How would you feel about a "No Save RPG"?

[Lord 342]

The funny thing is that in most of the games that are like this there ARE a great number of instakill critters/traps/situations and other such dead ends. You're not supposed to be able to save your game in Ancient Domains Of Mystery (ADOM) but I do it anyway... I'd imagine most people do. I have a little pseudo-RPG called "Space Trader" for the USR/3Com/Palm Pilot that you can't save, but there's precious little that can kill you outright if you're careful and know what you're doing; i.e. waiting until you're flying a heavy frieghter or similar capital ship before you start doing the dangerous missions.

 

[Sorrow]

"Suddenly a stone block hits your head. You die..."
Instant kills are cool .

I'm play ADOM, but I don't copy saves, because I think that death is as good as any other ending if a player had a good time playing.

 

[Roshambo]

The deaths have to be funny or in a way the player can appreciate, and from a sequence of events, like in NetHack. For example, a shackle trap means death if you fall through a trapdoor, because the ball will fall on your head.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Let me guess. This RPG will involve combat. "Thinking about every decision" will amount to shooting at a critter and hoping you hit it.

How is this different to a hack and slash or any other "normal" RPG?

In the "No Save RPG", combat would be considered more serious and the player would look for other solutions before resorting to fighting and this would influence the design.

I'm reading hype (or more accurately, a broad design goal). I'm not reading detail. "Combat would be considered more serious" by whom? Me as the player? Why? Because critters can kill me in one hit? If that's the case, what "other solutions" are going to be available to me? More to the point, if those solutions are skill-based (it being an RPG and all) how effective are they *really* going to be? Would I be more warranted beefing up my combat skills rather than "wasting" them on stealth skills, especially when if my stealth skill roll fails and I get spotted, I'm a dead man thanks to the tough critters?

What if the Panther in the cave only gives off certain indicators and I only have one "other solution" available to me, such as sneaking? Woe to me who decided to beef up his tracking skill instead of his sneak skill. Unless it's not really an RPG and it's more one of those "jack of all trades" things like Oblivion.

The end result of this is the designer wouldn't be able to pad out the game with huge mazes filled with monsters and of course the good old boss monster.

Oh no, they'd be able to and furthermore they'd do it as well. They'd get to the end and get under time pressure or financial pressue to release the game and so the great ending they had in mind would get cut back to slash through the toughest combat area ever. Or they'd decide that a really tough combat area would be fun right about the middle of the game.

As for the game ending when the protagonist dies, the intention behind this is to get you to identify with your character.

Yeah, I've never personally been sold on that. At the end of the day, a game is a game. Just because I can die and move on doesn't mean I don't have some kind of attachment to that character. Especially if I've been killed in an outright slaughter. I'm more inclined to be less attached and in fact, hate that character because the stupid fuck died on me, so next time, I won't bother trying to build one of those characters again.

Otherwise you would feel like you're moving pieces on a board. The effect of this is if one of my guys dies, I'll think "Thats okay I'll just recruit another." What I want is the player to feel like he is taking a genuine risk whenever he plays the game.

If you could replace the leader and continue and if the game really was as tough as you make it out to be, chances are there are going to be situations where my men are going to face enemies that will wipe them ALL out in a single blow if I do something stupid. THAT's the punishment right there. It'd also allow for one hit kill traps because if the player sends in the leader and he goes down, you can continue with someone else and perhaps be more careful as you start to run out of men.

Regardless though, it doesn't seem to be your intention. I'm just saying it still allows some kind of attachment and would still create a tough game. I just personally got pissed with Fallout Tactics which had the same attitude. They're all BOS recruits, what does it matter if my leader dies? This is the military. Chain of fucking command people. Come on, take some leadership. Instead of the "Oh, your hero died. RESTART?".

Also one of the things I really liked about Fallout was I didn't have total control of the other party members and this made me feel like they were really alive.

Ahh.. Okay. I thought you were going for a more squad based thing. Especially given the sneaking and avoiding critters and all I would've thought throwing in some dodgy AI whch goes right ahea and fucks everything up is the last thing you'd want to do.

