Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Combatant

the RPG

the world simulator

[Muz]

OK, so I settled upon making an RPG.

Spoiler: RPG (click to show/hide)

Vision
An RPG where you change the world, even if it's tiny. The character creates sort of a butterfly effect in the world - a small change may make a big effect. It'll be focused on being logical and believable, rather than fair and balanced.

Implementation
The game will cater for different playing styles - social, killer, and explorer.

The game takes place in a jungle archipelago, a zone caught in the middle of several factions vying for control. Most people live either in large cities or deep in the jungle.

A large portion of the game will be played in cities. Most of the influential figures - politicians, heroes, merchants will be based there. A social player needs only to move between cities to get the most out of the social aspect of the game. They don't need to buff up their combat stats too much. Players who don't like to read large walls of text in RPGs can just not play in the cities as much, or stick to alleys and bars.

You'd be affect the thoughts of other characters, through diplomacy, trickery or force. There's the chance to be an ambassador to some factions, to deal with the merchant's ring, thieves' guild, the clergy, witches, politicians, maybe even affect the kings of the different countries themselves. Social skills become very useful in changing the future.


Explorers will enjoy the jungle system. It'll be sort of designed like a roguelike dungeon. Jungle is tight enough that there's no way around most trees.. but you can probably squeeze through them. Monsters (tigers/monkeys/manbears) would be able to move between them more easily and provide the random encounters. There'll also be paths in the woods left by the wood inhabitants, dead bodies to loot for treasure, and villages to converse with.

There will likely be other items of interest deep in the jungle. Maybe a magic spell. Maybe a lost artifact, even tribal weapons and such, which you could hawk to merchants or keep. There will also be some hidden temples deep in the jungle, to provide for the adventurer.

A killer type player will have fun between those two. There's always going to be something to kill. A pure social player will probably need to hire a bodyguard or fighter of some kind. A killer/explorer can play the classic tomb raider style character.

They'll also be able to muster up armies and raid other cities, or villages and monster lairs deep in the jungles.

I plan to put in a magic system. Magic will be rare, darker, more 'realistic'. It won't be flashy fireballs, it will be curses, hexes, spirits. Feared by some, but others will covet it. Magic may or may not work, it's up to the player to figure out whether they're facing a powerful witch or a charlatan.

There might also be a religion system. That'll be trickier. People don't like RL religion in games, just like they don't like sex scenes. But it spurs on a very good plot. I'll probably try to find ways to keep it subtle.


Finally, the game is mostly open ended. There's no quests to save the world, but the various factions will push you towards their goals. You can play as the son of a noble, run into the forests, marry a tribal girl and live happily ever after (until someone comes in and burns down your village). Or you could play as an agent of the Empire, planning to spread their influence, assassinate/slander those who oppose the empire, and see how far the Empire spreads thanks to your influence.


Selling Point
- Great, unique setting.
- I might even push a bit of RL history into it (like the European medieval fantasy games push theirs), so it could look good on a resume
- A procedurally generated save-the-world, there could be different endings and different ways of playing every time
- The RPG industry is focusing mainly on storytelling and exploration. A "change the world" type of game would be fresh.

Cons
- It's a very popular genre
- Looks like it needs more effort and time than most other choices

First phase... getting RPG building experience, while testing out some of the concepts. It's less painful to make mistakes with a small RPG, than a big, complex one.

- So, I'll build make a dumb RPG, as simple as possible, to get experience, but hopefully it'll end up a fun one.

- Testing out a non-linear stats system, seeing if it can be user friendly and balanced at the same time.
- Testing out a detailed body part combat system, seeing if it ends up balanced.

- Looking for RPG story/plot ideas, preferably low magic, but doesn't matter.
- Looking for a programming language suitable to build all this.

[Supermikhail]

Hm. Haven't sold any of them to me. You're aware that biggest sellers right now are games with a good story, up-to-date graphics and good multiplayer? You've mostly described what's going on under the hood, but what can you tell me as an average player? Are they intended to be as frustrating as DF, because you're going to concentrate on details and simulation?

Also, I can see that gameplay-wise the RPG isn't going to feel much different from your average... well, Fable, Mass Effect, all RPGs that promise profound effect of the player's actions on the world. Except for randomisation. And probably as clunky dialogue as in DF.

