Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ALTERNATIVE TO BATTLES
Posts
AABattery
View playlists
Close
post=130622
In fact it touches on one of those aspects of many RPGs I hate the most (speaking of battle and non-battle skills). The complete disconnect between the story world and the battle/gameplay world. They have nothing in common.
Nah, not really. It's like... Fast and Furious, the movie. The guys race, a lot of conflicts in the movie are decided by races, but it's not a movie about racing. The plot is not about racing, it's not about the career of a racer.
And I don't think battles are disconnected from the game in traditional RPGs. How so?
WolfCoder
3554
I like how in some Pokemon games, if all of your team is dead for some reason you just spontaneously pass out and majestically wake up at the nearest center. And in the original Gold and Silver I don't even know what the hell "whiting out" is. Does your opponent take out a portable floodlight and shine it in your face so you get blinded and fall over? And then they take your money! Arrrg
Haha, but for the most part of all the hundreds of RPGs I've played I've never felt the battle system had nothing to do with the game. Even Yu-Gi-Oh has a relevant premise, as stupid as it is, it's still internally consistent with the fact that people solve disputes by playing the equivalent of Magic: The Gathering on hologram machines. Why you can't just fight them yourself is anyone's guess, but the battles match the theme.
Haha, but for the most part of all the hundreds of RPGs I've played I've never felt the battle system had nothing to do with the game. Even Yu-Gi-Oh has a relevant premise, as stupid as it is, it's still internally consistent with the fact that people solve disputes by playing the equivalent of Magic: The Gathering on hologram machines. Why you can't just fight them yourself is anyone's guess, but the battles match the theme.
post=130179
Of course it's hard to get some great game mechanic to replace battles. Since oftentimes battles are essentially the only gameplay element in some of these games. It's a game within the game. It's when the roleplaying ends and the dice and hex map comes out. I really think that the only way to get rid of the bore that is the battles is to turn it into "just another thing that happens". After all RPGs are about freedom and freedom means that you should be able to kill someone if you really, really, really, need to. (With all the consequences of course. Being wanted for murder for the rest of the game should really make the game a lot harder, perhaps even impossible)
This is how game designers should be thinking. Unfortunately, almost all amateur and commercial RPG designers automatically include battles, and a 'battle system' without thinking beyond a very narrow paradigm because they lack the creativity or intellectual capacity to conceive of any other notion. "This is how a RPG is." *game designs itself*
post=130060
Isn't this then a sim?
Doesn't an RPG that loses battles but retains stats become a sim and an RPG that loses battles and stats become an adventure game?
I know we oughtn't be too restricted by genre conventions but still, in almost everyone's mind...
RPG - Battles != RPG
I am not sure how the term 'role playing game' automatically implies or necessitates 'battles'. Maybe if you are playing the role of a combatant, I guess! A role playing game without battles isn't a sim - why would it be? What would it be simulating? There are many RPGs in which the least compelling game play element is the battles, and could even benefit from their removal. I can play those with all the combat hacked out and still have a very fun role playing experience.
I think the genre of RPG in terms of video games has very little to do with actual roleplaying.
Something like Heavy Rain has a lot more to do with actual roleplaying.
Mass Effect is an RPG that happens to incorporate roleplaying elements as do Fallout and Oblivion. But most jRPGs have basically no actual ROLEPLAYING involved. You can't make choices and you can't do and say things because your character would do them.
Instead an RPG is defined by well...numbers.
Something like Heavy Rain has a lot more to do with actual roleplaying.
Mass Effect is an RPG that happens to incorporate roleplaying elements as do Fallout and Oblivion. But most jRPGs have basically no actual ROLEPLAYING involved. You can't make choices and you can't do and say things because your character would do them.
Instead an RPG is defined by well...numbers.
Darlos9D
0
Looking at the recent posts, I realized that even if you did something like replace "battle" with "drive cars fast," ultimately there's still some kind of conflict going on and a system through with you resolve it, be it by hitting things with swords, racing cars, or throwing around playing cards.
