Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.games:1694 rec.games.misc:12001 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!att!cbnewsl!conty From: conty@cbnewsl.att.com (enrique.conty) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games,rec.games.misc Subject: Re: RPG opinions (was Re: Programmer...) Summary: A long reply to a long post Message-ID: <1990Nov5.203953.15790@cbnewsl.att.com> Date: 5 Nov 90 20:39:53 GMT References: (cross-listed to rec.games.misc) <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> Followup-To: rec.games.misc,comp.sys.mac.games Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 110 In article <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: > This is being cross-listed to rec.games.misc. Let's try to keep > this discussion on the *design* of a game, *not* the system which > it runs on, OK? Fine. > Patrick Jost says: >>Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions >>for what I'd consider better games: > > >1) [Why do we need to gain experience before getting the spells]? > > Good observation, but I think magic is just too plentiful in RPG's as > it is. [stuff deleted] Good point. Those Bard's Tale II spells that cause up to 800 HP damage per monster (or some such figure) sound too much like power gaming for my taste. How about this: have a very limited set of spells (less than 10). As experience increases, more powerful versions of the same spells can be used. > I agree with you about the dumb idea of gaining levels to be able to do > things. To me this is just a way of making the game last longer (which > is unfortunately the intention of the programmers). [stuff deleted] I don't quite agree. I like watching my cast of characters grow from a bunch of pathetic weaklings to a well-organized group of heroic adventurers. > [stuff deleted] I would like to see a game > designed where you have to be really sharp to find any magic items > and have nothing mentioned in the book about them. You would be > forced to learn about the history of the place, or talk to the right > people, or maybe even experiment with the object before you learned > its secrets. Like Ultima IV, where you had to find reagents and combine them in the correct proportions to create spells. What I liked about this system is that for some of the spells you had to experiment by yourself (given that you're familiar with the effects of various reagents) to get the right combination! > >2) Running out of food, torches and so on. I think this reduces many > >aspects of gameplay to tedium. Sure, you'd have to have these things > >in real life, but I don't see that this adds anything to a game. I prefer to think of it as non-combat planning strategy. From M&M II (now playing): "Let's see, should I spend 20 gold on a lantern, given that I have two characters which can cast light spells, or use the money to buy that nifty ring mail?" As it turned out, I ended up with an extinguished light in a non-magic zone shortly thereafter. I don't have a problem with having to do this sort of planning (unless taken to an extreme). > >3) Having a "quest" be an integral part of a game. Once the "quest" has > >been accomplished, the game is more or less over. [stuff deleted] I agree, but if we remove this, what is the purpose of the game? We could make it an "exploration" game, but without the "goal" incentive most kids might not be too interested in it, and the game wouldn't sell as well. About the need of alternate ways to solve an adventure (or a specific puzzle): you're right on target!! > >4) Lack of originality is chronic! Every game seems to have a few attack > >spells, a few heal spells, transport spells and so on. For characters, > >you get fighters, wizards and clerics; sometimes you get thieves, ninjas > >and the like. Once again, I'd like to see more effort put into creating > >a real "world" with characteristics to be learned as the game goes on. > > I agree! Here's another one for all you gamers out there: > What about the whole concept of *hit points*? Now just think about > that for a second. "Hit points"? We're so used to thinking in > those terms we can't see how absurd this idea is. When you're > dealing with computers of course one must reduce everything about > a character to bits and bytes, but why be so bloody obvious about > it? Or *at least* have the character be *wounded* if he's lost a > few "hit points"! Your character could have 100 HP and be down to > his very last HP (1 HP) and still be fighting like nothing is wrong. > Stupid. Excellent point. All these concepts (character classes, hardwired moral alignments, hit/magic points, etc.) are leftovers from AD&D, which have since been superseded (sp?) by better game mechanics. One of the things I liked the most from Interplay's Wasteland is that you could create any kind of character if you gave him/her the right set of skills (no character classes here). I think that the computer should be used to REMOVE the number-crunching drudgery from the game. As the character advances in experience (note that I haven't made any mention of levels) she would realize that she can strike harder / last more in combat / cast more powerful spells than before. While we're at it, what's with the f*@&!#% obsession with Sword-and-Sorcery scenarios in CRPGs? What's wrong with roleplaying in other historical/fantasy scenarios (Cyberpunk, feudal Japan, traditional SF)? Me, I'd love to see a CRPG based on turn-of-the-century science and adventure fiction (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc). I haven't played the Space 1889 RPG, but it sounds similar. > >One of the best games I've had was Might and Magic. > > You've got good taste. :-) Personally, I prefer the Ultima series. Also, note that all of the faults described above can be found in Might & Magic. Waiting for a computer equivalent of GURPS, -- E n r i q u e C o n t y jester@ihlpl.att.com