Anybody know anything about this game? The videos available at the game's official website ( http://www.anotherwar.com ) look pretty good. It's a RPG set during World War II. Sounds interesting.

Brad Grenz

Cool, an RPG that isn't set in a Tolkienesque medieval fantasyland, a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or a grim cyberfuture.

Ya know, Gordon, it occurs to me that (since obviously you don't like what most RPGs are doing) you don't leave RPG designers a lot of options...I mean, if you don't want a Tolkienesque fantasy, post-apocolyptic wastelane, or grim cyberfuture, then what? Basically, that leaves us just a few options.

1.)We could all be freelance reviewers trying to make it in today's society. Wit, humor, and charm are our most essential stats. Writing and drinking our main skills.

2.)We could be cavemen, fighting for food and mates. We eat, and spread our seed. (Okay, so that's not so bad!)

The appeal of what most designers create is it's something that nobody's ever experienced. Granted, a WWII RPG isn't a bad idea, given the appeal of wargames and shooters, but...Well, I'm curious to hear what you've been looking for.

How abut an RPG in which you play a homeless single mother attempting to survive in America in the year 2001? Your goals: to protect and provide for your children, to avoid your psychotic ex-husband and other dangers of urban life, to quit drinking, and to eventually find a way off of the streets through getting training and/or a job.

The game's "end boss" would be George Bush, who's trying to tear down all of the public schools and homeless shelters in town in order to funnel as much money to the airline industry, star wars contractors, and petrochemical companies as possible. If you can steal a 747 and crash it into his skull before he gives away all of America's money to corporate lobbyists, a rainbow cornucopia of jelly beans and broccoli springs forth from the gash in his head, feeding everyone in America and spreading smiles across the land.

In the end, it turns out Bush's real name was Gargamel, and your character was a post-hymenal Smurfette all along.

I think I can sell this to Infogrames or Cryo Interactive.

I didn't say I didn't like what most RPG's are doing. It's just nice to see a little variety.

Personally I'd like to see more RPG's with a more real-world mythological bent. Still sword & sorcery, but less overtly Tolkienesque. An RPG set in a magical Norse setting (like Rune, but fun). An RPG set in an ancient Greek setting complete with dryads and the Oracle at Delphi and whatnot. I think that'd be a blast.

Stuart Smith, creator of "Adventure Construction Set" back in the '80s, made one RPG set in ancient Greece (The Return of Herakles), one set in an Arabian Nights setting (Ali Baba), and one set in a dawn-of-civilization Babylonian locale based on the Epic of Gilgamesh (Rivers of Light). Jeff Vogel, the Avernum dude, made an RPG (Nethergate) set in Roman-occupied Britain. Sandy Petersen and others at Microprose set "Darklands" in a quasi-realistic medieval Germany.

It'd just be fun to see more experimentation along those lines. Arcanum is probably the most creative setting we've seen in a long while. I will always be willing to play another D&D ripoff fantasy game (as long as it's done well), but variety is the spice of life, no?

Agreed. I was just picking on you, really. Haven't played Arcanum yet, other than the demo, but I agree that it's pretty cool, and certainly the most original idea to come along in awhile. (I'm a little behind in my RPG-ing...Still on BG2:TOB. But I got a late start with that series, too.)

I'd certainly give almost any of the games you named a shot, but they're a risky venture for a developer. There are some tried-and-true formulae for RPGs. They work. People buy them. Not that there aren't exceptions, but it's pretty rare to see anything new.

But I'm with ya. Here's to something new...

One doesn't have to look much further than the current crop of face-to-face roleplaying games to get a far broader collection of possible settings than those represented in CRPGs. This isn't rocket science. I do agree Gordon that realistic settings are neglected and this is a fairly big mistake as the real world, in many eras and places, is as or more interesting than any fantasy setting. Indeed, all fantastic settings are inspired by aspects of the real world. Reality just keeps getting more watered down and the fantasy less inspired with each reinterpretation of the secondary material and lazy regurgitation of rote assumptions.

Imagine what sorts of products we might have if designers put the same creative effort into roleplaying games that authors put into fictional settings - developing cultures and conflicts that are so immersive one feels they are involved with a place that could have been.

One more scenario set in a friggin dwarven mine or elven forest and my head will most certainly explode. But with Lord of The Rings coming up I suppose I'm probably already doomed as the marketing department's clone machines gear up for action.

Another War looks interesting. There aren't enough actual details about gameplay to get me very excited though. There was a Vietnam based face-to-face RPG out from Palladium for a while that did have some interesting ideas. After I discovered Tim Brook's Airborne 101 I sought out a forum on Computer Games Online to suggest that a sequel should include roleplaying elements the way this title included them among other suggestions.

There are a million premises, and believe me much better systems and presentations, possible for roleplaying in a digital environment. We haven't even scratched the surface nor broken much of a sweat trying.

Anyone remember the last CRPG horror game? No, Vampire doesn't count and neither do adventure games. (Ok, Vampire counts, fine, whatever, you win.)

I'm doing a column on the subject this month so I might use your answers (with credit).

-Andrew

Do any of the Ravenloft games from SSI count? Other than that, Realms of the Haunting, but that really wasn't an RPG I guess. I though the Elder Scrolls: Arena bits in the tombs and mausoleums were very scary, largely due to the sound effects, too.

A horror RPG.

A horror RPG.

Damn, except for Vampire the Masquerade (already mentioned), I can't think of a single one.

A horror RPG.

Well, in PS: Torment, your guy kinda looks like Frankenstein's Monster. I kept hoping "Fire bad!" would be an option on one of the dialogue trees, but it never was...

Gimmee a film noir RPG.

"Gimmee a film noir RPG."

