Computer Role Playing Games: How would you design one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I still think its arrogant for one group to claim superiority of one or the other calling it more like a "True" RPG. They're just different.

The thing is the console "RPG's" have a lot more in common with traditional computer based adventure games than P&P RPG's.

[loinburger]

I agree with Urban. I'd hardly call it "arrogance" to say "this is more like an RPG than that." I would by no stretch of the imagination classify a game like Hexen II as a CRPG, but that doesn't mean that Hexen II was not a fun game. It's not saying that console-type RPG's like Final Fantasy are necessary better or worse than computer-type RPG's like Fallout, only that console-type RPG's like Final Fantasy are more similar to computer-type adventure games like Indiana Jones, Stonekeep, or Full Throttle.

[CygnusZ]

Still seems like two different sides of the same coin to me. While I do agree that console RPGs do seem to be heavily influenced by the old PC Adventure games, they also reperesent many elements of the old style P&P style game that is poorly represented by computer RPGs. Maybe it was the way I always played P&P games though (not much emphasis on combat, but there always was a huge story).

It's like computer RPGs have the "gameplay" right, but console RPGs have the "feel" right.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The thing is the console "RPG's" have a lot more in common with traditional computer based adventure games than P&P RPG's.

Too true. I've been p'n'p RPG'ing for 20 years and it only took a couple of those to mature enough that the group were refusing to allow the DM to run his campaign on rails without the players having a choice. None of the DM's ever had the temerity to tell me how I felt about any of the other PC's or NPC's unless a charm or curse spell was involved (nor did I when I was in the hotseat).

I think its this long tradition of being able to choose my own path that makes me unhappy with most modern PC RPG's because they are still quite limited, but absolutely reject any console types or old "gold box" games where the linear plot isn't absolutely perfect in leading me the way I would have gone had I been given a choice.

I can't remember where I found the Hoe it was so long ago. There *must* be walkthroughs still surviving in dusty corners of the web if you really need to find out. I loved Ultima Underworld 2 but didn't play UU1. Another one to try out sometime when I'm in a retro mood.

[mactbone]

I, for one, would rather have a superb story and characters, rather than generic everything. Generic everything is what you get in most CRPGs. At least with a console RPG, I can *feel* my character's motivation, I can interact with various people and I can choose, or not choose to accomplish various side quests. I still say FF6 is THE best and for those who have no clue, there were only a handful of characters you HAD to get in the World of Ruin, the rest were optional, but had fun little plotlines on what happened to them after the cataclysm. Plus, there was no MAIN character. All had almost equal time in the spotlight, and a specific reason for doing everything.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Plus, there was no MAIN character. All had almost equal time in the spotlight, and a specific reason for doing everything.

Thats one of the things I dont like. You're not playing a role, you're following the lives of many characters rather than identifying with one particular one.

[mactbone]

Why identify with one, when you can identify with 11?
(Gogo, Umaro, and Mog had no actual plot lines)

[Urban Ranger]

I don't see how it's possible to identify with 11. I have never seen it done in p'n'p campaigns, not even in ones that explicitly allow mulitple characters per player. I have never seen it in any novels, even say Lord of the Rings, or the Foundation series.

[Sandman]

My RPG:

Try to develop a combat system based on firearms, rather than a mix of all melee weapons ever.

Try to find an unconventnional setting; NOT a generic magical kingdom. An alternate modern-day world might be quite cool.

Multiple realities, like some of the Zelda games, is very cool. Doesn't have to be a nice happy 'good' world versus a dark dreary 'evil' world. How about a hot world and a cold world which are otherwise the same?

A non-elemental magic system.

No distinct 'dungeons' or 'villages'.

People ignore you if you try to talk to them. No useless dialogue which you have to sift through to find a clue.

A twisting turning plot, with good characters turning evil, and evil characters turning good (that's always interesting).

More bosses; less hordes of wimpish beings. Only bosses give experience points.

[Urban Ranger]

Unconventional setting could be something like Arcanium, where there is a mix of magic and technology.

Multiple realities can be interesting, but you must have a good reason why the player characters have to travel through them.

Dungeons vs villages: I think the distinction is necessary. Dungeons is the generic term for areas characters explore while villages are places where they rest. Sure, dungeons are not necessary evil and things can take place in villages, but the point is the party must have a place to rest and train.

People should not ignore you when you try to talk to them. However, the player should have a way to tell whether they are extras added to make the locale more lifelike.