RPG Codex - Articles On Video Game Design

chadeo writes "Ok all you arm chair game developers, listen up. Over at RPG Codex there are currently 4 articles, written by professionals in the industry, on RPG design. There is A Christmas lesson in CRPG design by Timothy Cain, Thoughts on RPG development by Leon Boyarsky, Hand of Gosh Darn Good Design by Chris Taylor, and Treatise on Combat to Pink Floyd by Gareth Davies. All of them are a great read, and you can join in the discussion with the authors and see how your ideas stack up. What do you think is the key to a great RPG?"

Comments

solid engine

[mao che minh]

I don't think that visual offerings mean much in a RPG. You also don't have to rely on truly open ended gameplay if the story line is strong and the basic gameplay offers a variety of styles and characters. Just look at Black Isle's "Baldur's Gate" game engine. Ice Wind Dale 2, which uses this engine, is about as linear as they come and looks like it came from 1997, yet, you are able to play an extremely wide variety of characters in numerous combinations successfully. You don't have to rely on the classic "fighter, cleric, thief, wizard" team.

And of course, multiplayer options immediately add a needed dimension in today's broadband world.

What RPGs really need

[wondafucka]

RPG's need something that has very rarely been done: Role Playing. Less focus should be spent on combat, aquiring weapons and armor, and hit point management. Recent developments in user moded rpgs should start to let the plot, dialog, and interactivity of games shine over the same old same old. Big game houses are currently focu$ed on making a product ship with success. Small, part-time mod creators just want to make someone happy. www.mygeekdom.com A little corner of the net I call home.

Get rid of random battles.

[steesefactor]

The evolution of console rpg's would take a huge leap forward if they once and for all decided to eliminate random battles. A lot of times you just want to explore, not slog through 20 battles with same monsters every 5 steps. This is an artificial extension of game length that seriously hurts the gameplay of most console rpg's these days.

Re:Plot (Combat)

[Kintanon]

One annoying and disturbing trend I noticed recently is the "actionifying" of RPG combat. It started with FF7 in my opinion, where you had to hit the button at the right time for Cloud's sword to fire. IT was worse with Legend of Legaia (Which I liked, and I enjoyed the combat, but my wife HATED It because she plays for the storyline) and then I've seen recent games where you have to hit multiple buttons in a row during combat as dials and boxes move around and occasionally sync up. It means that instead of pressing one button a few dozen times per combat you have to dedicated a lot of though to the combat itself. This is REALLY annoying when you like to just level up and go to the next story. If you want to make a fighting game, make a fighting game. If you want to make an RPG make an RPG. There should never be a human reflex based combat portion. I'm playing the role of my character, not myself. If I have only one hand, and that hand only has one finger, I should still be able to play the game.

Kintanon

best quote from the articles

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

From the article on game combat, talking about myths related to "real-time" combat systems:

"RT is cool" - As defined by who? Don't believe the hype kiddies, and besides, as an avid RPGer, I know we have nothing to do with cool. While we're sitting in a basement rolling dice, swilling Mountain Dew and other snacks while pretending to be mighty warriors in an alternate universe, cool people are out doing lines off naked women because they can. It still puzzles me why certain RPG developers seem so intent on following trends, when their consumer base couldn't be trendy, even with a +10 Bag of Conforming to the Social Norm.

I couldn't have put it any better with a +3 megaphone of "you are a geek".

It's all about Freedom of Action

[sckienle]

OK, there are two. The personal interaction was always important to me. But the main aspect of any RPG which managed to keep my interests was the flexibility to allow for real freedom of action.

For example, you run into a locked door. How about removing the hinges? Chopping the wood? Going through the transom? Digging out the mortar out around it? Way back when I was DMing the original D&D, my friends would come up with this sort of thing all the time. Of course, it meant I had to constantly be thinking. But that was the whole fun on it. It wasn't "follow the line and use the objects exactly the way we intended" play.

Of course, that's why I didn't use the canned scenarios then, and why I don't play much RPG on the computer today.

Uhm, no.

[Inoshiro]

Your beef is not with random battles; rather, you seem to not enjoy poorly done random battles. I'm sure everyone can agree that poorly done random battles do indeed suck. You may enjoy FF Mystic-Quest style fights, where you walk up to each monster, but the drawbacks in terms of character development are rather severe.

Random battles, when done properly, happen to allow you to go around from point A to point B without being very predictable in terms of fights, while allowing fun character leveling! If done well, you won't meet monsters too often or not often enough, and the groups of monsters will be varied.

How do random battles give flexibitily? Since each monster need not to placed on a map, you have less forshadowing (except for boss creatures) -- this allows more time spent on map design. You also don't you have the rigid growth structure of pre-planned battles; look at the Enix RPG Illusion of Gaia -- unless you miss secrets, you will always play through the game in exactly the same way because of the battle system. Every upgrade you get has a defined ceiling, which requires you play in the same way to get them all. Boring.

A good RPG....

[Hubert_Shrump]

Needs to be shoulder mountable and (ideally) under 10lbs.