Interesting. I guess because mysteries have dominated the genre, all noir games that I can think of so far have been presented as adventure games. I can see implementing a noir-like universe in an RPG, but wouldn't player characters pretty much be stuck with one class: detective? And what about races? I know Bruce would love to play Philip Marlowe as an elf. ;)

Hmm.

Well, suppose in a film noir RPG you could play a:

Private detective.
Police detective.
Gangster.
Moll/femme fatale.
Politician (?).

There might be some possibilities with something like that. Rival factions, different ways of solving problems, etc. A lot of the subplots of Fallout were gangster-esque anyway.

"A lot of the subplots of Fallout were gangster-esque anyway."

Instead of classes, a Fallout-like skill system might work, but the it seems to me the range of useful skills might be somewhat limited.

Hmmm, why not a noirish RPG/FPS-type game in the manner of the Thief and System Shock games?

Just look at tabletop RPGs for some more original settings that have been largely ignored by CRPGs:

-- American wild west (Boot Hill)
-- Space-faring Sci-Fi (Star Frontiers, Traveller)
-- Horror (all of White Wolf's settings)
-- Superheroes (TSR's Marvel Super Heroes)
-- Gamma World (o.k., I guess that was post-apocalyptic).
-- WW2 squad based.

Stefan

'Space-faring Sci-Fi'

Remember the Buck Rogers games? Those were pretty rockin'. I think I was 15 at the time, though.

Well, thinking of the typical film noir characters (detective, PI, femme fatale, mob boss, street thug, etc.) I'd imagine that the skill sets could be things such as intelligence, charisma, "sexiness", street-savvy, "connections" (to the mob, to the police chief, to the mayor, to the street folks, etc.,) criminal skills (such as lock picking, etc.), acting ability (e.g., can you convince the girlfriend of a suspect that you are a real estate agent?), wealth/social class, etc.

So, say you decide to play a PI. Will you be more like Sam Spade, Magnum, Spencer, Sherlock Holmes, Poirot, or someone completely different (say, a great looking dame who comes from a high society family but has connections on the street.) How about a cop that starts on the street, but hopes that developing a relationship with Phillip Marlowe may help you move up the ladder, you scratch his back, he gives you tips and credit - but it can also backfire. A mob boss, relying on your connections with the mayor to keep you out of jail and trying to plant fake evidence to pin a murder on a rival mob boss. And so on.

---

Quote:

Anyone remember the last CRPG horror game? No, Vampire doesn't count and neither do adventure games. (Ok, Vampire counts, fine, whatever, you win.)

---

White Wolf horror RPG games (and Ravenloft - but good call Mayer) aren't really about horror so much as they're about playing different kinds of "elves". Meaning, being a vampire, ghost, or werewolf, functions as a "race" with typical RPG effects (special abilities, pathos, etc.,).

Vampire: TM- Redemption was really just about leading a group of vampires on a quest to kill lots of other vampires. No fear, no real horror.

Completely unlike RPGs like Call of Cthulhu or, say, Chill, both of which would make really interesting/refreshing CRPGs I think. Or, at least that's the case I plan to make with this column.

-Andrew

"Also, to the noir character list you could add newspaper reporter."

Ah, how could I have forgotten that important "class" in film noir? Excellent.

Anybody got a million bucks or so? I've got a design - just no programming or game development skills and no cash. ;)

I totally agree with Gordon about the example put forth by by the old Adventure Construction Set (but will point out that the games produced with it were more adventures than rpgs), and I particularly agree with Brian's comments about how the real world is much more interesting and that most of the extant games haven't even scratched the surface. In terms of rulesets, they also suck for the most part.

If we redefine our notion of rpgs a touch, though, a lot of strategy games can be seen as rpg-like. Patrician II is a good example of what Brian would like to see, in fact -- an rpg set during the time of the Hanseatic League. I would love to see more rpgs with open-ended play and variable levels of control (individual ship to fleet or army). MoM and SMAC fit this definition too.

I realize that blurring categories may be annoying to some, but in general crpgs are so unoriginal, and built upon such poorly-conceived rulesets, that the genre itself has only frustrated me more and more over the years, as the conventions have become more and more entrenched. So I find myself trying to satisfy those urges with strategy games. My two best crpg experiences have been playing SMAC and Age of Wonders, wherein I and my human opponents really "got into" our roles; roleplaying within a very flexible structure as opposed to along a relatively linear path is just much more enjoyable to me.

>"Anybody got a million bucks or so? I've got a design - just no programming or game development skills and no cash."

I've got about a dollar fifty in my car. You can have it, but I will need Producer credit.

>"Hmmm, why not a noirish RPG/FPS-type game in the manner of the Thief and System Shock games?"

Hey, does System Shock 2 count as a horror RPG? That games makes me wet myself.

Brad Grenz

Heck a lot of RPG's can be seen as strategy-like! I think BG2: ToB is more of a strategy game than an RPG, as it is basically a series of big setpiece battles strung together by a very linear plot.

Brad,
Yes. I believe it does. But I've got a problem with 3D shooters with role-playing elements being considered RPGs. Logically, I understand why they're genre-blurred into that category, but my heart says NO!

I hope the game doesn't really make you wet yourself.

-Andrew

'White Wolf horror RPG games (and Ravenloft - but good call Mayer) aren't really about horror so much as they're about playing different kinds of "elves".'

I'd call them "angst-lifestyle" RPGs. Pretend you have all-powerful necromantic powers to go with your duct-taped together clothing and musical tastes. You know, the deep insights that make you better than normals.

I'm always careful not to drink liquids for several hours before firing the game up.