Problem is, you warp into a sector and get killed in 1 hit because gee whillickers, there just happened to be 3 bad guys right next to where you appeared.

Yes the problem with that game is they tried to do both. They balanced the game with reloaders in mind (who are the majority) and put in an optional Hard mode for hard core players. So the hard mode didn't play fair, because it wasn't designed to.

Actually, after playing it some more, I have to say the whole game has been poorly designed. There are interface issues and seemingly major problems with the ability (or rather, lack thereof) of the ships themselves.

The real issue depends on how much information I, as the player, am able to receive in order to make that judgement call. Can I smell something that might tell me "this is dangerous"? Are there markings on the cave or outside the cave that indicate a large, fiersome animal? Can I stake out the cave by hiding in the bushes on the mountain above it and see what comes out at night to hunt, before then deciding whether I want to attack it or not?

Yes this is something that can be done. You can include triggers in the area to test your player's tracking skills and a paragraph can pop up telling them what has passed through the area. How the player interprets this information is up to them. Of course I cannot go too far in this direction, because it would become a simulation.

I don't get that. Simulation how? If I'm getting popup boxes with data which is left up to me to interpret, then I'm already relying on my own skills to interpret the information I'm receiving, rather than my character's skill in the RPG. More to the point, why is that a problem? What's wrong with a "tracking skill" which is simply a value called when the player walks into an area, triggering a script which on success, pops up "info" (IE: Stuff the developer typed in to hint at what might be in the cave on a successful skill check) about what's nearby?

... and it's for this exact reason that your game would suck. I seriously doubt anyone's ability to pull of a picture perfect, bug free game.

Yes, you'd need a mature engine. Someone like Spiderweb Software could pull it off but not the AAA's, because they have to push the technology envelope and that means tons of bugs.

If you really think about it, that statement makes no sense what-so-ever. I've seen AAA's pull off some fantastic bug-free games just as often as I've seen some independent developers create them too. I think it boils down more to the developers and company themselves and how far they're willing to go to ensure product quality, rather than the vague notion of AAA's vs independents.

 

[Davaris]

I'm reading hype (or more accurately, a broad design goal). I'm not reading detail.

Yes this is only an idea at the moment. I wanted to see the reaction it would get and to see all of its flaws. The main ones are; people will get bored playing the same area more than once and enforcing the no save rule will be difficult.

What I would like to do is get rid of the power game (leveling up to god status) and try and get back to common sense and role playing. However if randomness has to be included, then the game would be more mathematical and that means randomly generated mazes and combat. So I guess I'd have to choose one way or the other.

"Combat would be considered more serious" by whom? Me as the player? Why? Because critters can kill me in one hit?

Yes. But only if you're stupid.

Example: You're alone in an alley talking to the leader of a gang. If you're smart you'll profit from the encounter. If you're a smart-ass, the cops will be pulling your body out of the river the next day.

"
If that's the case, what "other solutions" are going to be available to me? More to the point, if those solutions are skill-based (it being an RPG and all) how effective are they *really* going to be?
Would I be more warranted beefing up my combat skills rather than "wasting" them on stealth skills, especially when if my stealth skill roll fails and I get spotted, I'm a dead man thanks to the tough critters?

Yes there would be fighting skills, thief skills and diplomat skills and most of all using your common sense. Using skills would entail great risk. Otherwise whats the point? If you sneak into an installation and are caught, do you just keep reloading and sneak in again and again until you're lucky? There has to be a better way. Perhaps instead of going into the installation, you can attempt to bribe or blackmail someone who works there?

What if the Panther in the cave only gives off certain indicators and I only have one "other solution" available to me, such as sneaking? Woe to me who decided to beef up his tracking skill instead of his sneak skill. Unless it's not really an RPG and it's more one of those "jack of all trades" things like Oblivion.

The other solution is not to go into the cave at all, because of your great fear of death.

Davaris wrote:
The end result of this is the designer wouldn't be able to pad out the game with huge mazes filled with monsters and of course the good old boss monster.