I think the baseline "problem" here is that an RPG is typically centered strongly around the idea of having a story. And to have a story, you need some kind of conflict. And when it's time to get down and deal with that conflict the old fashined way, some kind of gameplay system that essentially compares character abilities and player skills in order to determine winners is necessary. A battle, even if it doesn't involve characters actually trying to kill each other, is still a battle, within the context of designing an RPG.
So I suppose the ultimate conclusion here is that, no, you can't have an RPG without a battle system. Now, you can come up with a really unusual battle system that doesn't conform to the idea of flat-out mortal combat, but it's still a battle system as far as winning and losing goes. So there is no alternative to battles. There are only alternative types of battle.
I think the baseline "problem" here is that an RPG is typically centered strongly around the idea of having a story. And to have a story, you need some kind of conflict. And when it's time to get down and deal with that conflict the old fashined way, some kind of gameplay system that essentially compares character abilities and player skills in order to determine winners is necessary. A battle, even if it doesn't involve characters actually trying to kill each other, is still a battle, within the context of designing an RPG.
So I suppose the ultimate conclusion here is that, no, you can't have an RPG without a battle system. Now, you can come up with a really unusual battle system that doesn't conform to the idea of flat-out mortal combat, but it's still a battle system as far as winning and losing goes. So there is no alternative to battles. There are only alternative types of battle.
Lord_Kries
62
What I would do, and kentona mentioned this before, is to use something very similar to KOTOR 1 and 2. Build the challenges in your gameworld around a set of skills. For example, if doing a classic rpg, you could have something like diplomacy or forging as skills, and if making a more modern game, lockpicking and hacking could be skills. The skills could be dependent on attributes. (intelligence, strength, etc...) Now, the only problem I see with this is that attributes are usually increased through leveling up, which in most games is achieved by combat.
So, if I was doing something like this, I would just do away with the traditional leveling system and have attributes, and consequentialy skills, increase based on which skills are used and how often.This would take a pretty massive amount of scripting though....
Now, the only problem I can see with this is that players expect some kind of massive "final" boss fight. You could get around this by instead having the player make some kind of massive choice or confront some kind of final obstacle that would test every one of their skills.
It's just an idea, but it seems like a pretty good one to me.
So, if I was doing something like this, I would just do away with the traditional leveling system and have attributes, and consequentialy skills, increase based on which skills are used and how often.This would take a pretty massive amount of scripting though....
Now, the only problem I can see with this is that players expect some kind of massive "final" boss fight. You could get around this by instead having the player make some kind of massive choice or confront some kind of final obstacle that would test every one of their skills.
It's just an idea, but it seems like a pretty good one to me.
post=131030
Numbers is not equal to battles.
To be clear, I am not talking about my idealized personal vision of what an RPG should be.
I am talking about what seems to be the popular criterion for classifying a game in the RPG genre: numbers and battles.
Numbers but no battles? It's probably a simulation in most people's eyes. Likewise, take out battles and numbers but keep a story and you have an adventure game. Take out numbers but not battles, and it's an action or action-adventure game. (All games have numbers, but RPGs and most sims have highly visible numbers.)
Here's an idea: numbers and story and battles and skills.
See: Hellion, or in a more extreme case, Fallout (the not-3 kind).
Otherwise, you have a puzzle, sim, or adventure game, like said in this thread.
EDIT: Yes, I know this thread was not-battles, but, hey! The topic's shifted.
EDIT2: Basically what I am saying is that I don't understand the need for karma systems in games, or non-linearity, or this anti-battle hate a few posts have had. OH NO RPGS HAVE BATTLES AND SOME RPGS SUCK AT THEM BATTLE SUCK *Craze runs off to play more Strange Journey, recruiting demons by talking to them and getting to understand their personality
EDIT3: Hahahah, Strange Journey has an alignment system, doesn't it? It's just better than the black/white "roleplaying" in Fable/ME2/FO3/Oblivion/etc.