I dunno. The elf thing kinda works for me, description-wise. They just made them post-modern punk elves, raised on Anne Rice and worshipping youthful immortality. Fun to play for a while, but ultimately pretty shallow.

Jason Lutes:

Do you really think the ACS system was more adventure than RPG? I dunno. It had a stat system for your character, experience, hitpoints, all that. It had an Ultima-style top-down perspective, towns/dungeons ("regions") and an outdoor map (sadly a very small one), and NPC's who could tell you things (no conversation-tree system, but nobody had that in 1984). It had an (admittedly crappy) combat system. The relevant items in the gameworld were physical objects, weapons (ranged and melee), doors, walls, etc., and there were magic spells (although they were really just "effects" that items could generate, rather than spells you could cast).

It was not text based, it had no parser, no still graphics, none of that. Except for the text you would read in descriptions and in dialogue, it was essentially an icon-based interface. Though it was a rather bizarre engine, I think pound for pound it lands more on the RPG side than the adventure side. Anyway, as a 10 year old boy I did my darndest to make Ultima-esque games with it, even going so far as to redraw the graphics in the style of Ultima III.

Eh, White Wolf at least makes an attempt to really flesh out its 'elves' and their worlds but any face-to-face RPG is ultimately only as good as the players and game master can make it.

One of my best experiences was with the Storyteller system but the players were non-roleplaying but creative adults. I usually kept my circles of friends apart but this time I mixed the King Hell storyteller from my gaming group with some of my artsy and musical friends to see what would happen. It was hugely rewarding. There was all sorts of terror when the players are unjaded and the GM/Storyteller is a master of his art. Even I got spooked a few times. But, it's true, that White Wolf games angle more for passion plays than the fear factor. The best 'horror' game I've ever played, another face to face title, is Kult by Metropolis Ltd. That's a twisted and shocking game. It'd make a good RPG if the right guys got ahold of it.

I also agree that some strategy games are almost better 'roleplaying' games than CRPGs. My favorite example is King of Dragon Pass bt E-Sharp.

Y'know what White Wolf needs?

Lou Diamond Philips.

Gordon: "Do you really think the ACS system was more adventure than RPG? I dunno. [snipped lots of good reasons it's more of an rpg]"

You're totally right, Gordon! Now that you mention those things I remember why I loved ACS so much at the time -- it really was an RPG contruction set. I went into reflexive pedant mode far too quickly there. Sorry!

Reflexive pedant mode reactivated for Brian: the company's A-Sharp, not E-Sharp (my reason for caring being that I did a lot of the art for KoDP).

Horror cRPGs? Depends on what you define as a cRPG. My defining criterion du jour is that 'cRPGs' must let you tailor the game to your personal playstyle (through character development, party composition, etc).

That said, do the Quest for Glory games count (specifically 3 & 4 with their occult underpinnings)? It makes me wonder if the "play as you like" nature of the cRPG and the "trying to creep you out" nature of horror really go well together. I consider System Shock 2 to be a horror cRPG of sorts, offering the character development as well as the creepy setting. The Ultima Underworld games might also qualify, if you stretch the definitions a bit.

- Alan

"Y'know what White Wolf needs?

Lou Diamond Philips."

Warning: May contain partial nudity

Was Sanitarium an RPG? I didn't play it and I can't remember. I think it was an adventure game, though.

I think a RPG set in a classic horror environment could be cool. Traveling from town to town, helping the villagers with their vampire, werewolf and zombie problems. There are really so many settings that could make really cool RPGs. I'm hoping this Another War game will be good and do well so other developers will be encouraged to try something new.

Brad Grenz

Yeah, System Shock 2 is definitely a horror RPG. It's a ghost-ship story, complete with apparations. And it's creepy as hell. The whole game is designed to make you feel paranoid, startled, and alone. And it succeeds.

Hmm...just writing that, it makes me think "why would anyone want to play THAT game?" =)

"Yeah, System Shock 2 is definitely a horror RPG. It's a ghost-ship story, complete with apparations. And it's creepy as hell. The whole game is designed to make you feel paranoid, startled, and alone. And it succeeds."

And it does all of that more like a shooter than a true tabletop RPG.

This is quibbling, admittedly, but for me the term "RPG" is more about presentation/gameplay than background options, like experience points n' stats. Further, System Shock plays more like Half-Life than it did Call of Cthulhu (or, say, Baldur's Gate).

But I also acknowledge that most people characterize System Shock and Deus Ex as RPGs. I've always considered those two to be "shooters with skills/stats".

Ultima Underworld? Well, my definition sort of breaks down there, doesn't it?
-Andrew

By the way, and this is brought up mainly because it just occurred to me...

If Deus Ex/System Shock 2 are role-playing games based on the fact that they are 3D shooters with options/experience/stats - or - "shooters with RPG conventions", then, why isn't Rainbow Six considered a Strategy title by virtue of it's planning portion?

I submit it's because Rainbow looks and acts more like a shooter. Which is why I consider System Shock 2 to be ... a shooter*.

Now, I'm not married to that or anything. Just thinking out loud.

-Andrew

* with RPG conventions

---

Quote:

This is quibbling, admittedly, but for me the term "RPG" is more about presentation/gameplay than background options, like experience points n' stats.

---

"Completely unlike RPGs like Call of Cthulhu or, say, Chill, both of which would make really interesting/refreshing CRPGs I think. Or, at least that's the case I plan to make with this column."

Chill was great! Well, at least the second edition was -- the first was pretty cornball, though you could adapt the modules pretty easily. Mayfair really cranked up the quality on that second edition. Some of the best sourcebooks I've ever read in gaming. Great fun just to flip through, especially the "Horrors of North America" book. Went all over the place and was really detailed, right down to discussions Emily Carr in a scenario set on the British Columbia coast. Modules were well-done, too. Some really spooky, twisted topics in some of them.

