Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

C&C and the Definition of an RPG, Redux

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
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.
Then its not an RPG. Its an action game.

Mind you, im not reducing the RPGs to stats alone.
Most games some kind of "stats" of the character you play. Or a "role". Only in RPGs is that role made more tangible. By limiting gameplay options though character abilities that the player cannot directly override, but can shape and evolve. As i already said...

An RPG is a game where character abilities affect tactical in game options, while the player can affect only meta and strategical options.
Its not a hard specific boundary, which is why there is a whole spectrum of various RPG games.

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...

I think it is 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 isn't, especially if conceived in a sufficiently broad way, but combat clearly is. 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 these aspects have been emphasized, 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.

Combat and exploration are the content. Present in all other types of games.
Obviously then, those cannot be what differentiates RPG genre.

Historically, most games employ combat as majority of their content since that provides quick and strong emotional engagement on players. Violence in any medium is used so much because its a part of our evolution.
Thus, it is majority of gameplay in RPGs too, especially the early ones. Nobody is saying that should be relegated or removed... although it should be made better.

Character customization is not what i am talking about.
I am talking about a fundamental feature that enables character customization to exist as such and have effect on the gameplay.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
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.
Then its not an RPG. Its an action game.

Mind you, im not reducing the RPGs to stats alone.
Most games some kind of "stats" of the character you play. Or a "role". Only in RPGs is that role made more tangible. By limiting gameplay options though character abilities that the player cannot directly override, but can shape and evolve. As i already said...

An RPG is a game where character abilities affect tactical in game options, while the player can affect only meta and strategical options.
Its not a hard specific boundary, which is why there is a whole spectrum of various RPG games.

I understand your perspective, it's a fairly popular one here on the Codex, but my point is, it's a very arbitrary definition. It's based on the historical definition of RPGs, which comes out of PnP games. In those, you HAD to restrict roles by stats or explicit roles, because otherwise PnP games would grow repetitive and stale. Roles forced player to react differently and led to different situations.

But in the context of modern games and hardware, I would argue that definition is outdated. Developers ought to be aiming for deep simulations of various RL systems, which will create and support roles in a different way. Imagine a game that has a combat system similar to real world fencing, and a stealth system similar to Thief but even deeper, and other systems. So players would have to specialize, because mastering each one at the same time would not be practical. At the same time, because they are player skill based, the gameplay would be a lot more interesting than the typical stat based RPG gameplay (stat-check, win/lose, etc).
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
Character customization is not what i am talking about.
I am talking about a fundamental feature that enables character customization to exist as such and have effect on the gameplay.

I often use "character customization" as an admittedly inexact shorthand for the systemic matrix that allows for the creation, development, and expression of diverse and discrete character configurations in a simulacrum or simulation. In any case, I do think we are talking about the same thing and I would agree that it is the central and distinctive element of RPGs. Perhaps I misinterpreted you when you called exploration and combat secondary, then, as we seem to be on the same page regarding their practical importance for quality RPGs.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
I understand your perspective, it's a fairly popular one here on the Codex, but my point is, it's a very arbitrary definition. It's based on the historical definition of RPGs, which comes out of PnP games. In those, you HAD to restrict roles by stats or explicit roles, because otherwise PnP games would grow repetitive and stale. Roles forced player to react differently and led to different situations.

But in the context of modern games and hardware, I would argue that definition is outdated. Developers ought to be aiming for deep simulations of various RL systems, which will create and support roles in a different way. Imagine a game that has a combat system similar to real world fencing, and a stealth system similar to Thief but even deeper, and other systems. So players would have to specialize, because mastering each one at the same time would not be practical. At the same time, because they are player skill based, the gameplay would be a lot more interesting than the typical stat based RPG gameplay (stat-check, win/lose, etc).

No, there is nothing arbitrary about this definition.
It literally IS what makes an RPG.

The other games, no matter how well they simulate something or give different options to the player - are not RPGs, if there is no limits on gameplay imposed through character abilities.
Its indicative that other types of games do not provide such breath of options in most cases, (if at all) while its an requirement for an RPG.

For an RPG to be an RPG, you need to play so that character abilities limit what you can do, while that also gives you option on how to evolve and shape those character abilities.

I often use "character customization" as an admittedly inexact shorthand for the systemic matrix that allows for the creation, development, and expression of diverse and discrete character configurations in a simulacrum or simulation. In any case, I do think we are talking about the same thing and I would agree that it is the central and distinctive element of RPGs. Perhaps I misinterpreted you when you called exploration and combat secondary, then, as we seem to be on the same page regarding their practical importance for quality RPGs.
Secondary in the sense of fundamental feature that defines an RPG. Along with stats, skills, various mechanics, setting, story and so on.
That does not mean irrelevant or not needed in any case.

I wouldn't say they are what creates quality either, since there is plenty of rpg games where exploration, combat and the story are done badly.
Making a very good quality RPG or any game is another specific issue on its own.
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
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.
Then its not an RPG. Its an action game.

