RPG elements?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Hi all,

I've an idea for a text adventure game I'd like to write floating
around in my head; whether I'll get time to actually implement it is
another question, but in case I do, I figured I'd best check first to
see if anyone would actually like it.

The idea would involve some traditional RPG elements, specifically:

- Combat and the acquiring of better weapons and other stuff for
purposes of same.

- Stealth, where being able to sneak past bad guys without fighting
would depend on character ability and equipment rather than being
fully determined by a particular puzzle.

- In general, multiple approaches to situations (fight the guards? try
to sneak past them? bribery? look for a hidden entrance? - any of
these could work if you have the wherewithal).

Now, practically no text adventure games released in the last decade
or however long it is have such elements, so my question is: would
people react with "oh, interesting, let's give it a try" or "X ME...
hit points? QUIT."?

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

I'd be interested in playing something like this. I think the reason
there aren't many games like this is because of the effort and length
of time it takes to program multiple routes and approaches to
situations not to mention how long it takes just for coding the RPG
elements.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've an idea for a text adventure game I'd like to write floating
> around in my head; whether I'll get time to actually implement it is
> another question, but in case I do, I figured I'd best check first to
> see if anyone would actually like it.
>
> The idea would involve some traditional RPG elements, specifically:
>
> - Combat and the acquiring of better weapons and other stuff for
> purposes of same.
>
> - Stealth, where being able to sneak past bad guys without fighting
> would depend on character ability and equipment rather than being
> fully determined by a particular puzzle.
>
> - In general, multiple approaches to situations (fight the guards? try
> to sneak past them? bribery? look for a hidden entrance? - any of
> these could work if you have the wherewithal).
>
> Now, practically no text adventure games released in the last decade
> or however long it is have such elements, so my question is: would
> people react with "oh, interesting, let's give it a try" or "X ME...
> hit points? QUIT."?


You are probably aware that that BeyondZork contained many of those
elements. I guess it wasn't successful enough for Infocom to pursue many
other games with that format, but I liked it pretty well. It's certainly
a different take on the experience.

People who have played RPG games like D&D or MUDs will be familiar with
challenges like, "I'm not powerful enough to take on the Green Dragon
yet" or "I can't wield the sword of St. Jasper because my alignment is
not sufficiently GOOD." Others won't be, and may find it to be jarring
or the learning curve not to their liking.

If it seems interesting to you, it will probably be interesting to
others. How many people "others" translates to is hard to say. A lot
will depend on other aspects of the game.




Brian Rodenborn
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On 24 May 2004 14:13:45 -0700, captainobvious@earthling.net (Scott
Meridian) wrote:

>I'd be interested in playing something like this. I think the reason
>there aren't many games like this is because of the effort and length
>of time it takes to program multiple routes and approaches to
>situations not to mention how long it takes just for coding the RPG
>elements.

Thanks! I might have a go at writing it if I get the chance, then.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:48:21 +0000, Russell Wallace wrote:

> The idea would involve some traditional RPG elements, specifically:
>
> - Combat and the acquiring of better weapons and other stuff for
> purposes of same.
>
> - Stealth, where being able to sneak past bad guys without fighting
> would depend on character ability and equipment rather than being fully
> determined by a particular puzzle.
>
> - In general, multiple approaches to situations (fight the guards? try
> to sneak past them? bribery? look for a hidden entrance? - any of these
> could work if you have the wherewithal).
>
> Now, practically no text adventure games released in the last decade or
> however long it is have such elements,

Several other incredibly popular games have mixed RPG elements into
traditionally non-RPG settings, though. The "more than one way to solve
every problem" philosophy was one of the most beloved aspects of Deus Ex,
and it allowed those authors to write a very linear plot that still felt
like a very nonlinear game.

> so my question is: would people react with "oh, interesting, let's give
> it a try" or "X ME... hit points? QUIT."?

Both, of course. You can't please everyone. I'd be in the first group,
though, at least at first.

You'd need to do a whole lot of play testing, though, or have a system
that adaptively got easier or harder to meet players' levels. If it's too
easy to keep your stats/equipment ahead of what the puzzles/enemies
require then you might as well not include the RPG elements at all, and if
it's too hard then your players will be forced to spend hours just
"leveling up" and hating you for it.
---
Roy Stogner
 

samwyse

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2002
166
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On or about 5/23/2004 2:48 PM, Russell Wallace did proclaim:
> Now, practically no text adventure games released in the last decade
> or however long it is have such elements, so my question is: would
> people react with "oh, interesting, let's give it a try" or "X ME...
> hit points? QUIT."?

