Planescape: Torment - minus the D&D stuff

Started by
22 comments, last by Ryman 12 years, 2 months ago
RPGs are about killing monsters for gold and experience.

Even if a game is played for the story and revolves around the story and the story is the most important (like Final Fantasy series) then still combat takes the majority of the playtime. That's what the player will do most of the time. The reason is quite trivial, the story (any story) is too short to make a full fledged game, it would be too short. And too expensive (if you intend to add visuals to the storyline). Combat is cheap and easy to make. Also uses up a lot of playtime and is understandable by all players (unlike puzzles for example). Plus, contrary to your first post, most players do enjoy combat.

Actually, even in many gamebooks (which are the most hardcore story driven games I think) combat is not so rare.

Stellar Monarch (4X, turn based, released): GDN forum topic - Twitter - Facebook - YouTube

Advertisement
There are certainly examples of RPG-style games without any combat--To the Moon being the most recent one, but also A Light's End on XBLIG, and...and...

OK, maybe there's not a lot of them, but it happens, sometimes. And it's awesome for players like me, who fit exactly into the mold you're talking about--I tend to play games because I want to get immersed in a story where it feels like I'm the star and I'm the director, not necessarily because I want to hit things with a sword. Not that I think combat is inherently bad--for me, personally, it just tends to be filler that gets in the way of what I'm most interested in.

Life in the Dorms -- comedic point-and-click adventure game out now for Xbox Live Indie Games!

My portfolio: http://paulfranzen.wordpress.com/


There are certainly examples of RPG-style games without any combat--To the Moon being the most recent one, but also A Light's End on XBLIG, and...and...

OK, maybe there's not a lot of them, but it happens, sometimes. And it's awesome for players like me, who fit exactly into the mold you're talking about--I tend to play games because I want to get immersed in a story where it feels like I'm the star and I'm the director, not necessarily because I want to hit things with a sword. Not that I think combat is inherently bad--for me, personally, it just tends to be filler that gets in the way of what I'm most interested in.


You describe me exactly. It's not that combat itself is bad - and again, with our example here, I'm not saying that the narrative should have been altered not to include fighting. I'm just saying that sometimes, games like Heavy Rain - a game entirely focused on its story, and the way it tells it - doesn't need to have a combat engine like Tekken or Virtua Fighter, or give the player full FPS controls for segments involving shooting. The game Dreamfall: The Longest Journey suffered from using such contrived combat mechanics, and in my opinion alongside *many* others, so does Planescape: Torment.

Heavy Rain is an 8ish hour long adventure game. Imagine that length being padded out because of a complicated fighting engine with a steep learning curve. The player would be forced to master the mechanics well enough to progress through one or two tough battles that are setting them back, when all they really want is to save the damn kid and see how the mystery unfolds.

My argument isn't against combat, or D&D. I'm simply exploring the idea: would Planescape: Torment have been more *immersive* if it were stripped of its D&D mechanics? What are the alternatives? What alternatives do you think would have worked?

Thanks for everybody's input so far.

My argument isn't against combat, or D&D. I'm simply exploring the idea: would Planescape: Torment have been more *immersive* if it were stripped of its D&D mechanics? What are the alternatives? What alternatives do you think would have worked?

I dislike the D&D combat mechanics. Haven't tried Planescape Torment, but I was quickly put off by Baldurs Gate 2. That, and the vast amount of spells/skills with often minor statistical differences. Sure correct use of it can be called "tactical", but I did not find it fun or immersing. Felt more like a chore.
I believe new mmorpg's should focus on physical action based combat. Stats would be important. Good reactions will have some use, but most is decided by your stats, and not just hp and damage, but also influence the effects of block/parry where chance of block would be dependent on your vs enemy strength, and type of attack, weapon and shield (or no shield). Easier enemies will therefore be technically easier to beat, while hard enemies will be very hard to beat, and it would be much more easy to make sure a strong enemy couldn't be "tricked" by exploiting weaknesses in it's ai.
I'd throw away the D&D combat calculations (it's designed for use without domputers) and use whatever suits best, and probably "hide" much of the details.
lets say you played planet scape torment with only the "background" scene graphics.
You would have finished the game in 5 minutes and you would have found it boring.
For something to achieve value, it needs player interaction, combat, quests and dialog enchance the game.
combat: action, freedom, battle strategy.
quests: rewards, without combat there would be no rewards.
dialog: thinking, player choice, morality, ...

