What would you want to do in an RPG without combat?

Started by
23 comments, last by MSW 17 years, 4 months ago
Quote:Original post by questors_endgame
Actually I think "no combat at all roll playing" is a kind of rpg that people have been hoping for. My idea of it is possibly too much like a sim. Create a character, possibly several, with in depth real-life features like diabetes or fear of spiders. Then you would have to manage their health and food intake, stay away from diseased people. Then managment of money or land, a business, even political power. There might be a greater goal such as free your people from oppression. I would put this in an ancient times setting. (if you die of old age at 40 carry on as one of your children.)

I never thought of that... but really, The Sims is a party-based RPG without combat. It's all there, you take on the role of a group of characters and choose how they interacts with other characters and the world. The game also rewards character growth with higher paying jobs, children, and better stuff.

It's stretching the definition of RPG a bit, but then again so is Final Fantasy [grin]

Check out my new game Smash and Dash at:

http://www.smashanddashgame.com/

Advertisement
I don't know I'm thinking it would be very different than that.
I just hope for a game that has broad horizons of character creation and a developing plot or world but not like a MMOG. When I think of RPG it's playing a roll.
___ _ _ _Journal with textures, moddeling:http://btoxin.livejournal.comGame Website:http://fadedearth.infinityanalog.com
Quote:But to get back OT, why not allow the player to do both? When combat begins, present the player with the option to skip the combat and base the outcome solely on your stats.

The problem with this is that if you can get significantly better results by doing the combat yourself, nobody wants to have the computer automatically resolve. And if the computer gets better results, nobody will do the combat. If you don't balance it *very* carefully, you really hurt the game, and I've yet to see a game that correctly balances it.
Does Harvest Moon qualify?

What about Indigo Prophecy? What about Omikron: the Nomad Soul?

I guess a more meaningful question is: how do you distinguish a non-violent RPG from an adventure game?
XBox 360 gamertag: templewulf feel free to add me!
>> What would you want to do in an RPG without combat?

Kill myself!
Some varied response to the question.

But lets stop and think for moment what role comabt has in rpgs.
1 - Main source of gameplay
2 - Risk and reward system
3 - Sets game pacing
4 - Provides a sense of progession

I don't see why that can be replaced with other things, and more interesting gameplay oppertunities.

Now I think one common misconception is that game without combat is a nonviolent game that doesn't have to be the case and isn't in the scenario I'm thinking off. Nothing stopping you from shooting someone in the back you just don't get the traditional rpg combat aspect instead it is all abstacted.
The main role of combat in RPGs is CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

Conflict comes in many forms, and has as many ways to resolve it...not just brute combat.

You can take combat out of RPGs. But RPGs (like ALL games) still need conflict.

This can be done in a number of ways...Simplist way is to change the conflict focus off of combat and onto some other contest....For example instead of combat, the RPG revolves around conflict resolution through the raceing of horses, or the blacksmithing skill, or being the best muscian in all the land. In such examples instead of fighting monsters...one would be raceing agains other opponets on horseback, or trying to beat opposeing blacksmiths in both speed and quality of work, or just beating "battle of the bands" type contests....statisticly rich and complex games can be made from such game scenarios, just as they can from conventional RPG combat. Your imaginiation and willingness to try something different are the only limiting factor.
I really like the idea of taking out combat (or having the computer do it based on stats), though it makes it more of a sim game. I think the only reason someone would cry foul would be if there wasn't anything to take its place, since in a lot of RPGs (mostly console ones) combat is all the player really has any amount of control in.

In most RPGs, "combat" isn't really a violent activity. You make selections from menus or use hotkeys for them, and other than that, the most intense, twitch based combat is moving little lines and circles and dots around a grid to see where they line up in terms of range, aim and area of effect, and then letting th emachine do some math to find out which variables are reduced to 0 first. That's computer fighting. More stylized combat systems ditch the grid and just use the variables.

You can replace the swords and HP with sponges and a "dirt quotient" and turn combat into cleaning, or use a hose and soil aridity to suddenly find yourself watering a garden. The only thing that changes is the text and graphics. Aim for the roots! Shoot at the rooooots!!!
Watering a garden.... that could actually be cool if exploited properly. [smile]

RPG - Combat = All about the "minigames" being turned into fuller featured components. Imagine an MMO (for instance) where your class choice has a heavy impact on the nature of how you play the game - i.e., combat medic characters basically play a Trauma Center clone patching people up - instead of boringly having the exact same interface as a barbarian, simply with the "Berserk Rage" button replace with "Heal Ally".

Hmm. Massively multiplayer M.A.S.H. anyone? [grin]

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement