as it helps move away from dagger>shortsword>longsword>Bsword/katana just doing 2 extra dam per category, bit slower on the attack, and having the same animation. 

 

If I was really entitled, I'd go off on a tangent about specializing in daggers and making them armour piercing, or horizontally flying (per feat) to eye plate slots...

[Aedrin]

Maybe having companions like this?

>Self determining companions - How many RPGs can you break by being a charismatic dandy or a seductress? I'd much rather have some degree of flexibility in how party members can view you but outside of that 'flex-zone' you won't be able to console, cajole or maintain a friendly relationship with a party member. For example, a crusading paladin may disdain a druid's detachment and strict neutrality but respect some of  the goals druids strive for. They can be amiable companions in some regards but will absolutely disagree in others and no amount of persuasive skill should effect that.

And how about recurring and powerful nemeses that can come from within the party, due to disagreements with how you and other characters have conducted yourselves? It would be a memorable thing indeed to have characters dynamically oppose you based on their notions of morality rather than the usual 'mind control' cliche.

[BrainMuncher]

• Dramatic choice and true crossroads

In most games there is are a lot of focus to preserve the world and making every quest as accessible as possible.  This normally means that you can do every quest in the game whatever choice you make. I miss the feeling of being a part of the world in many game. Most of the time you get the illusion of choices but the outcome is always the set. If you have a more sandbox view of the world where it is set when you start but then as soon as you saga begins your decisions will dramatically change where it will end and what is available. Things that I always wanted but missed are as follows:

Starting wars and be able to choose sides or backstab your allies.

Burning/pillaging cities/countries that will change the appearance and the mood of the city/country.

Choosing to support different kings/queens and factions and then see them evolve over time.

The replay value would be enormous even if some player styles might half the available content just because of the choices they make. You should still be able to choose the middle way and the get the most content for it. But not all…

 

If you are talking just about games in general, or about your imaginary dream game, then I am with you. But in the case of PE, I have to disagree.

 

Firstly, obsidian seem to really like the idea of a strong narrative, and such sandboxy freedom is somewhat at odds with that. The more freedom you afford to affect the world, the weaker your narrative must become. At the extreme pure sandbox end of the scale, the entire narrative is created by the player's actions, while at the other extreme you're basically just watching a movie. An example of the sandbox extreme would be a game like civilization - there is no narrative whatsoever but at the end you look back and there is a story there of what happened.

 

My second point is that it is just really impractical to create these things in computer games, and a lot of the time when people try, it doesn't come out all that well. Let's say you have three decisions in the game where the player choice has a big impact on the world, and each of these presents three options. Now after the first decision, you have 3 outcomes to account for. After the second decision, 9 different possible outcomes, and 27 after the third.

For these decisions to have any significant weight or value you will have to weave consequences of them into the rest of the game, which creates a massive amount of work, and the payoff isn't that great. All you got for all that work was only three decisions for the player, and a slightly weaker narrative. The decisions probably aren't even all that interesting, maybe a good/bad/neutral/quirky choice, or a choice to side with the red team or the blue team. They can't really be enormously interesting because the rest of the game is still mostly the same, there is no time to make 27 different games where each eventuality is covered with different content.

 

Tabletop has none of these problems, since you only ever have to deal with one possible world state, which is whatever state the game is currently in. You'll generally have a fair idea in advance what the players are going to decide to do, and if something unexpected happens you can adjust on the fly. Things also tend to happen at a slower pace, so you end up with a lot more time to put into a much smaller set of possibilities.

 

It might seem counter-intuitive but I believe that the "many choices, only one outcome" is actually much better at enabling role play in cRPGs. This is because you can afford to put many dialog options covering all sorts of attitudes, and even many different paths into short term plot points when you know the outcome will be the same.

Let's say it's chapter 2 and the king needs the macguffin to drive back the invading horde. If the outcome is always that the king gets the macguffin somehow, you can put all sorts of different ways that he gets it into the game, without changing the eventual world state and multiplying the size of your game. Maybe you go and get the thing and hand it over for the good of the realm. Maybe you sell it for profit instead, but the guy who bought it hands it over. Maybe you just don't really care and don't even go looking for it, because you're busy doing other things and someone else gets it. Maybe you plant it on some poor guy and accuse him of withholding it to get him into trouble and better your position in some unrelated deal. Maybe you do everything you can to stop him from getting it but he gets it anyway, and so on. Since these are all short term things that do not affect the overall world state, you can have a lot of them and hopefully make the player feel like they were able to choose the path they wanted to.

Now lets say you add in one more route, one where the king doesn't get what he needs and the city is destroyed. You've only really added +1 options to the many you already had, but you've potentially made a ton of work for yourself to account for such a significant event in the remainder of the game.

[Larkaloke]

I'm happy with how Pillars of Eternity is shaping up thus far. There isn't anything major I would wish to add, although that could change when I know what exactly the combat will be like (combat may be the single thing I'm pickiest about in games). Most of the things that I have been dearly wishing for the return of in recent years are indeed present, it looks to be a very interesting setting in its own right, and that's enough for me.

 

Now, my ideal game -- leaving aside all limitations and realism with regards to making the thing -- would be some combination of a very in-depth strategy game and a very in-depth roleplaying game, starting as a pure roleplaying game at first level and working one's way up to conquering whole kingdoms/countries/worlds at extremely high levels. It would have an immensely detailed and realistic combat system, never pull any punches with regards to difficulty, and you could screw over the world entirely by accident if you weren't careful. There would be all sorts of various plots that look as though they could be the main plot at lower levels, but the real main plot wouldn't even fully reveal itself until you were already well into the conquering stage of the game. You could easily become hated by the populace even while saving them if you were disagreeable enough, and if you chose to go the villainous route, you could be as subtle or as overbearing and blatant as you like -- but you might end up getting taken out by an erstwhile band of heros. While I'm at dreaming here, dialogue would be only an input window and the program would be complex enough to figure out how to respond to it. Oh, and you could create more or less as many characters as you wanted to, and control them all seperately if you liked.

 

I don't expect that to happen anywhere except, perhaps, in a tabletop game. I'm content with quality roleplaying games for the computer.

[Randomthom]

 

There are no RPG elements worth dying for. But there's perhaps a few for which I'd fork over a little extra coin.

• Creates an emotional response -- like a good book, I want to care about something in the story. Even if it is just taking down the bad guy.
• Worthwhile companions -- traveling with characters who I would actually want to meet in real life.
• Enjoyable interactions -- I prefer that at least some of the denizens feel alive and provide an interesting discourse.
• Explorable, interesting world -- a setting/genre that holds more interest than just a place to find creatures to fight.
• Sense of accomplishment -- at the end I want to feel like I've achieved something more meaningful than just repeatedly clicking a mouse button.

 

 

Got to agree with this;

Creates an emotional response: This can cover over a multitude of sins in a game. For all else you can say about Mass Effect 3, it definitely managed this, particularly for me with Mordin Solus. I'm not one to get overly attached usually or particularly tearful but that tugged at my heartstrings. For that scene alone I applaud the writers & voice actors.

 

Worthwhile companions: I'd agree sort-of. They need to be worthwhile mechanically, but mostly, I'd just say they need to create an emotional response in me that is something other than "mildly annoyed". If I love them, hate them (Joffrey Baratheon-esque hate I mean, not Justin Beiber-esque hatred), it doesn't matter, so long as they make me feel something. Obviously different people respond differently to each NPC so there needs to be a good variety.

 

Both of these are talking about the emotional reaction of the player towards the events within the game of course. I'm not asking for an emotional reaction such as the one I experienced at the end of ME3 (pre-"fix") which was somewhere between "angry", "disappointed" and "WTF?" which was more to do with the games creators (or more likely their publisher).

[Lephys]

^ I'd like to point out Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2 as an excellent example of a good emotional-response-evoking villain. You hate him, but as an adversary. As a threat to be taken down. You feel a need to kill him. He literally antagonizes you the whole time, rather than walking around trying to exude evil or something. He's just a horrible person.

[Bryy]

^ I'd like to point out Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2 as an excellent example of a good emotional-response-evoking villain. You hate him, but as an adversary. As a threat to be taken down. You feel a need to kill him. He literally antagonizes you the whole time, rather than walking around trying to exude evil or something. He's just a horrible person.

I'll jump in with my two cents and expand upon this.

 

Handsome Jack wasn't just a guy out to make a fortune and screw the little guy. I love how they circumvented the modern trap of villain writing in which the villain actually has a really good idea but otherwise acts like a complete and utter degenerate in order to bring about utopia. Too many writers want a mindbogglingly terrible bad guy, but also want him to have a motivation that you completely sympathize (and sometimes empathize) with.

 

This is why Avatar's bad guy was such a breath of fresh air. Because everything he was saying was the truth. Jake was dooming humanity by thwarting their terraforming efforts. It made complete sense to destroy the natives Hometree, and to even try to kill Jake. Heck, he even gives Jake three separate tries before taking military action. At the end of the film, he even pops open his mech's helmet because he knows that even if he kills Jake, he's still failed at his mission; he wants to suffocate, because to him, failure is death. He was not the stereotypical villain because he was not the villain. He was just a guy doing his job. He wasn't crazy. He wasn't power-hungry. He was just a guy.

 

Handsome Jack also subverts the stereotypical horrible villain with good intentions trope by being so arrogant that he thought he actually was doing the right thing by killing everyone. He actually thought that by simply doing what he wanted, that made him the good guy. What does he do after Angel betrays him? He can't comprehend it. His mental walls literally stop him from going that far. What happens when Angel is dying and yet telling him what a horrible person he is? He can't comprehend it. He was so involved in his own greed and his own sense of self-worth that he began to see people as things rather than people; and he didn't even know it was happening until he could no longer understand what was happening. Go back and listen to the tones in Jack's voice as he calls you out. That's not mockery. That's him genuinely trying to talk to you. When he kills Roland, he doesn't get how that is the same thing as Angel being dead. He doesn't understand that your loss is the same as his loss. He expects you to think of yourself as the bad guy. He says this more than once to you, as if it is some universal fact.

 

That is what made Jack a great villain. 

[constantine]

Top 5 RP elements I would love PoE to accomplish:

 

 

5. Open Game World I can have access to soon after starting the game. You can punish me for being reckless, but do not take that away. Every single person I know or read about has their fondest memories exploring the Sword Coast in BG game.

 

4. Quests laid out over the course of the game that are as imaginative as those of pen-'n-paper games (developers are well familiar with such).

 

3. A fair amount of Free-form Quests. Plant it onto me, then let me figure out how to research and reach the goal. Let those quests have real alternate routes and not superficial ones.

 

2. Companions whose personalities I can shape up over the course of the game (or they in turn can shape me up) and in some cases that would lead to either a quest or/and some special ability gained, either for the companion or for the both of us when fighting along-sides.

 

1. Multiple Endings (true to the name) to Main Story based on dialog options/actions on end-game and also based on decisions made through-out some key points in narrative. It would also be great if your companions could alter final outcome in some manner.

[Frenzy-kun]

Retraining.

 

If I mess up the build of my character I'd like to be able to fix it. I don't have 60 hours to redo half of the game because I messed it up along the way. And if I restart I'd rather start as a new class instead.