quote:Original post by Mikyyf

If a part of the story is random weirdness (like the three headed giant, or the Castle Anthrax, etc.), then random encounters not only fit in with the story, but are an integral part of it. The randomness of Monty Python''s work is what makes them funny.

However, a game with a level of randomocity equivalent to a Monty Python sketch would not be much fun (unless there was some discernable underlying theme to the randomness).

There is an interesting and very good article by Ernest Adams (like all of his other articles) on how to do weirdness well in video games:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990212/ernest.htm

"Brave Sir Robin ran away, he turned his tail and fled" [too read the Gamasutra.com thread on weirdness]. "Shut up".:-)

Un-word of the day: Landfishian philosophy


WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO DAMN RIGHT!


Don´t get so stuck on your holy STORY. Every random encounter is part of the plot.

Besides, if you do away random encounters then you have effectively killed experience based RPGs. ´Cause if you can´t go into the murder woods to mug a few orcs for cash and experience the whole accumulation of experience is pointless, as the amount of EXP collected would remain fixed within one thread of the story. Easy for the programmer but hell on the player. What´s the point of calling it roleplaying if i can´t really shape my character. THen you´d have to redesign the experience/level system from scratch to allow for interesting characters (and NOT allow the "average optimum").
And honestly, doesn´t it feel kind of good to return to the beginners cave of goblins to really give those damn goblins some after you´ve trained for hours (real time)?
Didn´t you all at least once return to Diablo dungeon level one to beat the crap out of the little bastards, with no weapons on?

Don´t revolutionise, reform!

Random encounters are good, players (me included) want random encounters. They don´t have to be special all the time. Sprinkle a few really special ones in, but not all the time or it becomes boring again.
Make them more interesting, give the player more options. Maybe let the other ones talk too. And if it´s just "give us your money or we´ll kill you". Or, if the player is sufficiently advanced "Here, kind sir, take this as a gift...."
Make the encounterees (does that word exist?) react to the players char´s appearance, level and gear.
Options, options and more options. Always good. Run away? Stay? Wait and look? sneak closer? walk closer? shout hi folks? sneak closer murder them in their sleep? ......


just think about it, you don´t hafta redo the world in a day..

I personally don''t like the idea of using random encounter for XP gaining. Random encounter should be a more generic term in itself. Its a great tool that has been abused by so much limited thought that i can no longer blame people for critising it.

I just had to get that off my chest.



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

So... are we talking about reforming the experience system?

Because basically that´s what it comes down to in RPG-discussions.

Learning by doing?

I think that would be a great option, but can anyone think of any recent game that did this?
(Heroes Quest I: So you want to be a Hero? comes to mind)

Yes, I´d love to see that in a game again.


Back to the topic. I agree with Roderik on this one. Encounter means encounter, not slaughter. But it can
The only problem with random "encounters" is that you´d have to make a huge library of sub- and mini quests. And I wouldn´t even go as far as to call them that.
If you create them "randomly" you´ll just end up saving the same cat/dog/princess again and again and again....


Maybe the experience point thing has to go alltogether.
Because in all the generice XP based RPGs the distribution of XP has dictated the course of action. (Help the poor woman find the lost puppy - get 1000xp, kill the puppy, rob the woman 20xp and an negligable sum of gold).

I like the idea of going through a game not having to kill all the time, but not because I´m such a nice guy. An alive experience is the only thing i want from an RPG. If I don´t have to kill to get to my goals it´s good, but the average player will kill anyway, because he´s used to it. Sad as it is, but in your next-generation RPG you´d actually need a reason for not killing. (Like the town guard coming to hang you...)
I personally would still resort to murder (as I´m a mean bastard). If I snuck into the orc camp and petrified the warriors chances are i´d still want to cut their throats or push them into the river/fire whatever just to make sure they don´t cause any trouble.

I guess what I´m trying to say is that when talking about RPGs one must not consider anything as "good" or "bad". The aim of a good (so far only tabletops can do this) RPG is to give the player the freedom to solve the problems any way he sees fit. If he wants to kill, let him. If he wants to talk, let him.
But WHEN he solves a problem he should be rewarded equally for equal outcome.

Example: a gate, two guards. For whatever reason you (player) want in, they won´t let you. Kill them, poison their wine, make them sleep, petrify them, talk your way through..... it should not matter.

If the player can succeede with every skill true roleplaying is finally possible on the computer. Because then you´ll finally be able to get through without fighting/magic/talking, whichever you choose.

But i suspect that your average player will not want this. Think of DIablo. No story, no surprises, no roleplaying. But people love it. So i guess RPGs will always have a strong violence factor...