EDIT4: I don't even know what this post is about anymore.
See: Hellion, or in a more extreme case, Fallout (the not-3 kind).
Otherwise, you have a puzzle, sim, or adventure game, like said in this thread.
EDIT: Yes, I know this thread was not-battles, but, hey! The topic's shifted.
EDIT2: Basically what I am saying is that I don't understand the need for karma systems in games, or non-linearity, or this anti-battle hate a few posts have had. OH NO RPGS HAVE BATTLES AND SOME RPGS SUCK AT THEM BATTLE SUCK *Craze runs off to play more Strange Journey, recruiting demons by talking to them and getting to understand their personality
EDIT3: Hahahah, Strange Journey has an alignment system, doesn't it? It's just better than the black/white "roleplaying" in Fable/ME2/FO3/Oblivion/etc.
EDIT4: I don't even know what this post is about anymore.
Battles are just, one concept in a sea of possibilities (cosmos). I do not get why they have to be in literally every game.
I agree that a story with no gameplay is no RPG.
I agree that RPG is supposed to have numbers, statistics, and a gameplay centered around that.
And I understand numbers don't have to involve battles.
And I think people tend to agree with me on that, but I also agree it's hard to come up with a decent gameplay idea that involves numbers but not battles. It's hard, and that's why I created this topic. It's hard, but it doesn't mean we should just say "oh, let's keep battles, they make everything so much simpler".
I agree that RPG is supposed to have numbers, statistics, and a gameplay centered around that.
And I understand numbers don't have to involve battles.
And I think people tend to agree with me on that, but I also agree it's hard to come up with a decent gameplay idea that involves numbers but not battles. It's hard, and that's why I created this topic. It's hard, but it doesn't mean we should just say "oh, let's keep battles, they make everything so much simpler".
Now this may seem to be like 'yo dawg what the fuck' here, but don't those Princess Maker games have a shitload of numbers but no battles?
I can see what Darlos is saying, really. The basis of almost any game is some level of competition. It is you vs someone else, whether it is a friend you are playing with, or a computer, and your goal is to win. Thus there is generally some means by which two sides compete with one another, whether it is through a direct contest of some sort like an RPG mechanics battle or something that is up to chance like rolling a die or drawing a card. Calling this a "battle" isn't entirely far-fetched.
However, this doesn't really have anything to do with there being a story.
However, this doesn't really have anything to do with there being a story.
Feldschlacht 4
Now this may seem to be like 'yo dawg what the fuck' here, but don't those Princess Maker games have a shitload of numbers but no battles?
In PM2 you could learn to fight/use magic and get in combat tournaments and go adventuring for items and events (and you'd probably have to get in fights to avoid losing the week)!
Darken
3952
post=131092
Now this may seem to be like 'yo dawg what the fuck' here, but don't those Princess Maker games have a shitload of numbers but no battles?
Someday I will make a princess maker game...
post=131100but losing is fun!
I can see what Darlos is saying, really. The basis of almost any game is some level of competition. It is you vs someone else, whether it is a friend you are playing with, or a computer, and your goal is to win.
Shinan
4314
post=131100
The basis of almost any game is some level of competition. It is you vs someone else, whether it is a friend you are playing with, or a computer, and your goal is to win.
Actually this is usually refuted in one of the first paragraphs of any tabletop RPG book. And I always go back to my beloved tabletop RPGs. The aim of most tabletop RPGs is NOT the players vs the GM. Instead the players and the GM collaborate to create something. Of course computer RPGs are mostly single player things, but this actually got me thinking about another design thing from tabletop that would be cool to bring to the computer. The concept of not trying to beat the game. Instead trying to... just... sort of... enjoy it... (And of course the game accomodating this... enjoying)
No I don't have any real ideas how it could be implemented... Yet. No wait I just got one but that would lead to another page-long reply by Shinan and seriously we don't need more of those.