Just moved all my old RPG stuff out of basement exile to a bookshelf upstairs this week and took the time to read through a lot of it. God, I must have all of the first edition AD&D manuals, along with a hundred D&D and AD&D modules. I even kept my campaign settings and character sheets. Brings back a lot of geektastic memories.

Wouldn't it be great if someone licensed the Infinity Engine and started adapting those classic modules? I'd be first in line for stuff like Tomb of Horrors, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Gotta think that there's a market for it, too, considering that they've been releasing novelizations of those modules for the past year or so.

It occurs to me that one thing inhibiting real roleplaying, particularly in MMORPGs, is the fact that no matter what type of character you play the overarching goals remain the same: kill bad guys, get xp/loot. To use the rpg noir example(which I think is a great idea), playing a reporter vs. a gangster should present the player with an entirely different story arc and set of goals, not just slightly different tools and tactics to take down the same Big Boss. Or, in a more conventional rpg, why do clerics always end up playing healer to a party of monster hunters? Maybe a cleric should only advance by doing deeds in line with his deity/ethos such as converting heathens, building temples, etc.

Actually, I'd like to see someone do away with the whole xp/level convention. Even more than setting, it's the area of least innovation in the genre. I know that a lot of games incorporate some sort of activity based skill advancement, but the underlying framework is still a step function of levels based on xp gained mainly by killing monsters.

Granted, that's easier said than done, but since I don't like to complain without offering up at least some sort of constructive idea, here are a couple of possibilities off the top of my head:

A fighter would still advance mainly through combat, but maybe that advancement could be more situation specific. For example, during the first encounter with a certain type of monster he learns some of its tendencies and weaknesses and this knowledge is reflected in increased attack and defense capabilities vs that type of beast. During subsequent encounters, these increases would begin to taper off, but maybe he gains other knowledge such as the ability to track and sense when they are near. In addition there could be a chance, increasing with the relative difficulty of each battle, that he gains increased confidence or techniques, reflected as a general increase in his combat ability against all enemies. This situational advancement could be extended to other factors such as terrain or environment. So instead of a generic level 12 fighter you could have a crack wumpus hunter skilled at night fighting and desert survival.

As another example, take the aforementioned cleric. Maybe to gain a new spell or ability from his deity he needs to retrieve a holy relic. He could enlist some fighters to help him out and play healer to the party during the quest, but he wouldn't gain anything (or very little) from the combat. Combat for him is just a means to an end. Conversely, if a group of fighters want a healer on board for a hunt, they would have to offer him something to make it worth his time.

The fact that I wrote this long of a post about a hypothetical rpg at this hour of the morning says something about me, but given the name of this site I can guess that I'm in pretty good company.

I think those are great ideas, really. Baldur's Gate II tends to, I think, give more experience for successfully completing quests than for combat, and I think that's a good step in the right direction. Ultima Online completely did away with the level/XP measures, if I recall correctly, and went with increasing skills through using skills, and increasing your strength, intelligence, and dexterity by using skills that depended upon those stats. My main character, back when I used to play, was a bowmaker, and his strength was often increasing due to all the tree chopping I had to do for wood, but the actual making of the bows helped my dexterity. Both of those arts had their own skills, too. It's a beautiful character development system, and I'd love to see it (or something like it) incorporated into a non-MMORPG. I don't have enough guaranteed gaming hours in any given month to pay ten bucks per month for a game. Rather, I like to pay $30-$50 for the game, and play it for six or eight months, or more. Thus MMORPGs don't work for me, though I'd love to get back into UO.

You mention that BG2 rewarded quest-completing more than combat. True, except completing most quests usually involved a certain amount of combat. (Except for some -- my favorite was the one where you go to Harper Hall to find a thief that's been imprisoned.)

I think PS:Torment goes further in avoiding combat. You could get scads of experience just by completing dialogue trees. Alas, in a way I sometimes felt the experience then felt "cheap." I mean, if you fight a bunch of combat, you feel more as if you've accomplished something in the gameworld. By contrast, completing dialogue trees never felt particularly "real" to me -- it was like getting experience for free. I suppose is depends on the quality of the dialogue tree, but it's still a much easier set of options to navigate than combat -- especially if you allow yourself to replay conversations, in which case it doesn't take long to determine which path is the "best." Ok true, PS:T tried to avoid having a "best" conversation path, but then they are all equally good at garnering experience points -- which sort of reinforces my "too easy" quibble. Even so, PS:T was a good try.

Jason Lutes: "I went into reflexive pedant mode far too quickly there. Sorry!"

'Sokay. :)

Granted, but how is that overly different from pen and paper RPGs? I mean, you don't always have to fight to accomplish goals, but more often than not, you do.

Also, people HATE Fed-Ex quests, and if you don't fight anyone, then...well, it seems to be a no-win situation.

There were some riddle/puzzle quests in BG2, as well. That's better, in moderation.

I agree that the dialogue tree method feels cheap. ESPECIALLY if it doesn't matter what you say -- which it often doesn't.

That's my one complaint about BG2 -- NPC's often respond the same regardless of which choice in the dialogue tree you choose. Especially boss-types (as those are the only ones I replay enough to know this) -- and while that may be tough to avoid, it really bugs me.

Other than that, though, I think BG2 is a beautiful game, and one of the best cRPGs in a long time, if not ever. (Although there were things about Arcanum's character development process that rocked!! I'd like to see some more of that. Not that it mattered once into the game, directly.) I don't agree with people that say it's more strategy than RPG. Hooey, I say to that. It's far less strategy than, say, Ultima 6 or 7 -- both great games in their own right. It's isometric and you can drag-select guys. That's about it. Strategy games tend to focus on large numbers of guys and their expendability, with perhaps a few exceptions, in the form of heroes. BG2 is nothing like that. Again I say -- hooey.

