I used to be into the pen and paper RPG''s. Ever hear of Chivalry and Sorcery? It was a very plot oriented type RPG and went into alot of detail on feudal society and alot of other non-combat type things. But I always thought it had the best combat system (and magic system). Combat involved so many things, character class (which indicated how much weapons training), confirmed or non-confirmed skill with a particular weapon, attacker and defenders weight and strength (and agility), type of weapon (slashing, thrusting, crushing), type of armor. Critical hits were part of the system (so it was good for fighter types to be able to fight ambidexterously, if you could only use a sword right handed that arm might be wounded, not to mention an outright fatal critical hit). Some classes had cool special attacks too (knights had what was called the "crushing blow" and another move called "desperate defense"). I always thought if a real programmer (meaning not me) wanted to create a realistic and cool combat system for a fantasy RPG they should study the combat rules for that game. Or magical combat for that matter. How about comic book superhero combat systems? Villians and Vigilantes was pretty good.

"A man can't just sit around." 'Lawn Chair' Larry Walters (1982)

Well I can make a few points from this discussion:

1. Skill is more important than the weapon.
   So if skill''s more important, do you mean character skill, or player skill, when you implement it in your game? I think for an RPG it should be character skill, or you''re left with a combat simulator.
   
2. Skill depends on the kind of weapon.
   Skill in a sword is obviously not skill with a net (hey, a net is a weapon too), so skills should be differentiated enough to make a difference.
   
3. Two of the most important things in weapons and their skill is how to make use of range and how to make use of mobility.
   Model these two, and you''ll have a pretty good system. However, neither of these can be implemented without relying too much on player skill instead of character skill. You can''t have your character moving around of its own accord in a RPG, or can you?
   
4. Death, incapacitation or serious injury occur frequently in realistic combat, is this a bad thing?
   Not necessarily. A combat oriented character has a REAL skill. Any idiot rogue with a dagger might claim a big kill in "ordinary" combat games, but in this one, saying you have five kills to your name is actually a real feat. Combat becomes important and significant. Always a good thing!
   
   

Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

What about heroic fights : you dont know why they attacked you, but suddenly you find yourself hardpressed. To gain a little freedom you jump over the bench and throw the table in their feet. This allow you to gain the first step of the stairs. They rush at you to prevent your escape. You can only defend yourself while backing up the stairs. When you reach the top, you throw your cape over their swords and heads and use the confusion to jump and grab the candle holder, swing over the room to the entrance of the tavern and escape...

How could you implement this in a game ?

"Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Arius there was an age undreamed of..."

---->It''s simple: just implement a perfect physics simulation.<----

Jeez, why didn''t i think of that? 8P

I have the same problem as MAdKeithV number 1 !
When to test the player, and when to test the character ?

The player want some conrol of the action, but the character have some proficinecies the player certainly dont have

When you play Rayman2 or Tomb Raider the players skills are tested all along the way, while playing FF don''t require any skill (well it only require that you don''t play as an idiot).

What is the good decision to your game ?
Is there another way to go ?

comments ?

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-