Do you get annoyed at the state of RPGs?

[PorkyThePaladin]

I get annoyed at people equating a great game like Witcher 3 with the worthless crappola like Skyrim.

 

[Alex]

I got really pissed at what we got from all those kickstarters. I thought it was going to be a huge revival and I ended up with a lot of games I don't even care enough about to play. Still, I think that was on me. I am the one who tried to see what I wanted in what the devs were promising.

Aside from that, I do hope we some day start getting more role playing games that try to be more like old sandbox P&P RPGs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Falksi]

I get annoyed at people equating a great game like Witcher 3 with the worthless crappola like Skyrim.

I'm not, you're doing that. I'm just using both as examples of games praised for things which they are actually fairly poor at.
Overall think both games have their good poi ts. Would have Skyrim as a 6/10 game, TW3 as a 7.5/10 game.
But think Morrowind is the much better Open World setup, and that TW2 provides the much better story driven setup & structure.

 

[eXalted]

Well, considering today's market I guess BG2, with almost zero chardev and insanely easy combat (without the mods that makes it still easy, but not insanely so) could be considered hardcore. But, also considering the crpg market, actual crpgs, it surely isn't still. It is far from it. How is Pokeman an rpg? Isn't that a card game? Card games are not and never will be rpgs. The rest is just console trash for people who play games and prefer kid's games with some rpg-lite elements due to age or low intelligence or dislike of hobbies requiring thought.

Skyrim is the closest I can get to a role-playing game. There I can be slave, slabe master, succubus, prostitute, junkie, pimp, Jarl's pet, demon's pet, animal's toy, kidnapper, milking cow, egg's host, spriggan wife and so many other things.

 

[YES!]

Well, considering today's market I guess BG2, with almost zero chardev and insanely easy combat (without the mods that makes it still easy, but not insanely so) could be considered hardcore. But, also considering the crpg market, actual crpgs, it surely isn't still. It is far from it. How is Pokeman an rpg? Isn't that a card game? Card games are not and never will be rpgs. The rest is just console trash for people who play games and prefer kid's games with some rpg-lite elements due to age or low intelligence or dislike of hobbies requiring thought.

Hardly any RPG games have character development in the sense you are probably meaning it. "RPG" in videogames doesn't mean the same thing as "RPG" in a tabletop context. For videogames it's more about the mechanical systems involved, with the historical context being they were originally videogames that adapted combat mechanics and settings from tabletop games. The actual "role playing" was mostly lost in translation, but never-the-less the terminology has persisted through to the present and all of the heavily mutated descendants of these games.

Final Fantasy games typically have little or no player choice in anything other than combat and leveling, completely linear stories with fixed casts of characters, but they're what a huge percentage of the population thinks of when you say "RPG". As for Pokemon, no they're not card games. Well there is a card game but that's a spinoff from the main games. Despite being literally games for children they're more mechanically complex than Skyrim or Fallout 4 are. This isn't a high bar, but still.

The only why I can develop my character's personality is by first creating a character (or characters) and second being presented with situations in which I can decide how this character reacts in the given situation. Such as keeping the little girl in your party in T:ToN even though it hurts you mechanically. There are millions of examples of varying degrees, but people would rather have the reward dictate their action so we get light side points and dark side points or their equivalent. I really like when doing the good thing has a steep price to pay. But people usually whine about this. And since a game, more than anything, should be fun and when created for adults should have complexity and plenty of opportunity costs by way of significant and meaningful character mechanical development choices we can at least hope for this as a minimum.

Ill give you a partial brofist for this segment. Although i really dont get why youre shitting on Baldurs Gate 2 in the very next sentence since the difficulty can vary extremely based on what companions you take with you. So your example of taking a weaker character as a burden in your group in order to experience the game in a way that looks more interesting to you is very much emphasized in Baldurs Gate 2.

Without the difficulty tactics mod NG2 has no challenge whatsoever. Seriously. It is just like Kotor or DAs - they made it specifically to not challenge anyone. It is a story game that is extremely combat heavy, and the combat is far too easy to warrant liking. I am more about consistency than twisting narratives to suite my likes. I love Arcanum, Fallout 1 and 2, Bloodlines, and a ton of games that have really bad combat. I am not a big fan of BG2 personally, but I think its clear the combat is way too easy and that is why the tactics mod is considered a necessity.