Oh no, they'd be able to and furthermore they'd do it as well. They'd get to the end and get under time pressure or financial pressue to release the game and so the great ending they had in mind would get cut back to slash through the toughest combat area ever. Or they'd decide that a really tough combat area would be fun right about the middle of the game.

Yes they could do this, but the game wouldn't be fun and word would get out. To make this type of game fun, they would have to follow the rules, or they would be making a die and reload game.

Yeah, I've never personally been sold on that. At the end of the day, a game is a game. Just because I can die and move on doesn't mean I don't have some kind of attachment to that character. Especially if I've been killed in an outright slaughter.

But if you were killed because you were foolish? How would that make you feel? This is the idea behind the game. It would give you risky choices and safer/safe choices. Also you could choose not to go into an area and do something else.

So I there would have to be a path of least risk through the game and riskier paths with greater rewards. There are Indie games with international score boards. Some kind of a world ranking system might be a good way to motivate the player to take risks.

If you could replace the leader and continue and if the game really was as tough as you make it out to be, chances are there are going to be situations where my men are going to face enemies that will wipe them ALL out in a single blow if I do something stupid. THAT's the punishment right there. It'd also allow for one hit kill traps because if the player sends in the leader and he goes down, you can continue with someone else and perhaps be more careful as you start to run out of men.

Regardless though, it doesn't seem to be your intention. I'm just saying it still allows some kind of attachment and would still create a tough game. I just personally got pissed with Fallout Tactics which had the same attitude. They're all BOS recruits, what does it matter if my leader dies? This is the military. Chain of fucking command people. Come on, take some leadership. Instead of the "Oh, your hero died. RESTART?".

Yes its worth thinking about. I am open to doing something like this. But when I think of squad based games, I think random levels, lots of combat and not much in the way of role-playing.

Ahh.. Okay. I thought you were going for a more squad based thing. Especially given the sneaking and avoiding critters and all I would've thought throwing in some dodgy AI whch goes right ahea and fucks everything up is the last thing you'd want to do.

Hehehe... Yes. Getting an SMG burst in the back by a member of your party would not be fun or fair.

I don't get that. Simulation how? If I'm getting popup boxes with data which is left up to me to interpret, then I'm already relying on my own skills to interpret the information I'm receiving, rather than my character's skill in the RPG. More to the point, why is that a problem? What's wrong with a "tracking skill" which is simply a value called when the player walks into an area, triggering a script which on success, pops up "info" (IE: Stuff the developer typed in to hint at what might be in the cave on a successful skill check) about what's nearby?

Yes you've hit it on it right there. I want the game to be more about common sense than statistics, pure luck and power gaming. Using common sense will be a major part of staying alive. You will know if you've done something really stupid, because you will be dead.

As for your tracking skill, you'd get more information the higher you're skill is. So a player with no tracking skills would notice animal tracks, a terrible stench or animal poo. A higher skilled tracker would be given more information and would know when the cave is likely to be empty.

Each area would need a lot of work/crafting. However each area wouldn't need to be so large because they would be more dangerous and require more thought.

If you really think about it, that statement makes no sense what-so-ever. I've seen AAA's pull off some fantastic bug-free games just as often as I've seen some independent developers create them too. I think it boils down more to the developers and company themselves and how far they're willing to go to ensure product quality, rather than the vague notion of AAA's vs independents.

Yes but this isn't random. The AAA's that pull off bug free games use proven technologies/designs, have very experienced devs and use excellent management practices. This type of game would be experimental. I think Blizzard could do it, because they are committed to excellence. But I don't think they would do it, because they don't make RPGs and it wouldn't make them rich.



This is what I have so far:

1) No Save RPG.

2) There is a least risk path through the game and more risky paths where you rely on your specialist skills. The risky paths will have greater rewards, like points towards a rank on an international score board. The score board idea sounds tacky, but it might be fun.

3) Random generation in some areas to keep them fresh.

4) A smaller RPG, with smaller areas but the areas would have more detail and more options.

5) Instant deaths are possible in safe areas, but only if you're foolish. High risk areas are different, because you gamble on your skills more when you're in them.

6) All areas would be accessible (as they were in Fallout) so the player can bi-pass them if they want.