Poll: Requiring Food and Water in RPGs

dteowner · Post by **dteowner** » August 19th, 2006, 2:32 pm

Del137 wrote:If it possible to turn OFF or ON food&water counter in game preferenses? - these solve all lazy players whinings ))

Looks like a wise compromise. While the opinions of the "pro-food" types makes some sense, I have absolutely no desire to get mired in non-heroic issues. Once I could afford it, I'd go buy 1000 days worth of rations and never think about it again. Likewise, if food takes up inventory space (which, by rights, it should), I'm gonna be severely annoyed. My packs should be full of Mythril Armor of Can't Touch This and Swords of Seriously Bloody A$$-kicking, not buckets of KFC extra crispy.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 20th, 2006, 1:08 pm

dteowner wrote:My packs should be full of Mythril Armor of Can't Touch This and Swords of Seriously Bloody A$$-kicking

This is the sort of thing that would seriously annoy me. I don't like RPGs that immediatley consider you The Big Hero and reward you as such constantly throughout the game. There are so many games like that, those games dominate the mainstream "RPG" market, so it's the indie RPGs that are the ones in a position to break from the tedious norm and do something refreshing and different.
If I want to play a game where I'm the Great Hero I have more than a wide selection to choose from; if I want to play an RPG where I can really play a *character*, where I can adventure and survive in a more "realistic" way, my choices are woefully limited.

dteowner · Post by **dteowner** » August 20th, 2006, 7:57 pm

So you'd prefer to play a serf and go work in your liege lord's field? That's a realistic *character* for ya. Not really the makings of a fun game, wouldn't you say?

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 20th, 2006, 8:14 pm

Did I say that? I don't believe I said anything even remotely close to that.

There aren't only two extremes in a game, that of great hero or peasant labourer. There's a huge amount of ground in-between that's great for character development. Games that have really solid, interesting character development are a fast-dying breed, being supplanted by tedious "action RPGs" that laden a player's pointless, yet heroic and mind-bogglingly powerful character, with all manner of rewards and boons. And there are many of those to choose from.
I think the last game I played that actually had good, interesting character development was Arcanum.

Point being, independent developers have the ability to eschew mainstream trends and do things differently. What's attracted me to Eschalon is the premise of it being influenced by the more interesting and in-depth RPGs of days gone by when there was more "meat" to the genre than there is now, when characters were not defined by how powerful they are, but by having interesting options available to them.

dteowner · Post by **dteowner** » August 21st, 2006, 4:54 pm

I didn't think this-- "I don't like RPGs that immediatley consider you The Big Hero"-- left much to the imagination. While I realize it's not truly a binary choice, I think it would be safe to generalize the choice as "heroic" or "mundane".

Perhaps I should clarify a bit. I'm not in favor of a "phat lewt" game, nor am I looking for a "can't be hurt" stomp-fest ala Dungeon Siege 2 (although I am enjoying the heck out of that game at the moment).

I'm also not looking for this mindless, pointless "open-ended" crap ala Morrowind/Oblivion. Yes, you can do anything and be true to some ridiculous ideal of roleplaying, but there's no motivation to actually do anything. When the growth of your character and the impact on the gameworld is the same if you save the world or if you kill half a million rats in the swamp, that's not fun even if you've decided to faithfully roleplay the King's Official Rodent Removal Squad.

So, do we still have a disagreement?

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 22nd, 2006, 8:41 am

My position is merely that the ground between being a hero and being a layman is vast and fertile for a character in an RPG. Which doesn't immediately mean a Morrowind type of situation, but more a "growing into" type of role. Take Fallout for example... Your character is booted out of the safety of the vault into a brutal world to go find the water chip needed to save them all. You're hardly in a heroic position, but you're also not the equivalent of an NPC, either.

That's all. Just wanting a situation where you can grow into a role, struggle to survive, all that sort of thing.

almondblight · Post by **almondblight** » August 23rd, 2006, 12:13 pm

I also prefer a more realistic hero. I would like the player character to be very strong, but not superman. I would also like there to be some very strong opponents that they won't ever be able to defeat in the game. Being some unbeatable god bothers me a bit.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 23rd, 2006, 12:23 pm

An unbeatable opponent is an interesting idea. Unbeatable at least in combat, at any rate. Having an opponent that is utterly indefeatable on every level could be frustrating, but having an opponent that cannot be bested in combat is an idea I like.
This would force a player to look for other ways of overcoming the opponent (perhaps through wits, guile, underhandedness, persuasion, etc). If the character is combat-oriented, s/he'll just have to be humbled into admitting that there is someone out there better.

dteowner · Post by **dteowner** » August 23rd, 2006, 5:21 pm

Bah, ya bloody hypocrite!

You want flexibility to play a role and then you're perfectly willing to put an insurmountable brick wall in front of anyone that might faithfully roleplay a violent sociopath.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 23rd, 2006, 5:49 pm

Haha!

Violent sociopaths have to be taught a lesson that while violence may solve most of your problems, it won't solve them all

Sanctus · Post by **Sanctus** » August 24th, 2006, 1:25 am

I to like the ideea of a unbeteble monster....
And violence WILL solve 99% of your problems (even in real life)
The thing is that there are other ways to

Rollor · Post by **Rollor** » August 24th, 2006, 6:39 am

Sanctus wrote:And violence WILL solve 99% of your problems (even in real life)

What kind of backwards hick-state do you live in??

Sanctus · Post by **Sanctus** » August 24th, 2006, 7:01 am

LMAO ROLF =))=))=))
My contry is fine but is just us the teenagers like to fight a lot(wee even train one with each other)

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » August 24th, 2006, 8:03 am

Damn kids!

*shakes cane*

And stay offa my lawn! An' keep it down!

Hooligans.

Dragonlady · Post by **Dragonlady** » August 29th, 2006, 3:02 pm

I voted for neither. Mainly because I hate being out in the middle of nowhere and can't get back to civilization to buy more food. At least, if it is implemented let us eat the monsters we kill or have a skill of survivial to find food in forests and deserts, etc. No skill the less % chance of finding something eatible. Have the skill then have a much better chance of surviving and finding enough food till you come upon that inn in the wilderness.

Having to juggle food weight versus that much needed healing potion can be a life saving decision. Having to take water too would be too much weight. Its heavy! Every try to lift a 10 gal. fishtank?

The Drunken Lizard Pub

Poll: Requiring Food and Water in RPGs

Requiring Food and Water in an RPG?