Well, if I'm playing a game with combat, especially if a single fight
takes several interactions with the player to resolve, I really prefer a
terse mode of operation. This is, IMHO, non-optimal:

>wield sword
>attack goblin
>g
>g
>run away

Ideally, the stuff I have to do a lot will be reduced to single
keystrokes, without so much as an intervening press of the Enter key. To
do the above in NetHack, you'd type "wajjjk", meaing "wield weapon 'a',
move/attack to the west three times, then once to the east".

So, I'd say that the reason why few if any text adventure games have
used such elements is that the various rogue-like games have done a good
job of occuping that ecological niche.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:07:52 GMT, samwyse <dejanews@email.com> wrote:

>Well, if I'm playing a game with combat, especially if a single fight
>takes several interactions with the player to resolve, I really prefer a
>terse mode of operation. This is, IMHO, non-optimal:
>
> >wield sword
> >attack goblin
> >g
> >g
> >run away

*nod* So the player shouldn't have to do an annoyingly large amount of
repetitive typing; makes sense. WIELD SWORD at least should persist
until you explicitly want to change weapons, not have to be redone for
each fight.

Hmm, could ATTACK GOBLIN reasonably be interpreted to mean, not
"launch one flurry of swipes at the goblin" but "attack until either
he's defeated or things are clearly not going well for me"?

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
 

samwyse

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2002
166
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On or about 5/26/2004 10:31 AM, Russell Wallace did proclaim:
> *nod* So the player shouldn't have to do an annoyingly large amount of
> repetitive typing; makes sense. WIELD SWORD at least should persist
> until you explicitly want to change weapons, not have to be redone for
> each fight.
>
> Hmm, could ATTACK GOBLIN reasonably be interpreted to mean, not
> "launch one flurry of swipes at the goblin" but "attack until either
> he's defeated or things are clearly not going well for me"?

The sticker is the "things are clearly not going well for me" part.
Different people would want different strategies, and most would want to
use different strategies in different battles. My preferred strategy
might be "fight until I can barely survive getting away", your's might
be "fight until I lose half my hit-points", and someone else's might be
"run away if I lose a third of my points in a single attack, otherwise
fight until I have less than a third of my max hit points."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

samwyse wrote:
> On or about 5/26/2004 10:31 AM, Russell Wallace did proclaim:
>
>> *nod* So the player shouldn't have to do an annoyingly large amount of
>> repetitive typing; makes sense. WIELD SWORD at least should persist
>> until you explicitly want to change weapons, not have to be redone for
>> each fight.

I know in Inform you can customize the Function keys to mean particular
commands, which then execute without you having to hit "Enter"
afterward. Perhaps you could have "draw weapon" "front attack" "flank
left" "flank right" "jump" etc. Each opponent would then be a puzzle to
be solved - finding the right sequence of moves to defeat it. (Of course
if it's a static monster, so that you know where the player is going to
encounter it, then the strategy could be designed to include use of the
environment - jumping up on a table or dodging round a pillar for
example.) Just make all the battle commands custom verbs sensitive to an
"is_fighting" flag on the player object and then trap them in the
creature's before routines.

If there are a lot of battle commands, you might want to think about
doing a feelie - a printable reminder strip that could be tacked above
the Fkeys on a standard keyboard.
Just some thoughts

Jayzee

>>
>> Hmm, could ATTACK GOBLIN reasonably be interpreted to mean, not
>> "launch one flurry of swipes at the goblin" but "attack until either
>> he's defeated or things are clearly not going well for me"?
>
>
> The sticker is the "things are clearly not going well for me" part.
> Different people would want different strategies, and most would want to
> use different strategies in different battles. My preferred strategy
> might be "fight until I can barely survive getting away", your's might
> be "fight until I lose half my hit-points", and someone else's might be
> "run away if I lose a third of my points in a single attack, otherwise
> fight until I have less than a third of my max hit points."
>
 

samwyse

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2002
166
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On or about 5/27/2004 4:05 AM, Jayzee did proclaim:
> I know in Inform you can customize the Function keys to mean particular
> commands, which then execute without you having to hit "Enter"
> afterward. Perhaps you could have "draw weapon" "front attack" "flank
> left" "flank right" "jump" etc.