Yeah, you're right about Baldur's Gate and UO. I especially thought that the stronghold quests in BG2 added a lot of flavor to the game. I actually had UO in the back of my mind, but it's been so long since I played it that I've forgotten the details. I was a tailor, and as I recall I was able to make some serious cash making fancy shirts. The problem with those systems as they exist now is that they encourage a lot of repetitive "training" to boost stats. I'm certainly guilty of a few marathon Asheron's Call sessions that consisted of cast, cast, cast, rest, repeat. Sure, nothing was forcing me to play that way but it's harder to roleplay when the rest of the world is powergaming. It would be nice to see a rule system that encouraged roleplay rather than just leveling.

Ok, since I'm completely avoiding work (the all night coding session isn't quite as effective when you spend half of it on message boards), I may as well trot out another of my MMORPG ideas. To me, a big problem with them is the lack of heroic scale. A big attraction of a game like BG/BG2 for me is that your character advancement has tangible effects on the world around you. One of the most rewarding quests in BG2 was where you saved the town from the druids, etc. and they erected (heh) statues of your party in the town square. In contrast, in an MMORPG you're just one of thousands running around slaying the same beasties. Also, maybe it's my econ background, but a society in which 99% of the population is just running around killing things seems pretty flimsy and doesn't lend itself to a whole lot of immersion. I think the problem is that first M. How about a just-a-little-bit multiplayer online rpg? Something like a large number of game worlds, each populated almost entirely by NPCs with maybe 100 player characters. As players advanced and grew in fame, nearby NPCs would develop loyalties (or fears) towards them, conferring various benefits. It could even advance to the point where players could raise small armies against towns loyal to another player. Player killing would would be an integral part of the game, but the killing of a player by another would be a difficult and rare event and would have appropriately epic repercussions -- think Highlander. For the protection of weaker/newer players there could be a built in social system; I thought that the patronage system in AC was the best thing about that game.

As an aside, congratulations to Mark and Tom on a great site. I've been lurking around here for quite a while and it has gradually migrated onto my "check 5 times a day" short list.

Just to follow up my previous post, I didn't mean to imply that there should be less combat, combat is fun. I just meant that for non-fighter types, combat shouldn't be directly beneficial to advancement, more of a necessary evil or a means to an end. My cleric may need to get through hordes of creatures to get his hands on the holy widget, but I'm not going to tag along and play medic on your hunting expedition unless you sacrifice a troll to my god first. (Or help me get through those hordes)

Only five times day?? Amateur. As long as I'm online, I've got one window here...

Yeah, I've thought about that, too. Having thousands of players requires them to each be an everyday person, rather than an epic hero, and, while to me that's part of the attraction (I wouldn't mind playing an RPG where I had to earn my reputation -- and not just in the Baldur's Gate sense -- rather than being somebody special at the offset. I'd like to start with a real profession, but that sort of tedium probably doesn't appeal to many), most people probably wouldn't agree.

And yes, powergaming does make it hard to not follow suit. (How many people have I seen practicing their magic resistance by walking through one of their own flaming walls?) If there were some way to curtail such thing, it would be nice, but how? The only thing I can think of is to hide the numbers. Might make for an interesting concept. I'm sure they'd have to have some way to judge your prowess, but hiding the numbers might cut down on powergaming.

As an aside, every MMORPG from here on out -- and retroactively -- should have one server where strict roleplaying rules are enforced. Verying levels of strictness is fine, but there should always be one that would give you an immersive, rather than powergaming, experience. I think DAoC does this, and it sounds like a great idea.

Well I'll admit, "5 times a day" was a bit like saying "I had a couple of beers"

As for skill training, I think that some sort of adaptive, contextual system could help. Take spellcasting. Sure, when you first learn it some solo practice will help you get the incantations right, up to a point. After that, all the rote repetition in the world isn't going to help. The question now is can you get it off in combat? Maybe the first time you are so nervous that you fumble it, but gradually you get better at it under stress and as a byproduct the spell becomes more powerful. Now what about against a magic resistant creature? Well, after a few tries you figure out a twist that get through the defense and improves the spell a little more. The idea is that skills would improve only when you were tested. It's kind of the same idea as having a sliding xp scale for monsters above/below your level, just more finely grained. To me, not only would it have gameplay benefits, but it's more realistic. It's like lifting weights, improvement comes quickly at the beginning and then plateaus until you add more weight and after that it's a series of plateaus and improvements. And then a quick drop when you figure out that lifting heavy things and putting them down is less fun than drinking beer and playing computer games.

Michael Murphy said: "Granted, but how is that overly different from pen and paper RPGs? I mean, you don't always have to fight to accomplish goals, but more often than not, you do.

Also, people HATE Fed-Ex quests, and if you don't fight anyone, then...well, it seems to be a no-win situation.

There were some riddle/puzzle quests in BG2, as well. That's better, in moderation.

I agree that the dialogue tree method feels cheap. ESPECIALLY if it doesn't matter what you say -- which it often doesn't."

-------------------------------------------

All of this goes back to my earlier thread about "why do we play RPG's anyway?" I still sometimes feel that if you take away the combat from most RPG's, there's almost no "game" left -- all that is left is navigating dialogue trees, juggling inventory items, leveling up, checking quests off the ledger, and admiring the scenery. Don't knock "admiring the scenery," mind you -- that may be the principal reason why I play RPG's. It was also the principal reason why I played "Unreal," but that's another story...

I do not play PnP RPG's much -- and have never played them really seriously -- so I can't compare. But I guess that if you have a group of people who are really serious about their role-playing, then a conversation scenario can be just as exciting as a combat scenario. Because there are infinite variables involved. With the pre-written dialogue-tree system of most CRPG's, you are never going to get anywhere near as many variables in the dialogue encounters as you do in the combat scenarios. There's less "playing" to do.

Ultima VII more of a strategy game than BG? Dunno, I never played it much, but the combat system seemed pretty terrible to me, very hard to control your guys with any precision. Maybe I need to look at it again. The BG games are extremely combat-intensive and, while BG2 is still diverse enough to be an RPG, I maintain that Throne of Bhaal is essentially a strategy game. It's just a stringed series of Foozle battles, each bigger than the last. (Except for Watcher's Keep -- but the core game is just Foozle Foozle Foozle.) How can one call, for instance, Jagged Alliance 2 "strategy" but not Throne of Bhaal? I think with ToB we crossed over the looking-glass into a different genre. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, but the combat system is finally the crux of what the BG games are about. ToB just stripped away all the peripheral stuff, and cut to the chase.

I think the big future leap for MMRPGs is a conceptual one. Instead of the code being considered the game it should be understood that, if real roleplaying is the goal, the community and its interactions are the game. Systems should all be designed with psychology and social behavior in mind and the desire to shape natural inclinations in ways that build more bonds and conflicts between player-characters.

Most, if not all, MMRPGs posit a man vs. nature conflict (I'm not talking about backstories which are utterly pointless in the current crop of games) where the players struggle against a hostile world (wilderness, dungeon crawls, monsters). The little man vs. man conflict going on is generally PKing without any real consequence other than the temporary inconveniencing of a few individuals on the losing side.

Systems need to create other venues for struggle between players and factions. The best way to do this in a manner that encourages realistic behavior is to make combat potentially lethal, permanently, and to create things worth contesting over aside from magic items and experience points. Since reality is a good baseline for any simulation, and virtual realities by name alone can be assumed to derive a bit from reality, the creation of resources and the strategic need to control them would be a good starting basis for factions.

If combat is fatal and actual geography, economy, becomes important a natural outgrowth will be the need for diplomats and merchants in addition to warriors and wizards. Diplomats and merchants will more often than not be decent roleplayers as the ability to cajole, amuse, intimidate and so on are emotional projections that roleplayers are best at. The desire to attract them will compel potential factional leaders to be better roleplayers themselves as RPers know that gold in a MMRPG isn't real - only the roleplaying is. The rest of it is just baubles that are best employed to encourage better roleplaying.

But roleplayers are also excellent at creating dischord for less than, OOCly, tactical reasons. They're playing characters and sometimes the best characters are villains and anti-heroes. Subjects like romance take on meaning in a context of life and death and political struggle. Where would Romeo and Juliet have been without a certain struggle between two feuding noble houses?

You can't code these situations. What you can do is create a system that breeds the right conditions.

Once these conceptual leaps are made, among others, the next step is figuring out how to preserve suspension of disbelief and to teach newbies how to really play a role with a minimum of hassle to the system or the newcomers.

Raph Koster talks about impositional systems - using code to shape behavior. I think that must be the starting point for a commercial, mass market, game. The symbols of success a player takes home from a game that is actually about roleplaying should be degrees of freedom to effect his world rather than just more levels to kill bigger monsters.

The ability to talk without being forced to use a menu should be one such symbol. A player should be adopted into a 'biological' family in the game by proving himself over time before he can speak using his keyboard in the In Character world. Any faction leader player should have the ability to mute another character in his faction or to petition administration about any other character who is acting in a disruptive manner.

At the same time, there should be safe places where menu-driven dialogue would be dropped so unadopted characters would have a chance to practice speaking and posing correctly. Perhaps 'foriegners inns' would serve this purpose and also as recruiting grounds for factions.

There are many other systems that would help but these are some of the most important, IMHO.

I just hope all the advances in RPG design aren't relegated to MMORPG's. Some of us may not want to shell out for broadband or pay $10 a month to play a game.

"Wouldn't it be great if someone licensed the Infinity Engine and started adapting those classic modules? I'd be first in line for stuff like Tomb of Horrors, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Gotta think that there's a market for it, too, considering that they've been releasing novelizations of those modules for the past year or so."

Well, if Bioware and Interplay can stop slap-fighting, the NWN engine can do just that. I'm personally wondering if anyone will have the patience to reproduce the Infinity Engine games using it.

>, if Bioware and Interplay can stop slap-fighting, the NWN engine can do just that

Yes, it's definitely always been a plan of BioWare's to either directly reproduce those classic modules, or to ensure that players have the tools to do so themselves. You'll certainly be able to at least replicate the layouts and insert comparable monsters/traps. With an effective DM player, the resemblence could be pretty close.

I'd love to play a NWN version of the G/D/Q series (Giants/Drow/Lolth). That series will always represent D&D to me.

Stefan

"I don't agree with people that say it's more strategy than RPG. Hooey, I say to that. It's far less strategy than, say, Ultima 6 or 7 -- both great games in their own right. It's isometric and you can drag-select guys. That's about it. Strategy games tend to focus on large numbers of guys and their expendability, with perhaps a few exceptions, in the form of heroes. BG2 is nothing like that. Again I say -- hooey."

It's not "strategic," it's tactical. The combat in the Infinity Engine games is very tactical. Traditional tactics in terms of maneuver may not be so important, but tactics in terms of selecting the right weapon and the right spell and having the right party member take on the proper opponent are obviously quite important. The tactical combat is obviously central to these games, and why shouldn't it be? After all the AD&D system grew out of a set of of rules for tactical table-top combat, didn't it?

I think the story and character development elements in BG2 are wonderful. They do a great job of fleshing out the game world. But, personally, I'm glad that the focus remained on the combat. At the risk of being branded a Luddite, it's for that reason that I enjoyed BG2 more than Planescape. I give Planescape very high marks for originality, but after a while I found all those screens full of text a bit tiresome. Yes, the writing was very good--for a computer game. But, if reading is the point, I'd rather sit back in my easy chair with a good book.

Agreed on that last point, Jason. At least with all the combat in the BG games, you're *playing* something rather than *reading* something (apology to Zork fans).

Well, the text in an Infinity Engine game is an entirely different thing than in a text adventure. In a text adventure, reading the text, figuring out the puzzle from that text and typing in text IS playing the game. In an Infinity engine game, your just choosing from dialogue trees. That's a much more passive experience.

"I'd love to play a NWN version of the G/D/Q series (Giants/Drow/Lolth). That series will always represent D&D to me."

For me it was the Slaver series (A1-4), but I always preferred low-mid level adventures. Even though those modules were *very* uneven (and the... third one? had a vampire on the back cover - which freaked out players even though there wasn't a vampire in the module) it did have a cadre of "super villains" to ultimately contest with.

If I can further clarify my point about SS2 being/not being a RPG for one second... especially for this column I'm writing... when I say: "I want a horror RPG", I'm not thinking about System Shock 3. That isn't what I want. What I want is the great Sandy Petersen to convince his mates at Ensemble to pick up the Chaosium Cthulhu license and gimmie a COC cRPG.

"Ye Liveliest Awfulness"
-Andrew
PS: Brett, you're right, Chill's hardcover second edition was a much better game than the first one.

I'm a stats hound in most games, but I think RPGs and MMOGs are best when almost completely obscure. As a kid I was quite the (a)d&d player. I ran a campaign and played in a couple others, but my most memorable high school RPG experience was playing in a short RuneQuest campaign - because I had very little clue about the underlying game system. Likely that's just me, but post-EQ maybe more people are open to the idea of completely new ideas supported by high production values.

In MMOGs communication plays a big part too, and I like the way it's handled in WW2OL. Personally I don't think they went far enough, for maximum immersiveness I feel a char should be limited to say(groupsay), shout, and emote for communicating directly with other players.

How to introduce newbies into the system in a fair and reasonable manner is an exercise for the implementer;)

""Wouldn't it be great if someone licensed the Infinity Engine and started adapting those classic modules? I'd be first in line for stuff like Tomb of Horrors, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks."

I always loved White Plume Mountain, the original Ravenloft module (not the whole "real of Raveloft" series), and even Village of Hommlet, because it was a fun low-level adventure. They all had neat back-stories, good balance and great playability.

My friends have become far too lazy, self-concious and jaded (read: "mature") to ever play a game like D&D again. I hold out some hope for the Neverwinter Nights system, though. I like the idea of an online DM with the ability to change a dungeon on the fly for a small group of adventurers. I think that's one of the niftiest ideas in gaming that I've seen in a while. I can only hope it pans out in execution as well as it does in concept.

I'd forgotten about the original Ravenloft module. That was a great one, perhaps the last truly great one (that I was exposed to, I was a snob who tended to build his own adventures). It also had terrific artwork. And, admittedly, a *very* cliched vampire story. Very challenging for players and especially for DMs, because it was so offbeat and atmospheric. I never heard good things about the Ravenloft campaign that followed.

My D&D friends and I switched to Call of Cthulhu after we began "maturing", now that was a demanding game. Now, they all live a couple thousand miles away. Pity, sometimes I'd like to dust it all off and see what D&D at 30 is like. Plus, now I have a killer basement I could adapt to a play area.

-Andrew

>the original Ravenloft module. That was a great one, perhaps the last truly great one (that I was exposed to

It was the last D&D module I ever played. A great one, in the hands of a capable DM. The DM really had to run the story dynamically, however, or it would fall to pieces.

Stefan

Read that one the other night, too. Great module.
There was a sequel, wasn't there? Long before they made Revenloft a setting, I think there was a direct sequel to that first Tracy Hickman module, but I can't remember the name of it. Never had it, though I'm pretty sure that a friend did. Tracy Hickman's stuff was generally really good overall. The I3-5 Desert of Desolation (Pharaoh, Oasis of the White Palm, Lost Tomb of Martek) series was great.

But the Demonweb Pits series stuff really was the ultimate in AD&D modules back then. They had everything. The S series stuff was close behind, though. Tomb of Horrors is the best single module ever written, IMHO. Just something about that grim setting.

"There was a sequel, wasn't there?"

The Return of Strahd... something like that. It wasn't very good.

"Tomb of Horrors is the best single module ever written, IMHO. Just something about that grim setting."

Bah, my players hated deathtraps and that place was jam packed full of 'em. Great fun for a DM though, and a great concept (search the dead wizard's dungeon) so I agree with you, even though my players hated it.

Anyone remember The Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? I actually had a player quit my group because I wanted to take a stab at that. Can't say I blame him, laser pistols and all that. He just couldn't take the campaign I was running going in that direction. Same guy got bent out of shape about Dinosaurs in the Monster Manual. My what fools these fantasy fans be.

-Andrew

I know of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Never played it though. My brother is a fiend for those old modules, he's been buying 'em up on E-bay. Also old Dragon Magazine games like "Snit's Revenge" and "King of the Tabletop."

I mentioned Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in my first post in this thread. Lot of fun, though, you've got to be creative as a DM and make sure that you find a way to divest everyone of those laser pistols and needlers soon after the story ends.

