RPGs: The State of Play

[Lemur]

I think [hit points are] an inherent limitation of gaming, simply because representing health in a realistic manner isn't conducive to fun. [...] Even STALKER turned a lot of people off with its slightly more realistic health system, and all it really did was require a player to bandage himself after being shot to stop the bleeding. If stopping your own bleeding is too extreme for a lot of players, I doubt whether further steps towards health realism would be successful.

Then I must have been part of the fractionate minority that liked the STALKER system. You want to avoid bullets? Then put on armor to soften the blow or duck behind a wall. Much more satisfying, and less silly to boot.

Down with hit points! There has to be a better way to represent combat toughness. Face it, hit points are the prime way things get silly in an RPG. One day you're having trouble killing rats, the next you're going toe-to-toe with archdemons and dragons. Such foolishness. This is why high-level D&D campaigns became exercises in the absurd—your 25th-level mage wandering about the seventh circle of hell, zapping down fire giants and whatnot.

One of the best things about BG1 was that you started at 1st level, and faced typical 1st level problems. No uber-hammer-of-instant-death-smiting, just a 1st level fighter or thief or whatever trying to wrestle with orcs. God bless.

[Beskar]

A thing about a very good RPG is that if you played it with immortality mode, it would still be fun.

[Ja'chyra]

A good RPG has got to be open in my opinion, it shouldn't drive you down onr route or stop you going backwards if you so choose.

[Beskar]

A good RPG has got to be open in my opinion, it shouldn't drive you down onr route or stop you going backwards if you so choose.

I know some one who really hated Dragon Age for being too open. The fact they had to kill the only healer in the game ruined it for them and they used the "how was I susposed to know that happened, I wanted to see the options!"

[Ja'chyra]

I know some one who really hated Dragon Age for being too open. The fact they had to kill the only healer in the game ruined it for them and they used the "how was I susposed to know that happened, I wanted to see the options!"

That's why I would say dragon ages isn't an RPG, you shouldn't have to do anything.

[Gregoshi]

...There has to be a better way to represent combat toughness. Face it, hit points are the prime way things get silly in an RPG. One day you're having trouble killing rats, the next you're going toe-to-toe with archdemons and dragons...

Lemur, you are looking at hit points wrong. It is not a measure of physical damage in the case of our hero (us). It is a measure of combat skill and endurance. When you are "hit", it indicate a blow of potential serverity or lethality. However, your combat skill provides you with means of avoiding the fatal blow by a side step or a body twist to turn it into a glancing blow, or even your armor withstanding the blow. Any physical damage is minor - a nick, a bruise, etc. The "damage" to your hit points is a wearing down of your endurance/skill. The more "damage" you take, the more skill you need to exert to defend yourself. Once you receive the death blow, you are weary and no longer capable of avoiding a killing stroke. This explains why a 1st level character has trouble with rats while the 20th level character is going toe-to-toe with demons and dragons - a fatal blow is the same for both but the 20th level character has the skills to avoid that blow for a longer period of time. Note that for some creatures (perhaps giants, dragons, etc), hit points may indeed be looked at as simply the amount of physical damage the creature can sustain, but for our characters, it represents something different.

I agree with froggy's comment about the template: "I have to save the world? Again!?" The RPG makers need to put an effort into finding other things to make the adventures worth while. In the Conan stories (books!), his early years were motivated by fame and fortune and there were some great stories in those pursuits. Think about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones finding amazing treasures - how cool would finding something like the Ark be as a final payoff for completing an adventure instead of merely saving the world for the umpteenth time? Or slaying the dragon at the end and as a denouement being able to sort through the dragon's treasure horde (as a mini game of sorts?) to find out what incredible items are hidden in the mound of gold. One of the nice things about Oblivion is that you don't have to save the world. You can pursue good or evil, fame or infamy. You can seek to be the head of one or more of the guilds and so on. Obviously, breaking the template is easier said than done, but it can be done. I've never played it but what I've heard of it, Planescape seems to be a game that breaks the mold and it is highly regarded by those who've played it. I'd like to see more games like that (I think).