Great idea! Of course, you'd want to have keys labeled thusly:
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Daffy_Duck/ltdd_102.wav
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

>On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:07:52 GMT, samwyse <dejanews@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, if I'm playing a game with combat, especially if a single fight
>>takes several interactions with the player to resolve, I really prefer a
>>terse mode of operation. This is, IMHO, non-optimal:
>>
>> >wield sword
>> >attack goblin
>> >g
>> >g
>> >run away
>
>*nod* So the player shouldn't have to do an annoyingly large amount of
>repetitive typing; makes sense. WIELD SWORD at least should persist
>until you explicitly want to change weapons, not have to be redone for
>each fight.
>
>Hmm, could ATTACK GOBLIN reasonably be interpreted to mean, not
>"launch one flurry of swipes at the goblin" but "attack until either
>he's defeated or things are clearly not going well for me"?

Having the entire fight decided by a single attack command is the simple way to
go, but I think the more rewarding way to break up the repetitiveness of
fighting is to expand the tactical options. In essence, make combat a kind of
puzzle in itself. In addition to different types of attacks and use of the
environment as suggested by another poster, you could also provide weapons with
different capabilities. For example, make armored enemies that require the use
of special armor-piercing weapons to do significant damage, or flying enemies
that require the use of a long-range weapon with high accuracy. And if there's
magic available, make status effects that actually count for something. (It's
been a long standing problem in console RPGs that status effects are only
mildly annoying to the player and don't affect enemies at all; thus they have
no tactical value and are a waste of time to cast. Final Fantasy X is one of
the few games with useful status effects.)

To go along with this, take another cue from console RPGs and have more than
one enemy of each archetype. Then the player can say: "Aha! I've seen this
sort of an opponent before, let's see if I can improve my tactics this time!"

This way, fighting isn't just typing "attack goblin" over and over again, you
have to actually consider tactics and experiment with different approaches.

I would definitely be interested in a game like this, if done well. The
problem with Beyond Zork and many of the other games that tried this was that
they just didn't do it well. It wasn't clear how powerful an enemy was until
it killed you; there was no way of knowing even generally how powerful your own
character was at any given time; and there was no tactical element to combat,
you just hammered away until someone died. The people who made those games
tried to put in RPG elements, but didn't really understand how those elements
were supposed to operate. I think someone with a good understanding of both
genres could fuse them, and do a good job of it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <sM%sc.674$FH1.343@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
samwyse <dejanews@email.com> wrote:
>Ideally, the stuff I have to do a lot will be reduced to single
>keystrokes, without so much as an intervening press of the Enter key. To
>do the above in NetHack, you'd type "wajjjk", meaing "wield weapon 'a',
>move/attack to the west three times, then once to the east".
>
>So, I'd say that the reason why few if any text adventure games have
>used such elements is that the various rogue-like games have done a good
>job of occuping that ecological niche.

I was thinking the same thing, except regarding Ularn.. (that's the only
one of these types of games I have ever gotten into.. isn't nethack the
one with the annoying dog that keeps walking in your way??)

If it were "traditional text adventure" (like Infocom), but then somehow
entered another mode like you described for combat, that'd be cool..
but a ton of work.

I think the fighting in Beyond Zork is part of why I haven't played it
much.. (though I admit I don't think I've played ANY of the infocom games
all the way through.. the problem is that I hate mapping.. ironically there
is the map in BZ, but the other things annoy me.)
 

samwyse

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2002
166
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On or about 5/28/2004 6:17 AM, M.D. Dollahite did proclaim:
[description of things that NetHack does so well elided]
> And if there's
> magic available, make status effects that actually count for something. (It's
> been a long standing problem in console RPGs that status effects are only
> mildly annoying to the player and don't affect enemies at all; thus they have
> no tactical value and are a waste of time to cast. Final Fantasy X is one of
> the few games with useful status effects.)

OK, what's a status effect? I've never heard that term used before.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 01:33:03 GMT, samwyse <dejanews@email.com> wrote:
>On or about 5/28/2004 6:17 AM, M.D. Dollahite did proclaim:
>[description of things that NetHack does so well elided]
>> And if there's
>> magic available, make status effects that actually count for something. (It's
>> been a long standing problem in console RPGs that status effects are only
>> mildly annoying to the player and don't affect enemies at all; thus
they have
>> no tactical value and are a waste of time to cast. Final Fantasy X
is one of
>> the few games with useful status effects.)
>
>OK, what's a status effect? I've never heard that term used before.
>

Hm. You know, offhand, I have no idea how to describe them other than
"Mildly annoying to the player and don't affect enemies at all."

There's a class of attacks/spells/items in CRPGs which affect a
medium-term change to the player's abilities (This may last until
treatment, for the duration of a battle, or until some other criteria
is met). The ones in the Final Fantasy series include:
Dark (or Blind; greatly reduced attack accuracy)
Mute (unable to cast spells)
Petrified (or Stop, Stone; unable to do anything)
Sleep (unable to do anything until physically hit)
Slow (reduced turn frequency)
Imp (Sometimes Frog, Pig, or Moggle; reduced to a small weak creature
without the character's usual abilities)
Zombie (impervious to damage but out of control)
Confused (Attacks at random)
Poisoned (HP decrease over time)
Haste (or Fast; increased turn frequency)
Doomed (Will die/swoon/whatever when timer runs down)
Floating (Impervious to earth-based attacks, Weak against wind-based
attacks)


These all end up being things monsters frequently do to you, and which
eventually, you can in theory do to monsters, but they have a success
rate so close to 0 as makes no odds (With one or two exceptions. There
is the occasional miniboss who is easily dispatched by a poison/haste
combo). These are annoying both because you often find yourself
having to trek off somewhere to buy the comically overpriced "Cure for
petrification" potion, and because while they seem to have a success
rate of 100% when used *against* you, they have a success rate of 0%
when used *by* you.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Here, L. Ross Raszewski <lraszewski@loyola.edu> wrote:
> There's a class of attacks/spells/items in CRPGs which affect a
> medium-term change to the player's abilities (This may last until
> treatment, for the duration of a battle, or until some other criteria
> is met). The ones in the Final Fantasy series include:
> [...]
>
> These all end up being things monsters frequently do to you, and which
> eventually, you can in theory do to monsters, but they have a success
> rate so close to 0 as makes no odds (With one or two exceptions. There
> is the occasional miniboss who is easily dispatched by a poison/haste
> combo).

From what I've seen of people playing Final Fantasy, that's not true.
Effects like "blind" are very useful for the player.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

>From what I've seen of people playing Final Fantasy, that's not true.
>Effects like "blind" are very useful for the player.

Which Final Fantasy have you seen people playing? Blind occassionally works in
FF9, and in FFX they finally made it so that all status effects are useful (I
was really impressed by FFX's battle system, except for the annoying dexterity
tests required to activate Overdrives). I don't know about FFO, I can't afford
monthly fees. In FFs 1-8 and most other CRPGs, however, status magic is
pointless. You can kill most monsters faster and take less damage yourself
just by hacking away at them instead of wasting time trying to find the one
status effect that they occassionally succumb to.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <20040530110640.02266.00000115@mb-m14.aol.com>,
ryukage@aol.com.NOSPAM (M.D. Dollahite) wrote:

> monthly fees. In FFs 1-8 and most other CRPGs, however, status magic is
> pointless. You can kill most monsters faster and take less damage yourself
> just by hacking away at them instead of wasting time trying to find the one
> status effect that they occassionally succumb to.

Note though that weapons that cause status effects are awesome, because
you don't have to take time and energy away from blowing stuff up. Bio
is also frequently useful for pretty much the same reason. Also, Vanish
is always good.

Also, of course, this isn't true of either Tactics game at all.

--p
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

William Burke come on down:

>In article <20040530110640.02266.00000115@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> ryukage@aol.com.NOSPAM (M.D. Dollahite) wrote:
>
>> monthly fees. In FFs 1-8 and most other CRPGs, however, status magic is
>> pointless. You can kill most monsters faster and take less damage yourself
>> just by hacking away at them instead of wasting time trying to find the one
>> status effect that they occassionally succumb to.
>
>Note though that weapons that cause status effects are awesome, because
>you don't have to take time and energy away from blowing stuff up. Bio
>is also frequently useful for pretty much the same reason. Also, Vanish
>is always good.

Especially if you use the Vanish/Doom bug...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <16gpb015okbiko84n2frqp1uqp9fjaeoq1@4ax.com>,
28 IF <dogwander@frostwarning.com> wrote:

> William Burke come on down:
>
> >Note though that weapons that cause status effects are awesome, because
> >you don't have to take time and energy away from blowing stuff up. Bio
> >is also frequently useful for pretty much the same reason. Also, Vanish
> >is always good.
>
> Especially if you use the Vanish/Doom bug...

Actually, that's pretty much what I meant. I guess Vanish is pretty
cool on its own, now that I think about it. (Also, it isn't necessarily
a bug; it's just a weird emergent effect that may not be a good one.)

--p
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Maybe, you and some of the other people here would really like that
but I can't see it. I can't really see enjoying your level going up
in a text adventure where I think the best part is solving the puzzles
and using the items in interesting ways, not really combat. Combat in
IF is solving a puzzle that destroys someone. However, I think there
would be some people who would be interested if it was well written.