The Ultimate RPG

rpg-design game-design nonviolent-gameplay combat dialogue stealth progression-systems tim-cain

Abstract

Problem: Why has no RPG ever fully realized rich, progressive gameplay systems for combat, dialogue, and stealth simultaneously?

Approach: Tim Cain examines why non-violent options in RPGs are typically treated as discrete skill checks rather than continuous, interactive systems — and draws on his experience with Fallout, The Outer Worlds, and Arcanum to illustrate the structural barriers.

Findings: The "ultimate RPG" would make non-violent paths (dialogue, stealth, evidence-gathering) as rich and progressive as combat. This hasn't happened due to time/money constraints, conflicting design priorities, UI complexity, player tendency toward violence, and the rarity of designers skilled in all three domains.

Key insight: The gap between combat and non-combat systems isn't a content problem — it's a progression design problem. Combat has continuous, layered decision-making; dialogue and stealth are usually reduced to binary pass/fail checks.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr_Yz6q5W-c

1. The Core Idea

The ultimate RPG is conceptually simple: make the non-violence options just as rich and fun as the violent ones. Combat in most RPGs features continuous progression — hit points, weapon choices, positioning, cover, targeting — a layered system full of player agency. Non-violent systems rarely receive the same treatment.

2. The Discrete vs. Continuous Problem

Most RPGs treat non-violent solutions as discrete checks. Dialogue becomes "Speech 70? You can say this line." Stealth becomes "Lockpick 70? Door opens." There's no progression, no series of meaningful decisions building toward an outcome.

What's needed is the same depth combat enjoys:

2.1. Dialogue as Progression

Rich dialogue would require players to gather evidence, scour scenes for clues, read books and diaries, hack computers, talk to multiple NPCs, and convince reluctant characters through multiple exchanges — not just pass a single skill check. Convincing someone should involve a quest-like chain of actions, not a stat threshold.

2.2. Stealth as Progression

True stealth progression means more than sneaking past guards. It means disarming traps, picking locks, avoiding security cameras, crawling through vents and ceiling panels — a continuous sequence of decisions with real player interaction.

3. Examples from Existing Games

Tim uses several games to illustrate that no single title has achieved all three systems with equal richness:

  • Fallout — Had evidence-based dialogue (you needed to gather proof of mutant sterility from the Brotherhood scientist before confronting the Master, plus high Speech), but these systems lacked UI support and weren't consistently applied throughout the game.
  • Disco Elysium — Excellent dialogue and dialogue systems, but virtually no combat. Most players never experienced combat at all.
  • Thief, Hitman, Indiana Jones: The Great Circle — Strong stealth systems, but no dialogue skills or meaningful NPC conversations. Designed for exploration and stealth, not persuasion.

Each game excels at one or two pillars but not all three.

4. Why It Hasn't Been Made

4.1. Time and Money

Building three equally rich progression systems requires enormous resources. Getting all systems well-balanced and deeply interactive demands a massive budget.

4.2. Players Choose Violence Anyway

When given all options, most players choose combat. Some argue this is because combat is the richest system, but Tim suspects many would still choose violence even with equally developed alternatives. This creates a painful ROI problem — extensive work on non-violent paths that most players won't see on their first playthrough.

Tim shares a telling anecdote from The Outer Worlds: he wanted to lock companions behind leadership skills (lowest purchase unlocks one, higher unlocks two). He was overruled because so much work went into companions — their combat abilities, dialogue, and inter-companion conversations — that restricting access was deemed unacceptable. The investment was too large to gate behind a single skill choice.

4.3. Conflicting Design Priorities

The three systems fight each other:

  • Violence vs. evidence-gathering — It's hard to gather clues from dead NPCs. (This is why Arcanum added "Speak with Dead.")
  • HUD conflicts — A clean combat HUD isn't the same as an evidence-gathering HUD. In Murder on Eridanos, they solved this with a separate inspection tool, but that's additional UI work.
  • Quest progression UI — Displaying quests solvable through multiple paths creates confusing AND/OR objective trees. Players see all objectives and assume they need to complete everything.

4.4. The Design Unicorn Problem

Finding a single designer skilled in combat, narrative, and stealth design is finding a unicorn. The practical alternative is hiring separate specialists — a combat designer, a narrative designer, a stealth designer — and hoping they collaborate well. When they inevitably disagree (especially on UI), the game director must arbitrate, and unless they're the unicorn, they'll lean toward one system over the others.

5. The Hope

Tim believes this game will eventually be made. He frames it as a challenge to future designers: somewhere out there is a design that unifies combat, dialogue, and stealth into one coherent, progressive system. When that designer figures it out, Tim hopes they'll acknowledge the games that came before — echoing Newton's line about standing on the shoulders of giants.

His closing message to that hypothetical future designer: "Thank you. I look forward to playing it."

6. References