where might RPGs go?

Toward the end of an article on RPGs that I read, Peter Molyneux muses, "... I predict that the RPGs we’ll be playing in five years time will be radically different from the RPGs that we are playing today".

That got me wondering: What paths have RPGs yet to try?

Roleplay has already been combined with every genre, and efforts of inclusion continue. Take Tom Clancy's Endwar, for example... an RTS that is recording voices for each individual soldier in an attempt to humanize the gameplay of giving them orders in combat.


FRAGILE
The first idea that popped into my mind is something like The Sims in first-person. "Fragile" is what I thought to title the game.

The player selects, rather than creates, a character to play. The selection is made from a large group of characters, all of whom will act in the game as NPCs if not selected for the player's direct use. The player then plays with that character just as one might in a game like Fable 2 or Oblivion. The tricky part is that the character is "fragile" in the sense that permadeath is a close and constant possibility. No, that's not the innovation.

The fresh idea is that the player then selects one of the other NPCs to take control of. The consequences of the first character's life, and that character's reputation, remain active in this second character's life. When the second character dies, the player takes control of a third character; and, again, the new character must witness and live through the effects of the previous character's life. This situation continues through several characters -- characters of the same generation, but different personalities and circumstances.

This basic scenario could set the stage for tons of replayability and some powerful player-directed drama.

The prince and the pauper
For example, let's say one character is a prince and another is a pauper. If you play as the pauper first, you might decide that your character is bitter about his circumstances and blames the aristocracy. In an act of revenge, he kills one of the royals (and is quickly slain by the guards). When you later play the prince, you must decide how to respond to the situation you set up. Does the murder of the prince's sister send him into a rage, and all the city's peasants must pay the price? Does the murder direct his attention to the poverty around him, so you guide him into charitable acts that help the city's unfortunate? Or is the murder meaningless to him? Does he ignore it entirely or use the absence of a fellow royal to consolidate his own power?

On the other hand, you might first play as the prince. If the prince makes it his duty to aid the poor, then your later experience as the pauper might begin in very different circumstances (such as beginning in public housing, rather than sleeping in the street; or being able to rely on a few gold coins from the queen, rather than a few coppers from the baker at church). If the prince decides to outlaw beggars, your pauper might not even be allowed in the city, but instead have to survive in the woods.

That's just two characters. Now imagine continuing through another ten characters. The possible ways the overall story could play out are incalculable.

The fragile part
Apart from the more obvoius meaning of the title "Fragile" (permadeath), what it's really about is a Montessori-like learning experience... the sort of learning brilliant designers like Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are always talking about with their games. The game would be an intuitive and player-guided lesson in how precious time is and how monumental even the simplest actions can be.

For example, it would be possible for the prince to have no effect whatsoever on the pauper. If he spends most of his time hunting and partying with the aristocrats of other cities, the beggars of his own city might never see him or be affected in any way. But if he gives a few gold coins to the pauper just once, the player's pauper will begin with those coins and have a chance to change his life with them (such as by purchasing a bow and arrows, thereby becoming capable of acquiring food without stealing). Or the pauper might spend those first few coins on booze... attracts attention while drunk, and gets stabbed during the altercation (and dies). The simple act of giving or withholding a few coins, spending those coins wisely or foolishly, can result in huge consequences. Players learn a thousand ways in which the smallest of actions can change a life.

And it would not be difficult to be killed in this game. That sounds harsh, but I would make it so for one reason: true sacrifice is only possible through the possibility of true loss. The surest way for the player to prolong any character's life would be to "play it safe", to live with reservation and fear. Molyneux said he wants Fable 2 players to experience that living a good life is difficult. Likewise, I would want Fragile players to experience that goodness often requires making oneself vulnerable. The greatest, most memorable deeds require great risk. The more players are willing to risk, the more their characters would be remembered by surviving NPCs.


I'm fully aware that there are a number of difficult problems in that basic design, and that plenty of gamers would hear "permadeath" and not care about any qualifying circumstances. I'm just trying to offer an example of something RPGs haven't done before (to my knowledge).

What else haven't RPGs done before?

Permadeath and sacrifice

Brian made an interesting comment to his blog about the nature of evil:

"One problem is that games don't provide real opportunities for heroism, because there are no opporunties for sacrifice. Throwing yourself at an enemy in an act that guarantees your death is meaningless, because you're only "wasting" a few minutes of your time. This is one of the reasons I don't ignore permadeath arguments, because I think it gives people more opportunities for heroism and truly noble acts."

I've written before about heroism and sacrifice in games, but it's interesting to consider specific sacrifices being directly designed as possibilities.

For example, in a permadeath game, it would be possible to offer players specific skills/abilities which would be powerful enough to save one's teammates (or other entities) but ensure permanent death to that character. In other words... a true sacrifice.

Our whole group is near death and a new horde of enemies is just arriving to finish us off, so I call upon my Divine Charge ability... which I earned through a quest or some other trial. My character sprints toward the horde as I'm gradually surrounded in a blinding white light. When I hit the horde, there's an explosive flash of light and smoke. As the smoke clears, the enemies lie dead in a circle, and my character is gone forever. My groupmates, on the other hand, are saved.

How can sacrifice be designed for in a game without permadeath?

I'll try to come back with some ideas later, but I want to throw that question out there for now.


edit: Cameron's comment reminded me an example of non-permadeath sacrifice I proposed in a previous post:

"You've discovered an epic weapon which belonged to a great hero of the city Stoneridge. By removing the weapon from his bones, you have upset the hero's spirit. As long as the weapon is parted from the hero's tomb, his angry spirit haunts the city. Stoneridge citizens are angry with you for dishonoring their hero and causing the haunting. Do you return the weapon, despite its great stats? Do you abandon the town, ignoring the NPCs' troubles and the complaints of other players that some of the Stoneridge merchants are charging higher prices to people of your faction and/or guild? Do you seek out the ghost, and make a compact that allows you to keep the weapon if you'll use it to follow in the hero's footsteps as long as you possess it (such as keeping the city's surrounding population of bandits down to a particular level, perhaps with the aid of friends)?"

Does this scenario represent a player's opportunity for true sacrifice?

Nobility and reward

Originally, this was part of a blog I'm writing concerning group gameplay versus individual gameplay. But it's become so long, I'm going to make this its own article.


FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.

Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.

Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.


ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.

Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.

The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.

Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.

Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.

The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.


In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.