I think I'm done now......yes, I am.

[Azathoth]

I'm fine with the Hero's Journey and linear gameplay, as long as it's done well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

RPG=role playing game. I get sick of the hero for some reason being the only role we can play as.

[Azathoth]

RPG=role playing game. I get sick of the hero for some reason being the only role we can play as.

Well, you are playing the role of the hero.

[miotas]

I quite liked the health system in ghost recon AWF. It's an FPS I know*, but it's still a good example of a well made health system, you could take one or two of minor wounds to the body and still get patched up, but more than that, or just one to the head and you're dead.



*Although according to this definition, just about every game I've ever played is an RPG

Well, you are playing the role of the hero.

[Lemur]

Lemur, you are looking at hit points wrong. It is not a measure of physical damage in the case of our hero (us). It is a measure of combat skill and endurance.

Oh, I've heard this argument before, and it still feels like a cop-out. It tells me that the game mechanics are incapable of representing the skill and endurance of the hero, and instead offer an arbitrary number to stand in for all of that interesting stuff.

No buying it. Hit points are a cop-out, a holdover from D&D, a reality-breaking built-in cheat and they should be done away with. Don't worry, no designer is going to listen to me, I'm just going to be in the corner eating a bowl of Grumpy Old Man Flakes.

[econ21]

If one tries to think about realism, hit points are unsatisfactory, but in gameplay terms, I like them. They allow you to face greater challenges as you level up and they make damage incremental rather than spikey, so that you don't die (or get crippled) too abruptly, but can flee if things go pear shaped. Yes, I know some people like games with "one hit, one kill", crippling wounds and fights you die almost immediately on walking into (e.g. a Morrowind sewer encounter at low level). However, I find them intensively frustrating and make the experience very gamey as, let's face it, you are just going to hit reload and nothing is more immersion breaking than that.

Of the alternatives, I find the "get better gear" solution unsatisfactory. Gear - even more than the human body - is constrained by physics. A bloke in full plate is in trouble against even two opponents who grapple him. I don't know enough about modern armour, but some of the weapon upgrades in Stalker seemed patently unrealistic (e.g. NATO assault rifles being massively more lethal than a basic AK74). Yes, you could make the armour magical but I prefer levelling up my character's attributes than his gear. Saying my character is harder to kill because he is experienced rests better with me than saying it is because he bought uber jewellery on the auction house (MMO players will know what I am talking about). I think the DnD/D20 system balances the loot and gear side well, so that a "mere" +1 upgrade is a big deal.

[Gregoshi]

...I'm just going to be in the corner eating a bowl of Grumpy Old Man Flakes.

Don't forget to add the spoiled milk.

[drone]

Oh, I've heard this argument before, and it still feels like a cop-out. It tells me that the game mechanics are incapable of representing the skill and endurance of the hero, and instead offer an arbitrary number to stand in for all of that interesting stuff.

Sounds to me like you are looking for a system like the old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. One of the attributes was Wounds, similar to hit points, but you never got many of them and large beasts could be appropriately represented. The determination of a successful hit depended on the weapon skill of the attacker and defender, with hit location included (based on the reversal of the 2 dice from the attack d100 roll). Armor mitigated damage. This being Warhammer, death and maiming were common. The GM's favorite words, "Don't get too attached to your character."

[Azathoth]

*Although according to this definition, just about every game I've ever played is an RPG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Well, you are playing the role of the hero.

Look, we've already had this discussion. There are characteristics that make RPG a separate genre.

[Beskar]

Obviously in a FPS, the FPS aspect of the game is stronger than that of the story or the role of your character. RPG typically is more focused on the story aspect, even if it comes at a cost to the action. In an FPS, you simply point and click and there is no RPG aspect to it.

Only area where FPS and RPG has merged, is Mass Effect and its kin.