Mind you, im not reducing the RPGs to stats alone.
Most games some kind of "stats" of the character you play. Or a "role". Only in RPGs is that role made more tangible. By limiting gameplay options though character abilities that the player cannot directly override, but can shape and evolve. As i already said...

An RPG is a game where character abilities affect tactical in game options, while the player can affect only meta and strategical options.
Its not a hard specific boundary, which is why there is a whole spectrum of various RPG games.

I understand your perspective, it's a fairly popular one here on the Codex, but my point is, it's a very arbitrary definition. It's based on the historical definition of RPGs, which comes out of PnP games. In those, you HAD to restrict roles by stats or explicit roles, because otherwise PnP games would grow repetitive and stale. Roles forced player to react differently and led to different situations.

But in the context of modern games and hardware, I would argue that definition is outdated. Developers ought to be aiming for deep simulations of various RL systems, which will create and support roles in a different way. Imagine a game that has a combat system similar to real world fencing, and a stealth system similar to Thief but even deeper, and other systems. So players would have to specialize, because mastering each one at the same time would not be practical. At the same time, because they are player skill based, the gameplay would be a lot more interesting than the typical stat based RPG gameplay (stat-check, win/lose, etc).

I suppose what you are talking about would be theoretically possible. The thing is, there should be, as I mentioned above, some kind of system that allows for the formation and expression of distinct and discrete character configurations. In this case, the system would presumably be grafted into the gameplay engine itself, instead of being superimposed on it as a kind of abstract layer in the way of traditional character systems. I also suppose it would be a learn-by-doing system where in-game actions are the means not only of expressing but also of building and developing your character. The important point here would be that of character configurations being discrete. The system that would have to undergird this sort of game would have to include some provision that prevents the character from becoming a master of all trades.

In real life, we cannot specialize on everything because limited time and stamina do not allow it. The development of character proficiencies in games is much faster than it is in real life, so in order for the kind of simulation that you are proposing to work, the pace of the game would have to be slowed down considerably or some kind of systemic limitation would have to be introduced. In the first case it could lead to a very boring and tedious game. In the second case, the limitations could end up becoming so artificial that they would end up returning to elements of the traditional system of barriers based on an abstract layer. A case in point is Skyrim, a game that does not use a class system and implements a learn-by-doing system. In that game, the structures in place that limit the master-of-all-trades syndrome are a (simple) attribute system, a point-purchase perk system, and level-scaling. The first two are classic elements of traditional abstract character systems and the last presupposes level, which is also a feature of these last, not to mention it is aggressively anti-simulationist.

Ultimately, the question is, how would you propose should a game of this sort be designed without either resorting to traditional character systems in at least some way or slowing down the pace of the game in an unacceptable way?

I wouldn't say they are what creates quality either, since there is plenty of rpg games where exploration, combat and the story are done badly.
Making a very good quality RPG or any game is another specific issue on its own.

I would say this is where we disagree, then. The RPG template/triad that I mentioned above is not derived analytically from the definition of RPGs, but historically from the design style of the old school of RPGs, of which the clearest representatives are early Wizardry and the Gold Box games. It is true that historical crystallizations of a thing do not define it, but they provide us with the empirical data that allows us to understand how the ideas and concepts that we are discussing translate into practice and are implemented, and thus what works and what doesn't. I suppose it then becomes a matter of interpretation of history.

The way I see it, tactical RPGs and dungeon crawlers represent the epitome of RPG gameplay that is complex, engaging, challenging, and stimulating, and the genre declined from there. The cRPG Renaissance was a transitional period in which quality games were still made, but only because the lessons of the Golden Age had not yet been forgotten, and combat and dungeon design were still competently executed. The way I see it, games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate II are heavily indebted to the legacy of the classics for much of what was good about them, and the biggest difference between them and later titles like the Troika and Obsidian games, is that the foundation of quality gameplay had been eroded beyond repair in the case of the latter. This state of affairs was a result of the cRPGs Renaissance's emphasis on story and reactivity that eventually resulted in a neglect of the crafts that used to provide the gameplay foundation of RPGs.

The template may well be historically-contingent and not essential to the nature of RPGs, but it still furnishes the best extant example of quality RPG gameplay, and should thus be the standard by which RPGs are generally judged. This does not mean that I am against games that try something different - like AoD, Morrowind, or Witcher for example - but my view is that the paradigmatic cases of an RPG that should be considered the golden standard are tactical RPGs and dungeon crawlers, and when these are no longer considered as such, the rest of the industry suffers.

