I am sort of trying to do that. I wrote a 1 on 1 combat system, so I am going to use it. The quests in the game will require items to be found and used in the right location. However, I need some way for the player to get the items, and that's where bosses come in. If I had an alternative to killing a boss to get an item, I would do that. I am not going to abandon my combat system, but I would like to add some variety to the game. I am just not quite sure what I should add.

When you say that you should feel like you are living that person's life, I am not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean make it free-roaming? Give the player the freedom to go where they want and do what they want? or do you mean to make the player feel as if they are the character. And add in a story that will make the player feel what the character would feel, and get into the story. A game where the story would make you want to go on. Basically, a game with a good story.

Well, as the game is now, you are in a castle and have to get out. That's the main goal. There might be different goals for different character classes, I'm not sure. I suppose it's as free roaming as being stuck in a castle can be. Actual roleplaying is a great concept, but I don't expect this game to attract a true roleplaying crowd. I suppose I'm looking for a happy medium between "true roleplaying" and "console roleplaying".

I guess I had a different idea of roleplaying than what other people may think. I know that people claim that console RPGs aren't RPGs, and games like D&D are "true" RPGs, but when I think of roleplaying games, I immediately think of Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. What I am looking to do with my game is to make a mix of the two, if possible. It would be hard (and boring) to make a super linear RPG (like DW and FF), but I don't like the "true" roleplaying games. I have nothing against them really, but I don't think BYOND is the right audience for them.

Why shouldn't I use my combat system to make a roleplaying game? I am not arguing, I'm just bored. If I can't think of anything to post I fear it might be time to *gasp* do my homework.

Well, if you don't want a typical RPG, it's easy enough to avoid using what makes a typical RPG typical. Here's a few things.

Gold is typical. If you don't want to be typical, don't use gold. Use something different. For example, a desert world I created for use in something or another uses dunras, miras and pelsars and the common forms of currency.

Swords, Spears and Maces are typical. If you don't want to be typical, don't use overused weapons. In most RPGs, everyone has a sword. Why not do away with swords completely, and make Bows and Arrows the most popular weapon. I mean, what good is a stupid sword if the other guy shoots you dead before you can even get close?

Magic is typical. Not saying mystical or mysterious stuff is bad, but plain ordinary fireball throwing, lightning striking, sword enchanting magic is bo-ring. If you're going to use magic, at least come up with some different ways to use it, and don't make it commonplace. Magic loses its niftiness when everyone has it.

Elves and Dwarves are typical. Everyone has elves and dwarves. Elves are always skinny, good looking people who live in the forest, and Dwarves are always short, stocky people with beards who live underground. If you want to use typical things like elves and dwarves, you could come up with some new names for them, at least, and put them in different environments. Just avoid making "new races" that are dark-skinned, bug-eyed things with tentacles, just to be different. There's a point where it gets too weird and ruins the atmosphere. You're usually safe with humanoids though, that have a peculiar feature about them or two that makes them different than "humans". Or you could just have all humans.

I think, most often, the base races are the ones that can be related to something people are familiar with. That's why you often see lizard-men, snake-men, cat-men, ant-people, etc...

Well, those are some typical things that you can change if you want to avoid typicalness.

Foomer wrote:

Strangely enough, "role playing game" and RPG tend to have different meanings. RPG represents a classic console RPG, and "role playing game" represents a game that is about telling a story, not killing things. Weird, huh?

Well I think a role playing game is one which gives the player a detailed background and the player acts out the story instead of the game telling them a story. But since I tend to like roleplaying evil characters either people want to try to kill me or I want to kill them for some sort of personal gain. But that doesn't mean I'm kiling all the time, but I'm usually being evil in general :).

I don't think he was planning to include Hooters in his RPG.

More of a Zelda type game than a classic RPG, you mean?

You cant really define a genre by one simple term like RPG. Just by having combat doesnt make a game a "Roll Playing Game", after all, HRH has Combat, and its not a "Roll Playing Game".
Its more in the amount of freedom you have. If you cant change the way the story turns out, then its not the greatest, but its still playing the role of the character.
Its not impossible to tell a story and kill things. It sort of adds to the challange of being the character, and keeps things interesting.
If it wasnt possible to fight, then it would be more like writing a book then playing a game.
-DogMan

You must also remember the original Lufia had the same battle system as Lufia 2, it was ever more complex, too. (Lufia 2 was made before Lufia).