Aspects of computer role-playing games that satisfy you the most

[Maxie]

If you want to know what an RPG is then look at DnD, it defined the genre.

Which was directly inspired by and a natural evolution of Chainmail, the booklet that described rules for miniatures in tactical tabletop play, introducing individual heroes, wizards, etc.

If you're going to attempt to cite history, know it first.

Crispy huffin & puffin WELL GEE WILLIKERS YA RUNTS EVER HEARD OF CHAINMAIL I WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS RELEASED BACK IN 1862

 

[Kabas]

Interpreted "party composition and general party progression" as the simple act of watching your dudes go form rookies to masters.
Watching your HP and mana bars getting bigger, finding a "messenger of seth" for your ranger or a [Skull Trap] spell for your wizard, advancing into a prestige class and looking forward towards the next level-up - small pleasures of life.

 

[ds]

Another thing missing from the list is puzzles - environmental ones, quest that require you to figure things out instead of just killing everything as well as dialogue puzzles. Even mini-games if they are not the copy pasted repetitive kind and somewhat make sense in the world. You could try to fit some of these into other categories if you squint hard enough but I think puzzles deserve their own separate mention.

 

[King Crispy]

I can understand having a riddle in an RPG but if its developers try to integrate some sort of puzzle into dialog itself they should all be round up and publicly ridiculed.

 

[Kabas]

Another thing missing from the list is puzzles - environmental ones, quest that require you to figure things out instead of just killing everything as well as dialogue puzzles. Even mini-games if they are not the copy pasted repetitive kind and somewhat make sense in the world. You could try to fit some of these into other categories if you squint hard enough but I think puzzles deserve their own separate mention.

Wouldn't call this aspect the most satisfying but as a tools to avoid the monotony of combat or to help achieve the ever nebulous "sense of adventure" puzzles and mini-games are indeed welcome.
The Dwarf Run comes to my mind as a good example of a game that balances puzzles and combat together well. Until you reach the arena part at least.

 

[Tihskael]

The ability to bake bread.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Which was directly inspired by and a natural evolution of Chainmail, the booklet that described rules for miniatures in tactical tabletop play, introducing individual heroes, wizards, etc.

If you're going to attempt to cite history, know it first.

I already knew RPGs came from wargaming.

 

[Bibbimbop]

If you want to know what an RPG is then look at DnD, it defined the genre. And by the way, I don't like tabletop games whatever genre they may be, I like video games. I simply want the RPG concept in video game format.

"If you want to know what anal sex is then look at gay men bruising each other's rectums then snowballing the jizz out of their destroyed sphincters, it defined the sex act. And by the way, I don't like gay sex whatever sexual positions they may be, I like pussy. I simply want the anal sex concept in vagina format."

If you like Tabletop, just come out and say it. No one will call you a queer.

 

[King Crispy]

I already knew RPGs came from wargaming.

You sure didn't convey that knowledge.

 

[easychord]

After thinking hard, what I most like about the genre are. 1. The ambient sounds in Planescape: Torment and the abrasive characters. 2. Falling down holes in Legend of Grimrock and finding a new area to map.

 

[ItsChon]

I really liked Humanophage's table so I decided to followup with my own. For context, a one means the feature is irrelevant to me and can sometimes even negatively impact the game just by existing and a five means the feature is necessary in a RPG but isn't something I am particularly interested in, though I do appreciate it when it's done well. The scores between one and five and the scores above five can be extrapolated based off of this. Obviously the ranking is subjective, so if I speak a little definitvely/matter of factly on some of the aspects, just note that I do understand that these things are subjective. I can already picture the TL;DR ratings, but whatever.