EDIT: One might argue that there doesn't have to be a single paradigm, and I would agree, but there has to be a reigning paradigm, and make no mistake, there always is a de facto ruling paradigm. There have been at least three reigning paradigms in Western RPG history. The first was triad of exploration-combat-customization based on early DnD and represented by Wizardry and the Gold Box games. The second was the narrative and reactivity-based paradigm of games like Fallout and Planescape: Torment. The third was the Biowarian paradigm of cinematic RPGs. We might well have already entered the era of the open world RPG thanks to the success of Skyrim, but I think Witcher 3 shows that the Biowarian impulse is still strong. In any case, of all of these paradigms it seems to me the most healthy and universal one was the first, and that is why I consider it the exemplar for RPGs.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
I understand your perspective, it's a fairly popular one here on the Codex, but my point is, it's a very arbitrary definition. It's based on the historical definition of RPGs, which comes out of PnP games. In those, you HAD to restrict roles by stats or explicit roles, because otherwise PnP games would grow repetitive and stale. Roles forced player to react differently and led to different situations.

But in the context of modern games and hardware, I would argue that definition is outdated. Developers ought to be aiming for deep simulations of various RL systems, which will create and support roles in a different way. Imagine a game that has a combat system similar to real world fencing, and a stealth system similar to Thief but even deeper, and other systems. So players would have to specialize, because mastering each one at the same time would not be practical. At the same time, because they are player skill based, the gameplay would be a lot more interesting than the typical stat based RPG gameplay (stat-check, win/lose, etc).

No, there is nothing arbitrary about this definition.
It literally IS what makes an RPG.

The other games, no matter how well they simulate something or give different options to the player - are not RPGs, if there is no limits on gameplay imposed through character abilities.

These are just declarations, not really evidence.

Obviously, someone else can make a different declaration.

Its indicative that other types of games do not provide such breath of options in most cases, (if at all) while its an requirement for an RPG.

For an RPG to be an RPG, you need to play so that character abilities limit what you can do, while that also gives you option on how to evolve and shape those character abilities.

Some non-RPGs or quasi-RPGs do, or at least close to it. For example action-adventure games often have a mix of combat, exploration and story.

The big reason though is that to create even one gameplay system is difficult, to create a game with several is very difficult. But the kind of RPGs you are talking about often take a shortcut, instead of different systems, they just have different stat-checks. Stealth, check this stat, combat, check that stat, dialogue, check that, etc.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
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.
Then its not an RPG. Its an action game.

Mind you, im not reducing the RPGs to stats alone.
Most games some kind of "stats" of the character you play. Or a "role". Only in RPGs is that role made more tangible. By limiting gameplay options though character abilities that the player cannot directly override, but can shape and evolve. As i already said...

An RPG is a game where character abilities affect tactical in game options, while the player can affect only meta and strategical options.
Its not a hard specific boundary, which is why there is a whole spectrum of various RPG games.

I understand your perspective, it's a fairly popular one here on the Codex, but my point is, it's a very arbitrary definition. It's based on the historical definition of RPGs, which comes out of PnP games. In those, you HAD to restrict roles by stats or explicit roles, because otherwise PnP games would grow repetitive and stale. Roles forced player to react differently and led to different situations.

But in the context of modern games and hardware, I would argue that definition is outdated. Developers ought to be aiming for deep simulations of various RL systems, which will create and support roles in a different way. Imagine a game that has a combat system similar to real world fencing, and a stealth system similar to Thief but even deeper, and other systems. So players would have to specialize, because mastering each one at the same time would not be practical. At the same time, because they are player skill based, the gameplay would be a lot more interesting than the typical stat based RPG gameplay (stat-check, win/lose, etc).

I suppose what you are talking about would be theoretically possible. The thing is, there should be, as I mentioned above, some kind of system that allows for the formation and expression of distinct and discrete character configurations. In this case, the system would presumably be grafted into the gameplay engine itself, instead of being superimposed on it as a kind of abstract layer in the way of traditional character systems. I also suppose it would be a learn-by-doing system where in-game actions are the means not only of expressing but also of building and developing your character. The important point here would be that of character configurations being discrete. The system that would have to undergird this sort of game would have to include some provision that prevents the character from becoming a master of all trades.

In real life, we cannot specialize on everything because limited time and stamina do not allow it. The development of character proficiencies in games is much faster than it is in real life, so in order for the kind of simulation that you are proposing to work, the pace of the game would have to be slowed down considerably or some kind of systemic limitation would have to be introduced. In the first case it could lead to a very boring and tedious game. In the second case, the limitations could end up becoming so artificial that they would end up returning to elements of the traditional system of barriers based on an abstract layer. A case in point is Skyrim, a game that does not use a class system and implements a learn-by-doing system. In that game, the structures in place that limit the master-of-all-trades syndrome are a (simple) attribute system, a point-purchase perk system, and level-scaling. The first two are classic elements of traditional abstract character systems and the last presupposes level, which is also a feature of these last, not to mention it is aggressively anti-simulationist.

Ultimately, the question is, how would you propose should a game of this sort be designed without either resorting to traditional character systems in at least some way or slowing down the pace of the game in an unacceptable way?

You used the example of Skyrim. Skyrim is a very easy and simple game. The combat system amounts to spamming the attack button until someone's hitpoint bar runs out. The magic system is the same as combat system but with different visuals. Stealth involves holding down one button and getting mega damage criticals. And so on and so forth. In a game like this, of course anyone can be everything.

