In-Game Monster Manuals

[LastDanceSaloon]

One thing I've noticed about RPGs generally is that they don't come with in-game monster manuals.

In order for something to be a 'game' then surely battles are considered, even in tactics-light Dragon Age 2 type games, puzzles in themselves. In order to defeat the game one needs to work-out how to best defeat the various monsters which appear.

However, for the first playthrough of any RPG, unless one has a very detailed manual or is arriving with memory references from D&D or the like then one has virtually no chance of solving the 'puzzle' first time out.

What I would like to see in RPGs is a journal which catalogues monsters so the adventurer can more accurately accumulate the correct items and correctly engage the monsters in battle.

There could still be an element of surprise for a tough game by making knowledge of a monster blind until the first one has been killed (I think ToEE tried this quite well) at which point one then has the knowledge to accompany the experience.

What always riles me about RPGs is that, upon the initial play, I have no idea of a creatures hit point total, their attack potential, their damage range, their armour strength, what spells they are able to use and how many of each spell they have, what level they are, and, finally, which elemental/physical attack type delivers the most damage.

In-game experiments can tell you this over time but even very experienced players will still not really know that much about the monsters they are crushing, mainly going by the system of 'it's defeated, I no longer care if I could have done it better' when 'learning' how to kill monsters.

[Nymie_the_Pooh]

Every game should have a pokedex

One of the first things that struck me as cool about Planescape: Torment was it provided a sort of monster manual for every type of NPC you encountered as well as some entries for some of the named ones. Warhammer Online was pretty cool in this regard as it had entries like this, but it came in pieces as you did different things in the game related to that type of NPC. It worked kind of like the entries in the first Witcher in this regard, but a lot more pieces to build up the whole picture so it was closer to the way Alpha Protocol did it now that I think about it.

Maybe have the player character get a book of fairy tales at the start of the game which unlocks some of the basics in the journal on some of the common monsters found in the early game. As they fight the monsters or gather more lore the player unlocks more information. I don't care to have all the information up front myself, but a basic understanding of what the inhabitants of the game would consider standard tactics for combating enemies seen a lot early on makes sense to me.

[murph]

Alpha Protocol did it right I think, if you want info, then you have to acquire it in some (sensible) way. Also, keep the info "immersive" in the sense that it doesn't give you info that makes sense in game. As an example, you learn that the CSP in Alpha Protocol use and are resistant to flash bangs, are good in hand to hand, and their best troops use rifles. You don't learn how much damage their rifles do, or how many hit points they have.

I guess you could put the stats in some separate menu that doesn't pretend to be in game for those who love stats, but please keep it out of sight for those of us who aren't actively looking for it.

[LastDanceSaloon]

I couldn't agree more, Nymie_the_Pooh. Considering most RPGs start out with the traditional selection of small-fry wildlife, Goblins, Orcs and Skeletons etc, it makes sense that most of the people who inhabit this world would already have vast chronicles on every detail of these basic creatures.

Also, when the quest giver provides a quest to either hunt a specific territory or creature then it makes a lot of sense that that quest giver would know a little bit about the critters s/he's sending you out to deal with.

In terms of Immersion, murph, I fail to see how gaining monster knowledge would in any way remove one from immersion. Surely gaining monster knowledge would be the most common-sense thing for an adventurer to do. It is the first thing any real-life tribes/explorers do when they go to new lands.

I agree that it maybe shouldn't be as cut and dried as simply an encyclopaedia of stats that's freely available to all, but many games include Crafting, Smithing, Food, Drink, Alchemy, Tracking, poison, trap-making and the like, but there's still nothing which increases 'knowledge' of monsters in most games.

Imagine someone coming to ask Hawke for advice on killing Shades. It would be like a Monty Python sketch:

"Hawke, now you are old and crippled and can't help us physically, maybe you can teach us new adventurers how to deal with some shades we've encountered?"
"Shades? Yeah, I killed thousands of those, I'm awesome like that."
"Yes, but what can you tell us about them?"
"Er... you point your stick at them and they fall down?"
"Oh... right. Well, that's fairly easy. Bye then."

Likewise, from the opposite viewpoint in almost any game:

"This Dragon you want us to kill, Mr/s quest-giver, does it have any weak spots?"
"Yes!"
"What are they?"
"Not telling you."
"What? Why? I thought you were desperate for it to die?"
"I am. I just have a sick sense of humor and enjoy watching adventurers die doing utterly crucial work to save my city."
"Right... thanks for that."
"I have this sword which has +1 to Dragon Slaying, yours for a mere 200,000 gold "
"You want us to pay you to kill the Dragon you want dead and we only wanted to kill in order to make us some money?"
"Do you want the sword or not?"
"Do you want the Dragon dead or not?"
etc, etc, etc.


I can understand your stat'o'phobia murphy, I've been turned off many a game by stat overload, but I fail to see how general monster knowledge would be either confusing or over-detailing and less immersive when compared to any other background element in a game. I mean, how many books/codexes do you come across which you never read nor have any game use? Even just a book/codex or two on monster facts, readable or ignorable...

[murph]

I don't see how we disagree, like I said, I think Alpha Protocol did it right. Admittedly it didn't provide you with basic info on your enemies without buying/acquiring info, but since your enemies tended to be criminals/special forces it made sense. Again, as long as the info makes sense in-universe, I don't mind (and usually prefer it over making more or less qualified guesses), Alpha Protocol had intel, The Witcher had books, both provided general info, stayed in-universe, and worked great. And in the case of Alpha protocol, it made knowledge of your enemies another resource you could acquire or fail to acquire depending on your choices.

That said, it would be nice if you sometimes got bad info. Someone might try to trick you, or they simply don't know any better, either way, it would make you question were you got the info from.

[LastDanceSaloon]

You're right, I think we are in agreement. I too think the key is keeping the information logical and game immersive.

While investigating the Battle Squares in Icewind Dale 2 I realised that a lot of RPGs do like adding in little gladiatorial-like sub-games. I remember even the modern Dragon Age: Origins had a little section like this. This could be played up to a huge degree and even act as a supplementary Mortal Kombat style game within a game.

By taking on a creature in 'the arena' you could be privvy to all its strengths and weak spots via trading card-like information sheets prior to the fight and during the compere's pre-match hype. Information on the next monster is then only unlockable by defeating the previous challenge.

This would also work well with the desire to make RPGs more console friendly.