Aspect​	Satisfaction​	Commentary​
Character creation. I spend hours on it (if applicable) then I'm often let down by the game itself.	6​	To truly appreciate character creation, I feel like you need to have a proper understanding of the game's systems and what the impact each choice you make will actually have. My level of enjoyment for this is directly tied to how replayable the game is. Games such as Underrail, Dungeon Rats, Age of Decadence, and KotC II are the only games that come to mind for me that stand out as games with amazing character creation and character building. For Underrail, Dungeon Rats, and KotC II, this is a byproduct of how great the combat is, while in Age of Decadence it is a byproduct of how much C&C there is in the game. The fact that character creation and building is contingent upon the quality of other aspects of a RPG is why I do not think it can be rated nearly as highly as other things in this list. Don't get me wrong, character building in Underrail is extremely fun and rewarding, but that's just because of how great the combat is, and how vastly different the various combat styles and builds in the game are. The same applies to KotC II and Dungeon Rats, though it's lessened in these games because in Dungeon Rats you set your attributes and do not change them the entire length of the game, and in KotC II you have so many party slots available that your first play through will already have so many classes in it that you're less likely to play through the game as many times since you'll have seen so many different archetypes already. One can argue that the countless different party compositions leads to increased replayability but that's not something I care too much about. Age of Decadence achieves its replayability and therefore interesting/compelling character creation through story based C&C, in that planning your character is fun because you can only see so much of the game, but there are problems with this approach too. Namely that since Age of Decadence was made by an indie studio, it's difficult to have so many branching paths that require replaying to see without making the game very short and/or cutting content towards the end, which is something Age of Decadence definitely suffers from. All in all, it is something I'm interested in and do appreciate, but it's tertiary to the really important things.
Party composition and general party progression / planning party-based tactics.	4.5​	For the same reasoning as above, this aspect is too dependent on other aspects to be ranked higher. While character creation is tied to great combat/story for it to have value, party composition requires great combat as well as good character creation, tying it to two aspects of a RPG that need to be done well before it can really shine through. A cRPG could have great combat but poor character creation, in which case there is no real depth to party planning or composition. A cRPG could have a lot of depth in its character creation (character creation cannot be great without good combat, so I substitute depth instead) but if the combat is poor you have no reason to actually care about party composition and tactics. Few games manage to do a great job of implementing this while still being great, so while I do appreciate it when it's done well, it's hardly something I look for.
General gameplay. If combat is the primary medium; hearty, deep, tactical combat. The more complex the better, regardless of TB vs RTwP.	10​	There are multiple cRPGs do not have deep, tactical combat, but still manage to be amazing cRPGs. Planescape: Torment, Disco Elysium, Vagrus, and Sunless Sea stand out as examples of this. This is why I changed the aspect to include such cRPGs. In general though, most cRPGs feature combat as the primary form of gameplay, and this is the single most important thing that a cRPG needs to get right. A cRPG with poor combat, when combat is the primary thing you'll be doing the entire game, is simply an inferrior cRPG. Games such as Fallout I & II, Arcanum, Fallout: New Vegas, and other popularly mentioned titles do not qualify as great cRPGs because of how badly they fail at this important cRPG aspect. Despite all of the things they might do well, the fact remains that the game is simply not very fun to to play, at least, not for someone that values gameplay above all the other cRPG aspects. It's important to emphasize the gameplay aspect of this. In a game such as Planescape: Torment, which does not really have great combat, the vast majority of your time is not actually spent in combat. You are instead primarily focused on reading the amazing writing and exploring quests. In Disco Elysium, there is literally no combat at all, and it still manages to be a great cRPG because the core gameplay loop of clicking through dialogue, interacting with your different skills, and learning about the world and the events that have taken place is fantastic. People might compare Arcanum to Planescape: Torment, and ask why I draw a distinction between these two titles, as it can be argued that the primary gameplay of Arcanum is the same or similar to that of Planescape: Torment, and it's poor combat cannot be held against it. To that I'll state that the combat in Planescape: Torment, while not hearty, deep, or tactical, simply feels better than the Arcanum combat for a variety of reasons. I will also add that Arcanum's big issue is how buggy it is, but that is a separate issue entirely. In regards to the gameplay aspect of things, it also applies to games like Vagrus and Sunless Sea, although they obfuscate things a bit as these games have trade and resource management systems which are as critical to the overall quality of the game as the other systems mentioned above. The point is, gameplay is king, and if a game doesn't feel great to play, regardless of what type of gameplay it is, than the game is not going to be good.
The game's storyline, its in-game history, and the setting the game takes place in.	9.5​	I removed the storyfag bit to the aspect because I don't think it's an accurate description of what valuing this aspect of a RPG really is. Second only to the actual gameplay, the setting and writing are some of the most important aspects of a game. While there are games that manage to transcend their subpar settings/writing, these games are surpassed by those that manage to do both the gameplay and the story/setting/writing well. I tie setting and writing together because you often need decent writing to do a decent job of world building. Games are different from novels in that you can use visuals to help the world building process, and while some games do lean more on the visual aspect of world building versus the writing aspect, you need to do both things reasonably well to have a good setting. As mentioned, there are exceptions. Off the top of my head, KotC I & II, Battle Brothers (not a typical cRPG), ToME (rougelike but still), and arguably Dungeon Rats (although it does have the setting of AoD to lean on, and it has great visual world building). But these games succeed despite their poor implementation of this RPG aspect, not because of it. If KotC II was anything other than glorified combat modules (in conjunction with some of the other aspects on this list), it would almost certainly be the greatest cRPG of all time. That is a ridiculous statement of course because this is such a massive part of a cRPG that KotC II would be a completely different game if it actually executed it well. I think this illustrates the sheer impact and importance of this aspect.
The consequences that result from my choices in the game, such as the decision to kill an NPC.	8​	Choice and consequence is important to any cRPG, as having the ability to make choices, with said choices being influenced by your stats, is one of the prerequisites for a game to be considered a cRPG. The question is not whether or not choice and consequence is an important aspect of a cRPG, but instead, how much choice and consequence is required for it to satisfy this requirement. There are multiple types of choice and consequence but they can largely be boiled down to choices and consequences that affect gameplay, and those that affect the setting/story. The reason choice and consequence gets a lower ranking is because it is once again tied to the other RPG aspects. Gameplay related choice and consequence only becomes meaningful if the game actually has good gameplay. Story/setting related choice and consequence only becomes meaningful if the story and setting are actually interesting. There are several different cRPGs with compartively few levels of choice and consequence when compared to other cRPGs that are filled with it. That being said, these cRPGs still manage to be great because of how well they execute the other aspects on this list. This is why, while choice and consequence is incredibily important and can really propel a cRPG to greatness, it isn't as important as some of the other aspects on this list.
Graphics, visual presentation, sound, score, etc. Anything on a surface level that's aesthetic.	9​	This one might be controversial, but I really believe that a cRPGs visuals and presentations are extremely important to its overall quality. Almost every single aspect of this list has the potential to be affected by visual presentation. Combat is more fun and interesting when the animations and characters and the actual area that you're fighting in looks good. The story/setting becomes more impactful and interesting when you can actually see what you're reading/learning and it looks awesome. Items that look cool are more rewarding to find and manage. The reverse is true as well. Shitty animations and art can effect how the combat feels, how interesting the setting is, and how you feel about the items you find. The sound of a game is just as vital too. The right song at the right time can transform an interesting moment in a cRPG to one that you will not forget. The sound of combat can make it feel that much better, the feel of clicking different menu items or dialogue helps settle you into the game and focus on what needs to be focused on, and just like with the visuals, the reverse is also true. This also relates to the style of game you're making. Part of a games visual presentation is whether or not it is isometric, first person, or third person, and this has a direct impact on the entire game as well. I've made it clear in the past that I have a heavy bias for the isometric point of view, so obviously I'm going to place a lot of importance on this RPG aspect. It's important to distinguish between high fidelity graphics, and good graphics. I'm talking about art styles, not polygons and pixel counts. A game that is beautiful is a game that you inherently want to be good so that your brain can be just as satisfied as your eyes. There have been many games that I've played which have potential, but because of poor visuals, sound, and overall presentation, are simply too difficult to enjoy and get into. This, along with the story/setting, and general gameplay, make up the three most important aspects of a cRPG in my eyes.
Inventory management, finding better equipment, that sort of thing. It's a Tetris life for me.	6​	Another aspect of a cRPG that, while being important, is tied to the execution of the other, more important aspects. I actually enjoy mucking about in the inventory screen, organizing things, deciding on what I want to sell and what I want to keep, the whole shebang. Much of this can be tied into choice and consequence however, as you need to make tough choices on what you can keep versus what you need to sell to get some other vital upgrade. In addition to that, you only really care about items if the gameplay that they're effecting is good in and of itself. If you're playing a game with shit, boring combat, why should you care if you found some great item that's going to increase the power of your character? Don't get me wrong, good game itemization and inventory management is a big part of making combat interesting. The feeling that you never know what you're going to get, and constantly searching for a new upgrade improves one's perception of combat by a great deal. If you know you're never going to get anything good from completing a hard encounter, no matter how good the encounter is, you're not going to get as much enjoyment out of it as you would if you knew there was a possibility you'd get something really cool from the encounter. Still, it's contingent on other aspects of a cRPG, and it feels like great itemization and inventory management is something that has more of a negative affect when done poorly versus a positive affect when done well.
Deep party interaction (changed this from the meme poll response above)	4​	Many great cRPGs have little to no party interacton while still remaining great. True party interaction is incredibily difficult to actually make meaningful, and focusing on this aspect of a cRPG often comes as a detriment to other, more important aspects of a cRPG. Don't get me wrong, when it's done well, obviously I'm going to enjoy it, but this has never really stuck as a major selling point to me. Hands down, the least important aspect of a cRPG unless you're going to plan your whole game around it, which I think would be questionable at best.
The exploration, discovery, and general sense of adventure associated with RPGs. Fun!	7​	Another aspect of a cRPG that, while being important, is tied to the execution of the other, more important aspects. This aspect is tied extremely heavily to the setting of a cRPG. An interesting setting is pretty much required if you want to make any of the discoveries that a player makes during their exploration of the world meaningful. What is the point of discovering lore, a secret, or an area in a setting you don't give a fuck about? On top of that, the visuals of a game are really important here too. When discovering a new area, how well that area is represented visually defintiely adds to the sense of awe and excitement you feel upon discovering it. This is just naming a few of the things that tie into exploration and discovery. Obviously the items you find in the newly found area are important, the choices and consequences that lead to discovering the area as well as within the area are important, and so on, and so forth. That being said, it's still a really important aspect to any cRPG, and its high score reflects this despite how it is contingent on other aspects of a RPG to be good for it to be good. Some of the greatest moments in games is when you discover something new that allows you to gain some new insight into the setting and really appreciate the combat encounters that you had to face in discovering that new area.

 

[Desiderius]

What a thoughtful poll, Crispy!

3 not enough

 

[perfectslumbers]

Being able to roleplay my character in dialogue, even if it doesn't have any C&C, is a lot of fun to me. Pillars of Eternity wasn't great but I liked that npcs asked me where I was from and what I'm doing and my opinions on things, made me feel more like a person in the setting than an observer. In general though I can't favour any particular part of an RPG, the best an RPG can do is prioritise its strengths and minimise its weaknesses. Most RPGs are really good at one or two things and should focus on those. Larian games are a good example of doing this wrong. They have good interactivity and combat but terrible writing, so in an ideal world they'd make the story simple and less important and just focus on creating fun scenarios. Instead Larian keeps trying to make interesting stories and companions and it drags their games down a lot.

 

[M. AQVILA]

You sure didn't convey that knowledge.

Because it doesn't matter. Are you going to tell me tactical combat is an integral part of a RPG? The defining features of a RPG is storytelling and interactivity, as well as a focus on characters instead of armies or squads. That's the difference between a tactical game and a RPG.

By the way, I'm not saying the game mechanics are not important, in fact I consider it the most important aspect of any game. But to boil it down to tactical combat is dumb.

 

[ferratilis]

I can understand having a riddle in an RPG but if its developers try to integrate some sort of puzzle into dialog itself they should all be round up and publicly ridiculed.

You mean like this?

 

[ItsChon]

Great riddle. Couldn't do it in my head, had to write it down. If only I was a bit smarter.

 

[Steedless]

Character building and progression, going on cool adventures, and interacting with the world and its inhabitants. That’s why I play RPGs.

It doesn’t hurt if the story is good and there’s a kickass soundtrack either.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Which option is for killing stuff, leveling up, and optimizing your builds?

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Which was directly inspired by and a natural evolution of Chainmail

If you want to be pedantic, Dave Arenson claims that Blackmoor was not based off chainmail, while Blackmoor's megadungeon design was the chief inspiration for D&D. Blackmoor itself was a fantasy evolution of an 1800s setting called 'Braunstein,' mixed with some Barsoom and Conan.

Highly recommend Playing at the World https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047 for a very thorough history of the genre.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

If you want to be pedantic, Dave Arenson claims that Blackmoor was not based off chainmail, while Blackmoor's megadungeon design was the chief inspiration for D&D.

Arneson probably relied primarily on Chainmail for combat rules in his Blackmoor campaign, but of course he pioneered the development of the RPG genre, distinct from tactical combat games, by not only adding character customization/progression but also a variety of exploration-related elements where none had previously existed. His players were entranced by exploration of the Blackmoor Dungeons to the point that they abandoned the mass combat using miniatures in favor of this new type of game.

I highly recommend Jon Peterson's books Playing at the World (development of wargames) and The Game Wizards (creation of D&D and the history of TSR through Gygax's ouster in October 1985).

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Yeah, I just realized Playing at the World is out of print and my copy could be worth $250+

 

[vitellus]

i like having more than three options