But imagine an actually challenging game. Let's say for example, the melee combat is a simplified version of historical fencing manuscripts. You have to know which guard counters which other guard/position. Which parry counters which attack, and so on. Not only know theoretically, but practice it enough in-game so that you can do it in real time effectively.

Imagine a stealth system that is a deeper version of Thief. You can't wear armor or large weapons, because they make noise. You have to wear special clothes and have special equipment. You have to study enemy guard patterns with complex AI and understand how to get around them. You have to practice using your equipment.

Now in a game like this, there is no wall preventing you from doing everything, but practically speaking, each of these areas takes time to master. Maybe unlike RL it's not years, but just weeks, but you can't just pick stuff up and do it effectively right away. So in my opinion, people would naturally specialize at any given time. Of course a month later, they might try doing other stuff, but to me that's not a big problem. After all, in RL some thieves could probably hold their own in a duel, and some warriors were diplomats as well and so on. As long as you have to put in some non-marginal amount of time to learn and pick up the system to you can't automatically be master of all things, that's enough for me. But of course, you can always also have some physical obstacle as well, like maybe some non-stat skill, without which you can't do a particular thing.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
These are just declarations, not really evidence.
Obviously, someone else can make a different declaration.
No, what i say is how actual real games work - evidenced by every single godamn RPG in existence.
But what you are declaring there is just a declaration without any evidence, which is both completely wrong and irrelevant empty meaningless declaration.

Some non-RPGs or quasi-RPGs do,
Whatever, there is a whole spectrum of games that fall under RPG mantle, all kinds of hybrids and action-rpgs, nobody is disputing that.

But the kind of RPGs you are talking about often take a shortcut, instead of different systems, they just have different stat-checks. Stealth, check this stat, combat, check that stat, dialogue, check that, etc.
Thats not a "shortcut" - and this tells me you have no idea what you are talking about and would just want to call games you like or imagine "RPGs" - but would want more "live action super awesome epic fightan!!!"

In that game you imagine you would have to have some character "skills" to even have any kind of mechanics the computer can interpret, but you prefer your own skills to be more important - which then devalues the importance of any such character abilities or stats.

Which then results in some kind of RPG hybrid or an action game where you are larping a character.

Always the same god damn loop over and over and over again.


Ventidius
I would say this is where we disagree, then. The RPG template/triad that I mentioned above is not derived analytically from the definition of RPGs, but historically from the design style of the old school of RPGs, of which the clearest representatives are early Wizardry and the Gold Box games. It is true that historical crystallizations of a thing do not define it, but they provide us with the empirical data that allows us to understand how the ideas and concepts that we are discussing translate into practice and are implemented, and thus what works and what doesn't. I suppose it then becomes a matter of interpretation of history.

The way I see it, tactical RPGs and dungeon crawlers represent the epitome of RPG gameplay that is complex, engaging, challenging, and stimulating, and the genre declined from there. The cRPG Renaissance was a transitional period in which quality games were still made, but only because the lessons of the Golden Age had not yet been forgotten, and combat and dungeon design were still competently executed. The way I see it, games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate II are heavily indebted to the legacy of the classics for much of what was good about them, and the biggest difference between them and later titles like the Troika and Obsidian games, is that the foundation of quality gameplay had been eroded beyond repair in the case of the latter. This state of affairs was a result of the cRPGs Renaissance's emphasis on story and reactivity that eventually resulted in a neglect of the crafts that used to produce the core gameplay of RPGs.

I in fact think that decline of RPGs happened because of focus on combat gameplay, to detriment of everything else, which then swerved into real time territory and so robbed the character imposed limits on those mechanics.
That produced action-rpgs and their superficiality in all content and gameplay they have. And players who think "stats" are shortcuts and barriers to "fun".

Thats the reason why there isnt more games like AoD or Fallout, where just combat wasnt or isnt everything.
And why there was a lack of evolution of TB combat systems, as they are controlled and limited by character abilities - unlike real time combat.

Again, i am talking about the most fundamental feature that defines what an RPG is, not about type of content of games which is built on top of this fundamental feature.
Nor about quality, which is not a result of just the type of content. For reasons already stated.

My definition is about what makes an RPG be an RPG.

Not about what makes a good RPG game, since that is a different issue.
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
You used the example of Skyrim. Skyrim is a very easy and simple game. The combat system amounts to spamming the attack button until someone's hitpoint bar runs out. The magic system is the same as combat system but with different visuals. Stealth involves holding down one button and getting mega damage criticals. And so on and so forth. In a game like this, of course anyone can be everything.

But imagine an actually challenging game. Let's say for example, the melee combat is a simplified version of historical fencing manuscripts. You have to know which guard counters which other guard/position. Which parry counters which attack, and so on. Not only know theoretically, but practice it enough in-game so that you can do it in real time effectively.

Imagine a stealth system that is a deeper version of Thief. You can't wear armor or large weapons, because they make noise. You have to wear special clothes and have special equipment. You have to study enemy guard patterns with complex AI and understand how to get around them. You have to practice using your equipment.

Now in a game like this, there is no wall preventing you from doing everything, but practically speaking, each of these areas takes time to master. Maybe unlike RL it's not years, but just weeks, but you can't just pick stuff up and do it effectively right away. So in my opinion, people would naturally specialize at any given time. Of course a month later, they might try doing other stuff, but to me that's not a big problem. After all, in RL some thieves could probably hold their own in a duel, and some warriors were diplomats as well and so on. As long as you have to put in some non-marginal amount of time to learn and pick up the system to you can't automatically be master of all things, that's enough for me. But of course, you can always also have some physical obstacle as well, like maybe some non-stat skill, without which you can't do a particular thing.

Well, I think the problem then would be that, as you describe it, the game would then no longer be character-driven. I would say one of the key features of RPGs is that they presuppose a sharp divide between player and character, hence roleplaying. The character has to have his own laws and constitution that is distinct from the player, if the player is expected to self-police his own role in the gameworld, we are coming dangerously close to LARPing. I think that what you are proposing is incompatible with RPGs because it violates the duality between player and role, and to the extent that it preserves it, it doesn't do it in a way in which any different from any other videogame/simulation/simulacrum.

I also am not fully convinced by the argument that difficult mechanics are enough to prevent master-of-all-trades syndrome. I mean, suppose you have already mastered all playstyles in different playthroughs and start a new char, or you are very experienced in stealth games, hack and slash, shooters, etc. and can quickly master all of them, what's to prevent it then?

I think the sort of game you are proposing would be more plausible if you allowed at least action-driven statistical character growth and development. For example, your character connects a lot of successful hits with his sword, and his skill with swords increases, which results in his movements with the sword being faster and more dexterous. Or your character lifts a lot of stuff, which results in his strength increasing, allowing him to lift heavier objects. You would not have heavy abstraction like point purchase or class selection systems, but an under-the-hood statistical framework - that you would have in pretty much any simulation or game anyway - that would be reactive to your actions and allow for the diversification and specialization of your character, and not merely of your skills with keyboard and mouse. Perhaps the game could also have a time limit, which would encourage you further in specializing on a coherent skillset.
 
Last edited:

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
Again, i am talking about the most fundamental feature that defines what an RPG is, not about type of content of games which is built on top of this fundamental feature.
Nor about quality, which is not a result of just the type of content. For reasons already stated.

My definition is about what makes an RPG be an RPG.

Not about what makes a good RPG game, since that is a different issue.

Yes, I can see where the source of the confusion is now. When I gave my "definition" I did not mean to provide merely an analytic judgement, but both an analytic and synthetic judgement. Your definition is correct as far as the analytic approach is concerned, of course, but I also wanted to emphasize those aspects that form the common denominator of empirical RPGs, which in my view are customization (a shorthand, as you know), exploration, and combat. I then gave a justification of why I felt acknowledging this aspect was necessary when discussing the nature of RPGs (the whole bit about how taking this history into consideration led to quality). Perhaps I phrased things poorly by talking about "definition" in the first place, as what I had in mind was more like "conceptualization" or building a set of parameters based on both empirical evidence (e.g. history) and logic. It was this whole methodology, incorporating both synthetic and analytic aspects that I originally contrasted with the intuitive grasp of the connoisseur in the post that started this whole chain. In any case, I'll stop derailing here given that I am literally at the threshold of starting a definition of a definition(!) discussion, something an above user only jokingly suggested, perhaps unaware of the profound autism of this place.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
It was this whole methodology, incorporating both synthetic and analytic aspects that I originally contrasted with the intuitive grasp of the connoisseur...
:nocountryforshitposters:
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
Well, I think the problem then would be that, as you describe it, the game would then no longer be character-driven. I would say one of the key features of RPGs is that they presuppose a sharp divide between player and character, hence roleplaying. The character has to have his own laws and constitution that is distinct from the player, if the player is expected to self-police his own role in the gameworld, we are coming dangerously close to LARPing. I think that what you are proposing is incompatible with RPGs because it violates the duality between player and role, and to the extent that it preserves it, it doesn't do it in a way in which any different from any other videogame/simulation/simulacrum.

That's where I would disagree. The way I play RPGs is the character is just my avatar, and while they might have their own traits/history different from mine, I think about the world the same way that I would, and not that specific character.

To me the divide between different genres isn't terribly important, as it's just a function of the past, and is destined to evolve. Ultimately, the holy grail of gaming is to create massive in-depth virtual worlds where you can experience RL-like adventures or what not. To me, RPGs are only important in the sense that they are the closest of all genres to that, with their relative complexity.

The separation between character and player that you mention is again, simply a function of RPGs past in PnP settings. Imagine you have Bill, John, and Jessica playing a PnP session. If they were themselves every time, things would get exceedingly boring. "Oh that darn Bill is doing his taxes again!" But if they assume distinct roles with limitations, which are separate from their actual person, then every session can be fresh and exciting. But this obviously has nothing to do with modern video games, where by creating interesting worlds and systems, you can have the player be themselves in certain ways, and still experience new and exciting things every time.

I also am not fully convinced by the argument that difficult mechanics are enough to prevent master-of-all-trades syndrome. I mean, suppose you have already mastered all playstyles in different playthroughs and start a new char, or you are very experienced in stealth games, hack and slash, shooters, etc. and can quickly master all of them, what's to prevent it then?

Well, what's to prevent someone from being a Renaissance Man in RL? It's possible, but again, it requires time investment, depending on the system, might involve some innate talents (for example not everyone might do well with a real time combat system), might require special equipment, and practice. So yes, you could do it potentially, but in practical terms, I think it would be enough to force people to specialize at any given time. Especially if coupled with a hardcore save system. If you risk losing the last few hours of progress, you would probably resort to what you are best at, or have been practicing lately. And if you really want something like this, you CAN add some gate-keeper skills, like for example some skills that unlock player driven skills/abilities. Without them, you cannot use these, but you only have a limited number, so any character is forced to specialize explicitly, without it affecting the player skill nature of the game.

I think the sort of game you are proposing would be more plausible if you allowed at least action-driven statistical character growth and development. For example, your character connects a lot of successful hits with his sword, and his skill with swords increases, which results in his movements with the sword being faster and more dexterous. Or your character lifts a lot of stuff, which results in his strength increasing, allowing him to lift heavier objects. You would not have heavy abstraction like point purchase or class selection systems, but an under-the-hood statistical framework - that you would have in pretty much any simulation or game anyway - that would be reactive to your actions and allow for the diversification and specialization of your character, and not merely of your skills with keyboard and mouse. Perhaps the game could also have a time limit, which would encourage you further in specializing on a coherent skillset.

I would be ok with something like this. Gothic 1 and 2 were the best at this, with your animations and movement improving with higher weapon skill. But I think something like this would be even harder to design and implement properly, as most times, introducing any kind of stat improvement into an action system tends to ruin it. But if someone can manage to do it, by all means.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
A game with no C&C can never be an RPG. I prefer to think of RPGs as games that limit what your character can be/what your character can do.

There's C&C from a player-perspective, and there's a C&C from a character perspective. The former is choosing things such as your class, your stats, etc. The latter is choosing how you resolve quests and interact with NPCs. Contrast The Witcher with Icewind Dale. Both deal with C&C, but different aspects of it. One focuses on quests, the other focuses on the character-building and the combat.

I also believe that "get better by doing it" is a terrible mechanic for RPGs. It tries to apply real-life logic in a way that isn't logical at all. No one becomes the master of anything by keeping at it for a year. Morrowind had Major and Minor skills, and though it was still a "get better by doing it" system, at least it established a difference between "what you are a natural at" and "what you are not a natural at". But playing a wizard and suddenly turning into a barbarian that is as skillful as someone who has been trained as a barbarian since they were kids? That's ridiculous. That's why the character building C&C of Skyrim is awful: it's so watered down it may as well not even be there.
 
Last edited:

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
That's where I would disagree. The way I play RPGs is the character is just my avatar, and while they might have their own traits/history different from mine, I think about the world the same way that I would, and not that specific character.
To me the divide between different genres isn't terribly important, as it's just a function of the past, and is destined to evolve. Ultimately, the holy grail of gaming is to create massive in-depth virtual worlds where you can experience RL-like adventures or what not.

To me, RPGs are only important in the sense that they are the closest of all genres to that, with their relative complexity.

The separation between character and player that you mention is again, simply a function of RPGs past in PnP settings. Imagine you have Bill, John, and Jessica playing a PnP session. If they were themselves every time, things would get exceedingly boring. "Oh that darn Bill is doing his taxes again!" But if they assume distinct roles with limitations, which are separate from their actual person, then every session can be fresh and exciting. But this obviously has nothing to do with modern video games, where by creating interesting worlds and systems, you can have the player be themselves in certain ways, and still experience new and exciting things every time.

Nothing wrong with that, but this is your personal preference and it is clearly distinct from the experience RPGs try to evoke. In the latter, you don't necessarily have to "LARP" or see the world as your character would, but you would at least agree to play under certain constraints (even if only gameplay ones) as long as you are playing that particular character. RPGs compartmentalize different aspects of a gameplay experience into particular character possibilities, allowing you to do the same things - and in some cases different things - in different ways. This is part of what makes RPGs interesting to people and of what RPG fans enjoy about the genre, regardless of whether they are "combatfags", "storyfags", etc. Not all of us play these games for that reason, but most of us implicitly do, since otherwise we would be playing games from different genres that offer similar features to those their favored RPGs do like squad tactics, adventure, Metroidvanias, or whatever.

RPGs are about building distinct characters or parties and taking them for a spin in the game world because people enjoy this specific aspect of what they offer. Genres are not mere abstractions, there are practical reasons we have them, so that those who like horror can go to the horror section to easily get their fix without having to trudge through everything else. The genre divide cannot be a thing of the past so long as people enjoy different things and have different tastes. Now you personally might enjoy in-depth virtual simulations, and it is true that RPGs have often overlapped with that. But this overlap is incidental and not inherent to what makes RPGs tick and what attracts people to them. Even if most fans eventually go for the same thing you are, there will still always be a niche that will prefer the particular aspect of these games that I am referring to, and we will need a label for our preferred type of game. Since you don't seem to be particularly attached to genre labels, you shouldn't have a problem with our retaining the label RPG, which, as has been explained many times in this thread, is a perfectly adequate denominator for games that offer the kind of experience we are looking for.


I would be ok with something like this. Gothic 1 and 2 were the best at this, with your animations and movement improving with higher weapon skill. But I think something like this would be even harder to design and implement properly, as most times, introducing any kind of stat improvement into an action system tends to ruin it. But if someone can manage to do it, by all means.

Well, if you manage to come up with a truly complex mechanic for the given action, it would not be that hard to implement. It would merely be a matter of gating aspects of that mechanic behind a skill threshold. It seems it would be much more demanding to incorporate many complex mechanical systems within a single engine in the way you suggest. The only devs who have even tried doing something like this are Bethesda, and as you pointed out, in those games each individual mechanic ends up being very simple. Perhaps they are just lazy and unambitious, but resources they do not lack, and I suspect the task you suggest would be a tall order even to an ambitious studio with resources. Not saying this would make it impossible or anything, but if difficulty of implementation is a valid objection then it is the very proposition of combining engine diversification with deep local complexity that would be most vulnerable to it.
 
Last edited:

Mustawd

Guest
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.

That's called an action game.

In that case, customization can be done by working on your (player) skills, instead of developing character stats.

YOU'RE PLAYING AN ACTION GAME NOT AN RPG.


sorry, caps.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
There is one point to make however; C&C can be there without dependence on stats of the character, like in Witcher 2. In some sense, this on the RPG C&C just the RP C&C :P. AoD is a real RPG C&C while in W2 and W3 there are several choices that only depend on player action. If W2 or W3 had no character advancement they would become non-cRPGs and still have great C&C.

In W2/3 you still had some skills affecting dialogues but it was almost exclusively that Jedi persuasion sign.
Anyway, character progression system may very well be leading C&C element of the game. But those are usually relatively straightforward and thus boring. Something like Geneforge canisters thing (you get skills by using canisters but you may go mad from it) is a nice way of adding progresson-based C&C, the only other example I can think of is Fable.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I also believe that "get better by doing it" is a terrible mechanic for RPGs. It tries to apply real-life logic in a way that isn't logical at all. No one becomes the master of anything by keeping at it for a year. Morrowind had Major and Minor skills, and though it was still a "get better by doing it" system, at least it established a difference between "what you are a natural at" and "what you are not a natural at". But playing a wizard and suddenly turning into a barbarian that is as skillful as someone who has been trained as a barbarian since they were kids? That's ridiculous. That's why the character building C&C of Skyrim is awful: it's so watered down it may as well not even be there.
First, like any other system it can be implemented in many different ways and Bethesda's way isn't the only way. Take TB, for example. You can do it the roguelike or Eschalon way, phase-based like Wiz 8, action points with different attacks like Fallout, Silent Storm, and AoD, or nuXCOM way or Shadownrun way, etc. Same here. Limiting opportunities to raise skills is the simplest way to bring the system closer to skill-points systems while offering a different way - not to increase skills - but to choose which skills will be increased. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe it's a perfect fit for our skill-check-driven overall design.

Second, even in Skyrim your wizard won't *suddenly* become a barbarian unless you start playing a melee fighter, so that's on you.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
"Get better by doing it" works reasonably well when you get initial boost for some of the skills, like in Elder Scrolls before Skyrim. This way it makes sense that your mage character will be a master of his chosen schools of magic by the end of the game and will be somewhat proficient in light armor or something - but never to the point of being able to rely on his light armor skills.

Skyrim is somewhat similar to open world action games in this regard. The initial skill values are all low, the best mage you can create will have 15 points in magical skill and the worst one will have 5. Both will be able to cast basic fire magic with the same effeciency, on levelup both can take the first perk for that skill. You'll fall into using stuff that feels natural. And if you're completionist or power gamer then *everything* will be useful: you will craft your weapons, enchant them, shoot with a sneak bow before combat, use magics for buffs and healing. It's no longer about your character preference but about your own preference. There are some binary choices (light or heavy armor, one or 2-handed etc) and your perk allocation is important. But there are enough perk points so that you can distribute them to every skill you use even if you promised yourself that you'll be a dedicated archer.

