What would you do?

[justhavinfun]

Was talking to a friend the other day and came up with a little twist for end boss fights. The idea is that after fighting your way to the end boss he offers you a choice. Instead of an instant fight a dialogue starts between the players and the boss. The boss then offers the players a chest with unknown items in it if they would just go away and leave him alone.

The items could not always be junk. There would have to be a chance for some decent drop although at a lower rate than it would be for killing the boss. Also if you take the chest the boss and any minions with him become untargetable. Any named items that may drop in this chest could possibly be a bit weaker than the originals for killing the boss.

The chat could be done so that the party has to decide as a whole what to do, or it could be left up to the individual members. If left up to the individual members any that take the chest would not be able to help the players that don't in any way. This means that healers could not take the chest then stick around to heal the rest of the players that don't take it.

This also should only be a random occurance and not happen every time the end boss is encountered. So the question is what would be your decision if this were to occur.

I feel it would place an interesting twist on end boss fights. Would like to see what others think of this idea and what could be done to polish it up a little.

[Talias006]

With as difficult as it would seem to be in separating the groups that chose A over B, i'd say it would do as well as helicopter ejection seats.
Quickly becoming a bloody, chaotic mess.

Keeping things the way they are and offering some bosses a non-combat option with Exp gained from not fighting would be preferable IMO.
Plus, it doesn't separate the loot between the A and B crowds.
That idea (separation of loot) makes the helicopter ejection seat idea look not only orderly, but intelligently designed.

[Memnir]

I think it sounds like a possibly interesting idea, but one that would be cumbersome and awkward in reality. Besides, who wants to get to the boss to only then wuss out and take the second-hand loot? Seems counter intuitive to why we run quests, if ya ask me.

[BlueSilence]

I think it sounds like a possibly interesting idea, but one that would be cumbersome and awkward in reality. Besides, who wants to get to the boss to only then wuss out and take the second-hand loot? Seems counter intuitive to why we run quests, if ya ask me.

Agreed.

Maybe... some special, unique loot may drop if you dont fight but not necessarily a "better" item... just something "different", something reflecting your decision like... Expeditious Retreat Slippers of Eloquence? Or maybe some rare collectables to craft flavour items for players who like to collect sets.

[azrael4h]

One of the things about cRPGs in general (including MMOs) is the lack of non-combative options. Most non-combat skills are relegated to third-string status, if not outright irrelevance, in the majority of games I have played (and I've played a lot).

To that end, in my own game's design, the number 1 goal was to make the majority of scripted encounters have multiple options for resolution, with differing rewards for each. An example is the very first 'quest' that you engage in, in which the party is cheated out of money for services rendered. Killing the crook will give you a good deal of xp and loot, but force you into a different line of missions afterwards, cutting out a number that could have better gains later. One thing which will happen, much later, is fighting a rather difficult boss if you have killed this npc. However, you do gain some quests which will not be available if he's alive, which again lead to rewards you could not get otherwise.

Walking away gives you the least amount of rewards, but talking the guy into paying you gives a completely different set of rewards than the first, cutting off a number of quests from people who hate the sucker, opening up another line there, and avoiding what may be a pretty much impossible fight anyway (I've yet to figure out how to beat that particular boss, and I designed him!)

Of course, the 3 options rule I strive to follow is much more difficult to maintain than "kill them all". I have to consider each encounter's effects on all my other npcs, and decide how they will react to that particular encounter being resolved one way or another. In DDO, as each quest is largely self-contained, they don't have to deal with that as much. It may require the quest giver being given alternate sets of dialogue instead.

The trick is to offer comparative rewards for each option. It also does not have to relate to how you finished the objective either; an old man you helped out by not killing his grandson may offer you a nice axe. Or you could kill the dumb fool and take his equally nice greatsword.

More quests with multiple choices would be nice, as they would remain fresher longer than the largely static, day-in day-out things we have now.

[Lonnbeimnech]

Kinda like relic of a sovereign past? except there you get no loot but 3k xp, and people are ecstatic if you can get that optional.