The same about the World simulator. If the player can place cities and buildings, it's, well, Civilization. If the player can't place cities and buildings, it's like watching an LP of Civilization.

Oh, and to finish with a low punch, Combatant. I think DF already does it. Well, most of it, and strives for all of it. So, sorry if I'm being rude.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Actually, I like the idea of the Combatant. But, it has to be two things. Physics-based, and multiplayer-capable. Something like Toribash, but with less joint-per-joint actions, and more character detail and accessibility. Something where you tell your character "move here like this and stab this guy here" and allow the character's AI to try and carry out the command. I know it's far beyond the scope of what you planned, but that's what I would go for.

[Virex]

You could turn 3 into a goal-driven game pretty easily. Instead of just a random entity you could be a god who's trying to get more followers by preforming wonders, setting out prophets and shaping the fate of history. Add in some multiplayer and you'd have a pretty interesting spin on the standard 4X genre:


The hell are my followers of Kwazistan doing attacking my followers from Illuria? *Zap* That's better.


Of course you'd need to have some sort of cap on the player's power. For that one could look towards Greek mythology, in which the gods weren't exactly omnipotent, though they could certainly do a lot.

[Supermikhail]

Wow. Guys. I've got a deja vu. You, Sean Mirrsen, either use "it's far beyond the scope of what you planned" too often at the end of you posts, or I've seen this thread before. Spooky.

Anyway. Virex - Black&White but with less control?

Combatant Sean Mirrsen-way but Matrix-style! Only you can bullet time only between punches. And you're not Neo and have to think your next move through for 5 minutes.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, a forum-search turned up nothing, so if you've seen it, it wasn't here.

[Virex]

Anyway. Virex - Black&White but with less control?

More like a cross between EU 3 and Black and White with DF's level of control, but you're thinking the right direction. See also Pandemic 2 for a similar style.

[Muz]

Also, I can see that gameplay-wise the RPG isn't going to feel much different from your average... well, Fable, Mass Effect, all RPGs that promise profound effect of the player's actions on the world. Except for randomisation. And probably as clunky dialogue as in DF.

The same about the World simulator. If the player can place cities and buildings, it's, well, Civilization. If the player can't place cities and buildings, it's like watching an LP of Civilization.

Oh, and to finish with a low punch, Combatant. I think DF already does it. Well, most of it, and strives for all of it. So, sorry if I'm being rude.

They're a bit tough to explain, without pushing into the 'tl;dr' level, yet trying to make people believe that it was possible, which was why I highlighted what's under the hood. I wanted to describe just the gameplay, but didn't want to pull a Molyneux Nobody said that there won't be story, graphics, multiplayer. Same goes for turning that world simulator thing into Populous. Once I'm finished with the engine and technical design, story, graphics, etc just becomes the paint and leather on the car.

Civilization doesn't actually let you create the world. You play only one faction and go against others. The world simulator I plan lets you control all the factions. And it doesn't focus on winning, it focuses on simulating.

Fable/Mass Effect have a very linear storyline, you end up with only one or two endings. It'd be more like Fallout 2, you do something in a few cities, those cities may act with one another, and the ending depends on what you did there.

Yeah, Combatant does end up like DF's adventure mode.

Actually, I like the idea of the Combatant. But, it has to be two things. Physics-based, and multiplayer-capable. Something like Toribash, but with less joint-per-joint actions, and more character detail and accessibility. Something where you tell your character "move here like this and stab this guy here" and allow the character's AI to try and carry out the command. I know it's far beyond the scope of what you planned, but that's what I would go for.

Yeah, it'll have multiplayer, technical nightmare, but it'll be in the works.

I did physics based, but generally it ends up more unrealistic. Long story, but it gets wonky behavior and overcomplexity. Something like pikes ended up overpowered. It's not bad, but not good either. Then I found that Mount and Blade, with its very simple system got the feel just right, so I'm going with that system. KISS rule.

That and as anyone who's swung a sword or thrown a punch professionally will tell you, most of the power in a swing doesn't come from the distance itself or just weight, but moves from the feet. It's going to be tough simulating force from the legs into a punch. Toribash does this to an extent, in which you have to jump to kick someone's head off, but I'd rather not go into that kind of complexity, because it just makes the game look funny if not done right.

