Hi everybody,
I think a reasonable hypothesis is that enjoyment of adventure games affects how role playing games are played.
So, firstly, do you enjoy adventure games? Additionally, which adventure gaming series do you most enjoy?
I've enjoyed some. When I was growing up I played consoles exclusively. All I can remember from that time which was advenure-ish was Zelda and Castelvania, both of which I never forgot because of how they made me feel like I was in another world. Adventures of Maddog Wiliams and Hugo's House of Horror's and Myst and Privateer and Under A Killing Moon (starring Tex Murphy) were PC games I enjoyed early on. I tried playing Tomb Raider, but other than her boobs, it was hard to stay interested. I did like the jumping and running stuff and escaping from the T-Rex and some shooting bits, but outside some action the world just felt so boring. I've also enjoyed more recent adventure-ish games like X: Beyond The Frontier and X2: The Threat.
Secondly, how do you prefer to play role playing games? Specifically, do you enjoy speed running and power gaming?
I hate speed running. I've power gamed only insofar as trying to play effectively, but I refrain from using walkthroughs or cheats. For me the joy of the game is learning how it works, exploring and building up my cache of loot.
For example I do not enjoy adventure games and, with few exceptions, the only enjoyment I get from role playing games is optimizing my party build strategy, combat tactics, and order of travel, so that I complete the game (usually in a completionist sense) in the lowest amount of in-game time possible. Hence, for me, "Might and magic 6" represents a very high point in role playing game design
What separates roleplaying games from adventure games, at least for me, are:
1) Much deeper world and non-player characters
2) Can interact with the world and characters to change what happens (in the story too)
I don't think RPGs necessarily need overt skills/stats, but they do need a deep mechanics system. For example, no piercing/slashing/etc skills are needed, but having piercing/slashing/blunt/magic ATTACKS in combat adds some variety, as well as things like stunning and slipping and jumping and pushing and other effects or actions. The important thing is combat isn't
just a button mashing affair, but requires some thought. Everything else in the game should be that way too. Being able to set traps or to poison an enemy or to pick a lock or to persuade a person to talk to you or to do any number of other things are all mechanics which add to the character<->world interaction. RPGs to me wouldn't be RPGs without these sort of deep systems.
It's the distinction between playing a role and playing a character which separates me from the crowd. The standard convention in RPGs is we're playing our character, not ourselves. Therefore, if my character is bad at fishing then I will suck at fishing until I can get their skill higher. I can't just pickup a fishing pole and, assuming I know how, be a master. And yet that's what I'd like to do. If I know how to do it then I should be a master. I don't want to be constrained by a stat my character has. I think I'm ok with being constrained by money or faction or friends, but character skills/stats seem too artificial.
Maybe the reason I feel this way is because it comes with an unstated expectation: Even if I can do anything in the game as long as I know how to do it and have the means, I still don't want it to be easy. I still want it to be hard.
