Why should we stop making games in a fantasy setting, with swords and magic and dragons? If you haven't noticed, people LIKE that setting.

There ARE lots of RPGs set in the future, or modern times, it just so happens that there are MORE being done are done in the fantasy setting. Like I said, people LIKE the setting. How many future based games have won Game of the Year awards and the like?

There are thousands of D&D style games, people like them, people copy them, other people buy the copies of them. Why didn't we see the market flooded with games like Wing Commander's Privateer, with that sort of story line, (it was a little weak on the stats element of the RPG, but does an RPG NEED stats for the character?)

Well, one question nobody seems to have raised yet is this:-

If there is no set goal, does the game end, and if so, how and/or when?

It could end or it could not depending on how the game is setup. One of the main points is that you are not responsible for the game ending. Earlier I mentioned that the NPCs could be the "heroes" who save the day. Or the first group of heroes who try to save the day. If they fail another group later on will try to finish what they started. I'm pretty sure everyone has run across that story before. Anyway point being that what you do can be tangent to that or completely unrelated. So the game "ends" when the heroes defeat the emperor (or whatever).

So there's a beginning that does not revolve around you and there's an end that does not need you to conclude it. You're free to do what you want and let someone else handle that (in this case it'll be a NPC) ending.

Now the way I'm thinking is the the World has main events that are pre-scripted of course. What you do can have an effect but it depends where you are when you do what you do. I mean you can blow a crater in the ground in the fields somewhere. It has no effect on the game at all. You can see a battle about to happen and you can blow a crater and destroy the bridge. Now that armies are either stalled and can't fight or diverted and fight elsewhere... like in your village.

I'm trying to keep cause and effect manageable and keep enough variables to keep things from being stale and repetitive. (Rock and hard place...)

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by MSW *yawns* How about a RPG that is NOT set in the same old cliched D&D inspired worlds? Now that would be something! Hmmm...In fact there are a couple RPG-like goal less games out there that arn't bound to the lame D&D setting. GTA is one of them. I don't agree that GTA is even RPG-like, but I do agree that we need to stop making fantasy games. Please stop making fantasy games. Make a modern RPG, or a futuristic RPG. Let's start a thread up to generate world-environment-setting ideas so that everyone knows there is more than just trees and trolls to work with. How about a slightly pre-modern era, like the 1800s? Or even the early 1900s?

Cool enough.

The ironic thing is that peeps post about wanting to try on the non-combat oriented roles of blacksmiths and the like...

But when I suggest a RPG be made set during the birth of rock-n-roll, where players are musicians during the 1950's

Well that just can't work cause its not combat oriented...can't work cause there is no magic system...can't work without dragons...in short that game I seem to be suggesting would be limited to a musician sim not a "true" RPG...

Course never mind that what we call RPGs are basicly warrior/mage sims anyway :P

So the underlying system and/or game engine would not require an ending, that's good as it makes it more flexible. I would imagine that many players would be disappointed if the game ended because of something someone else did, but on the other hand a certain percentage would need some form of "closure".

Personally, I would prefer an "endless" game, particularly if additional lands could be added via expansion packs. The PC would still be mortal though, and could be killed, die of old age, voluntarily retire or whatever.

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry So the underlying system and/or game engine would not require an ending, that's good as it makes it more flexible. I would imagine that many players would be disappointed if the game ended because of something someone else did, but on the other hand a certain percentage would need some form of "closure". Personally, I would prefer an "endless" game, particularly if additional lands could be added via expansion packs. The PC would still be mortal though, and could be killed, die of old age, voluntarily retire or whatever.

And unfortunately, now I have to backtrack. If the game doesn't end then we run into the problem of procedural content and events. The game is creating the game. That's massive. So do I force an ending, have the player trigger an event that lead to an ending, or something else.

Damnit! All this thinking! I think I'll re-examine my original post. I've veered off somehow.

Anyway continue to discuss [smile]

edit: had to correct sentence. it's wrong in wysardry's quote. sorry.

[Edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on June 30, 2006 9:27:46 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes And unfortunately, now I have to backtrack. If the game ends then we run into the problem of procedural content and events. The game is creating the game. That's massive. So do I force an ending, have the player trigger an event that lead to an ending, or something else.

It was my understanding that in your example NPCs would have goals and there would be 3 possible outcomes to the war: one side wins, the other side wins or a truce is agreed.

In any of those cases the game could end, but wouldn't necessarily have to (several CRPGs allow the player to continue after the main quest is complete). One or more "adventurer" NPCs could trigger the ending if you wished to include one.

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry Well, one question nobody seems to have raised yet is this:- If there is no set goal, does the game end, and if so, how and/or when?

I was toying with making my system episodic. Since I'm interested in modelling the structure of stories, I was planning on having events mimicing the form of adventure stories, sagas or possibly comics; i.e. problem set-up, quests for testing the protagonist, problem resolution. Then there's no reason to not start another story with the same heroes and villains.

Okay, I'll try answering the updated version:-

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes And unfortunately, now I have to backtrack. If the game doesn't end then we run into the problem of procedural content and events. The game is creating the game. That's massive.

If the PC was free to do his/her own thing, yet could still influence events at any time (s)he chose, then the underlying system would already be capable of dynamically changing and adding events etc. to some degree.

My previous reply still applies to the remainder of your post.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I was toying with making my system episodic. Since I'm interested in modelling the structure of stories, I was planning on having events mimicing the form of adventure stories, sagas or possibly comics; i.e. problem set-up, quests for testing the protagonist, problem resolution. Then there's no reason to not start another story with the same heroes and villains.

That sounds a lot like the way individual PnP adventures are played, and they can be experienced in isolation or as part of a larger campaign. A computer should be able to allow a player to experience several of these simultaneously.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Quote: Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by MSW *yawns* How about a RPG that is NOT set in the same old cliched D&D inspired worlds? Now that would be something! Hmmm...In fact there are a couple RPG-like goal less games out there that arn't bound to the lame D&D setting. GTA is one of them. I don't agree that GTA is even RPG-like, but I do agree that we need to stop making fantasy games. Please stop making fantasy games. Make a modern RPG, or a futuristic RPG. Let's start a thread up to generate world-environment-setting ideas so that everyone knows there is more than just trees and trolls to work with. How about a slightly pre-modern era, like the 1800s? Or even the early 1900s? Cool enough. The ironic thing is that peeps post about wanting to try on the non-combat oriented roles of blacksmiths and the like... But when I suggest a RPG be made set during the birth of rock-n-roll, where players are musicians during the 1950's Well that just can't work cause its not combat oriented...can't work cause there is no magic system...can't work without dragons...in short that game I seem to be suggesting would be limited to a musician sim not a "true" RPG... Course never mind that what we call RPGs are basicly warrior/mage sims anyway :P

If anyone remembers (or has seen) the movie "Six-String samurai", I suggest highly that a game be made out of it. Sword-fighting againts guitarists, Elvis Wannabees, bald bowlers, radiation mutant families, Pick-up driving cavemen, space-suited "wind-people" and the "Big Ugly Spinach Monster", is simply post-cataclismic fun. The only ones that did not make it into it were the piratic space mutant dolphins. But that would have been too much...