[Supermikhail]

What I meant by Fable/Mass Effect comparison is that they have you doing some things in the beginning that in the finale are presented in such way that you feel like you've influenced their outcome. It feels like if one plays your RPG only one time, and the influence is as subtle as you describe, it's going to feel the same way as Fable. And you then argue that under the hood your game is much more profound, as much as you want.

Also, I suspect that there even may be a rule in game design that "Gameplay first, then everything else". The engine is just a means to a game that you and others will want to play. Otherwise, if you don't really want to make a game, but are only interested in an engine, then why "Selling points"? Make it "Specifications" instead. Or, if you only care about the implementation, why make a game on your own? There's a hundred and one guy on this forum who would gladly offer you his gameplay ideas. Without a fee.

^Only with best intentions. Also, "if focuses on simulating". I hope you're as good at this as Maxis.

[Neonivek]

Your RPG looks like the one most capable of being pulled off while at the same time being fun.

[Korbac]

World Sim! Perfect storytelling cheese generator. 

[Muz]

Lol, the votes being all equal is making it even tougher to choose.


@Supermikhail: Well, it's all there just to be descriptive. I could write 9999 more words to get into the low level design of how I'd do it, but that's what a design document is for. It's not easy to write a summary of any game, try and write one about your favorite game. This thread is to figure out what I should write up a design for and how to make it.

I can probably do simulation quite well, have a few years of experience with it among some other vaporware, actually took an engineering course to brush up on it. And they're all games I want to play; if someone gave me an idea I preferred more, I'd work on that instead, but I haven't found such a thing, at least not one with a written design document.

Let's make the assumption that I know how to do it right or I'll focus on figuring it out. It wouldn't be a magnum opus if it were something I could make over a month

[Supermikhail]

Okay. Has it ever occurred to you that these your ideas are pretty generic. A bit like in an article I read on SomethingAwful - To make a good game write in Notepad "Large open areas", "Dynamic lighting", "Realistic AI"... only you want really code something like that. I can describe my favourite game (with help of a Wikipedia article).

You play as a cybernetically enhanced supersoldier, teamed-up with an artificial intelligence. You battle various aliens on foot and in vehicles to uncover secrets of a ring-shaped artificial planet. This game is easy to learn and has an engaging story.

Story, gameplay, features. All basically in three sentences, artists get basic ideas about how it should look, programmers get basic ideas about how it should work, I get basic ideas about how it should play.

What your engines seem to propose is bloated features, brain-crushing learning curve and lots of RNG-induced glitches. It seems to be the general trend with programmers here, but I can easily envision a magnum opus as a delicate, balanced creation.

[Muz]

Ok, fine, all the games are easy to learn, has an engaging story, and have great graphics. There are no RNG-induced glitches, because the testers will iron all of them out.

Of course ideas are going to be generic. The fun is going to be in implementing it properly, and the thread's starting off on deciding which to implement first. My favorite games, Avernum, Football Manager, Battle for Wesnoth, Europa Universalis, have very mundane concepts, nothing special, but the fun is in how the game ends up as more than the sum of its parts. Even Halo, which took me a while to figure, is simply a typical FPS, but executed well.

[Muz]

Looks like all the votes are about tied up equal with some noise in the voting. I was hoping someone would give a compelling argument for/against one of them. Since I like all of them equally, I'm going with the easiest. That puts the the world generator off the list.

I've got most of my experience with either Combatant and RPGs. Combatant can be prototyped as an Aurora-style spreadsheet at worst and used for tabletop games, making it the simplest to code. But won't be special without the positioning system. I'm already sick of game design and math and good game design help is far rarer than good programming help.

The RPG will take a bit more coding work, but it'll be the easiest to design. There's also abundant RPG material and a big fanbase looking for a quality indie RPG. So far, looks like the easiest choice.


I think I'll start off by making a simple RPG, for practice and to give some space to mess up.

I'll like to impose my non-linear RPG stats system on it and a bit of the combat engine. Other than that, I'll just take any cliche RPG storyline to start it off with. If anyone has a simple RPG idea they want to see made, it'd be great.

Also, it would be nice knowing a good programming language for this. I've been making games mostly with Multimedia Fusion so far. It should be able to handle a simple RPG, but most of the stuff I built required quite a bit of workarounds to get around its bugs. I don't think RPGMaker allows some of the things I'd like to do, so it's out.