You cannot simply replace, for instance, a fight that you are expected to win decisively with no need to run away (meant as entertaining action and as a warning that someone hates you) against a group of thugs that assault your home to kidnap you and deliver you to your enemies with a puzzle.

Why do we need to replace it with anything? Leave the fight in, just let it play out as a cut scene. Since losing the fight isn't actually an option, it makes no difference if the player or the designer wins it...


For something to achieve value, it needs player interaction, combat, quests and dialog enchance the game.
combat: action, freedom, battle strategy.
quests: rewards, without combat there would be no rewards.
dialog: thinking, player choice, morality, ...

Clearly one can still have dialogue, and there are plenty of quest possibilities without combat (fetch quests, puzzles, etc.). The action involved in combat would have to be replaced with exploration or something, but it doesn't seem overwhelmingly difficult.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]


[quote name='LorenzoGatti' timestamp='1323426677' post='4892140']
You cannot simply replace, for instance, a fight that you are expected to win decisively with no need to run away (meant as entertaining action and as a warning that someone hates you) against a group of thugs that assault your home to kidnap you and deliver you to your enemies with a puzzle.

Why do we need to replace it with anything? Leave the fight in, just let it play out as a cut scene. Since losing the fight isn't actually an option, it makes no difference if the player or the designer wins it...[/quote]
Since the OP disliked combat-oriented roleplaying, I was discussing replacing a segment of the game (fighting and winning) with another player activity (solving a puzzle), both without a guaranteed outcome (or it wouldn't be a game). Replacing a part of the game with a cutscene is just an amputation, not an attempt to produce a different sort of RPG; cutscene violence could be a valid storytelling tool, but the player is supposed to do something.

Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru


Replacing a part of the game with a cutscene is just an amputation, not an attempt to produce a different sort of RPG; cutscene violence could be a valid storytelling tool, but the player is supposed to do something.

My take is that the OP is primarily interested in the story-telling aspect of the game (i.e. the Role Playing elements, rather than the combat). All I'm trying to assert is that interactive combat is not essential to telling a violent story. Sure, the combat has to be replaced by something equally time-consuming and 'fun', but it doesn't have to be a 1:1 replacement - and the setting need not be drastically changed to account for it.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

If you strip the combat out of Planescape then it would've become an Adventure Game. Which it could be argued that it would've been more appealing to a wider audience. However, Planescape did flop big-time when it was released, and one of the reasons could've been that the combat system (even though at the time, most RPGs had the same or very close combat system) was very bad.

I don't understand the love for Adventure Games (point-and-click ones), because everytime I try to make one it feels like I've stripped everything out of an actual video game and instead created a cartoon show. It's very unmotivating...

If you strip the combat out of Planescape then it would've become an Adventure Game. Which it could be argued that it would've been more appealing to a wider audience. However, Planescape did flop big-time when it was released, and one of the reasons could've been that the combat system (even though at the time, most RPGs had the same or very close combat system) was very bad.


Absolutely - it would have been an adventure game. And that's what everybody loves about the game; it's in-depth and ridiculously well written story. In other words, the adventuring portion (the greater portion).


[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

I don't understand the love for Adventure Games (point-and-click ones), because everytime I try to make one it feels like I've stripped everything out of an actual video game and instead created a cartoon show. It's very unmotivating...

[/font]
[/quote]

It's true with linear adventure games. You're just moving from one node to the next, solving arbitrary inventory puzzles. I dislike most that are structured this way.

The beauty of PS:T is it's non-linearity, and the stupendous amount of choice players have. The game often intellectually challenges in regards to knowing where to go, what people to go talk to, what places to look, who to probe for information, and what choices to make to turn a conversation to your favor.

With games such as this, the interactivity is *pivotal* to the experience.


With those that say that role playing games, or games in general *require* combat in order for it to *work* are severely limiting themselves with such narrow-mindedness. There are so many different ways games can offer challenges, or breathtaking experiences. It is by far not limited to combat.

The amount of combat in PS:T is still relatively very small, but yet it still *feels* padded out, only because of the clunky D&D mechanics, and in turn, feels less enjoyable. A different approach would likely have kept the level of immersion more consistent throughout the game. That is all I'm really saying.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement