Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

I like that post a lot, Dallas.

I agree that the most annoying thing about RE's is when you're trying to focus on a puzzle, or pathfinding for that matter (since my sense of direction in RPGs is just slightly better than my real-life sense of direction). Outside of this, action-RPG's like the Tales series can actually be pretty fun to get into battle after battle.

Like I mentioned in my last post, I tried to minimize the frustration by making each predetermined invisible battle only take place once until you leave the dungeon (not sure whether you consider this player-initiated or not)--it works well but yes, it does chew up memory.

The other good thing you can do in your RPG Maker games is to make random encounters not take place in puzzle areas. I think every RPG Maker should, in theory at least, give you some means to do this.

[Deeth Irteen]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Here's a classic cliche: Resuce the princess. You'd think those girls would take self-defense classes or something.



Here's a new twist:

In an RPG, you play as the princess of themost powerful nation in the world. the ruling family is the family of Karacto'or. Let's call her "Princess Mayne". (Mayne Karacto'or. Ged it?)

Anywho, Mayne has a boyfriend who trains in the dark arts (he's a mage), while she practices swordplay (a girl's gotta protect herself).

One night, during the celebration of Mayne's 21st birthday and the eve of her coronation to become queen, a group of evil Wizards crashes the party. they kill king Syde, and try to capture the princess. However, she's able to defend herself (plus, the castles soldiers are actually competent, for once, so they help her.) So, they abduct Mayne's boyfriend. The next day, as the castle's being rebuilt, Mayne decides to go out to rescue her boyfriend, while Mayne's mom, Queen Gesst, stays behind to run the nation.

Much, much later in the game, it turns out that the leader of the Evil Wizards was none other than.... Mayne's boyfriend!!!. The guy disguised himself as a Mage to get close to Mayne. He wanted to steal Mayne's family's family heirloom, a pheonix pendant. The pendant is key to unlocking the gates to the underworld. When it looked like Mayne wasn't going to be captured, Her "boyfriend" staged his own abduction to goad her into coming to his stronghold, so he can steal the pendant (and kill her, to get her out of the way).

Thus, Mayne has to broken-heartedly strike the down the man she thought loved her.



Yes, The above plot has cliches, but at least I made the princess not a wimp.

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Often the princess in modern RPGs is pretty tough (all Mario RPG's, FF9); occasionally the main character of the game IS the princess (Lost Kingdoms). I will say this: I like them both a lot more than the "helpless princess gets abducted" cliche.

So that's an interesting setup you just presented, D. It's something few will see coming and most will enjoy.

That being said, and I know you realize this but it presents a great segue into one of my most hated cliches... your "pendant that unlocks the gates to the underworld" is a perfect example of The Arbitary MacGuffin.

Ah, the MacGuffin. That otherwise useless artifact, herb, or trinket that has a supernatural power to cure, destroy, or unlock whatever you need to cure, destroy, or unlock. Of course, it's rare (or unique), no one has one they'd be willing to lend to you, and you can be sure you'll have to get it at some point very soon in order to progress the plot. In the are case you (or someone loyal to you) possess it when you find out about it, you can be just as sure it will be stolen, get broken, or turn out to be fake, before you can use it. Often, this MacGuffin will be used to satisfy some ancillary character that you had no good reason to help in the first place (see: "But Thou Must!")

What really frustrates me is that at least half the time, I find the MacGuffin is just a lazy way to extend the plot so you have something (that you are required) to do before you move on. It doesn't tie into the main plot, it often doesn't tie into the world, and it doesn't feel like a solution I'd ever try to use in the real world. I feel completely disconnected from the game when this happens.

At the very least, what I like to see from a MacGuffin is to not feel so arbitrary. Maybe in order to get something done, you need to get "the amulet of power" (or keep it from being taken by the villains), not because it actually has a power that you need, but because people think that it has said power, and possessing it will make certain people kowtow to your desires, or because the world you're in is rigidly feudalistic and people feel it's their place to serve whoever owns it. Or perhaps, in a game world rich in demons and witchcraft, you can actually open the gates to the underworld by finding some special sword and using it on yourself (or maybe using it against someone who fulfills some requirement). Here, at least you have a much more interesting, believable setup, and all it requires is a little more thought about the MacGuffin than most amateur game designers--and some professional ones--seem to give it.

One thing I started to implement in Panacea that I'm proud of was to offer a couple solutions to most mandatory plot-related quests. The second event in the game, for example, had someone close to you get sick, and the town's doctor tells you that he needs a rare herbal powder in order to cure her. He tells you that you can get it from a rare mushroom (which is known to fight back--yeah, it's a boss battle) in a nearby forest dungeon... but then also lets you know that there are a few towns in the world with shops that sell this powder, and gives you enough money to buy it. So, you have the choice to either trek through the forest, defeat the mushroom, and obtain the powder (giving the extra benefit that you get to keep the money), or travel a further way, avoid the dungeon, buy it from a shop, and make your way back, hands clean. The MacGuffin's still there, but I hope it feels more like "there's something you need, get it by any means available" and less like "something we're using as an excuse to make you do X, Y, and then Z".

Ideally, every mission you find yourself doing in a traditional RPG would be clearly tied to the main goal, and you'd genuinely feel like you're getting closer to it with each "quest" you accomplish. I've never seen this actually happen in any RPG (excluding the ones that only take a few hours to complete), presumably because it's hard to come up with so many things that would actually be needed to accomplish any given overarching goal.

I can only imagine how much better Star Ocean: The Last Hope would have been if the plot had stuck to the original goal of exploring a wide-open universe...

[Deeth Irteen]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

yeah I'm aware of the McMuffin in the above plot. I just threw the plot together in about 5 minutes, just to demonstrate how easy it is to come up with an RPG plot.

[Dallas Alvis II]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

I can't say cliches bother me if I'm immersed into the world. Hey, knock the series all ya like (as much as I do at times, might I add) but the Final Fantasy series did lay the ground work for dramatic story-telling in the RPG genre, Final Fantasy IV in particular being the grandfather of it in my opinion.

Of course, it also helped that it had the most badass boss music of all time, but that's besides the point.

The key I guess is not leaving the element "naked", in a sense, and as I have suggested in a thread made forever ago (shameless plug), the key is giving these plot foundations some "spice". Add some dynamic to the plot devices, but not clog the story with too many elements at once (I felt like the third Spiderman movie did that, and some games do this too). Aside from "bonus challenge, hidden bosses", sometimes a story can have more than a whole lot going on. As an aspiring writer, I admit this is difficult to control. I felt like Final Fantasy XII had a lot going for it, and as usual, its world had history that you learned while playing. But I felt overstocked on its history, politics and then later an ethos... it was hard for me to focus on the inner-drama between the key characters because I felt like I was swamped with everything else.

As far as atmoshere of things like politics, after-effects of such and the like, it's more prefered that they are implied. So that you know that the ripple in the pond is a ripple, and problems seem to relate to one another; but you don't put the pieces together until much later.

Scripted death does bother me, but not because of the "why didn't they just use a Phoenix Down?" aspect. It's moreso because I spend a lot of time and effort developing Player Characters, and also because I make that emotional investment in that character. If they don't stick around until the end of the game, I feel like I've been robbed of something. In Japanese-style RPG's, I greatly prefer there to be no scripted deaths.

Or if there are, to at least have a clear chance to prevent them, knowing well in advance that screwing up could cause a PC death (like in Persona 4, if they were to let you continue the game after you missed a deadline).

My ire here is probably not universal, and most people probably just want a good reason that a character can't be Revive'd.

Ah, I wanted to touch on this some more. Certain plots have been able to explain why the given "revive" item can't work. At least they do that much. But I can attest to the cut of a critical combat/traveling role in the group. I don't know why I'm using spoiler tags for this since, damn near ever RPG gamer knows this even without playing Final Fantasy VII but...

*** SPOILERS ***
Aeris was vaguely explained, simply implied that their iconic revival item wouldn't work -- but it was there. The peeve with that is as you said from a development aspect. Aeris fit the role as the mage/healer of the game for most players. So taking that away would resort to people using others that didn't quite fit that spot for them (Cloud, Tifa, my replacement healer was always Yuffie after that).
*** END SPOILERS ***


Baldur's Gate was molded around the old D&D rules which I knew and loved. If a character died; he/she was dead unless there was a way of reviving them. Reviving a character wasn't as simple as using an item like in JRPGs, since resurrection items were rare (in the first game, there were practically nowhere to be found and expensive as hell).

And then just because you had a very (and I mean very) high-level Cleric around who could revive that character with a spell, it didn't mean it was a guarantee at that point. If the character's body was intact and not desecrated or overly mangled, then they could be revived. So if they just got stabbed by an assassin and nothing more, then sure, in the PC game rules this isn't a problem if you have the money and resources. But if say, an ogre obliterates them into several pieces with one hit (Death from Massive Damage), then they were gone. This permanent death can happen in just regular combat. In the series there were two scripted deaths that come to mind in Baldur's Gate II that I could deal with because they were "true to the core rules" or, at least, accurate:

*** SPOILERS ***
Khalid wasn't a recruitable NPC in BG2, but he was in BG1. He was an elf, warrior husband of another recruitable NPC named Jaheira. Due to the plot in the beginning of BG2, the mage and captor of your party, Irenicus, tortures Khalid to the point of death, leaving his corpse desecrated and mangled. Upon the discovery of his corpse, Jaheira cries (heh, kind of a said scene for me since I liked Khalid). In the dialogue with the main character, Jaheira can explain that he cannot be re-animated with magic because of the condition of his body. Whether this counts or not is debateable since he wasn't even a recruitable NPC for that game, so you really don't feel like you "lose" him unless you played the first game. Even still, he was a solid but not the most capable fighter, so his core appeal if any was purely his character. I liked him, personally.
*** END SPOILERS ***


*** SPOILERS ***
Yoshimo was a recruitable NPC to BG2 that was new to the series and later is "shockingly" revealed to betray you during the story. Though I wasn't that surprised seeing as his class was the Bounty Hunter kit and he just happens to find you in your captor's dungeon in the beginning. But after his betrayal, he eventually duels against the main character and his/her party, despite how regretful he may feel for it. Before his death he makes a request that his heart be removed from his body and taken to a priest or temple in another part of the game world so that he may be "cleansed" or "redeemed" or something, I can't quite remember Yoshimo's details exactly but I do remember the heart. He can't be revived from that point on, even the expansion pack gives a dialogue option to ask for him back but he can't be revived for that reason. Good reason, but that is one NPC that you feel like you are robbed of if you use him, seeing as he's the only pure thief build in the game unless the main character just happens to be a thief. Traps were a litte bit of a problem for Imoen (the Mage/Thief) after his betrayal, because she was okay with traps but didn't master in it anymore. There was no other NPC that could fit that sort of role. Hehe. That kind of sucked, to be honest. But the plot reasons I thought were accurate.
*** END SPOILERS ***

[Deeth Irteen]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Here's another cliche (though I'm sure someone'll say it's not so bad):

Treasure chests. For some reason, somebody went through the trouble of putting random potions and equipment into a bunch of chests all over the world.

It got very weird in FfX-2, because at the start of a new chapter, someone refilled all the chests. this happens at least three times.

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Here's another cliche (though I'm sure someone'll say it's not so bad):

Treasure chests. For some reason, somebody went through the trouble of putting random potions and equipment into a bunch of chests all over the world.

It got very weird in FfX-2, because at the start of a new chapter, someone refilled all the chests. this happens at least three times.

This one is so ubiquitous I almost have to be okay with it, but I really do love when creators are creative enough to defy it and make the items you can collect into an actual, rational part of the environment. (On the same token, what I DON'T like is when they decide to do away with the chest and replace it with a tiny, hard-to-see little glimmer, and give you some nonsensical item anyway. Then I have to rely on the damn minimap.)

Weapons and armor in treasure chests? Really?!? Who in their right minds would do that? Not only does it just completely baffle me to see that, but it kind of forces a linear balance on the game. I'd much rather see this kind of stuff appear as either enemy drops or something you have to buy.

If your game is themed around pirates, though, you're automatically off the hook for this one - yes, even if the treasure isn't buried.

Ah, I wanted to touch on this some more. Certain plots have been able to explain why the given "revive" item can't work. At least they do that much. But I can attest to the cut of a critical combat/traveling role in the group. I don't know why I'm using spoiler tags for this since, damn near ever RPG gamer knows this even without playing Final Fantasy VII but...

*** SPOILERS ***
Aeris was vaguely explained, simply implied that their iconic revival item wouldn't work -- but it was there. The peeve with that is as you said from a development aspect. Aeris fit the role as the mage/healer of the game for most players. So taking that away would resort to people using others that didn't quite fit that spot for them (Cloud, Tifa, my replacement healer was always Yuffie after that).
*** END SPOILERS ***


Baldur's Gate was molded around the old D&D rules which I knew and loved. If a character died; he/she was dead unless there was a way of reviving them. Reviving a character wasn't as simple as using an item like in JRPGs, since resurrection items were rare (in the first game, there were practically nowhere to be found and expensive as hell).

And then just because you had a very (and I mean very) high-level Cleric around who could revive that character with a spell, it didn't mean it was a guarantee at that point. If the character's body was intact and not desecrated or overly mangled, then they could be revived. So if they just got stabbed by an assassin and nothing more, then sure, in the PC game rules this isn't a problem if you have the money and resources. But if say, an ogre obliterates them into several pieces with one hit (Death from Massive Damage), then they were gone. This permanent death can happen in just regular combat. In the series there were two scripted deaths that come to mind in Baldur's Gate II that I could deal with because they were "true to the core rules" or, at least, accurate.

Yeah, P&P systems have way better setups than do JRPGs for this kind of thing. There, of course, you have the GM to apply common sense and vision in order to set up a scenario that conforms to both the rule set and the purposes of the story (so if she wants to allow you to attempt to save/revive a character, or not, she can set it up as such).

I agree that it's a lot better when, in a video game, you're given a reason that you can or can't revive someone. But even if I'm given a reason, I feel somewhat "cheated", for lack of a better term, if I lose a character I like.

It's bad enough in a book or anime when I feel like a spectator but don't get to enjoy watching a character I like anymore. But it's really bad when I'm in a video game and feel like I should be in control of things, and I know that I could be playing with that character right now if the designers didn't decide to axe him. I probably get too emotional about things like that, and I'm probably not in the majority here. But it doesn't change the fact that it ****** me off if I don't have the chance to save a playable character (and it makes me feel absolutely awful if I do have the chance, and fail to).

I'll say it upfront that I don't foresee myself killing off a PC in any game I ever design, and if I do implement any scripted deaths for PC's (and for some NPC's as well), the player will have a chance to save them or prevent the situation entirely unless I have a truly good reason not to give them that chance.

Getting rid of the "anyone can die" atmosphere probably removes some intensity from your story, but it makes the whole experience (whether a game, show, or book) a lot more rewarding.

...Well, unless you're writing Battle Royale.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

The thing about allowing the character to be saved from death, though, is that it means having to write in some drastic changes to the rest of the story, depending on whether the character was saved or not. And while certain games do a decent job at giving such big branches (Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross come to mind), for many games, it'd probably be too much an undertaking. Can you imagine, in FF7, how different things would've been had *** SPOILERS ***
Aeris been saved
*** END SPOILERS ***
?

[Dallas Alvis II]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Funny fact though, She had a few lines of dialogue in the game after Disc 1 and they weren't removed for obvious reasons. But "the decision" there concerning the creative team was very short and late, so the lines don't take into account anything "bad" that just happened maybe a day or so before. Heh. Always thought that was funny in retrospect.

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

The thing about allowing the character to be saved from death, though, is that it means having to write in some drastic changes to the rest of the story, depending on whether the character was saved or not. And while certain games do a decent job at giving such big branches (Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross come to mind), for many games, it'd probably be too much an undertaking. Can you imagine, in FF7, how different things would've been had Aeris been saved?

Sure. It forces you to rework a lot of dialogue. It may force you to change a lot of the events themselves.

But it would have made an epic difference in the game. By my estimation, it would have been worth it for Aeris. (We'd have to deal with the tons of fans out there arguing about canon, and fanfics would have suffered for it, but hey, ya take the good with the bad.)

One way to minimize the amount of reworking, as well as maximize the effect, is to have the (possible) scripted death to occur in the last quarter or so of the game.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Funny fact though, She had a few lines of dialogue in the game after Disc 1 and they weren't removed for obvious reasons.

News to me. I'd be curious to know what those lines of dialogue were. Especially now that the cat's out of the bag. :P

[Valkysas]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

In my RPGM XP game, I was going to let any main character die if the player screwed up, and have the game continue on anyways.

Then I realized that would take an absolute ton of work, and playtesting, and cause problems with the other games I intend to make in that world.

So I stopped that.

[Deeth Irteen]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Here's yet another cliche:

"Luke, I am your tedious, overused plot device"


The villain is almost always the hero's father.


They could at least change the inner details of this around a little. For example, let's say the hero's father is a great and powerful god of destruction. The hero was created (by the god) to one day replace him when he (the god) got bored with taking over the world. Unfortunately, the hero didn't like the idea of being evil, so he ran away. By the start of the game, the hero is trying to keep his heritage a secret, whil e the god sends his minions to try and bring the hero back to his domain. Of course, the god doesn't want his son harmed, because that'd widen the gap in their relationship.

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

I'm being a little nitpicky, but that cliche actually says that if there is a chance that major villain X could be the main character's father, it will turn out that major villain X will be the main character's father.

I guess the easiest way to avert this is to simply not have any villains turn out to the any protagonists' father! This cliche only bugs me under one (very common) condition: that it's not known from the beginning and used as some sort of bombshell.

Usually, I totally see it coming. I'm looking at you, Disgaea 2. I think Tales of the Abyss played this cliche fairly well, at least (and ironically, the main character was named Luke but he wasn't the one affected by this trope).

One thing I've kind of found is that it's difficult, in games, anime, movies, or really any media more complex than a book, to develop characters' families. It makes the creator ask a lot of questions of themselves, and it's a lot easier to either not mention the families at all, to make the main characters orphans, or to answer the "where's the family" question with a ridiculous explanation like "one of the villains I've already written... IS HIS FATHER!".

I've come to really admire when a character has a relatively normal family (in structure, at least) and the writer finds a reasonable way to avoid letting said family get in the way of the plot.

[Wavelength]

Re: Let's defy some more RPG cliches...

Oh, and one cliche that I've never seen mentioned in any of these lists but that really ticks me off:

Limit 20 Per Customer.

In most RPGs, and nearly all MMOs, you can carry around armoires, elephants, even 3-cubic-ft chunks of iron ore. Such huge, cumbersome items only take up one spot in your inventory, which might be limited or infinite. But try to stack more than a certain amount together (20 seems to be the most common in games I play), and all of a sudden you can't carry any more!

In MMOs where you have limited inventory spaces, it might simply force you to create another stack. In RPGs, you're usually mocked with a message along the lines of "You can't carry any more of those!", and left to wonder whether it would really be that difficult to carry 21 potions, silk bolts, or pebbles the same pack that you're using to carry the Giant MacGuffin of Significant Power and Full Body Plate Mail Armor.

Of course, if you find a potion of a different type, you can carry 20 of those too. Porque?!?



Now, my belief is that this is done to avoid breaking the game balance by carrying 999 Potions, 999 Resurrection Elixirs, etc. But I'll counter with the argument that the would-be ability to break the game in this manner is a reflection of poor game design. If items are powerful enough that it would be gamebreaking to carry a bunch of them, then doesn't that suggest that even one item has the potential to break the balance of any battle? If you NEED to use all 20 of those powerful, life-restoring items to keep a boss battle close, doesn't that mean the battle is too long?

I feel like, at least in single-player RPGs, it often stems from badly-planned game economies. Too often I see games where the standard "come back to life with half your hit points" item costs a hundredth of what mid-game weapons/armor costs, and while you have to stretch your resources at the beginning, in the second half of the game you're always walking around with a full stock.

There are a bunch of ways to remedy this. Personally, I'm using a system where cash doesn't "scale" throughout the game (that is, a late-game battle earns you far more experience but similar cash in comparison to an early-game battle), and items are powerful but quite expensive, or you can develop the skills to craft them yourself. There's no hard-and-fast limit to the number of an item you can carry, but it would be quite an amazing feat to accumulate more than 20 resurrection items.