Theoretical RPing: 'Action computer game engine' combat resolution.

Fairytale

First Post
I apologise if I've posted this in the wrong forum, not sure where this would belong, but this idea I had is almost abstract. Its perhaps more contemplative than theoretical but here we go.

For the whole time I've been gaming - I'll specify this as pencil and paper RPGs to differentiate from a topic I'll be touching on - which is on and off for over ten years, I've always wondered about a more real time combat resolution system. Of course this is impossible in a tabletop game. Chaos would ensue, and initiative would be determined by the player able to throw dice and move miniatures the fastest (and this in turn would be determined by the comparative wrist muscle strength of each player, and lets face it, in the roleplaying community everyone's a strong competitor here).

There are virtual tabletops, but apart from allowing players to link up and game from separate locations, the use of such software only allows for ease of map and combatant visualisation. But on this train of thought, what if an action rpg engine, like the one used for Skyrim, could be used for combat resolution in roleplaying games?

You're all sat around the table, dice in hand as usual, the GM's maps and notes covered by a screen. The rogue rolls a listen check to see if he can hear anything. He does: primitive, animalistic grunts in some orcish dialect. The party prepares for action and the fighter opens the door...and then it happens: 'You open the wooden door to be greeted by the sight of a savage looking band of orcs and goblins brandishing spears, javelins and shortbows. What do you do?'

Well firstly, the players' answer is to whip out their ipads (a financial and physical drawback which will be added to the list of pros and cons I hope to initiate). Perhaps initiative is rolled and everyone, players and GM alike, begin controlling their respective players or groups of monsters in that order (I thought I'd add this feature to my theoretical software to accentuate the fact that the players reactions should always differ from his/her character's, at least to a degree). Battle is fought out blow by blow, by all combatants at the same time, with all the immediacy and swiftness of real life skirmishes.

As I said, this is mostly contemplative, and I have neither the knowledge nor the means to facilitate such a vision. But what, in theory, could be done with this idea? What would the drawbacks be? What would the benefits be?

I can think of a few points: For combat to work like battles in Skyrim and other such action rpg games, players and GM alike would have to be connected to computers or some kind of tablet device. Or maybe such a piece of software could be constructed for use as an app via an iphone or something? That would be more convenient. Still, this enforces a minimum cost on gaming, and I dislike anything that denies a player his right to come to the gaming table armed with only a pencil, a sheet of paper and a handful of oddly shaped dice.

And more so, with computers comes the risk of freezing, bugs, lagging, and a plethora of other technological headaches roleplayers are traditionally free from.

But what about the benefits? Fast, real-time combat, just as if you were really there. Just picture it: The minotaur knocks the wizard to the ground, raises his axe to finish the job, but the fighter jumps in to the rescue, swiping at the monster with his two-handed sword while the cleric casts recuperative magic on the fallen mage; all this happening before your eyes.

Or would it? Of course, unconventional tactics such as sliding down a banister to land a heel kick to the face of a bugbear while throwing your precious, bejeweled quarry to the good aligned halfling near the exit would be out of the question. The computerised combat would have to be paused in this instance, and picked back up again after such actions have been resolved.

But could this ever work? What if we did have a computer system sophisticated enough to facilitate live, multiplayer combat in this manner? We practically do anyway with MMORPGS. But do the likes of WoW and Age of Conan have any place in the world of tabletop gaming?

Lets be open minded here...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Janx

Hero
Related to this, some folks are using Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator to resolve their star trek RPG combats.
 


Bagpuss

Legend
But what about the benefits? Fast, real-time combat, just as if you were really there.

Is seen as a disadvantage by a lot of people. There is a significant portion of people that don't like real-time. They prefer a slower pace so you can formulate tactics, and plans and have an increased situational awareness. Also as you've pointed out, no computer engine will ever account for everything the players might want to do.

That sliding down the banister thing just wouldn't happen as the players would just play within the limitations of the system, they wouldn't think to go beyond it, and if they did they wouldn't want to slow everything back down or break the suspension of disbelief to dust off the dice again. So the game would lose something.

If you like those sorts of engines why not just play WoW or some other such game?
 

Jan van Leyden

Adventurer
If I understand youi right, you would have the whole combat sub-game would be moved to a computer. With this game running in (quasi-) real time, how would you be able to handle non-standard actions?

One would have to code all possible interactions into the program, thus making actions not covered impossible. Players would be limited to select from a number of options or actions.

This is a fundamental change of paradigm away from the "you can try anything you can think of" mind-set I love in RPGs. As long as this limiting factor isn't removed, I'm not interested.
 

Janx

Hero
Another problem folks have seen with using the computer AS the RPG system, is that once you put them into the game, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off in a manner that is un-RPG like.

Folks have tried using Neverwinter Nights to run a D&D game. The GM setup the adventure in it, and sat on the GM console to mediate as needed. Once the game started, it did not proceed like a normal D&D game would. The party just went bonkers, splitting up, checking everything, etc, just like they would on an MMO.

Oddly enough, the medium affects game play. Put people in an FPS, and they play it like they play FPS's, and not like how they play D&D at the table.
 

Fairytale

First Post
As I said, its more that I'm contemplating the connotations of such a program rather than suggesting it would be superior. And yes I'd forgotten about Neverwinter Nights. I tried to get involved in a campaign on there but too many lags, players not co-operating in a productive roleplaying manner as you say, and just an overall feeling of lack of control, like in all computer games when compared to the aforementioned 'do anything you can think of' liberties in RPGs.


Is seen as a disadvantage by a lot of people. There is a significant portion of people that don't like real-time. They prefer a slower pace so you can formulate tactics, and plans and have an increased situational awareness.

Tactics could still be put into play in this hypothesis. They would have to be formulated before combat started, and various kinds of strategies would be written down and perhaps even rehearsed by the players before an adventure began. That would be more exciting for me. I think that's why I wonder if real-time combat could be possible in some way or form.

But RPGs are always going to be simulations. How we simulate battle varies from system to system, but the overall advantage of turn-based combat is we don't necessarily have to be experts on the battlefield with intuitive responses made in a matter of seconds, in order to play an expert on the battlefield. We can take the time and say things like, 'Hmm, okay well as a former veteran soldier my character would have taken note of the terrain before the battle began so he would act like this'.

I just think its good to debate things like this because roleplaying games should always evolve. And debates like this encourage that evolution. I don't want to be playing WoW because I don't feel immersed in its world of countless adventurers running around all over the place hunting hundreds of wolves to hand in to an NPC who apparently has thousands of gold to hand out for their pelts. And rubbing shoulders with an elf called dArKSTaR666 kinda ruins the fantasy for me.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I think it will take a Star Trek holodeck to get where you are proposing.

But the conversation is fascinating.
 


Janx

Hero
Is seen as a disadvantage by a lot of people. There is a significant portion of people that don't like real-time. They prefer a slower pace so you can formulate tactics, and plans and have an increased situational awareness.

The real time aspect may be part of the problem.

It is almost trivial in real time on a game to zip around all over a map in a way that would look pretty "stupid" if it was filmed for a TV show.

In D&D, the party just doesn't move that way.

As a cross-forum discussion, this thread became relevant on the Artemis forum. Another Artemis player was observing what happens in his games when he does BvB (Bridge vs. Bridge). The game devolves from trek-like to helm/weapons doing zipping Micro-Warp zapping each other.

Real time enables certain tactics which are un-verisimulitudey, but are more effective than staying in character/theme.

The slower board game pace kind of auto-edits/restricts that kind of thing. the players may search an entire room, but you don't move their mini around the room into every square. You just talk through it and folks censor that bit of game play out of their movie-memory of the game session.
 

Remove ads

Top