About most cRPGs : A mutation?

[felipepepe]

[You may call it fishing but I call it an argument, each has his own view of this thread. Should I be surprised very little arguments are presented in this thread? I'm not.

Most of the answers in this thread are as if they are coming from typical extremely religious people or kids. They don't like their worldview to be challenged but guess what. The Vatican didn't like it neither my little cousin.
In the end, the earth is not the center of the universe and Santa doesn't bring presents.:

"Worldview to be challenged"? C'mon, did you really read any topic here? We could never even agree to what RPG stands for, you're not chalenging teh Glorious Codexian Hivemind with your enlighted views, you just entered a RPG forum and start shouting that your view about the whole genre is "teh TRUE!". You are the religious fanatic / spoiled kid here.

You want a "real argument"? The genre was never as limited as you claim to begin with. Even in the glorious old days of PnP-only, there where A LOT of people playing D&D, GURPS or whatever totally focused on combat. No story, C&C and hardly any dialog at all. Or some "Detective-RPG" with no combat at all. And there were many custom-made rulesets at the time.

If you go for the root, ROLE PLAYING GAMES stand for games where you play an determined character, years before computer games had any story. To play a role before RPG arrived was either to act or it was kids running with plastic gun pretending to be John Wayne. The whole "RPG needs C&C, levels, battle, etc" was created way later, by people desperate to categorize thing, like yourself. In the original sense, even Call of Duty is an RPG.

 

[Vagiel]

And this is where we arrive in the dreadful world of definitions...

Since we are, effectively, arguing about what an RPG is and you say that an RPG as part of its definition must have C&C then we have to define what that is first.

C&C differs depending to the gameplay, so in a strategy game C&C is choosing the right army and the right tactics to win. In an shooter it is choosing the best weapon and position etc

So what do you believe C&C in RPG should stand for?

 

[MMXI]

C&C is the most retarded term that is used heavily on the Codex. It means fuck all. If C&C means more than just dialogue choices in order to include old RPGs like Wizardry, the definition of C&C itself becomes the same as the definition of RPG. In other words, either C&C equals RPG or C&C equals storyfaggotry. If it's the second then it's not vital at all in RPGs. If it's the former then it's a completely redundant term.

 

[Alex_Steel]

"Worldview to be challenged"? C'mon, did you really read any topic here? We could never even agree to what RPG stands for, you're not chalenging teh Glorious Codexian Hivemind with your enlighted views, you just entered a RPG forum and start shouting that your view about the whole genre is "teh TRUE!". You are the religious fanatic / spoiled kid here.

No, you are wrong. I didn't shout neither did I tell my opinion is the truth. The topic's title is a question and I'm just writing an opinion, looking for some answers to make me think while I'm bored at work and maybe make others think while they are bored at the same time. It's right there on the top.

You want a "real argument"? The genre was never as limited as you claim to begin with. Even in the glorious old days of PnP-only, there where A LOT of people playing D&D, GURPS or whatever totally focused on combat. No story, C&C and hardly any dialog at all. Or some "Detective-RPG" with no combat at all. And there were many custom-made rulesets at the time.

Thanks, it wasn't so hard, was it?

So, you say I could make the RPG definition broader. I'll really keep that in mind.
But, here comes another question.

What is the difference between a combat-only RPG with no choice to affect the story and a wargame? There was already a term for that kind of game, why did we need a new term?

If you go for the root, ROLE PLAYING GAMES stand for games where you play an determined character, years before computer games had any story. To play a role before RPG arrived was either to act or it was kids running with plastic gun pretending to be John Wayne. The whole "RPG needs C&C, levels, battle, etc" was created way later, by people desperate to categorize thing, like yourself. In the original sense, even Call of Duty is an RPG.

You are right in your first part. Back in the very old days before DnD, a role playing game was played with predermined characters. But there was a story and people could affect its outcome through their words and actions. It was half scripted and half improvisation.

RPGs gained stats, levels(character progression) and combat rules as a progression to the genre, in an attempt to better emulate the character you are playing. These rules came from wargames where they already tried to emulate real life situations.

But the C&C were already there. And the structured rules of a wargame are what made RPGs a hit. It progressed to something more than just talking. And it became something more than just fighting.

There is a reason to categorise things. It puts things in order. I'll give an example.

Someone commits a crime and you are a witness. When the cops ask you to describe, what do you say? It was a living organism? It was a human? Or do you tell them as many details as you can, effectively categorising the criminal?

So what do you believe C&C in RPG should stand for?

If C&C means more than just dialogue choices

The choice to change the story* depending on what ethics I use in the game for my character. These should be enabled or restricted by my character's skills/tools and the game world's rules. The consequences** should exist and depend on my choices.

* My character is a too-good-guy so I prefer trying to work things out, even with enemies. Or my character is a bastard and I just want to tastefully rape everyone and steal their money.
**If I play the too-good-guy, many npcs tend to trust me more but it's more difficult to get help from shady characters and their special skills. Or if I play the tasteful rapist then npcs regard me as one(if they know) and maybe I get troubles with the authorities.

All of these things should exist to have right C&C. Not just different ways to solve a quest and progress the story. Not just dialogue. Not just choosing what skills/tools I use.
I realise this will always be far from perfect since it is a computer game with its restrictions but what the hell, even in p'n'p it is not perfect. I also realise effort to deliver the right product.

 

[Gord]

The choice to change the story* depending on what ethics I use in the game for my character. These should be enabled or restricted by my character's skills/tools and the game world's rules. The consequences** should exist and depend on my choices.
[...]
All of these things should exist to have right C&C. Not just different ways to solve a quest and progress the story. Not just dialogue. Not just choosing what skills/tools I use.
I realise this will always be far from perfect since it is a computer game with its restrictions but what the hell, even in p'n'p it is not perfect. I also realise effort to deliver the right product.

You are right that this is/would be a nice thing to have.
Of course we need a bit more in between the goody-two-shoes and bastards of stupid-evil alignment.

Still all form of C&C in computer games again leads back to the same problem, which is the (possible) complexity of the underlying story.
When you take a look at different realizations of C&C in games you'll find a lot of what has been labeled "fake" or "flavor" c&c, as it is generally easier to do.

A nice example, imho, can be found in the much beloved DA:O during the Redcliffe questline.
You can choose several approaches to the quest and depending on your previous decisions, some solutions might or might not be available to you. Whatever one may think about the rest of the game, this particular part at least struck me as having been done quite well. However, it's a shame that in the end the result will always be the same (fake c&c, Arl Eamon lives) or at most a slightly different ending slide (flavor c&c).

Again it boils down to someone wanting to tell you a certain story. Every c&c that would have potentially major implications on this story presents problems - due to difficult integration and complications. A human DM can react to this, a computer cannot outside of the scripts the devs have foreseen and implemented.

Anyway, while I find c&c to be nice and all, the reduction of rpgs to the presence of c&c seems to be no particularly better approach to the old "What is an rpg?" problem than others.

 

[Norfleet]

The RPG is basically a war game on a smaller scale. Just as grand strategy has diplomacy and expansion, RPGs have conversations and levelling. That's really the root of RPGs right there: Instead of a vast army of medieval warriors clashing against another vast army of medieval warriors, we now have a small party of medieval warriors clashing against a small party of medieval monsters. When thousands of men face off against thousands of orcs, it's a wargame. When a dozen men face off against a dozen orcs, it's an RPG. When a few dozen men face off against a few dozen orcs, it's Warcraft. When the orcs have lazors, it's WH40K.

 

[Gord]

When thousands of men face off against thousands of orcs, it's a wargame. When a dozen men face off against a dozen orcs, it's an RPG. When a few dozen men face off against a few dozen orcs, it's Warcraft. When the orcs have lazors, it's WH40K.

and when you can romance the gay leader of the ork army it's made by Bioware?

 

[felipepepe]

What is the difference between a combat-only RPG with no choice to affect the story and a wargame? There was already a term for that kind of game, why did we need a new term?

It's more a sense of scale & actual role-playing. In Wargames you command the characters, you are the invisble hand of a commander. In RPG's you are the character. Is the same difference between Hero Quest and Warhammer, that's why I still view HQ as an RPG. You could even say that Wargames are closer to RTS than to RPGs.

And the structured rules of a wargame are what made RPGs a hit. It progressed to something more than just talking. And it became something more than just fighting.

IMHO RPG's where a hit since they were cheaper and could be played in groups. Sometimes all you needed was a D6 and some pieces a paper. The rulesets where just a "preset" way of playing.

There is a reason to categorise things. It puts things in order. I'll give an example.

Someone commits a crime and you are a witness. When the cops ask you to describe, what do you say? It was a living organism? It was a human? Or do you tell them as many details as you can, effectively categorising the criminal?

It's also a double-egded thing to do, as to define something is to limit it. It leads to narrow-minded thinking and stupid things like this whole war of teh Codex to see if Jagged Alliance or Diablo are RPGs.

Using your example, a very specific but wrong description would make the police unable to identify the criminal.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

First of all what really separates old school dnd from a war game is not C&C is LARPing and certainly that was, thankfully, missing from "old-school" computer RPGs.

I larped all through the Gold Box games.

 

[Gord]

First of all what really separates old school dnd from a war game is not C&C is LARPing and certainly that was, thankfully, missing from "old-school" computer RPGs.

I larped all through the Gold Box games.

Yes, if you don't like larping to some extend you're probably in the wrong genre...

 

[mondblut]

What is the difference between a combat-only RPG with no choice to affect the story and a wargame?

The same difference as in 1974. Freedom of exploration. A choice of where to go, whom and when and how to fight or flee from. A wargame is a string of preset battle scenarios. An RPG is a sandbox where you pick local scenarios at will.

 

[Alex_Steel]

You are right that this is/would be a nice thing to have.
Of course we need a bit more in between the goody-two-shoes and bastards of stupid-evil alignment.

Still all form of C&C in computer games again leads back to the same problem, which is the (possible) complexity of the underlying story.
When you take a look at different realizations of C&C in games you'll find a lot of what has been labeled "fake" or "flavor" c&c, as it is generally easier to do.

A nice example, imho, can be found in the much beloved DA:O during the Redcliffe questline.
You can choose several approaches to the quest and depending on your previous decisions, some solutions might or might not be available to you. Whatever one may think about the rest of the game, this particular part at least struck me as having been done quite well. However, it's a shame that in the end the result will always be the same (fake c&c, Arl Eamon lives) or at most a slightly different ending slide (flavor c&c).

Again it boils down to someone wanting to tell you a certain story. Every c&c that would have potentially major implications on this story presents problems - due to difficult integration and complications. A human DM can react to this, a computer cannot outside of the scripts the devs have foreseen and implemented.

Anyway, while I find c&c to be nice and all, the reduction of rpgs to the presence of c&c seems to be no particularly better approach to the old "What is an rpg?" problem than others.

It will always boil down to someone that wants to tell a certain story. Even in p'n'p it is the same. It's a game and it needs cooperation by both the players and the GM.
And while we talk about DA:O, yes, this example is a fake c&c. But there are others in the game. They may not be game altering but at least they give you the sense of rp. Like when you have to choose what to do with Jowan and the quest with the kid changes direction along with the influence you have on your various companions.
And the influence you have on your companions changes a lot through the game.

It's more a sense of scale & actual role-playing. In Wargames you command the characters, you are the invisble hand of a commander. In RPG's you are the character. Is the same difference between Hero Quest and Warhammer, that's why I still view HQ as an RPG. You could even say that Wargames are closer to RTS than to RPGs.

There are skirmish wargames where you use a single character instead of a squad or an army. The first ones came before modern role playing games. Modern role playing games evolved from the oldies (just larping a certain character) and wargames like Chainmail (that also had man-to-man combat rules).

IMHO RPG's where a hit since they were cheaper and could be played in groups. Sometimes all you needed was a D6 and some pieces a paper. The rulesets where just a "preset" way of playing.

RPGs existed before DnD but they were never such a hit. The rules along with the fantasy Tolkien setting made them a hit. But mostly the real life emulation that came through the rules. You didn't just pretend to be someone, you had the skills/stats to make it "true".

Using your example, a very specific but wrong description would make the police unable to identify the criminal.

As the police, it's better to risk having a wrong suspect than to have no suspect at all. :D

The same difference as in 1974. Freedom of exploration. A choice of where to go, whom and when and how to fight or flee from. A wargame is a string of preset battle scenarios. An RPG is a sandbox where you pick local scenarios at will.

Scenarios as in battle/skirmish scenarios?