Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!elaine0.stanford.edu!draphsor From: draphsor@elaine0.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games Subject: Re: RPG opinions (was Re: Programmer...) Message-ID: Date: 11 Nov 90 05:58:44 GMT References: <1990Nov9.005315.16572@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 89 smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: >Matt Rollefson in my opinion has posted a few *great* articles in the >past couple days. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And for my next trick... :) Seriously, there is a reason for this followup, although it's fairly minor. [Much deleted. Of a very good article, btw - why don't you read it?] [No, I'm not talking about my article - I'm not that much of an arrogant fool! I'm talking about Stephen Smith's article.] > [Discussion of how most CRPGs have been rather video-game-like.] >The reason for this, as I said above, is that this is what we >are used to. What I would like to see in an RPG is more anticipation >leading up to the conflict, and having these conflicts be fewer >in number. Suggested scenario: >You talk to a villager. She/he mentions hearing about >some monsters (fill in monster's name/type) doing something >bad. >In the next town you find a library in which there is a >book on monsters. You read up on the monster you >heard about and find out it eats kyppo weed. >In another place you meet a man who is a grocer, and if you >ask him about kyppo weed he'll say that it only grows in certain >areas, specifically in a plateau above Mt. X. >(to make a long story short)...you find out all you can about >these monsters, you equip yourself accordingly, you hire a guide, >figure out which way the battle should be fought (tactics--based >on what you know about the monsters), then you go to meet them. >Tons of other stuff could be put in along the way to increase >the anticipation of the encounter and to make the learning/finding >process fun and enjoyable. I like it. It's the same debate as in RPGs - hack 'n' slash vs a more 'realistic' scenario. And there's no reason that this can't be maintained even in the heroic setting. For that matter, the basic hack 'n' slash adventure isn't all that 'heroic'. After all, what's heroic about killing twenty orcs when none of them have a chance of harming you? In my opinion, heroic is going up against long odds and winning. It's searching far and wide for every scrap of information about a vastly superior monster, in the hopes that you will, somehow, manage to defeat it. It's tiptoeing into the dragon's cave, armed with the best weapons you've been able to find, hoping against hope that the dragon won't wake up. It's that sinking feeling when you see those two balefully glowing red eyes... Most monsters in the arcade-style games are pitifully weak, compared to the typical party. As someone mentioned somewhere else (I don't remember if it was this thread or not), some of the major nasties in Bard's Tale that you meet at the end are pretty awesome monsters - the greater demons, for instance. But against a party, they're toast. You'd need about twenty greater demons to take out the typical Bard's Tale party that's progressed that far. You only meet one, or at the most five. This is as it has to be when you keep meeting more monsters every time you turn around. But there's no reason this should be the only type of game available. What would be nice to see in these games is a bit of a reality-check in terms of monster vs player strength. The power scale is simply not as steep as most games model it. That is, the difference between a typical monster (orc, say) and a high-level adventurer should not be that huge. Sure, the high-level adventurer should be able to beat the orc in almost any one-on-one confrontation. But he shouldn't have 20 to 30 *times* the life-expectancy, and armor that is orders of magnitude better. (Doesn't it bug you how nothing can ever hit your characters? Not ever? And then when something finally can, you get pissed off? Because you didn't think anything could ever hit your characters? I mean, you have no basis for judging beforehand if something can hit you or not.) I think the scale should be trimmed down a *lot*. Then battles which you truly plan ahead for are possible. After all, no one wants to fight a battle where there are one to one odds. You want overwhelming superiority. If you can't count on one character being 'overwhelming' relative to twenty orcs, you bring in tactics. You start having to think, instead of just pushing the (f)ight key. Well, enough gaming philosophy for the nonce. Is anyone besides Stephen and myself interested in this thread? :) -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu