Non-Combat Gameplay

[Skiesbleed]

So far, combat has been the primary focus of the Kickstarter updates. Today's update included a list of the skills that would be in the game, and it seems that they pertain very heavily to combat.

Will there be non-combat skills? What should we expect from the non-combat aspects of the game? The story update indicated that many things can be impacted by the character, but are these just arbitrary choices equally available to all character types, or can we build characters that exceed at non-combat skills to facilitate this kind of interaction with the world?

 

[Blackstaff]

Dialogue and all interactions linked to it seems to be at the player choice without any skills in between from what Madoc said in the comment thread.

But I would like to know about traps and stealth. Do you plan to include them, or is it too much like crafting ?

 

[Yosepi]

Is crafting not going to be in the game?
Also, non-combat skills could be cool

 

[Madoc]

We have often considered non combat skills, at one point we had a much more complex version of our current skill system with many more skills arranged in a tree like structure and with synergies. This was an attempt to balance and render more realistic many things that we consider flawed in traditional approaches to skills. This seemed too complex however and we abandoned it long ago. There are still some utility skills that we are taking into consideration. Especially in a multiplayer context, we see support roles in a party as interesting. If we could we'd make a world where you can do absolutely anything but for now our focus is very much on the adventuring life.

There will be various things that support stealth gameplay but nothing dedicated in terms of skills. There will certainly be stealth elements to some thaumaturgy. We also want disguises to be functional in the game. You could for example dress as a guard in an attempt infiltrate a fortress.

We plan to have traps and we have considered a perception skill for spotting them and other hidden things but we very much like the idea of players having to notice these things themselves. As for laying your own traps this is something we've talked about but we don't have specific plans for it yet, much of what we discussed would be fairly complex to implement.

 

[Valvar]

I really like your approach to this. The reason for many skills in games are that they are hard to represent visually or gameplay-wise. If player skill can replace stat skills, then that is truly a forward leap!

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I really like your approach to this. The reason for many skills in games are that they are hard to represent visually or gameplay-wise. If player skill can replace stat skills, then that is truly a forward leap!

Hm, no, for a RPG it isn't. I like player input and am not adverse to a good deal of player skill being important in an (action) RPG, but the character you play must have it's own identity that somehow influences the way you can play the game. This certainly seems to be the case for combat with the combat and thaumaturgy skills, and I think its unfortuante that it will not be the case for other areas as well. These will then essentially play out like similar elements in (action) adventure games.

 

[Valvar]

Hm, no, for a RPG it isn't. I like player input and am not adverse to a good deal of player skill being important in an (action) RPG, but the character you play must have it's own identity that somehow influences the way you can play the game. This certainly seems to be the case for combat with the combat and thaumaturgy skills, and I think its unfortuante that it will not be the case for other areas as well. These will then essentially play out like similar elements in (action) adventure games.

It depends on your definition of what an RPG is. For me, it's playing the role of a character and having a non-linear story. For many, it means a barrel-load of stats and turn-based combat. While I'm a big fan of tabletop RPG's, I don't think this is what BM are trying to capture here.
I've often been privately musing about how I would make an RPG myself, and ultimately what I would do would be to keep the stats hidden from the player in such a way that the player understands that practice improves the skills, yet grinding is pointless.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I like that approach as well, but I like it to also apply to other aspects of my "avatar" besides the combat relevant ones. So I would have preferred seeing a stat, skill, or perk system that affects non-combat aspects of what the player can do in the game. Still, having stealth options is already something.
I wonder, if dialog is not skill/stat dependent, how "situational" is it then? Are world/quest states checked to a significant degree? Do NPC remember they met me? Does the game somehow track how much they "like" me (e.g. using hidden faction, "alignment", or player achievements, or reputation stats? And does it offer different dialpg choices and different replies accordingly?

 

[Humblerbee]

It depends on your definition of what an RPG is. For me, it's playing the role of a character and having a non-linear story.

See, here's something that's been bothering me. People are really hating on linearity in games, like Madoc on the Kickstarter page,

We dislike linear story, we hate linear story, no, we truly despise linear story. If you asked us what is as pleasant as being poked in the eye, we'd have to answer "linear story".

Sure, I enjoy more open-ended nature in games, and choice and freedom, however linearity isn't the spawn of the devil, it isn't like getting poked in the eye. Having a linear design to your game allows you to control for the player in the environment, and when you can do that, it allows you to weave a much tighter, specific experience that plays out in a finely crafted path. Whereas in a open ended game, you slap monsters about, if it's linear, and you know the players path, you can specifically craft the challenges in the environment, you can design each level to precisely how you want it, giving you a richer, more fine-tuned and thoughtful experience. People celebrate the advent of the sandbox, but in reality, it's the illusion of freedom at the cost of quality of content- sure, you can go around killing whoever doing what you like, (though many sandbox games really don't provide many options besides explore or kill), but in a linear game there's a clear plot that you adhere to, and by doing so it's a much tighter narrative because the action follows it closely. Basically, what I want to say is that RPGs can be linear and still be great. Look at a game like Deus Ex- even though it gave you some options, it was for the most part a linear game with a specific plot where you travelled from level to level, giving you the choice of how to approach each objective, but ultimately still having those linear objectives. A lot of really good games have linearity, it's not a bad thing, we don't need to hate it. Used well, it provides tight, tailor-made experiences that are every bit of rich as open world experiences. In fact, you could argue that it allows for so much more intense experiences, because the game can be made specifically for that character, for a specific arc that plays out, you can polish it to a perfect sheen. Comparatively, an open-world game must be vague, because the character is always different, it has to be approachable from multiple angles, so it can't be tailor made to the same degree.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because even though Sui Generis is flipping conventions on their heads and innovating in so many respects, it doesn't necessarily mean that traditional design doesn't have merit as well.

 

[Madoc]

In the context of a game with good action gameplay to keep me engaged, a well crafted story can add a lot. In the context of an RPG, for me, it completely defeats the purpose of playing an RPG in the first place. I'd rather watch a film or read a good book.

To me an RPG is not a story to follow but an alternative world to immerse myself in. I want to explore it and discover it, not follow some long obstacle course. I want to be my own character (I have my own opinions and objectives, thank you very much). I want to test myself against challenges of my choosing, not something balanced so that I can beat it. And many more things besides, there are a lot of things that I can thoroughly enjoy in an RPG but almost all of them involve freedom.

Most importantly, on some level, I need to believe this world is real. While master of my own actions and choices (I really don't like being told what to do), I need the world to respond to those, whatever they are, in a way that is plausible or the whole illusion breaks. When a game decides that some story element is progressed by clicking a button or dialogue option so that I am transported to a new location or I have made some now unbreakable allegiance, I just want to quit. When some NPC is restricted to one disposition and a few dialogue options that don't take into account any of my actions, the only thing I can think of is that I am not in a fantastic world but interacting with an idiotic piece of software. Game over.

These are just a couple of examples. I could make a much longer list of things that irritate me to no end. Playing an RPG where I can only do what the designer intended me to, where any outcome is predetermined has nothing to offer me.

Who knows what we'll be able to really accomplish but our objective is this world that doesn't constantly remind you that it's just a simple game.

 

[Tony]

First off, I agree that there are high quality linear games. The Witcher games are somewhat linear and somewhat not (considering that in TW2 the entire second chapter takes place in a different location depending on choices you make in the previous chapter), but they tell the best stories out of any game I've played in the last 10 years.

However, the type of linear games that I dislike are the ones which hold your hand and treat you like an idiot. I'm not 10 years old anymore and I don't want the game to treat me like I am. I want to be able to make meaningful, tough choices; I want to be able to kill NPC's if I choose to; I don't want to be spoon-fed a story that was written for the maturity level of a 10 year old (so many RPGs suffer from this). Some games seem to be designed in a linear fashion so that you don't have to use your brain to do anything; no matter what you do or what you say the results are always the same. If this is what the devs were referring to then I completely agree that I'd rather be poked in the eye than play this type of game.

 

[Tony]

@Madoc:

Wow! Very well said. This inspires much hope and it is awesome to hear a game developer speak with such passion and put so much thought into their game.

 

[PipesOfMadness]

See, here's something that's been bothering me. People are really hating on linearity in games, like Madoc on the Kickstarter page,

While a lot of what you say is right and I agree with you, I think you're seeing it too black and white.

Also, I think they are referring to story and not game design there. A linear story would be an unchangeable destiny, and through your progression you will come closer and closer to that often obvious end conclusion. Beat Ganondorf and save the princess. Save the world from total destruction. You will identify the threat and work towards that clear-set goal. Something that is uninspired and a little old-fashioned. Games have become art. Let's not use a story premise that could have been written by a ten year old. So in that respect, I really hope their story is non-linear. (Planescape: Torment did it right in my opinion).

Coming back to game design, choices and freedom.
I think BME dislikes the "on rails" type gameplay progression which require players to pass through a one-way door that prevents you from going back. Deus Ex gave you freedom to tackle the mission the way you wanted, so while the level transitions were linear, you had full freedom to walk around and try to overcome the challenge in the way you wanted. While this might have worked with the type of game Deus Ex was, it doesn't necessarily have to work for SG. Personally, I dislike linear level design even if it gives for a more rich story because it only has to incorporate a single specific path. I want to have freedom and choice in a game because it's the thing that sets games apart from a passive medium like books.

 

[BrecMadak]

Just like Madoc mentioned above, if our fate had been determined before even our decisions have any effect on story, it would be pretty dull and synthetic. As i always support non-linearity as long as it is processed well enough unless that will tear us off the world and let us fall into abyss.

Brilliant.. Isn't it ? Just like being hollow and human, but not at the same time and same place.
Hope interactions with devs won't give long breaks, and will always with us, so thanks for that.

 

[Algea]

This is so very interesting! But I just can't wrap my mind around this concept you have here, Madoc. I mean - freedom of choices and full-blown exploration are great, but what about dialogues with NPCs? Is it even possible to create such an engine that allows you to not choose between pre-written dialogues options but generate ones according to your deeds in the world? I think (but I can be mistaken, of course) that in the end in terms of human interaction this will still be Dragon Age Origins-esque experience. With set in stone dialogue options to choose from, but nothing more.

I'm not trying to belittle your efforts and I'm swept off my feet by your passionate approach, really. But I just can't imagine Sui Generis' non-combat situations yet. I just can't. I really want to know what do you have in mind and what kind of progress have you made in that area.

I can't allow myself to set my expectations too high, I know I'm prone to it; but in this case I want to approach everything that can be done with your beautiful engine (do you have a name for it, by the way?) with a cool head, so I might be acting like a party pooper here, but someone has to question everything and be skeptical.

 

[Mimel]

This is so very interesting! But I just can't wrap my mind around this concept you have here, Madoc. I mean - freedom of choices and full-blown exploration are great, but what about dialogues with NPCs? Is it even possible to create such an engine that allows you to not choose between pre-written dialogues options but generate ones according to your deeds in the world? I think (but I can be mistaken, of course) that in the end in terms of human interaction this will still be Dragon Age Origins-esque experience. With set in stone dialogue options to choose from, but nothing more.

I too have questions. I love the option of choices. I truly hope there will be lots of possibilities, but I don't want to scroll through dozens of dialogue lists to choose my answers either. If we have to have dialogue lists, then it should be short, but varied. Perhaps the first list in an answer to dialogue will be to find the general area of answers, say: friendly, annoyed, upset, afraid, persuade, angry, etc. Then there would be more detailed options such as Angry>violent, abusive, passive-aggressive or manipulative. Even these seem long and drawn out already, don't they? So, I too am curious as to how much dialogue interactions will be open-ended.

I can live with these limitations. I'm excited about the freedom of not having traditional quests and so forth.