[Urist]

A Relic of a Sovereign Past: (Optional) Obtain the sword through non-combative means

I feel that it's generally a cop-out; a lack of imagination and creativity; when the climax of a quest is just a "boss fight".
Especially when the bosses are inexplicably tough, for who/what they are supposed to be. I'm looking at you, Dirty Laundry - who knew that "money launderers" hit the gym so much?

[bigolbear]

its saturday night and the 45'th shroud group of the evening has just got to harry.

They find him huddled in a corner rocking gently back and forth.

"I should be on shavarath" he repeats over and over in a gentle whisper.

The leutennants are no where to be seen, the tresure lies unguarded, and due to the obvious stress, harry has started to molt his scales.

[Silverwren]

its saturday night and the 45'th shroud group of the evening has just got to harry.

They find him huddled in a corner rocking gently back and forth.

"I should be on shavarath" he repeats over and over in a gentle whisper.

The leutennants are no where to be seen, the tresure lies unguarded, and due to the obvious stress, harry has started to molt his scales.

HA! This made me laugh. Good one!

As for the OP, I like variety as much as the next guy, but this doesn't seem worth it to me. Doing all the work to get to the boss and then using the easy button just doesn't do it for me.

[Alrik_Fassbauer]

One of the things about cRPGs in general (including MMOs) is the lack of non-combative options. Most non-combat skills are relegated to third-string status, if not outright irrelevance, in the majority of games I have played (and I've played a lot).

Yes. People always argue "it's because of its wargames heritage", but I doubt that. I often have the feeling as if there was a different layer to it.

Fighting against someone as a means to solve problems is the most dominant implementation in C-RPGs.
Diplomacy is for wussies. No real man would do that.

Thinking meta, I often suspect if this could be the sign of an underlying real-life "warrior culture". I was shocked when I learned that an actual real-life pistol/gun was names "Peacemaker" by its maker.

So, peace is only achieved by killing someone lse ? How boring. How ancient. How ... antique ... How ... uncivilized ...

The imho sad thing is that games have become more andmore focused towards fast-paced action and towards fighting, combat and battle within the recent 10 years ... Blizzard pushed this with their success very much forwards, imho - and other means to resolve conflicts out of sight.

Because aquiring items is irrevocably bound to the so-called item-dropping, and item-dropping an oly be achived by killing aedversaries ... I'm really, really glad that DDO didn't include the *whole* item-collecting mechanics Blizzard invented ...

There imho should be more ways to resolve "conflicts" and "problems" in general. It would teach people to become more civilized, imho. The Wild, wild west is long gone.

[Worldcrafter]

Personally, I like this idea. I like the idea that players can be able to choose some of their battles. Not all adversaries are mindless, egotistical morons who want to run willie-nillie at the adventurers and have at 'em. Some of them may want to buy the characters off. And some players are mercenary enough, or enjoy an RP perspective, of taking the item and leaving.

This doesn't mean that you have to go without a boss fight. Maybe have a random chance the treasure turns out to be a trap or a mimic - it goes off, and now you have Boss Fight Plus. Alternately, just because you take the deal, it doesn't mean you are getting out without a fight. Usually you're hired by someone to go questing - maybe they sent along a servant or second group of adventurers to make sure the job's done, and they come in to find you're working with "the bad guy." So they become an alternate boss battle.

Maybe add an additional layer to the mix - you take the chest, and you can turn right around and betray the villain and attack after all. After agreeing to the bargain, the monsters spawn like normal, but have "At Bay" status effect added to them. They don't attack, move, etc., and do not aggro pets/hirelings/summons. If anyone uses an attack, offensive ability, or spell on any of the monsters, At Bay gets dispelled from them all, and fighting breaks out like normal. Betraying the villain shouldn't give you additional chances at named loot; at best, maybe a chest or two drops with standard fare, because you've already taken a chest that may have something spiffy. It's more for aesthetics, filling out the MM, and vindictiveness - how dare the boss not drop that rare you wanted from the diplo chest!

[shawnvw]

Kinda like relic of a sovereign past? except there you get no loot but 3k xp, and people are ecstatic if you can get that optional.

Or like in "Chamber of Raiyum" where you can automatically beat the three djinni by using the seals.