It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Travelling At Night is a dialogue-driven choices-matter CRPG – and it’s coming soon on GOG!

In the myth-scarred Europe of a very alternate Cold War, a hollow man with a shattering secret forges new goals to fill the emptiness inside. Choose sides; choose motives; choose your History.

Soon on GOG!
avatar
GOG.com: Travelling At Night is a dialogue-driven choices-matter CRPG – and it’s coming soon on GOG!
Apparently "combat-free" as well.
Post edited 13 hours ago by Swedrami
Nothing against inspirations, but does the interface must look literally like Disco Elysium knockoff? And this is from an established dev, not some hacks.
Post edited 12 hours ago by ssling
At least they're not the only ones:

XXX Nightshift
Shore of Jord
Disco Elysium spiritual successor in development at new studio, Longdue
This looks very intriguing. Wishlisted.
Looks gorgeous!
avatar
ssling: Nothing against inspirations, but does the interface must look literally like Disco Elysium knockoff? And this is from an established dev, not some hacks.
A lot of crpgs in the past used the "text on the bottom", I don't see you whining about that. It's a UX evolution, deal with it.
Post edited 10 hours ago by Zoidberg
avatar
GOG.com: Travelling At Night is a dialogue-driven choices-matter CRPG – and it’s coming soon on GOG!
avatar
Swedrami: Apparently "combat-free" as well.
That's actually mentioned on the GOG game card, where it says "Combat? No."

Incidentally, one idea for a CRPG not focused on combat is to, rather than simulating it (with lots of specialized rules just for combat), or omitting it entirely, is to reduce it to a single skill check. If you pass the check, you win the combat, but if you fail, you lose. Perhaps add some situational modifiers, and the effect of winning or losing might vary depending on the situation..

One game idea I have would take a similar approach, though there'd be some situations (most notably attacking a trained professional soldier while unarmed) where there'd not even be a skill check; if combat starts, you automatically lose. Not fair, but would fit the setting I've chosen for that game.

(Note: The game idea here is *not* the game I'm currently making; in fact, if I were to turn that idea into a game, I would need a suitable team, as I wouldn't be comfortable doing it by myself.)
avatar
dtgreene: Incidentally, one idea for a CRPG not focused on combat is to, rather than simulating it (with lots of specialized rules just for combat), or omitting it entirely, is to reduce it to a single skill check. If you pass the check, you win the combat, but if you fail, you lose. Perhaps add some situational modifiers, and the effect of winning or losing might vary depending on the situation..

One game idea I have would take a similar approach, though there'd be some situations (most notably attacking a trained professional soldier while unarmed) where there'd not even be a skill check; if combat starts, you automatically lose. Not fair, but would fit the setting I've chosen for that game.

(Note: The game idea here is *not* the game I'm currently making; in fact, if I were to turn that idea into a game, I would need a suitable team, as I wouldn't be comfortable doing it by myself.)
Or there's the more casual resource management approach like in Hero of the Kingdom: Treated like any other action, you need this (strength/health, gear, consumables, mercenaries) to win. If you don't have everything, you can't attempt it, there's no failure. If you do, you succeed. There is some RNG involved in deciding how much is lost, as in whether gear's destroyed or whether you save up some of the consumables or how many mercenaries survive.
avatar
dtgreene: Incidentally, one idea for a CRPG not focused on combat is to, rather than simulating it (with lots of specialized rules just for combat), or omitting it entirely, is to reduce it to a single skill check. If you pass the check, you win the combat, but if you fail, you lose. Perhaps add some situational modifiers, and the effect of winning or losing might vary depending on the situation..

One game idea I have would take a similar approach, though there'd be some situations (most notably attacking a trained professional soldier while unarmed) where there'd not even be a skill check; if combat starts, you automatically lose. Not fair, but would fit the setting I've chosen for that game.

(Note: The game idea here is *not* the game I'm currently making; in fact, if I were to turn that idea into a game, I would need a suitable team, as I wouldn't be comfortable doing it by myself.)
avatar
Cavalary: Or there's the more casual resource management approach like in Hero of the Kingdom: Treated like any other action, you need this (strength/health, gear, consumables, mercenaries) to win. If you don't have everything, you can't attempt it, there's no failure. If you do, you succeed. There is some RNG involved in deciding how much is lost, as in whether gear's destroyed or whether you save up some of the consumables or how many mercenaries survive.
The question is whether the mechanics fit the setting.

For the game idea I'm thinking of, much of survival might very well be dependent on luck.

There will be resources, one of which will be mental health. If it gets too low, what happens isn't something I'd be comfortable describing without a trigger warning. In fact, the entire game, if it ever gets made, would need a trigger warning. (Not to mention that one would need to be careful developing the game, taking breaks for mental health at times.)