 

[YES!]

Well, considering today's market I guess BG2, with almost zero chardev and insanely easy combat (without the mods that makes it still easy, but not insanely so) could be considered hardcore. But, also considering the crpg market, actual crpgs, it surely isn't still. It is far from it. How is Pokeman an rpg? Isn't that a card game? Card games are not and never will be rpgs. The rest is just console trash for people who play games and prefer kid's games with some rpg-lite elements due to age or low intelligence or dislike of hobbies requiring thought.

Skyrim is the closest I can get to a role-playing game. There I can be slave, slabe master, succubus, prostitute, junkie, pimp, Jarl's pet, demon's pet, animal's toy, kidnapper, milking cow, egg's host, spriggan wife and so many other things.

All the while never presented with one tough battle and having your 3 stats be resources. I think Skyrim is a horrible game, mechanics wise. I did enjoy the Enderal OH very much. I also enjoyed Skyrim for a little bit with tons of mods changing functionality. I can't think of the mod offhand but it was about the gods and had a great roleplaying feature that should be used for all rpgs - it limited the actions you could partake in by your choice of god. If you followed a good god you had a limited amount of attempts to steal, picklocks, assault, murder, etc, before you were "outcast" and had to do some sort of shit to be favored again and get the god's buff. It was a supplement to an overhaul mod that made combat very challenging in the beginning, but then you became OP and the game sucked again. But that stuck with me about the self-governed limiting of actions. Of course, ToEE has fallen paladins but it isn't really the same.

What I am saying is, sure, in-moded Skyrim had a lot of content - but without good mechanics and a challenge it is too much of a kid's game to take seriously. My young kids successfully play Skyrim on their filthy monkey consoles. Any game a kid can be good at isn't a good game. None of my kids could ever figure out or be successful in any of my favorite games because they are too complicated for kids.

 

[AngryEddy]

I got really pissed at what we got from all those kickstarters. I thought it was going to be a huge revival and I ended up with a lot of games I don't even care enough about to play. Still, I think that was on me. I am the one who tried to see what I wanted in what the devs were promising.

Aside from that, I do hope we some day start getting more role playing games that try to be more like old sandbox P&P RPGs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

thats your fucking fault for trusting mulatto hipsters and transwomyn to make engrossing, edgy videogames lol. blame yourself for ur fucked up racial radar. hey y wont that empowered dyke make alpha centauri 2 FUCKIN CVNT!!!!

 

[YES!]

I got really pissed at what we got from all those kickstarters. I thought it was going to be a huge revival and I ended up with a lot of games I don't even care enough about to play. Still, I think that was on me. I am the one who tried to see what I wanted in what the devs were promising.

Aside from that, I do hope we some day start getting more role playing games that try to be more like old sandbox P&P RPGs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

What is a sandbox P&P rpg? How is it different from a non-sandbox P&P rpg? This isn't clicking in my head. Are you saying P&P rpgs that never had campaigns or modules for sale thus forcing the GM to come up with his own stuff?

I was very pleasantry surprised by how good the kickstarted games have been that are crpgs. WL2 DC is a masterpiece, D:OS was a good game, T:ToN another instant classic, PoE and Tyranny were both solid crpgs if way too easy, like BG2. I'm very much looking forward to Bards Tale and WL3 (though the "modernization" of the design and developed for both pc and console leaves me skeptical for WL3).

If you are talking about hipster bullshit I'm not sure what has been kickstarted. I think Darkest Dungeon was but that is far from being an rpg.

 

[eXalted]

-snip-

Seriously now, Skyrim could be a great open-world game but it's so shallow and simple it hurts.

The most annoying thing about the whole RPG genre is that in every game, there is always something that the game is totally missing and not doing right - be it combat system, plot, illogical C&C, etc.

 

[Serus]

I got really pissed at what we got from all those kickstarters. I thought it was going to be a huge revival and I ended up with a lot of games I don't even care enough about to play. Still, I think that was on me. I am the one who tried to see what I wanted in what the devs were promising.