Remember the possible ending about being dumped out of the ship with a bulette? Great pic went with that, too. Actually, the art in that module was amazing, with that second booklet.

"My brother is a fiend for those old modules, he's been buying 'em up on E-bay. Also old Dragon Magazine games like "Snit's Revenge" and "King of the Tabletop."

When I first read that, I thought you wrote "mother". Oooh. Yeah, my mom runs a counter-strike server. She's a linux sysadmin.

Heh. I have what must be an eBay mint worth of old modules, but I'd never sell them. I didn't much care for Tomb of Horrors--I liked the idea, but it was really too deadly to play (at least not with characters that you care about). The Slaver series was pretty cool, and I always really liked the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My group ran some high-level stuff using the Norwold modules (Basic D&D, although we converted everything to AD&D rules)--Test of the Warlords, Saber River, that sort of thing.

Mostly my group made their own material, though, and eventually we stopped using premade campaign settings altogether in favor of our own. So most of my really memorable games were set in worlds that nobody else would ever recognize--Kruos (a world with no sun), Thaun, and so forth.

Yeah, I used Greyhawk for a short while and then went it alone. I noticed a schism in the D&D community. Older folks love Greyhawk/Blackmoor/etc., and the younger crowd are all about The Forgotten Realms and that Dragon place... um... the DragonLance stuff. With the "kender", yucky dwarves, dragon men that turned to dust, and Flim-flam the Wizard. I never got into that stuff, or those books. (Though I did play War of the Lance on my PC.)

"Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth"

Ah, I loved hearing people pronounce this one for the first time. Cthulhu is another fun one. Nyarlathotep, etc.,

-Andrew

Has anyone on this board looked at or preview "Tale in the Desert"? I�m personally curious if it will hold the attention of a sufficient audience.

This topic seems in line with the earlier questions about combat in MMORPGs

I remember those old modules. My group never leveled high enough to do Tomb of Horrors, but we got through the slaver series. I think by the end of it we were around 7-8th level. I was adamant about not being a "Monty Haul" DM, so that's about as high as any of my players got in three years of steady campaigning.

And that last slaver module did the old "You've been captured by the bad guys and all you have is a loin cloth" trick on them. Though the biggest challenge in our running of it was at the end. The place was blowing up, the party could see freedom from where they were standing, and there was one monster between them and finishing. Their druid turned into a black bear and fought the monster, killing it, but getting knocked unconscious. Half the party was behind the bear, and if they waited for him to turn back, the place would be under hot lava (or something, I don't quite remember). How do you move an unconscious black bear with things you have on hand?

First time we'd ever encountered an engineering problem in D&D. It wasn't in the module, but it resulted from the module. That was the sort of thing that made D&D cool.

Dean, my compliments. That situation didn't result from the module so much as it came from you. D&D, and any RPGs, are only as good (and creative) as the DM. Many DMs would have probably copped out and made it easier for the players.

I always felt the job of the DM was to, not anticipate, but be ready for situations like that.
-Andrew

I like breaking out the sliderule as much as the next guy but what I enjoyed most about face-to-face roleplaying was the storytelling and character acting part. These sorts of games rely as much on the quality of the players as the GM/DM/Storyteller. The best platform in my experience was Amber: Diceless Roleplaying based on the novels by Roger Zelazny. The whole premise of powerful characters scheming for power and often at odds but also unified in the face of larger, mysterious, threats made for the most intense roleplaying ever. Secrecy, paranoia, and long term plots created by the players fed the intensity of the most casual scenes. When bad stuff started happening there was no telling whether a player, players, or one of many NPC factions was behind it all. Usually it was some byzantine mosaic of several factors related or not.

The somewhat godlike powers of each character, and experience rewards for creative contributions, generated hundreds of NPCs, items, and dozens of detailed worlds created by the players themselves. The GM was almost more of a stage manager than a director. By the end of the campaign he had notebooks full of information, maps, songs and stories provided by the players.

It would be impossible to offer this kind of latitude or expect this quality of participation in a graphical computer game, especially a commercial one, but there are lessons that can be applied here too.

Ownership of one's character (his biography, appearance, and freedom to pursue self-determined goals) and his immediate surroundings combined with a real potential to shape the world beyond his physical grasp tends to bring out a player's best qualities. You see a similiar phenomenon in urban planning where ownership of property results in better neighborhoods than in areas filled with rented properties and absentee landlords.

>I always really liked the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth

That may have been my favourite single module. I remember it marked Gygax's return to module writing after a notable absence (just prior to publishing Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures). Gygax was incredibly creative, and everything he wrote in his modules just seemed "right", even if it strayed from prior established rules.

He may have been an ass and taken credit for work done by groups of people, but he really was the singular vision behind AD&D first edition (sorry, Arn).

Stefan

Tsojcanth was really good. Great setting, with encounters both outdoors and in the dungeon. Really set the stage properly, unlike some where you just showed up on the doorstep of the adventure and just went at it. Fantastic art in that one as well. I'll always remember the drawing of the vampire warrior chick lying on the bier.

Another one of my favorites was The Secret of Bone Hill. Nothing too special, but it was a good lower level module and it was set in a small town on Lendore Isle in the Spindrift Isles chain on Greyhawk. I liked starting campaigns there, because you could let the players begin as fledgling small town heroes and then branch out to the wider world. Stereotypical, yeah, but I always thought this was a great way to tell a story and allow the players to sort of experience the wider world with their characters.

We did variations on that a few times, though we never had the time necessary to really get the characters leveled up and continue their careers on the mainland. I'd still love to develop a big campaign along those lines. Man, I had so many great ideas for how to incoporate other modules later on and get the players involved with Iuz and with stuff in the Great Kingdom.