r/CRPG

What gets me about Baldur’s gate 2 is that the original manual was 264 pages long. You start the game and immediately get hit with Thac0, spell schools, weapon proficiencies and armor class working backwards. It feels like the game just refuses to explain anything.

But it did explain everything. Just not inside the game.

And the manual wasn’t some boring technical document either. It had lore, spell descriptions and Volo and Elminster arguing in the margins. I honestly think it was part of the game, not just something that happened to come in the box.

That’s probably why some older CRPGs feel more confusing now than they did when they were released. We still have the game, but we’re missing the thing players were expected to read before starting it.

Now I can’t help wondering how many badly explained old games actually have a perfectly good tutorial sitting in the installation folder as a pdf nobody bothered to open

Just a FYI. Some guy is working on fixing Lionheart. Those that have played this title would remember that it sort of stops being a CRPG after you leave Barcelona. This guy is working on addressing that.

For anyone feeling OOTL, Lionheart is a RPG published (*not developed*) by Black Isle Studios shortly before their bankruptcy. It uses the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system from Fallout and had a very unique setting. The game takes place in an alternate version of our own medieval earth, except magic is everywhere. You even get to meet the likes of Jeanne d'Arc, Leonardo Da Vinci.

I haven't played the mod yet. I intend to wait for it to either finish or be reasonably close to the finish line before trying it out. I'm just spreading awareness about this for anyone that might be interested.

I'm starting work on my own CRPG with a sword and sorcery vibe. To me, that means fast, brutal battles and not Wasteland-like tactical fights. So I'm leaning heavily toward RTwP, but I'm starting to wonder at what point do "fast, brutal battles" turn it into an ARPG, which I don't want.

For some background, I started with the Ultima series, then Fallout, Baldur's Gate II, Planescape, etc., all when they came out. Yes, I'm old. But whether because of changing tastes or a shorter attention span, I find turn-based games too slow for me now. I still love the isometric, 3D rendered background aesthetic and deep stories of those old games though. So, that's what I'm shooting for with my own.

I haven't played too many of the more modern games, because of work and life and so on, but I've gotten through the first act of Pillars recently. I'm playing on easy mode and kind of feel like that's about the speed that I want fights to be. Not too much pausing needed, but enough decisions to keep it interesting.

I want to keep things simple in my own game, but the more I plan the more I start thinking, "Am I making an ARPG?" Like I said, I don't want that. So, how do I find that line and keep from crossing over it?

It does not need to be on level of Tyranny which you can committ genocide left and right and kill even children because the Overlord demands it. But something like Expedition Rome would work too since the player has quite many opportunities to be pragmatic and ruthless like real life Octavian when it comes to warfare and alliances. Rogue Trader might probably be my most favorite CRPG now because it does fit everything I want- a pragmatic character who can make difficult choices for the sake of the Empire, the will to take what you want by any means necessary. Any recommendations?

Would you enjoy a CRPG where some conversations work more like tactical encounters than normal dialogue trees?

The protagonist has enhanced empathy and can read and manipulate emotions like fear, anger, trust, or attachment. During certain conversations, you would need to react quickly, choose what emotion to push or suppress, decide what to say, and sometimes use violence.

The goal would not always be to “win” the conversation. You might get the information you need but damage the relationship, scare someone into cooperating, make them hate you, or create consequences that come back later.

I’m curious whether this sounds interesting as actual gameplay, or whether it would feel too quirky.

Imagine a narrative RPG set in an autocratic, technologically advanced empire. You play as a special agent/spy with enhanced empathy who tries to build a life worth having while navigating between opposing factions, each of which has something you want.

You start in a laboratory where you were augmented, performing missions in a crumbling, torn society, which require you to use your empathy, manipulating people's emotions, as well as your falx sword. Eventually you realize that your family, which you thought were dead, is alive and offers a way out of servitude. You may choose to follow this pull or stick to the laboratory and the government, or choose another route and join anti-technology rebels who seek to destroy the ruler - a digitized emperor. None of these paths is meant to be the correct path.

Gameplay-wise, I'm thinking a turn-based combat like in Clair Obscure, but with dialogues. Some dialogues are the normal thing, like in any RPG, but some require you to act and choose your words swiftly, where your empathy is a part of the fighting system, and your sword is one of the methods you may employ to manipulate or defeat the NPCs. But whatever you do is going to matter, and they will remember it in the future.

Would the combination of tactical dialogue and physical combat make you want to try a demo? What part of this would you want to see demonstrated first?