Lemma Soft Forums

Hey, I'm sure this questions been asked before give or take a few months/years, but I was curious as to what's the optimal system to make an RPG/Visual Novel would be?

I partially just want the project I'm working on to have an open world feeling, that way the player doesn't feel restricted to just the story. - If they want to go dick around in some guys house or a town for 5 minutes they're welcome to instead of being forced along by the text of the story.

I've heard RPG Maker is great for everything aside from graphics and resolution, which kind of kills the point of the visual novel aspects, since the art is one of the more important parts of the game...

I've seen a bit of stuff with Unity, and then a bit with Ren'py. (Which at this point looks like it'd be the easiest to deal with in terms of quality)

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Sorry if I missed anything from previous forum posts!

The optimal system to use is the one you and your team best understand how to use. People can make perfectly good games with any of those tools, but if you don't know how to adapt and adjust them and use all their features, you'll be stuck with only the simplest and most generic output.

(There are apparently hacks available to make RPG Maker run at a slightly higher resolution, but they're against the terms of service? I'm not actually an RPG Maker user myself so I don't know the ins and outs of it.)

That's very true.

I'm sure we can learn and adapt to what we need to, my friend's fairly tech/code savvy, it's just a matter of finding the thing that will be easiest on resolution/quality. Hmm... Thanks for the input Papillon!

[Spam]

Unreal 4™

[/Spam]

wakagana wrote:Hey, I'm sure this questions been asked before give or take a few months/years, but I was curious as to what's the optimal system to make an RPG/Visual Novel would be?

Ren'Py is great for Visual Novels and sims, however you can't have an RPG without a combat system (an RPG without a combat system is called a sim) and Ren'Py is poor for emulating these systems. If your RPG doesn't emphasise a LOT of combat, or you're extremely creative, or your RPG utilises a basic turn-based combat system, then Ren'Py should be fine. If you want to employ a more involved combat system then Ren'Py will not be good for you (it will restrict you.)

Unity is generally considered overkill if your game is 2D and won't utilise the physics of the Unity engine, but it's flexible and you can make any sort of game you want in it. There's no reason NOT to use it, it's just generally considered to be too powerful. That being said if you told me you were making an "RPG", my immediate thought (between Ren'Py and Unity) would be Unity. Obsidian used Unity to create Wasteland 2, but Unity was also used to create the gorgeous VN Leviathan - Last Day of the Decade

I wouldn't use "RPG Maker", not only does it not suit your requirement for good graphics, it carries a certain stigma which will impact your game. You COULD overcome that stigma, but it's just an extra hurdle you'll probably don't want to face.

Winter Wolves makes great RPGs with RenPy. Maybe check out their stuff and see if it's in the ballpark of what you want to accomplish.

Cith wrote:you can't have an RPG without a combat system

To The Moon?

Anyway, it depends on you and your project. If you're looking to lean on the side of visual novel, use an engine suited for VNs like Renpy. If you want your game to be more of an RPG, use RPG Maker. Or if you want something that doesn't really fit into either category, try Unity.

Unity gives the most freedom but has the hardest learning curve, while RPG Maker is the opposite. Renpy is more in the middle, having some flexibility but still geared toward visual novels in particular.

Oh, and these are just recommendations based on what each engine is suited for. You can do what To The Moon did -- it could have easily been a visual novel made in Renpy, but the creator chose to use RPG Maker for creative purposes.

Kinjo wrote: To The Moon?

Yeah, I'm wondering what makes people call "To The Moon" an RPG ... apart from the engine they used, of course

I think the trouble with this idea that "you can't have an RPG without combat" really comes down to your RPG experience and definitions.

RPGs ultimately have their roots in table top RPGs. And yes, many played that early table top RPG D&D as a tactical war game...that is where the roots for that came after all. However, not all RPGs are D&D. You can have table top RPG without classes and levels, you can have RPG campaigns where no combat occurs. I was playing in a great GURPS mystery sci-fi game that ran for three years and the only combat my character participated in was a staged fight used as a distraction so we could smuggle some people out of the bar. Our game was still an RPG.

Now, computer RPGs can root themselves in murder-hobo D&D, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just as when people want to argue that cRPGs must have open worlds or be non-linear. They don't. Or that they have to involved classes and levels. They don't. Or that they have to be turn based. They don't. Or that they have to involved rolling virtual d20s. They don't. Or that they have to have combat. They don't.

trooper6 wrote: RPGs ultimately have their roots in table top RPGs. And yes, many played that early table top RPG D&D as a tactical war game...that is where the roots for that came after all. However, not all RPGs are D&D. You can have table top RPG without classes and levels, you can have RPG campaigns where no combat occurs. I was playing in a great GURPS mystery sci-fi game that ran for three years and the only combat my character participated in was a staged fight used as a distraction so we could smuggle some people out of the bar. Our game was still an RPG.

Indeed, but what defines this experience is the user-driven story this type of game generates. Back in the 80s when RPGs were first being developed, computers couldn't hope to generate a story defined purely by the actions of the users and so they emulated what they could (the combat system of a tabletop wargame) and was done with it. So now we're seeing two viable ways to define an RPG.

"Tabletop RPGs allow you to make a character, define his/her personality, and express it during gameplay in whatever way you see fit. DMs adapt and change the story based on the outcome of player's actions.

If the central narrative is meaningfully interactive, I would classify it as an RPG. That is, I consider interactive storytelling to be the primary defining characteristic of RPGs.

Text adventure games typically don't allow you allow you to define and express your character's personality in a way that meaningfully changes the development of the story. An interactive story, to me, means more than just going through it via player input."

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog ... efines_RPG

So therefore you either define an RPG through the ability to generate unique stories based on the decisions of you and your own uniquely developed character (respecting RPGs real world roots and Josh Sawyer defines an RPG this way btw,) or you define an RPG by its sim type approach to combat (which respects CRPG roots.) The first way of defining an RPG is still being blocked by technological limitations, the degree of freedom you have to shape your own story and character is limited in any game, and To The Moon is no different. I would say "To The Moon" definitely fails the second, and doesn't provide enough freedom to satisfy the first, yes?

You either define an RPG by its Real-World roots, or you define it by its CRPG roots. Manipulations of the genre in any other way are not credible imo.

The minute you set up a black and white binary like that, you know your argument is not going to hold. While I enjoy an improvisatory GM style that is very interactive and reactive, it is wrong to think of that as the roots or even the core of the table top RPGS experience. The bulk of the GMs out there don't do what I do, they railroad players through pre-written modules. Heck, in conventions games the GM might even supply pre-gen PCs. And no one says that those people playing pre-gen D&D aren't playing RPGs. For many people that is the roots of table top. It is interactive, but a limited interactivity. Video games can certainly create a similar limited interactivity. And can certainly create the illusion of interactivity that many GMs similarly create.

My first RPGs were D&D Basic Red Box and AD&D 1e back in 1982/4. I've been GMing for over 30 years now. I find dogmatic purity ignores the diversity of a thing that invariably has always been in that thing from the beginning. Things have always been messy and varied. It might be useful for you to insist on a constructed purity...but such elitism isn't equally useful to everyone else.

And no one is obliged to adopt your limitations on creativity.

Sorry to burst your bubble but all genres consist of elements which are mandatory to be considered part of that category. Categories aren't fluid, shifting to whatever you wish it to be. That isn't creative, it's inconsistent.

trooper6 wrote:The bulk of the GMs out there don't do what I do, they railroad players through pre-written modules.

Then they aren't role-playing, are they? If the modules are pre-written you're acting out a part in a story. And like Live-Action Renactments, these events aren't role-playing. The definition of role-playing is pretty standard and set in stone, the confusion occurs when people want to "fudge."

trooper6 wrote: For many people that is the roots of table top. It is interactive, but a limited interactivity.

Wargames yes, roleplaying games shouldn't be.

trooper6 wrote: Video games can certainly create a similar limited interactivity. And can certainly create the illusion of interactivity that many GMs similarly create.

Let's be perfectly frank, there are genres which accomodate games with limited interactivity perfectly well. Why would you shift the definition of an "RPG" to accomodate "adventure games" or "sims"?

trooper6 wrote: I find dogmatic purity ignores the diversity of a thing that invariably has always been in that thing from the beginning.

The diversity of role-playing games has always been to do with its over-arching FREEDOM. That is the most important thing and what separates "role-playing" from mere "acting a part." It is not dogmatic purity to insist role-playing games keep the fundamental elements which separate the genre from everything else.

trooper6 wrote: And no one is obliged to adopt your limitations on creativity.

Sorry but passing off an "adventure" game (a game which incorporates narrative, exploration, and puzzles) as an RPG because of the "cool factor" isn't being creative. It's being misleading.

EDIT: The roots of the commercial RPG tabletop genre can be traced back to Chainmail in 1971, a game which allowed users to produce their own narrative. The key part of any role playing experience.

Or you can listen to Andrew Rilstone, who you should be familiar with.

A role-playing game is a formalized verbal interaction between a referee and a player or players, with the intention of producing a narrative. This interaction is such that the fictional character (controlled by the player) has complete or nearly complete freedom of choice within the fictional world (controlled by the referee).

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html

The key part of any role-playing experience is a bunch of users coming together to produce a narrative. Almost everything else is variable, but this is the key, defining aspect of an RPG. Without this, you have no RPG.

With such limitations on computer technology obviously this can't be replicated in CRPGs yet, which is why we fall back to the other definitions when talking about CRPGs. CRPGs are combat sims, that was the root of the genre and that is its defining characteristic. Taking the "combat" out of this just leaves "sim." "To the Moon" is even more special, it's an adventure game and not an RPG at all.

It's very simple. Once again, confusion reigns when people want to FUDGE.

Cith wrote:

wakagana wrote:Hey, I'm sure this questions been asked before give or take a few months/years, but I was curious as to what's the optimal system to make an RPG/Visual Novel would be?

You can't have an RPG without a combat system.

Part of me, somehow set on fire by this statement, instinctively wanted to object this. But when I pause to think about it... It's absolutely correct!

Though, instead of using the term "Combat System", I'd use "Conflict Resolution". What do you, the character, do when something impedes your progress through a story? How do you use the options that are given to you? The element that asks you these questions are the core of Role Playing Games.

What separates RPGs from a novel is the ability to affect how the character deals with the situation he or she is given. In this context, simulators and VNs can cross over with RPGs well. So Long Live the Queen, The Wolf Among Us, Persona, and Fate/Stay Night can all count as RPGs. They just use different parameters! (More choices, more results, different engines, etc.)

There is a lot of grey area, so games have to be looked at a case-by-case basis. Though, at times, trying to find the 100% exact classification would just be overthinking it. Just enjoy the thing!

.........................

So back on topic.

Ren'py and RPGmaker are very beginner-friendly softwares and highly recommended for low-scope games. Despite how "basic" they are, though, the mileage potential is almost limitless.

Other, more complex engines require a lot of study and practice. I didn't last very long in GML, for lack of guidance and patience.

I'm a tabletop role-player myself and I don't think combat is required for a role-playing game. That said, I think most people think of RPG *video games* as a genre that has combat. I don't think I've ever seen an RPG video game that didn't have any type of combat? That said, I can't say for certain "there is no such thing as an RPG without combat" it's just more that I haven't seen one and that combat is one of the things that comes to mind when I think of the video game genre.

Thinking to the roots in TRPGs, I would say that only a specific "slice of the pie" of TRPGs has been represented in video games, but that doesn't mean that it always has to be that way. One could definitely make a game with differing mechanics, such as Amber RPGs "automatic combat resolution based on karma and rank", or simply a non-combat oriented game in any setting/system. (Solve issues diplomatically, etc.)

I think there would be resistance to labeling some of those with the video game "RPG" label, though, because, for example, a game where you make choices without combat/items/etc. (such as diplomatic choices) would more closely resemble what people generally think of as adventure games. At that point, the barrier is more about people's perceptions of a genre, and how those perceptions changed upon the differing medium that is video games, rather than any actual limitations on what you can or cannot do with your game creatively.

I think the real question would be "is the fact that we're making a game with combat important?" and "could we make this game without combat, and if we did would we lose anything important?" If you have made a game you like and are proud of, I think the genre labels for that game would be secondary.

daikiraikimi wrote: Thinking to the roots in TRPGs, I would say that only a specific "slice of the pie" of TRPGs has been represented in video games, but that doesn't mean that it always has to be that way. One could definitely make a game with differing mechanics, such as Amber RPGs "automatic combat resolution based on karma and rank", or simply a non-combat oriented game in any setting/system. (Solve issues diplomatically, etc.)

Eh, I think you’ll find they removed the dice so you can focus on the actual roleplaying. Removing a combat system in CRPGs without incorporating actual roleplaying elements into the game aren’t magically going to make games “combatless RPGs”, you’ll just have games of other genres. The way to evolve CRPGs is to continuously make inroads on incorporating
"freedom of choice" and not trying to make an “RPG without combat,” because that’s missing the point of why CRPGs are like that in the first place.

Academagia has combat situations resolved automatically depending on your skills and attributes. It’s generally considered a sim. Academagia also has problems you can resolve diplomatically using your characters skills and attributes… yet it’s still a sim. And if you think about it, sims and RPGs are very closely related. What’s the difference between Tabletop RPGs and sims? The narrative. RPGs emphasise a narrative that’s created by the players whereas a sim need not have a narrative let alone a player created one. What’s the difference between COMPUTER RPGs and sims? I think you’ll find it’s very little. Traditionally CRPGs had little narrative, being little more than glorified dungeon crawlers. Basically if you dissolve the early CRPGs into its fundamental components, you’ll find it’s merely “players using their characters abilities to resolve combat situations through a system imitating combat.” That is all the the early CRPGs were.

Since that moment the CRPG genre have certainly added lots of elements. Narrative which is partially interactive, for example. That being said, if you include an interactive narrative yet take out the combat system of a game to make a “combat-less” Mass Effect, can you still call such a game an CRPG? Well, Telltale Studios do partially interactive narratives, they have exploration, are they CRPGs? No. So early signs say the possibility of “CRPGs without combat” is not good. But are Telltale's games not considered CRPGs because they lack “stats” or is it because they lack "combat dependent on your characters abilities resolved through a combat system?"

Well, let’s take another game for example. Tiger Woods golf, sim or CRPG? I think you’ll find it’s called a sports SIM, yes? Academagia, sim or CRPG? Sim, right? Long Live the Queen is a raising SIM. Roommates is a dating SIM. The Sims is obviously a SIM. Using skills and traits of your character (stats) to resolve situations are covered by the SIM genre, if the game allows you to use the skills and traits of your character to resolve a situation through the use of a combat system then your game is magically transformed into an RPG. You could call the CRPG a sub-genre of the Sim genre. A little weird yes, but that’s through developers only managing to simulate the combat system of tabletop wargames and yet called them RPGs. They aren’t true RPGs until they can allow players to significantly affect narratives and the world through the decisions of their character.

daikiraikimi wrote: I think there would be resistance to labeling some of those with the video game "RPG" label, though, because, for example, a game where you make choices without combat/items/etc. (such as diplomatic choices) would more closely resemble what people generally think of as adventure games.

An adventure game has 3 elements; a narrative, exploration, and puzzles (logic puzzles, dialogue puzzles etc etc.) If it doesn't have those 3 elements then it's not an adventure game.

daikiraikimi wrote: I think the real question would be "is the fact that we're making a game with combat important?" and "could we make this game without combat, and if we did would we lose anything important?" If you have made a game you like and are proud of, I think the genre labels for that game would be secondary.

Genre labels are only useful for customers. They provide nice, quick summaries of the gameplay experience you can expect to find within. Not much use to those wishing to create stuff. That being said, if someone wanted advice on what engine to use to create an RPG I'm automatically assuming it has a combat system.