Aside from that, I do hope we some day start getting more role playing games that try to be more like old sandbox P&P RPGs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

What is a sandbox P&P rpg? How is it different from a non-sandbox P&P rpg? This isn't clicking in my head. Are you saying P&P rpgs that never had campaigns or modules for sale thus forcing the GM to come up with his own stuff?

I was very pleasantry surprised by how good the kickstarted games have been that are crpgs. WL2 DC is a masterpiece, D:OS was a good game, T:ToN another instant classic, PoE and Tyranny were both solid crpgs if way too easy, like BG2. I'm very much looking forward to Bards Tale and WL3 (though the "modernization" of the design and developed for both pc and console leaves me skeptical for WL3).

If you are talking about hipster bullshit I'm not sure what has been kickstarted. I think Darkest Dungeon was but that is far from being an rpg.

I assume sandbox pnp rpg is when the GM doesn't "force" the party to go through a pre-planned path, there is no end-goal but just makes up a lot of things on the fly. I did play like that long time ago and it was great - but it requires a really good GM to pull it off.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Yeah, a lot of sandbox tabletop not only requires a good DM but good players. So often it devolves into "We start a barfight" or "We murder the shopkeeper and take his stuff."

My games always involved a pre-planned story with events, quests, dungeons all fixed but outcomes and results dependent on player action. So that would be a more linear tabletop design, vs the DM just saying "What do you guys want to do?" and making stuff up on the fly.

 

[fantadomat]

I assume sandbox pnp rpg is when the GM doesn't "force" the party to go through a pre-planned path, there is no end-goal but just makes up a lot of things on the fly. I did play like that long time ago and it was great - but it requires a really good GM to pull it off.

Yeah,being a good GM does require to have good imagination,to have read a few good book and to be grounded in reality.I always have a few basic ideas for quest and try to steer the players in.Also i never play in the default worlds and try to invent my own monsters,gods and all those things.

 

[YES!]

I got really pissed at what we got from all those kickstarters. I thought it was going to be a huge revival and I ended up with a lot of games I don't even care enough about to play. Still, I think that was on me. I am the one who tried to see what I wanted in what the devs were promising.

Aside from that, I do hope we some day start getting more role playing games that try to be more like old sandbox P&P RPGs, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

What is a sandbox P&P rpg? How is it different from a non-sandbox P&P rpg? This isn't clicking in my head. Are you saying P&P rpgs that never had campaigns or modules for sale thus forcing the GM to come up with his own stuff?

I was very pleasantry surprised by how good the kickstarted games have been that are crpgs. WL2 DC is a masterpiece, D:OS was a good game, T:ToN another instant classic, PoE and Tyranny were both solid crpgs if way too easy, like BG2. I'm very much looking forward to Bards Tale and WL3 (though the "modernization" of the design and developed for both pc and console leaves me skeptical for WL3).

If you are talking about hipster bullshit I'm not sure what has been kickstarted. I think Darkest Dungeon was but that is far from being an rpg.

I assume sandbox pnp rpg is when the GM doesn't "force" the party to go through a pre-planned path, there is no end-goal but just makes up a lot of things on the fly. I did play like that long time ago and it was great - but it requires a really good GM to pull it off.

I don't have P&P experience but how is every P&P rpg session not a sandbox? If it isn't a sandbox, and isn't one of those free modules companies like white wolf come out with for completely new players to try one of their settings, being sandbox is the very nature of an rpg. I already quoted Gygex in this thread saying that if the GM is directing you are not playing a roleplaying game. If everything is prescript events but improvised dialogues it is more like the set of "Curb your Enthusiasm" than any sort of game.

 

[ore clover]

I don't see another crash coming ever outside of a nuclear holocaust.... It's not simply going to die off.

I know; that's what bothers me.

I just wanna watch the world of walking sims and "cinematic gaming" burn, damnit!

 

[buru5]

I don't see another crash coming ever outside of a nuclear holocaust.... It's not simply going to die off.

I know; that's what bothers me.

I just wanna watch the world of walking sims and "cinematic gaming" burn, damnit!

Same

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I don't have P&P experience but how is every P&P rpg session not a sandbox? If it isn't a sandbox, and isn't one of those free modules companies like white wolf come out with for completely new players to try one of their settings, being sandbox is the very nature of an rpg. I already quoted Gygex in this thread saying that if the GM is directing you are not playing a roleplaying game. If everything is prescript events but improvised dialogues it is more like the set of "Curb your Enthusiasm" than any sort of game.

They're sandboxes but the sandboxes are small, not what you would consider open-world for today's standards.

I'm only one guy who does this in my spare time. I only have time to draw, flesh out, add encounters, treasures, traps, and puzzles for one dungeon or adventure per week. If the players decide to blow off the dungeon and do something else, I have to manage that, and it's not going to be as good as the pre-planned content. I know it, and the players know it. So everyone understands if I planned a dungeon, they do the dungeon or they don't get a decent adventure. There's still plenty of room to "sandbox" within the dungeon itself, and the players are free to tackle the obstacles and challenges how they want. That's probably what Gygax mean by letting the players direct the game. But also keep in mind the entire game of D&D back then was limited to dungeon crawling, often a single mega-dungeon that consisted of the entire campaign. RPGs have long since moved past that type of playstyle, both tabletop and otherwise.

My campaigns always feature a lot of player-directed choices and give them direct roles in the story. Plenty of freedom to tackle problems how they want and often decide the fate of nations and empires. But no they don't really qualify as "sandbox" like a modern open-world game.

 

[YES!]

I don't have P&P experience but how is every P&P rpg session not a sandbox? If it isn't a sandbox, and isn't one of those free modules companies like white wolf come out with for completely new players to try one of their settings, being sandbox is the very nature of an rpg. I already quoted Gygex in this thread saying that if the GM is directing you are not playing a roleplaying game. If everything is prescript events but improvised dialogues it is more like the set of "Curb your Enthusiasm" than any sort of game.

They're sandboxes but the sandboxes are small, not what you would consider open-world for today's standards.

I'm only one guy who does this in my spare time. I only have time to draw, flesh out, add encounters, treasures, traps, and puzzles for one dungeon or adventure per week. If the players decide to blow off the dungeon and do something else, I have to manage that, and it's not going to be as good as the pre-planned content. I know it, and the players know it. So everyone understands if I planned a dungeon, they do the dungeon or they don't get a decent adventure. There's still plenty of room to "sandbox" within the dungeon itself, and the players are free to tackle the obstacles and challenges how they want. That's probably what Gygax mean by letting the players direct the game. But also keep in mind the entire game of D&D back then was limited to dungeon crawling, often a single mega-dungeon that consisted of the entire campaign. RPGs have long since moved past that type of playstyle, both tabletop and otherwise.

My campaigns always feature a lot of player-directed choices and give them direct roles in the story. Plenty of freedom to tackle problems how they want and often decide the fate of nations and empires. But no they don't really qualify as "sandbox" like a modern open-world game.

Are you saying open world by today's standard of video games? Because that is pure insanity. Just because you can go anywhere doesn't mean you can do anything. The limited (if any) choices you have are hard coded, the content is all hard coded, you can go anywhere but only do what you are allowed to how you are allowed to with no refinement or ambiguity in what is or is not allowed. This is articulated in every game. The good choice is what some 22 year old hippy decided was the good choice, no matter how little sense it makes for the context or setting and norms and mors of the population of the setting. It is anachronisms at there worst (and fantastical since these worlds are invented and not historic). But besides the skewed filters, the restrictions on how you do things is what makes P&P open. In Skyrim you can go anywhere and do anything content at anytime maybe, and in a p&p game you may be nudged to a specific dungeon, but your imagination is the limit on how you approach issues or things (within the confines of the game rules or house rules or made up on the spot rules).

I would much rather have way less but way better content. More almost always equals worse. Just like in combat heavy games - they go RTWP and pick a mindless system for idiots just for fluff. I'd rather go where I am supposed to but have a million choices on how to approach it, or have a single but awesome battle that really causes me to invent new strategies and use my brain and be really involved than click and watch and select the light side choice that I disagree with but am being force to by the game and game's mechanics.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Yeah you got it. In Skyrim you can go to 20 different dungeons but they're alll bland, while in a good tabletop game you can only go to one dungeon but you have tons of different options on how to approach it.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Ah I remember one game, the players were tasked with killing an informant who was being held in an underground prison in a city (aka an actual dungeon). I didn't really plan a solution but I figured they would either try to fight their way in or use some kind of bluff scheme. Instead they looked at the map and found that the dungeon was right underneath the marketplace. So they rented a stall and proceeded to tunnel into the prison, while selling the dirt they excavated ("Get yer magic dirt here! Good for all ailments!")

I suppose you could call this "sandbox" playstyle but I think something like "Improvisational Problem Solving" fits better. You give the players problems and let them figure out a solution.

 

[Mustawd]

I used to get upset that rpgs did not get AAA budgets, but I don't anymore.

Really, if I think back to someof my favorite RPGs it wouldn't take a AAA company to emulate what I love about them.

 

[YES!]

I think why Arcanum and the Fallouts are so special to so many people is because of how much character you can give your character. I had a lot of fun playing the background story in Arcanum called something like "Idiot Savant" where you get only the stupid dialogue options. Tim Cain seems to be big in allowing people the ability to make characters that can really define their personality through interacting with people, like I assume happens in P&P games. That is something you don't see a ton of.

I know AoD tried, and succeeded in some ways way more than Arcanum or the Fallouts, but the focus on guilds for progression limited what I could do. In an SP game there are only certain types of characters I am interested in playing (that I can play in a full party game). Be a merchant? No thank you. Be an assassin? No, my guy isn't a backstabbing cretin. Be a thief? Not for bread and butter. I may create someone who steals out of necessity or opportunity but he is a fighter first and foremost. Being a scholar type is doable as he can be a fighter first who wants to explore ruins - somewhat of an Indiana Jones if he was a mercenary and not a professor. AoD is still a great game though.

 

[fantadomat]

I think why Arcanum and the Fallouts are so special to so many people is because of how much character you can give your character. I had a lot of fun playing the background story in Arcanum called something like "Idiot Savant" where you get only the stupid dialogue options. Tim Cain seems to be big in allowing people the ability to make characters that can really define their personality through interacting with people, like I assume happens in P&P games. That is something you don't see a ton of.

I know AoD tried, and succeeded in some ways way more than Arcanum or the Fallouts, but the focus on guilds for progression limited what I could do. In an SP game there are only certain types of characters I am interested in playing (that I can play in a full party game). Be a merchant? No thank you. Be an assassin? No, my guy isn't a backstabbing cretin. Be a thief? Not for bread and butter. I may create someone who steals out of necessity or opportunity but he is a fighter first and foremost. Being a scholar type is doable as he can be a fighter first who wants to explore ruins - somewhat of an Indiana Jones if he was a mercenary and not a professor. AoD is still a great game though.

Hahahaha it is interesting how you compare AoD to Fallout and Arcanum based on roleplaying freedom.AoD is one of most restricted linear games that i have seen.Even CoD have more freedom than AoD.In that game you had to choose a class and pump points in it and nothing else.If you weren't a soldier then don't even think of fighting.Most of the game was locked behind skill checks that you either had to restart the game or cheat to progress.And you are comparing it to games that you could be a jack of all trades and eventually master of all.

 

[YES!]

I think why Arcanum and the Fallouts are so special to so many people is because of how much character you can give your character. I had a lot of fun playing the background story in Arcanum called something like "Idiot Savant" where you get only the stupid dialogue options. Tim Cain seems to be big in allowing people the ability to make characters that can really define their personality through interacting with people, like I assume happens in P&P games. That is something you don't see a ton of.

I know AoD tried, and succeeded in some ways way more than Arcanum or the Fallouts, but the focus on guilds for progression limited what I could do. In an SP game there are only certain types of characters I am interested in playing (that I can play in a full party game). Be a merchant? No thank you. Be an assassin? No, my guy isn't a backstabbing cretin. Be a thief? Not for bread and butter. I may create someone who steals out of necessity or opportunity but he is a fighter first and foremost. Being a scholar type is doable as he can be a fighter first who wants to explore ruins - somewhat of an Indiana Jones if he was a mercenary and not a professor. AoD is still a great game though.

Hahahaha it is interesting how you compare AoD to Fallout and Arcanum based on roleplaying freedom.AoD is one of most restricted linear games that i have seen.Even CoD have more freedom than AoD.In that game you had to choose a class and pump points in it and nothing else.If you weren't a soldier then don't even think of fighting.Most of the game was locked behind skill checks that you either had to restart the game or cheat to progress.And you are comparing it to games that you could be a jack of all trades and eventually master of all.

Because in Arcanum and Fallout if you didn't pump points into combat stats you were successful at fighting? Oh, they were all combat stats for the most part. Your example of how it wasn't free articulates what the game allows you more options to progress through the game than most do. How successful would you be going up against a group of professional soldiers? Not very I am guessing. So you are knocking a game for being realistic and allowing non-combats a way to progress as well as combatants.

I despise games that allow you to be a master of all trades, and the only way to be OP in either game and be a master of all is by gaming the system and summoning monsters non stop at certain points like the missing guy's workshop with the never ending portal, or by doing the content. By the time you are OP in either game you are way deep in it with little content left. In FO both games have time limits so you can't fuck around getting travel events ad nauseam and beat the game.

And those skills checks you are whining about are what gave both FOs and Arcanum such high replay values. Different builds to do different things. People whine about the combat in AoD but it wasn't bad. There were only a couple battles I had to restart a couple times. Other than that the don't be stupid rule won the day. That is the key to success in life in general - don't be stupid. Think, plan, execute, adapt, repeat. I was able to successfully play through with a combat heavy character with thief skills and a combat heavy character with the scholar/archeologist type skills and yet another with some blacksmith skills. I never played through as a pure fighter, and all tried different weapon combos (or single weapon). All approached combat differently so I could pass different skill checks.

 

[fantadomat]

Because in Arcanum and Fallout if you didn't pump points into combat stats you were successful at fighting? Oh, they were all combat stats for the most part. Your example of how it wasn't free articulates what the game allows you more options to progress through the game than most do. How successful would you be going up against a group of professional soldiers? Not very I am guessing. So you are knocking a game for being realistic and allowing non-combats a way to progress as well as combatants.

I despise games that allow you to be a master of all trades, and the only way to be OP in either game and be a master of all is by gaming the system and summoning monsters non stop at certain points like the missing guy's workshop with the never ending portal, or by doing the content. By the time you are OP in either game you are way deep in it with little content left. In FO both games have time limits so you can't fuck around getting travel events ad nauseam and beat the game.

And those skills checks you are whining about are what gave both FOs and Arcanum such high replay values. Different builds to do different things. People whine about the combat in AoD but it wasn't bad. There were only a couple battles I had to restart a couple times. Other than that the don't be stupid rule won the day. That is the key to success in life in general - don't be stupid. Think, plan, execute, adapt, repeat. I was able to successfully play through with a combat heavy character with thief skills and a combat heavy character with the scholar/archeologist type skills and yet another with some blacksmith skills. I never played through as a pure fighter, and all tried different weapon combos (or single weapon). All approached combat differently so I could pass different skill checks.

First of all i don't hate AoD,it is not for me and i get it why people enjoy it.If you enjoy it then more power to you.In Arcanum you could reach the last level before entering the second half.There is bunch of encounters and a lot of quest.Also both the Fallout and Arcanum let you pass all the checks if you are an experienced rpg player.As off realism....well in real live you don't send a level one character that couldn't beat bunch of hobos with sticks on worlds domination quest.You send a highly skilled professional with a multitude of skills.And yes in arcanum you could good in combat without having a single point in combat skills,you could be support mage with a lot of companions or you could be a summoner.If you like that much gated content the you must love Tyranny.

 

[Iznaliu]

I don't see another crash coming ever outside of a nuclear holocaust. Games are reaching more people and have a larger demographic than ever before, especially larger than during the original video game crash. Games are a global phenomenon now, on par with cinema and music. It's not simply going to die off.

The same was starting to happen in 1983.

I'm very much looking forward to Bards Tale and WL3 (though the "modernization" of the design and developed for both pc and console leaves me skeptical for WL3).

Why don't you see Mr. Ponzi for what he is?