|
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Hi. I would like to discuss RPG's with my fellow geeks.
Specifically I have a few questions, but would also love your thoughts in general on the subject. Such as what could be improved, what should be avoided, and what would it take for you to buy yet another RPG.
Questions:
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
- What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
- What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
Thanks.
-
Cadrian
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
-
Endings - I tend to prefer objective based conclusions to these sorts of games, whether it may be defeating a boss, retrieving an object, escorting a patron, or a mixture thereof.
Co-op - There aren't enough of these games about IMHO. Though it could be spiced up with secret (competing) objectives and the like?
Scale - I think the term 'RPG' suggests the progression of just one character, perhaps with a sidekick or familiar. May just be me though.
NPCs - A nice, un-fiddly, automated movement system can add variety and flavour to any game. Static NPCs tend to make a world seem dead rather than alive.
That's my 2p!
-
Zuperfliegen
United States
Round Rock
Texas
Ride the Snake
-
marqzen wrote:
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
Endings? Well this was what I liked about RPG's. There was no ending, there was continual growth and progression from one adventure to another.
-
-
marqzen wrote:
Questions:
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
I tend to like open ended games where the actual length of play is variable and can be chosen beforehand, like playing a number of turns or with a time limit. During the course of the game there can be several different objectives that players can go for to score points (leveling, treasure, fighting, quests, etc...)
Quote:
- What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
I think it's a must. The best for me is an open system that lets players freely cooperate and/or compete between them and that works well for different combinations of mixed factions of players and NPCs
Quote:
- What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
Here I think the best is to somehow combine both, but it might not be so practical... still, I think there's room for both types of games as they're fairly different.
Quote:
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
Thanks.
I tend not to like player controlled monsters/NPCs (unless they're hired by the player). If I want to play with a GM, there are many RPGs available, but on a boardgame I want the game to be the GM. A good game system makes for very satisfying play 
Bakelite wrote:
Endings - I tend to prefer objective based conclusions to these sorts of games, whether it may be defeating a boss, retrieving an object, escorting a patron, or a mixture thereof.
Co-op - There aren't enough of these games about IMHO. Though it could be spiced up with secret (competing) objectives and the like?
Scale - I think the term 'RPG' suggests the progression of just one character, perhaps with a sidekick or familiar. May just be me though.
NPCs - A nice, un-fiddly, automated movement system can add variety and flavour to any game. Static NPCs tend to make a world seem dead rather than alive.
That's my 2p!
You almost described Magic Realm I think that game is the reference in this kind of games, and should be well examined by people thinking about creating new games in the genre...
-Jorge
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
MWChapel wrote: marqzen wrote:
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
Endings? Well this was what I liked about RPG's. There was no ending, there was continual growth and progression from one adventure to another.
I see your point, but games should still have some kind of natural ending, from which the players perhaps can move on to the next segment on a later date. So the question is what kind...
Another question I would like to debate is "Narrative" - this is something I'm pretty hooked on, and would like to take a step further than todays games. But the question is if gamers care enough to make it worth while...
@ Jorge.
I agree with your sentiments on NPC's. I prefere the game to be GM as well - another area of design which can be improved.
-
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
-
marqzen wrote: Hi. I would like to discuss RPG's with my fellow geeks.
Ok. I haven't found an RPG boardgame that really feels like a traditional RPG, so I'll answer your questions from a traditional RPG perspective. Some computer RPGs, do manage an RPG feel; and I have by no means tried all of the RPG-like board games.
marqzen wrote: - What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
What you want is psychological closure, like the closure you get with a novel. At simplest, you want to get the magic McGuffin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffin), kill the boss-monster or, "To kill them. To kill them all." At best, like a good novel, you want your character to achieve some "life"-changing goal, or to at least top out the character.
Edit: However, an open-ended game can have intermediate goals.
marqzen wrote: - What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
A traditional RPG allows cooperative play without true dependence on your teammates because a good GM will pick up their slack. A computer RPG with AI teammates similarly can't fail you, though the AI may not be good enough to play more than a supporting role--but Dungeon Siege, for example, has a nice team structure. The worst thing, even in a bridge or Tichu partnership, is when you just can't depend on your partner(s) and constantly fail because of it: they may be bad players, or you just may need more experience than you have to work together (or are likely to get with an initial unsatisfying play). I like cooperative play, but I don't want to depend on partners for a good experience.
I think a good RPG boardgame should probably work solitaire.
marqzen wrote: - What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
If you're not identifying psychologically with your character(s), it isn't an RPG, it's a first person shooter--like Zombies!!!. (For FPS's all the answers change.) One character is typical, but a "band of brothers" can work, too. Even a larger group can work, but it must have a group personality like Memphis Belle, perhaps in B-17: Queen of the Skies; HMS Hood; Enterprise; or Dallas in The Hunt for Red October; you must engage at a personal level or you're not playing a role.
marqzen wrote: - NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
I'm always a fan of random or semi-random map gemeration, from Tikal to Blue Moon City. However, random monster placement can break immersion by presenting silly combinations of monsters.
As always, interesting questions!
-
Cadrian
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
-
marqzen wrote:
Another question I would like to debate is "Narrative" - this is something I'm pretty hooked on, and would like to take a step further than todays games. But the question is if gamers care enough to make it worth while...
I think this is important to the genre being discussed - if players are playing a 'role' then it is nice, if not essential, for a story or narrative to be present. I think players like to get under the skin of their character, responding to the various vagaries that are thrown at them 'in character'.
I don't think a set scenario is too desirable, as this can feel stale after multiple plays, especially in a boardgame. Systems that throw up random events can sometimes work - players' imaginations can link them up to some degree, gloss over any inconsistencies, rationalise sudden changes etc.
It would be cool to have a system that was somehow weighted, or semi-weighted - even if it were as simple as selecting a secret beginning, middle and end (or perhaps even more granular?) from a number of potentials at the start of play? They could be designed to segue nicely?
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
While I dont want to get into my specific ideas, I think you are on to something which could be explored far more than it is today. I see your point about things getting tired with the same scenarios on repeated play, but there are ways around it I think.
However things could quickly turn out too clunky and inelegant for "todays gamers".
-
Mark Stadel
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
-
marqzen wrote:
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
I prefer the traditional climatic ending (ie. the "big bad"), and preferably a variable one
marqzen wrote:
- What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
I like the idea of an optional co-op play but with the idea that you could still go it alone (co-op games seem somewhat unsatisfying to me ... ultimately, one person wants to be the overall winner).
marqzen wrote:
- What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
This is probably not practical but I would like to see a combined game: a larger world-view for travelling, then smaller boards for the tactical exploring. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd go for tactical.
marqzen wrote:
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
If its a co-op game then NPCs can be static but if you can adventure solo then its nice to have some help.
Just my two cents ...
-
stephen
United Kingdom
Burton on trent
Staffordshire
-
I think it would be nice to see a sort of onward progression for a character over multiple games, ie you play once and defeat a big bad, but when you play again the game moves up a notch and you play with the now experienced character against new more diffcult encounters and so on.
one of the problesm with these games is you just get your character kitted out with cool moves and equipment and its game over.
-
-
About the narrative, I see two main types of approaches: letting the game develop its own narrative through it's own events or impose a narrative through the use of "flavor" text. Magic Realm, or Duel of Ages are two examples of the first approach and Arkham Horror, Runebound or the classic paragraph games are examples of the second.
The problem is that the more text you include in the game, the less flexible the game system becomes. I think a good balance was reached in Tales of Arabian Nights which has mixture of both. I'd like to see a game that advances this approach, with a clever system to put together a coherent story from small bits of random events and characters, but it's hard...
But anyway, right now, I prefer the games that don't have so much text and create a story through the actions of the characters, the game system and the NPCs... I can fill in the text myself with my imagination while in play
-Jorge
-
Mr Derrp!
United States
Crystal
Minnesota
-
I'm very new to the forums but will give you some feedback. I'm excited for your Age of Piracy to come out!
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
I would say have some major quest line that would be completed. People game for entertainment and in general, 'winning' gives a feeling of accomplishment. At the end of your RPG game, there should be a sense of accomplishment. Whether it's defeating a DM, or 'fighting' your way to the next town, saving up money to buy weapons, toughening your character for further progress, etc., there should be some sort of achievement. I guess alot of it depends on how exactly your game is to be played.
- What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
I think a great game would have Cooperative play for normal play, but also somehow incorporate PvP play/rules using the same board/dice/characters/etc.
- What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
Well, I haven't played either of those, but almost bought Descent. Opted for Heroscape instead (needed something for family, not just hardcore gamers). I think it would be great to venture through a forest coming across ruins, natives, caves, etc., that could be explored but all of this would be part of your greater journey across the world.
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
I like the idea of semi-random movement but then upon encounter, someone else assumes the role of that character. Whether a DM or the fellow player.
What should be avoided:
- Overly complex rules. Rules for such a specific situation that may rarely occur. A game that becomes rule bound is no fun.
- Consulting any sort of 'bible'. Making a person invest heavily into the game to really play it. Let me give an example. Dungeons and Dragons. There are so many abilities in the game, which makes it great but unless you know the game inside and out, it can really put off a newcomer (unless guided by a D&D guru). I compare that to Heroscape where the game play and rules are the same almost all the time (scenerio's can change this). However, each unit/character has special abilities. These special abilities change the game play, sometimes drastically, but you are not forced to memorize an entire book or consult it frequently. This is because you only need to know the abilities of the units you have drafted which have cards stating those abilities.
- Pieces/parts/props that are not needed or utilized or worthy of having them be as such.
- Too much chance thrown in at the wrong time during a game. Picking the right guy for the job, learning skills to aid you, buying armor for that situation, only to roll dice to figure out if your guy lives or dies type of thing, completely negating all the strategy you've done up until that time. I'm not saying have no chance, just use it correctly.
What would it take for you to buy yet another RPG:
- Ease of learning, playing
- Replayability
- Price
- Sense of achievement, accomplishment, adventure upon completion of the game
- Anything 3D! Boards, guys, props
Keep in mind the above post is just my opinion. I have been looking for a great RPG game and as stated above, almost bought Descent. I still may. Heroscape is great because its easy to learn, play and combines some strategy that reminds me of chess with dice rolls. However, I'd like to have a game where you can role play and build a character fighting your way through monsters, minions, exploring ruins and finding treasure, coming into a market to buy items and venturing off into the unknown in a epic quest across a world. Expansions could add more cities, classes, side quests, weapons, caves/dungeons to explore and more. Maybe what I'm looking for already exists! For now, Pirates of the Spanish Main and Heroscape are keeping me happy.
Derp
-
-
marqzen wrote: - What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
Completing a narrative Victory Condition. It could be a shared Condition (i.e. the game ends when everyone defeats the BBEG) or a personal Victory Condition (i.e. your knight regains the Holy Grail for his Order). "Leveling up" and "PvP battle" should be the means to achieve the Victory Condition.
marqzen wrote: - What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
Co-op play should be available to players as long as they feel that they benefit from the arrangement. I'd expect that somewhere along the way, players will break off from the group to strike out on their own. Perhaps a game where everyone needs to band together at the start till they are strong enough to stand on their own.
marqzen wrote: - What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
I personally think world-based RPGs are a lot more interesting than tactical ones.
marqzen wrote: - NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
I'd prefer the game to control the actions of the NPCs in some predictive fashion. This gives the players some chance to plan ahead (i.e. I'll lure the Guardian monster away from his lair while you go in and loot the place) Some chance that things might go wrong would be nice too. Perhaps this falls into what you consider Semi-random movement?
-
-
I own or have owned many of these kinds of games, and I enjoy the same kinds of things in them: character development, adventure/exploration, really interesting choices, resource management, and a sense of immersion.
Make it too abstract and you lose immersion; make it too simulationist and you make it hopelessly inaccessible.
It is impossible to make a true RPG Boardgame, for the simple fact that RPGs focus on roles and character development, which is necessarily limited in the boardgame format. The closest anyone has ever come, is Magic Realm, and even that has relatively pre-fab characters. It is the only open ended Pseudo-RPG that does not require a GM.
One solution that I find particularly attractive, and that I wish to goodness someone would realize and capitalize on, is the concept of the paragraph-based game. I think Tales of the Arabian Nights is the closest thing to the kind of perfect semi-RPG experience that actually feels like you're in a story. It's a board with a specific map with many locations, keyed to a paragraph book that works like a choose-your-own-adventure book, and your character becomes more defined as he/she aquires and loses attributes during the game, and these attributes affect the outcome of the adventures in the book.
The designer once said that the game was originally intended to be a computer adventure game, which explains a lot.
If you could create a set of components with a board, some pieces, some tokens, and some resources/items/etc., and then create multiple paragraph book adventures to go with the same set of bits, you could keep making money off the same game indefinitely and create a cult following.
You could build as much narrative as you wanted into each adventure, and supplement each book with whatever bits, cards, figures, etc., you needed to add a little bit more immersion to that particular adventure. Heck, you could do like GMT and publish the map as a folding paper map to go with each book, and just publish the main box with all the figures, cards, money and whatever else you wanted to make it feel like a boardgame.
Granted, this would mean a little more work than coming up with a catch-all system, but listen, that's been done, several times, and you're really re-inventing an already threadbare wheel there.
Trust me, Tales of the Arabian Nights doesn't go for $150-$200 for nothing. If I could only have one of these types of games, and I had to choose between Tales and Magic Realm, I'd go for Tales every time. Get a copy and see what I mean. It's a perfect solution that nobody seems to try to copy, since they always seem to go for a Talisman clone in the end. I want more real adventures, like the Which-Way books, or CYOA. It's the only real solution I've found to the problem of creating a role-playing-esque narrative with a boardgame format, and it will take a long time to get tired of it even though it has a finite set of permutations. By the time someone gets tired of it, you'd have another book ready to go, and whammo! sell another product, and introduce a whole nother wave of fans to your original game. If only I had the time to actually do it myself I would; but with a 2-year old, not going to happen anytime soon.
Hope this helps.
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Thanks for your answers guys!
@ J Green...
That's interesting. I never heard of "Tales of the Arabian Nights" - from the sound of it it does sound similar to what I had in mind. Same goal.
Quote: They all work -- the problem is that the RPG boardgame is pretty much full in the fantasy "hack and slash" department. OTOH, If your avatar is a hint of what the game is about, BRING IT ON!!!
hehe, well - that's a semi-rpg/adventure game getting released later this year . I'm looking for new inspiration, and getting a sense of what people would like to see.
-
-
bookgnome wrote:
If you could create a set of components with a board, some pieces, some tokens, and some resources/items/etc., and then create multiple paragraph book adventures to go with the same set of bits, you could keep making money off the same game indefinitely and create a cult following.
You could build as much narrative as you wanted into each adventure, and supplement each book with whatever bits, cards, figures, etc., you needed to add a little bit more immersion to that particular adventure. Heck, you could do like GMT and publish the map as a folding paper map to go with each book, and just publish the main box with all the figures, cards, money and whatever else you wanted to make it feel like a boardgame.
There's a set of games that I think are similar to what you suggest, but each one comes with everything needed for that adventure. Each adventure is prepared for a range of levels, so as your character increases in level, you can play harder adventures. I haven't played any o them, but the do seem interesting. Here's one of them: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/28626
BTW, for me Tales wins in simplicity and ease of play compared to Magic Realm, but I still think that an open ended game system like MR has is the best solution to make a dynamic and "believable" world that takes on a life of its own... If somehow the two concepts could be merged it could be perfect...
-Jorge
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Well to me simplicity is not in itself a good thing. I tend to like complex and detailed mechanics which are well-integrated into a nice theme.
Obviously there is a limit. I guess I like things to be streamlined and well thought out, but not simple.
-
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
-
- What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
Scenarios with well-defined goals linked together into a longer campaign.
- What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
Very nice.
- What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
Tactical. Or a combination of higher scale map for traveling and tactical map(s) to zoom in to do battles or approaching interesting locations.
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
Other: "Programmed paragraphs" (see Ambush!).
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Hi. I'm bringing this thread up again since I have a few related questions I would like to discuss.
Imagine a big game world. Lots to do in terms of fights to pick, jobs to do and stuff like that. The game world is run by some form of A.I. Now the question is - how can the issue of "a solitair game with multiple players on the same board" be avoided?
One solution is obvioulsy to make the game co-op. But if I would like the game to me more open and players only form alliances if they want to - then what?
Perhaps it's not an issue since players will have anough fun playing their own game etc.
I would like to hear your comments on these issues. Whatever pops in your mind
Thanks.
-
-
If you give the players the freedom to do what they want in the game world, then some will go on their own, some will form groups, etc... That's a bit like in Magic Realm... (and it's not a bad thing). It can become "multiplayer solitaire" but only if everyone playing wants to. Maybe if you put difficult enough challenges, then players will have to cooperate at least to overcome some particular challenges... You can also add incentives to compete like bounties on players (as a consequence of some of their actions), or other reasons for conflict...
Still, I don't think it's much of an issue...
-Jorge
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Hi Jorge - thanks, year - that makes good sense... making some of the quests better fit for multiple characters.
-
-
BTW, why do you rate World of Warcraft the boardgame a 3? I've been eyeing it these last few days after I read the cooperative variant where the players only play on one team, and the dice system seems fun... My gf doesn't like the theme of Arkham Horror and I thought maybe a coop WoW would be a nice substitute
-Jorge
-
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
-
Perhaps a bit harsh but the BGG rating description fit pretty much how I felt "Likely wont play this again although could be convinced otherwise. Bad. "
I played it right upon the release when there were no varriants. I kept constantly thinking "why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that" etc. One of the worst issues was downtime and too little interaction bewteen factions, but I imagine a co-op version would fix that much of that and could make a very enjoyable game.
The dice system - well to me it was overly complex. I don't mind complexity but it seemed rather pointless and clunky.
-
Giles Pritchard
Australia
Shepparton
Victoria
-
Quote: - What endings are satisfying (reaching a certain "level", PvP battle, other?)
Achieving a set goal (world based or character based), completing a story, a big battle...
Quote: - What are your feelings on Coorporative play? A must, nice or?
I would prefer a game like this if it were co-operative. An important aspect of RPGs for me was always the 'we're in this together' attitude that a good, tense, adventure can generate. I don't mind the suggestion that characters could run off on their own, but could need to co-operate to defeat/achieve certain things. Still, I think RPGs do a good job of creating a game where all the players have to pull together and utilise each other's strengths etc.
Quote: - What scale do you like and why? (Tactical "descent-like" or more world based "World of Warcraft).
Hmm. Tough question. I guess it depends to some extent on the other aspects of the game. a tactical game could work with the above, as could a world based game. It would be nice to have the ability to have both, without making the game overly complex. 
- NPCs: Static area roaming, Semi-random movement, or player controlled (for instance controlling the other players enemies)? Other?
I think it would be nice if the game was GM-less. NPCs should not be static though. Some clever sort of random movement could simulate thier movement. Depending on the 'story' the NPCs could have a mixture of pre-programmed and random movement. (ie: the forces of darkness are headed towards the sacred spire... sort of thing - governing general movement, but the rate of movement and the specifics of it could be also generated randomly?? You could also have 'enemy events' which could influence the movement of the NPCs for that turn only - or for a limited time... If there are good NPCs a similar system could be applyied to them. An obvious downside of a system like that is that you wouldn't want the stories to become too samey - same comments apply as what a few other people said about scenario play.
Quote: Imagine a big game world. Lots to do in terms of fights to pick, jobs to do and stuff like that. The game world is run by some form of A.I. Now the question is - how can the issue of "a solitair game with multiple players on the same board" be avoided?
I like Jorge's idea. Although if the game were co-operative then this wouldn't be a huge issue. players could play for one team (the forces of good let's say) - they don't necessarily have to move around together, but may need to co-ordinate thier movement to best achieve the team goal. Of course the question is then how to balance the game for team play successfully...
I think there have been some good posts here! Good luck!
Giles.
-
-
marqzen wrote: Perhaps a bit harsh but the BGG rating description fit pretty much how I felt "Likely wont play this again although could be convinced otherwise. Bad. "
I played it right upon the release when there were no varriants. I kept constantly thinking "why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that" etc. One of the worst issues was downtime and too little interaction bewteen factions, but I imagine a co-op version would fix that much of that and could make a very enjoyable game.
The dice system - well to me it was overly complex. I don't mind complexity but it seemed rather pointless and clunky.
Thanks, I'll still consider it, I read the rules to the new expansion and I like the way it introduces dungeons into the world...
If you can find a way of introducing dungeons into the world of the game without too much downtime, but still making them interesting, then it'd be a winner . For example, I love games that have separate tactical boards like Titan. The problem is that they usually have a problem with downtime...
Also, there's the problem of different time frames (turns in the overworld should involve more time than turns in the dungeon)...
-Jorge
-
|
|
Posted Tue Jul 3, 2007 2:27 pm