So it's not that wizard suddenly becomes a barbarian - it's the fact that you have to use self-constraint to get a wizard character instead of a sneaking-lockpicking-casting-fighting-persuasive guy.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
I also believe that "get better by doing it" is a terrible mechanic for RPGs. It tries to apply real-life logic in a way that isn't logical at all. No one becomes the master of anything by keeping at it for a year. Morrowind had Major and Minor skills, and though it was still a "get better by doing it" system, at least it established a difference between "what you are a natural at" and "what you are not a natural at". But playing a wizard and suddenly turning into a barbarian that is as skillful as someone who has been trained as a barbarian since they were kids? That's ridiculous. That's why the character building C&C of Skyrim is awful: it's so watered down it may as well not even be there.
First, like any other system it can be implemented in many different ways and Bethesda's way isn't the only way.

I'm aware. That's why I brought Morrowind to the table. Despite it being a Bethesda game, it is unlike Skyrim. I still believe it was a rather lame system, and BTB's Game Improvements did a good thing by getting rid of Misc skill growth altogether.

Second, even in Skyrim your wizard won't *suddenly* become a barbarian unless you start playing a melee fighter, so that's on you.

While it was not my intention to make it seem like Skyrim was an example of what I meant by "suddenly turning", it still is a good example of watered down character building C&C. Nothing stops you from changing your "class" at the end of the game and being just as good over time.

So it's not that wizard suddenly becomes a barbarian - it's the fact that you have to use self-constraint to get a wizard character instead of a sneaking-lockpicking-casting-fighting-persuasive guy.

It's true. But I'd say self-constraint shouldn't be needed, in the same way those who say "well you don't have to do all faction questlines at once if you want to roleplay!" are wrong. If I wanted to switch into a Barbarian, the game should have measures in place to prevent my barbarian from getting really good.
 

KateMicucci

Arcane
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
1,676
It's true. But I'd say self-constraint shouldn't be needed, in the same way those who say "well you don't have to do all faction questlines at once if you want to roleplay!" are wrong. If I wanted to switch into a Barbarian, the game should have measures in place to prevent my barbarian from getting really good.
It does. Even if you get all skills to 100 you'll still run out of perks, and you won't have any more health/stam/magicka upgrades. Assuming that you decide in your barbarian transition that you aren't going to cast spells anymore, all of your magicka points and perks placed in magical skills are wasted. A player who made a dedicated barb from the beginning will have more health/stamina and a wider breadth or depth of barbarianish perks.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
C&C is an emergent feature arising from fundamental feature of RPGs, gameplay options being limited by and so specified and diversified through character abilities.
In first RPGs which were basic hack and slash and dungeon crawlers this feature appeared in the form of different options and resolutions of combat, depending on character builds. Fighters would smash, wizards would burn and freeze, etc, rogues would stealth and backstab, and so on. How your party performed in combat depended on what types of character you took with you.

So, by having character build impose limits onto what you can do and achieve - you automatically get choice and consequence.

Then it was a natural evolution to extend this to other types of gameplay as RPGs evolved to include the options in the narrative, main plot, the overall story and quests themselves.

Fallouts did this in a great way through a speech skill, but also by integrating other non fighting skills into these dialogue options.
The problem there was that you could farm xp and freely delegate it to any skill - and so shape a character thats good in everything, although that would take intentional player meta breaking of the game narrative.
And of course, the infinite numbers of enemies worked directly against the setting and the thematic core of the story.
Solution is then obvious, this mechanic should have evolved so that you cannot re-delegate xp/skill points anyway you want, by removing endless respawn of enemies and or giving less and less xp for fighting lower level enemies.

The mass market form of RPGs took this further, by reducing the limits character skills impose on the player, through introduction of real time combat.
And of course by "learn by doing" mechanics used in open worlds setting where enemies endlessly respawn - so the player has infinite resources to train and improve their skills onto.
Bethesda games took this so far their games can barely be called RPGs at all as character skills in them are barely more then cosmetic features.

Witcher games, which have a decent amounts of various forms of C&C in the narrative, and have greater influence of character skills on the gameplay are still action-RPGs because real time combat and player only choices in dialogues diminish the effect and importance of character abilities. As i said, i think that form was fitting for such games with well established character and that specific setting. Definitely RPGs but of an action-rpg type.

Bloodlines also falls into the action-rpg type or spectrum range of RPGs, although its closer to the golden center because character skills have greater influence on everything you can do.

On the other side of the spectrum there is AoD which pushed character limits to the opposite end, i think, as far as it can be pushed in terms of smaller tasks and options character has.
In terms of greater C&C in the narrative it surpassed everything done before (as far as i know) by providing several completely distinct paths through the game based on and limited by character builds.


I am very well aware that a lot of... people, think that RPGs are about "having options!" but there is no options to anything unless there are limits between these different things. If you can have everything then there is no choice - and no consequence to the choices, so there is no options to choose between - because you can get everything.

In case of RPGs its the limits on immediate gameplay and tactical options in combat imposed by character abilities (usually expressed as skills, traits and perks, but also equipment) that the player can only evolve and shape strategically, but cannot directly override through his own skills - that define this specific genre.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom