C&C and the Definition of an RPG, Redux

[aweigh]

ITT people who think C&C is different quest endings.

 

[Doktor Best]

ITT people who think C&C is different quest endings.

What would you call it then and how would you describe "real" C&C?

 

[J_C]

ITT people who think C&C is different quest endings.

If that is not one way of doing choices and consequences, I don't know what it is.

 

[hivemind]

different ending slides

 

[Paul_cz]

Different quest outcomes are the consequence part of "C&C". Sometimes it can manifest ingame, sometimes in a cutscene, sometimes in an ending slide. It is still part of C&C.

 

[2house2fly]

More vexing even than the question of what is an RPG, "what is C&C?" Is the Deadfire Pack for Pillars Of Eternity lacking C&C entirely because there's one character with two lines of dialogue and no ending, or is there a load of C&C because he sells some very strong items which can affect how you play?

 

[TemplarGR]

True C&C is when the results of your choices affect the gameplay and have a noticeable influence in the game world.

Different endings is not what RPG C&C is about. Because the "consequence" part, is not part of gameplay, but exposition.

For example, in Witcher 2, a game i hardly would call RPG btw, you can pick if you want to help the blue stripes human nazi guy or the elven nazi guy. Act 2 changes depend on your choice. THAT is C&C. Watching a different slide at the end is not real C&C. In Witcher 3, your choices for the Baron quest affect the game world and if the baron stays or leaves, in addition to the end slide exposition, so it is also true C&C.

Of course true C&C is extremely hard and costly so we rarely get to see it in any significant way in CRPGs.

 

[aweigh]

True C&C is when the results of your choices affect the gameplay and have a noticeable influence in the game world.

Different endings is not what RPG C&C is about. Because the "consequence" part, is not part of gameplay, but exposition.

For example, in Witcher 2, a game i hardly would call RPG btw, you can pick if you want to help the blue stripes human nazi guy or the elven nazi guy. Act 2 changes depend on your choice. THAT is C&C. Watching a different slide at the end is not real C&C. In Witcher 3, your choices for the Baron quest affect the game world and if the baron stays or leaves, in addition to the end slide exposition, so it is also true C&C.

Of course true C&C is extremely hard and costly so we rarely get to see it in any significant way in CRPGs.

And then we arrive at the crux of the matter: is C&C on Age of Decadence level even worth it then?

For many here (like myself) such things aren't strictly what we look for in an RPG (we/I look at the mechanical systems, the nitty-gritty mathematics driving each game play system and how they dovetail into each other); if the game has adventure game elements like CYOA-style C&C, that's cool, but it's not what defines the RPG experience.

Take AoD, the undisputed hallmark of Codexian C&C. Remove the incredibly detailed combat system and all of the underlying sub-systems that dovetail into the combat/crafting/itemization and replace it with a really simplistic system, one that's 100x times simpler, perhaps something real-time.

Is it still the same prestigious game? Would the C&C-fags still love it in an equal amount? Hard to say. I imagine for most a game requires a combination of all elements in a PLEASING amount of depth; and for some (like me and other "combat fags") we want more of a 75% math-combat, and 25% C&C, and a third set of people the reverse of the combat fag.

My point is that AoD's C&C is what makes it unique, however water down its non-C&C aspects (combat) and it becomes less of an RPG; water down its C&C but leave the combat intact and it remains a full RPG.

In this roundabout way I communicate my opinion of C&C: a defining aspect of the genre, yet paradoxically not the most important part. Branching Game States vs Conflict Resolution = the eternal dilemma.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Thats because the gameplay limited and driven by character abilities - (usually skills of some kind) which the player cannot directly override with his own skills - is what makes cRPGs.

In case you talk about C&C driven by and limited by character abilities - the skills, the numbers, the mechanics, and the tactical options in the gameplay the character can achieve - is a cRPG feature.
While C&C in some other types of games, controlled and driven by player choices and skills is not.

Its the limits of gameplay options imposed through character abilities and skills that defines a cRPG.

Although the spectrum of implementation of such limits is very wide, so Witcher still falls into RPG genre, but it is an action-rpg.

 

[Ismaul]

This is a bullshit debate we've been over many times. Roleplaying is also about playing a personnality, and so choices that derive from personnality and beliefs are also part of what make an RPG, not simply stats n shit.

Choices and their consequences define your character, as in not just your character sheet, but your character's character.

What matters in an RPG is that choices are meaningful in-game, as opposed to larping. If character defining choices are reflected in-game and have an impact on what happens and who your character becomes, and this is a major feature of the game, then it's a proper RPG. The combat resolution system has no incidence on the game being an RPG or not, unlike in other genres (FPS vs Strategy for example).

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Playing a "role" in CRPGs is created by specific character abilities and skills, which limit that character to a specific form - a role. And thus creates different roles to play.
C&C is only meaningful IF and because its limited by character abilities and skills too. By itself its not a defining feature of an RPG, but its an extension of the actual fundamental RPG feature.
Same for dialogue choices. And all the consequences.

All these features can be found in all other game genres. So they are not what makes an RPG by themselves. ONLY when they are limited through character skills that player cannot override - is a game an RPG.
Or one of the hybrids, depending on how much is that influence of character skills eroded in favor of player skills.

>If character defining choices are reflected in-game and have an impact on what happens and who your character becomes, and this is a major feature of the game, then it's a proper RPG.

This only happens when all those options and choices are constrained and limited by character abilities and or skills.

Thats the fundamental difference between those same features in some other type of a game and an actual RPG.

The character abilities directly influence the options in the game world and impose limits that player skills cannot directly override.
Player takes over strategic and meta gameplay, while character abilities dictate and limit what can be done inside the gameplay and narrative.

It is these very limits imposed through a character that create different builds, different classes, quest solutions, dialogue and story options and all the different consequences.

 

[Ismaul]

You talk about stats that directly influence choices. That's great. Consider that previous choices also constrain future choices, and so character defining choices also "dictate and limit what can be done inside the gameplay and narrative."

If any game does this, it's The Witcher. Also AoD is very good at this. (But then again AoD also constrains possibilities with stats. But at the same time there's been an outcry as to this double constraint of stats and personnality choices limiting possibilities so much that there's only one "choice" left. So it's very hard to do both which would require insane branching.)

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Consider that previous choices also constrain future choices, and so character defining choices also "dictate and limit what can be done inside the gameplay and narrative."

Of course they do. But when it comes to cRPGs majority of such choices should be based on, influenced and limited by character abilities or lack of them - usually in the form of stats.

Thats why Witcher is an RPG, although an action-rpg due to increased influence the player skills have on the gameplay performance of the character.
Especially on dialogue options, except few rare cosmetic ones that require axi sign. Which, overall, seems fitting for that kind of setting, story and character. Naturally, it was aimed to be an AAA mass market game which dictated many such things.

AoD is a true RPG, although it went a bit overboard with imposing character skill limits and thats why it was often jokingly compared with CYOA type of games. I wouldn't say it lacks options, but rather that most of the immediate tasks you need to do seem gated by hard skill checks. Although failures most often lead to other gameplay consequences and options it still didnt come out right.

I think Aod pushed that to the other side of the spectrum as much as it can go and is a valuable lesson in that sense.
Its not easy to get the exact balance right but we have a few examples who got it near perfect. Like Fallout 1 and 2.

 

[Ventidius]

You talk about stats that directly influence choices. That's great. Consider that previous choices also constrain future choices, and so character defining choices also "dictate and limit what can be done inside the gameplay and narrative."

If any game does this, it's The Witcher. Also AoD is very good at this. (But then again AoD also constrains possibilities with stats. But at the same time there's been an outcry as to this double constraint of stats and personnality choices limiting possibilities so much that there's only one "choice" left. So it's very hard to do both which would require insane branching.)

Character-defining choices are those that constitute our character's role in the game world. The way they do this depends on the kind of character system: it could be a traditional system in which an abstraction like point purchase or class selection/changing is used to build your character, or a learn-by-doing system in which your concrete in-game choices build your character. In the latter case it is possible to eliminate the distinction between character-defining and in-game choices, as they are - or can be - one and the same. In the former system, however, there is a sharp distinction between what you do in-game, and what happens at the character screen, thus character-defining choices become choices relating to stats and party composition.

In the context of such a system - and this the kind that both Witcher and AoD use - the only choices in-game that are character-dependent are those that are contingent on the build of your character, not on some other in-game choice (such as a previous dialogue choice or quest resolution), unless that in-game choice itself was dependent on character build. In my view, this makes AoD more of an RPG than Witcher, because an RPG is a game where your character's role prefigures what you can and cannot do, not the player's moment-to-moment actions. As I said, only a learn-by-doing system allows the latter to become constitutive of roleplaying by collapsing it into the former(in-game acts become the method of character building), but Witcher does not use a system of this sort but instead uses a point-purchase system which has next to no effect on the available campaign branching(apart from the cosmetic Axii options mentioned above).

Also, a distinction that might be worth keeping in mind is that CnC does not have to be only about dialogues, but can also be about concrete gameplay possibilities. To me, the best CnC game is New Vegas, and the reason I prefer it to AoD is that a good deal of the choices in it are not merely dialogue options or skill checks, but concrete gameplay possibilities that are limited by your character build, like sneaking, pickpocketing, lockpicking, etc. NV also strikes the sweet spot between the rigidity of AoD and the character-independent flexibility of Witcher.

 

[Paul_cz]

Interesting discussion about RPGs on RPG Codex?! What happened to this place?!

 

[AwesomeButton]

You talk about stats that directly influence choices. That's great. Consider that previous choices also constrain future choices, and so character defining choices also "dictate and limit what can be done inside the gameplay and narrative."

If any game does this, it's The Witcher. Also AoD is very good at this. (But then again AoD also constrains possibilities with stats. But at the same time there's been an outcry as to this double constraint of stats and personnality choices limiting possibilities so much that there's only one "choice" left. So it's very hard to do both which would require insane branching.)

Character-defining choices are those that constitute our character's role in the game world. The way they do this depends on the kind of character system: it could be a traditional system in which an abstraction like point purchase or class selection/changing is used to build your character, or a learn-by-doing system in which your concrete in-game choices build your character. In the latter case it is possible to eliminate the distinction between character-defining and in-game choices, as they are - or can be - one and the same. In the former system, however, there is a sharp distinction between what you do in-game, and what happens at the character screen, thus character-defining choices become choices relating to stats and party composition.

In the context of such a system - and this the kind that both Witcher and AoD use - the only choices in-game that are character-dependent are those that are contingent on the build of your character, not on some other in-game choice (such as a previous dialogue choice or quest resolution), unless that in-game choice itself was dependent on character build. In my view, this makes AoD more of an RPG than Witcher, because an RPG is a game where your character's role prefigures what you can and cannot do, not the player's moment-to-moment actions. As I said, only a learn-by-doing system allows the latter to become constitutive of roleplaying by collapsing it into the former(in-game acts become the method of character building), but Witcher does not use a system of this sort but instead uses a point-purchase system which has next to no effect on the available campaign branching(apart from the cosmetic Axii options mentioned above).

Also, a distinction that might be worth keeping in mind is that CnC does not have to be only about dialogues, but can also be about concrete gameplay possibilities. To me, the best CnC game is New Vegas, and the reason I prefer it to AoD is that a good deal of the choices in it are not merely dialogue options or skill checks, but concrete gameplay possibilities that are limited by your character build, like sneaking, pickpocketing, lockpicking, etc. NV also strikes the sweet spot between the rigidity of AoD and the character-independent flexibility of Witcher.

You should post more often.

 

[Falksi]

New Vegas,The Witcher 2 & Dragon Age: Origins displayed some superb C&C. That's what moern RPG's should be looking to emulate.

 

[Ventidius]

You should post more often.

Thanks bro. I do wish I could post more often, sadly, my thesis has had me pinned down for almost a year by now.

 

[Master]

Good post but isnt it just the old character skill trumps player skill mantra? The Definition still eludes us...

 

[Ventidius]

Good post but isnt it just the old character skill trumps player skill mantra? The Definition still eludes us...

To seek an exhaustive definition of RPG seems to me to miss the point of any investigation into its nature. The reason for that is that a thing is always more than the sum of its parts, and definitions always operate by listing attributes and parameters that, while constitutive of the thing, do not really tell us anything about the organizing principle behind it. Said principle can ultimately not be understood by direct reference to something else on pain of an infinite regress and thus must be apprehended by each individual. External guidance (and definitions are a form of this) might help him get there, as in the case of Meno's slave, but ultimately understanding of a thing cannot simply be bottled into a definition and transferred to someone.

I have said before and still maintain that RPGs are like porn, you know 'em when you see 'em. Of course, this is not simply to say that the concept is subjective and arbitrary and that anyone's take is as good as anyone else's. The identification of RPGs might well be intuitive but not all instincts are equal in this regard: the instincts of those who have honed them through experience with the genre, its history, and its many subgenres are obviously a better guide than those of the newbie claiming that Mario is an RPG. In that sense, knowledge of RPGs and their nature is a lot like the knowledge of the wine taster who has become adept at distinguishing the many types of wine - and can obviously tell wine from other drinks - due to a palate refined by experience.

