RPG's and the essence of tabletop roleplaying

[Ninjerk]

no

 

[Transfiguring Roar]

Sup drog

Now you're getting the hang of it!

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

@Ismaul

Damn son, your game masters suck.

Why? Are most game master commonly on the level of professional writers?

 

[Caleb462]

I don't play PnP, so I don't know how they compare, but my answer to the OP is no - they aren't. As a genre I think the overall quality is pretty low, and even the best of the genre is heavily flawed. Pound for pound I think many other genres offer more quality options. That being said, cRPGs do things that many other genres don't or can't and thus offer some pretty unique experiences... and cRPGs are often far more ambitious, which counts for a lot even if the resulting quality level is lower than it should be.

 

[Overboard]

Are cRPGs actually good?

First you have to define a RPG.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

cRPGs won't be as "free" as PnP games anytime soon, because it's possible to come up with any hypothetical situation/action in the abstract space of the mind, but with games, you have to actually implement systems and things like that. The closest thing to that in video games is Dwarf Fortress, which in another 10-20 years might approximate the PnP experience to some degree, although it will still fall short. But I don't think that prevents cRPGs from being good, because they make up for it in other ways. The lose out to PnP in terms of freedom and the possibilities, but win out in terms of actually having concrete gameplay and systems and graphics/sounds (in some cases). A good combat system in a cRPG is more enjoyable than some die rolls on a table and the DM describing what happened, or actually exploring a well crafted world, or engaging in an interesting story.

To me, there is a problem with cRPGs that's more relevant than their shortcomings compared to PnP games. To enforce the role playing aspect of these games, that is to force the player to choose and stick to some role, cRPGs use stats and numbers a lot. But in my opinion, this often leads to stale, boring gameplay, where the numbers are more relevant than player skill and active involvement. That's why combat in action-adventure games or even shooters is often more interesting than cRPG combat, for example. So to me, the cRPGs of the future should try to replace stat based gameplay with skill based approach, while using other means to enforce the role. Imagine an RPG with the combat of a great shooter/action-adventure game, the stealth of Thief, the puzzles of an adventure game, and likewise challenging active dialogue and exploration systems. That's what I want to play.

 

[Obama Phone 3]

A realistic sex sim would make CRPG's worth it. Only virtual reality, like Oculus Rift could attempt to accomplish this. That, and a cyborg chip implanted into the brainstem. I don't think computer technology is advanced enough to allow for this in our lifetime.

 

[Ismaul]

@Ismaul

Damn son, your game masters suck.

Why? Are most game master commonly on the level of professional writers?

Well, most cRPGs are not very well written, are they?

Not only the dialogue text itself, but most quests are bullshit too, lacking in coherence and believability. They aren't very hard to replicate. I usually do better in improvised games.

For example, my current sci-fi campaign is one of infiltration, bluff and negotiation, no combat at all, all tense dialogue, that challenge the characters' identity and beliefs. We get some nice drama and twists, and even though it's all improvised, and the players have an amount of freedom to the point where they decide true things about the story / background / mystery they're investigating, I can string it all into a coherent whole as if it was planned all along.

I don't expect all game masters to do that (that shit is hard), but they can do better than fetch quests. Unlike most cRPGs, they can have dungeons where the critters interact and have a reason to be there together, and a way of living that reflects that. They can have NPCs make believable reactions to players' actions, and that is much more important to "good writing" than sophisticated vocabulary.

 

[Serious_Business]

CRPGs are a prism of the modern experience of freedom - the ability to make choices is masqueraded as freedom, as if choosing an option that was created for you has anything to do with freedom. True freedom would imply some sort action that transcends the limits that are imposed to you. As the limitation of the medium come close with the limits of this false idea of freedom, CRPGs reveal themselves to be ideology. Thus, yeah, they are shit

 

[treborSux]

I ask this question because it seems that many of them that I have played can't quite capture the essence of tabletop roleplaying. It is hard to find a truly open world cRPG with the depth of their predecessors. There are cRPGs with good mechanics, sure, but many are quite linear, with a thin veneer of freedom. Should we rate these games based on their own merits, or how they compare to their older cousins, pen and paper roleplaying games?

Problem to me is, the formula of cRPGs has always been good. Micromanaging stats and loot and the control and chance for exploiting the limitations you're given has always what made rpg's fun. It's the D&D tabletop roots that has always been at fault. Apart from my a couple of my favorite games like JA2 and Fallout 2, few games managed to successfully break away from Tolkien fantasy lands and dragons and dungeons and wizards. As a grown ass man, I want something else, more unique, contemporary to waste hours playing.

 

[Daemongar]

When they create a computer simulator of bickering and accomplishing nothing for 8 hours (while stoned) you'll be the first one I call.

 

[sigma1932]

To enforce the role playing aspect of these games, that is to force the player to choose and stick to some role, cRPGs use stats and numbers a lot. But in my opinion, this often leads to stale, boring gameplay, where the numbers are more relevant than player skill and active involvement.

If what you're after is player-skill focused gameplay (often referred to as "twitch-skill" gameplay), then an RPG isn't what you wanna play. A key aspect of what makes an RPG and RPG is removing the player's direct interaction with the game-world in favor of bringing the stat-based representation of the player-controlled character's skills/knowledge base/etc. within the context of the game-world to the forefront of gameplay with the player's contribution being focused solely on how to direct the character to use those skills, etc.... with the fun coming in the form of finding creative ways to minimize the effect of the character's statistical weaknesses while at the same time playing to their statistical strengths, etc.

All that aside, cRPG's can be good, but they require the player accept that options/consequences/etc. will always be limited due to code being a binary concept (i.e. any given option is either coded ahead of time to be possible, or it's not)... a PnP game can be be run the same way-- i.e. the DM/GM can go by a rigid set of pre-determined instructions and not stray from them at all-- but it also allows for potential to improve gameplay through creative improvisation and on-the-fly tweaking of the "script".

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

There is finite number of world states. Those states are predetermined. cRPGs can become more reactive only if their creators focus less on graphics/art/linear story-telling and more on developing new AI systems/tools that could support more sophisticated C&C than archaic flags, making scripting and debugging easier than adding new tree asset. It still won't allow random actions which you can perform in pen and paper RPG, but it might give more options.
Problem is... developing new technology is not worth it, if they can apply the same mechanisms that work perfectly in movie industry; people who never played RPGs before will be drawn anyway. And nobody wants to spend money on code monkeys if they can earn big bucks selling the same slightly better looking crap every year.
It's worse for indies, because they cannot afford developing new tech, even if they have ideas and/or will.

It's easier to add interesting npc/unexpected story twist/cool enemy/dialogue wheel/gun/cave to explore/time freeze skill/hot chick/another static feature to the game than give player more role-playing freedom.

Anyway... if it would mean better reactivity - I'd gladly sacrifice good combat. Whatever the setting.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Maybe.

 

[WhiteGuts]

I don't think anything in this world qualifies as good

 

[Cthulhu_is_love]

That's really not the point...
Of course pen & paper is more interactive and therefore more free.

But the whole drawback is:

Spoiler

You have to interact with

Spoiler

OTHER HUMANS!

 

[resilient sphere]

I'm kind of hoping that CRPG designers cotton on to the fact that video games can never be D&D campaigns and react by kicking out all the emergent crap and voiced inter-party conversation, then replace that with a mixture of puzzles which only have one solution and unfair fights against enemies who have skills your characters can't access. Please, play to your strengths

 

[Grauken]

Theoretically P&P RPGs are superior, until you start playing them with other people and realize their main flaw

PEOPLE ARE STUPID

although I always could scrounge some food that way, so it never was a total loss

 

[Krraloth]

Before you understand the codex and to be understood by the codex, I suggest you play to completion Fate: Gates of Dawn.
Then 100% run Oblivion.
We'll wait for you.
Honest.

 

[Lady_Error]

Theoretically P&P RPGs are superior, until you start playing them with other people and realize their main flaw

PEOPLE ARE STUPID

Good thing computer games are not made by people.

 

[Lady_Error]

Before you understand the codex and to be understood by the codex, I suggest you play to completion Fate: Gates of Dawn.
Then 100% run Oblivion.

What's so special about Fate and especially Oblivion?

 

[Carrion]

I'm kind of hoping that CRPG designers cotton on to the fact that video games can never be D&D campaigns and react by kicking out all the emergent crap and voiced inter-party conversation, then replace that with a mixture of puzzles which only have one solution and unfair fights against enemies who have skills your characters can't access. Please, play to your strengths

I, on the other hand, am eagerly waiting for the perfect RPG that finally manages to get rid of all this abstracted crap where your character fights dragons or something, and instead properly simulate the act of a bunch of people sitting around a table, eating snacks and throwing dice. After all, that's what cRPGs should aspire to be.

Strawmen gonna strawmen.

 

[Ismaul]

Theoretically professional cRPGs by professional designers are superior, until you start playing them alone and realize their main flaw

COMPUTERS HAVE NO INTELLIGENCE AT ALL (also designers are stupid)

fix'd

 

[Krraloth]

Before you understand the codex and to be understood by the codex, I suggest you play to completion Fate: Gates of Dawn.
Then 100% run Oblivion.

What's so special about Fate and especially Oblivion?

Both are in first person.
Both will drop you in an immersive world full of things to do.
Both will not be finished.
One of good.
One is shit.

To understand the codex one has to understand both sides.
When somebody makes a thread about if the crpgs are good compared to pnp I ask myself: has this person seen the highs and the lows of sprawling gameworlds that attempt day/night cycles, big customization options for you character, lots of quest and a peculiar lore?
So that is why I suggest those two.
Look at the flaws of each game.
Lament what could've been for both.

And rage.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

@Ismaul

Damn son, your game masters suck.

Why? Are most game master commonly on the level of professional writers?

Well, most cRPGs are not very well written, are they?

Not only the dialogue text itself, but most quests are bullshit too, lacking in coherence and believability. They aren't very hard to replicate. I usually do better in improvised games.

For example, my current sci-fi campaign is one of infiltration, bluff and negotiation, no combat at all, all tense dialogue, that challenge the characters' identity and beliefs. We get some nice drama and twists, and even though it's all improvised, and the players have an amount of freedom to the point where they decide true things about the story / background / mystery they're investigating, I can string it all into a coherent whole as if it was planned all along.

I don't expect all game masters to do that (that shit is hard), but they can do better than fetch quests. Unlike most cRPGs, they can have dungeons where the critters interact and have a reason to be there together, and a way of living that reflects that. They can have NPCs make believable reactions to players' actions, and that is much more important to "good writing" than sophisticated vocabulary.

I've said monocle RPG, not every RPG. I mean do we really have to argue that something written over moths by well paid professionals will end-up better written than something that was written in a week by a random person?