None of this entails that definitions are useless, mind. But they are a means, rather than an end, when it comes to discussions about the nature of things, and RPGs are no exception.

 

[Life of the Party]

What is RPG?

What is a definition of RPG?

 

[Ventidius]

FWIW I do have a definition of RPG, though for the reasons outlined above, it neither is nor is intended as exhaustive. To wit, it is what has been called the RPG template, the triad of character customization, combat, and exploration. Combat is obviously found in many genres, but the other two aspects are what distinguished early DnD from wargames. If I were to pick out only one of these elements as truly definitive of RPGs, it would be the character customization, understood not only as an horizontal diversity of options in character types, but also as vertical possbilities for character progression and development. However, this would in my view be reductionist, and each of these elements separately should be considered as necessary but not sufficient conditions for an RPG.

Most games conventionally recognized as RPGs have all of these three features, even if the ratio of one feature to the other two varies wildly. This template includes games as different from each other as the first Wizardry and Fallout: New Vegas. That said, the template cannot be considered as a rigid and absolute criterion, there are games that deviate from it to some extent (such as Blackguards, which skimps on the exploration aspect) that can still be considered RPGs, and it is precisely at the point of such hard cases that we must go beyond definitions and use our instincts and judgement.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

RPGs are games in which specific character abilities limit the player to affect the gameplay world, in ways player cannot directly override but is able to evolve and shape strategically.

Done. In the simplest one sentence form.
You can sort the words bit differently but without limits that character abilities impose that the player evolves and shapes strategically, there is no RPG. Everything else is built on top of this fundamental feature.
If there is no such limits then there is nothing to customize. And if you want to have limits between different options that means you have to create enough content to be so limited by character abilities.

Whether these limits that actually create different tangible options and consequences are applied and exactly how they are applied to combat, exploration and the story is secondary consideration, depending on actual style of the game design and quality of production. Whether they are done through skills, xp points and levels, learn by doing, classes or whatever else are just design tertiary differences.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

RPGs are games in which specific character abilities limit the player to affect the gameplay world, in ways player cannot directly override but is able to evolve and shape strategically.

Done. In the simplest one sentence form.
You can sort the words bit differently but without limits that character abilities impose that the player evolves and shapes strategically, there is no RPG. Everything else is built on top of this fundamental feature.
If there is no such limits then there is nothing to customize. And if you want to have limits between different options that means you have to create enough content to be so limited by character abilities.

Whether these limits that actually create different tangible options and consequences are applied and exactly how they are applied to combat, exploration and the story is secondary consideration, depending on actual style of the game design and quality of production. Whether they are done through skills, xp points and levels, learn by doing, classes or whatever else are just design tertiary differences.

Why? What if you have a game that is entirely player skill based, with no character stats, but the gameplay is so deep and varied, that it would take the player years to master it all. In that case, customization can be done by working on your (player) skills, instead of developing character stats.

 

[Ventidius]

RPGs are games in which specific character abilities limit the player to affect the gameplay world, in ways player cannot directly override but is able to evolve and shape strategically.

This is basically what the element of character customization implies, and I agree that it is probably the most central element of RPGs. That said...

Whether these limits that actually create different tangible options and consequences are applied and exactly how they are applied to combat, exploration and the story is secondary consideration, depending on actual style of the game design and quality of production. Whether they are done through skills, xp points and levels, learn by doing, classes or whatever else are just design tertiary differences.

I think it is too hasty to simply dismiss combat and exploration as simply secondary. In an analytic sense, perhaps they are, as they are not implicit in the definition of roleplaying in any way. Perhaps one could make the case that exploration is, especially if conceived in a sufficiently broad way, but combat clearly isn't. That said, historically, both combat and exploration have always been key aspects of RPGs, and we would be too rash to simply dismiss this tradition. In such cases, we should apply Chesterton's Fence instead of glibly engaging in hack-and-slash revisionism. We should ask ourselves what are the reasons for the emphasis of these aspects, and whether it would be wise for the genre to de-emphasize them when they have worked so well for so long. Indeed, my personal theory of the decline is that when these two elements were relegated to the backseat during the so-called RPG Renaissance, the eventual result was the loss of good gameplay in RPGs. Ultimately, I agree that they are secondary in a certain theoretical sense, but in practice they should be considered as either equally important, or almost as important, as character customization. In any case, they should be assigned a privileged place when it comes to RPG design.