Epiphany about the nature of RPGs

[Jason Liang]

Also, your examples are silly. Think of Odysseus in your example the archetypical greek hero. The guy is *also* a warrior and not just a "rogue". In fact, he is a diplomat/warrior and under no circumstance do a literal backstab.

Again, you don't understand since you're still stuck thinking class as a collection of feats and skills.

Take for example when Odysseus fights Polyphemus. Does he try to hack him to death with a sword? No. He can use a sword but he isn't a warrior like Achilles. Does he pray to Athena? No. He has Athena's favor, but he isn't a cleric. Instead, he tricks Polyphemus, because he's a rogue. When he returns to Ithaca, does he challenge the other suitors to a duel? No. Instead he uses a disguise and kills them in a trap.

Take another example, Martin Luther King Jr. I don't know if you've seen the movie Selma, but when he has to lead to march across the bridge, does he arm the marchers and lead them on an attack on the police? No. Does he sneak across the bridge at night? No. Instead, he prayed.

 

[vivec]

You ever read the Illiad?

Odysseus was selected in the first place because he was a great warrior in addition to being a clever man. And yes, he does defeat Polyphemus by stabbing him in the eye. But that is because Polyphemus is a freaking giant cyclops. In fact, Odysseus is one of the few warriors from the Achean side all of who reluctantly volunteer to fight Hector one on one. And that list included Ajax.

All of this is beside the point. You conveniently ignored my other examples because you seem to think that by focusing on particularl example you can get away with your delusions.

 

[Bibbimbop]

Priests like Moshe, Jesus, Turpin and Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King was hardly a holy man casting heal spells. His main pastime was sex orgies. (Sexual healing?) He was just a sex-obsessed simpleton who served as a frontman, repeating the words written for him by the communist Jew Stanley Levison. All his famous speeches came from Levison. The FBI files even mention that Levison said he was too stupid to be left to do interviews alone.

Paladins like Roland and Galahad

Roland never casts spells or lays on hands. He's a literal paladin in the old sense, a retainer in Charlemagne's palace, but not in the sense of a D&D class.

That's why Archer isn't a class.

Robin Hood? Definitely not a thief, since he doesn't backstab and has warrior THAC0 levels with a bow.

 

[Jason Liang]

Priests like Moshe, Jesus, Turpin and Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King was hardly casting heal spells. His main pastime was sex orgies. (Sexual healing?) He was just a sex-obsessed simpleton who served as a frontman, repeating the words written for him by the communist Jew Stanley Levison. All his famous speeches came from Levison. The FBI files even mention that Levison said he was too stupid to be left to do interviews alone.

You're confusing story with reality.

Paladins like Roland and Galahad

Roland never casts spells or lays on hands. He's a literal paladin in the old sense, a retainer in Charlemagne's palace, but not in the sense of a D&D class.

That's why Archer isn't a class.

Robin Hood? Definitely not a thief, since he doesn't backstab and has warrior THAC0 levels with a bow.

Again, this is why class is not just defined by feats, abilities and skills. It's not about their abilities and skills. It's about the character's relationship to the story and the world.

 

[vivec]

WHAT has character's relationship with the world to do with class ffs. That is role play. A fighter can pray too, you moron.

 

[Jason Liang]

WHAT has character's relationship with the world to do with class ffs. That is role play. A fighter can pray too, you moron.

Moshe never healed anyone with prayer either. The reason why Moshe and MLK Jr. are classified in the same group, priests, is not because they have similar abilities and skills, but because they have similar stories and roles in those stories.

The reason why Achilles and Odysseus are not the same class is that they are in different stories (The Iliad and the Odyssey are extremely different stories) and they play different roles in those stories, and even in the story that they both appear in, The Iliad, they have very different roles.

You think they should be in the same class since they can both use swords. But what is Achilles' role in the story? He challenges Hector, the most powerful warrior of the Trojans, and kills him in a duel. What is Odysseus' role? He persuades people and devises a way to sneak into Troy. Achilles and Odysseus play very different roles in the story, which is why they represent different character classes.

 

[vivec]

So your definition of class is how you *act* and not what you can *do*? Got it.

 

[Cael]

In fact in the original premise I state CLEARLY that it's WotC and 3E that fucked things up. I gave the example of Midnight using Persuasion, although she's a Wizard class character. That would work under AD&D since AD&D didn't have a formalized skill system, so you would just make some sort of Charisma check (or rather, the target would make a savings throw roll vs. Midnight's CHA score).

OK. This is getting out of hand.

Midnight was a wizard with a high Charisma.
1. She could use Persuade/Diplomacy UNTRAINED.
2. She could put points into it CROSS-CLASS using the COPIOUS amount of skill points wizards get because, get this, their casting stat is INTELLIGENCE.

There is nothing preventing her from using Diplomacy, ESPECIALLY if she has cross-class ranks in it.

In fact, there is nothing in 3.5 that prevents you from taking cross-class skills so long as you have the skill points for it. It is better than 3.0 in that regard because 3.0 DID have class exclusive skills (Use Magic Device, for example).

A class gives a set of general abilities that makes your character more inclined towards one something. There is nothing preventing you from making your character do something contrary to that. Prestige classes allows you to refine where you want your character to go. For example, if you want to make a Captain America or Thor type character, you can take levels in the prestige class Bloodstorm Blade, whose class abilities revolve around throwing melee weapons (which includes large and small shields) and getting it to return to him. A basic Fighter cannot do that.

You are putting far too much emphasis on the bloody label and not understanding the fundamentals of a RPG: Every single stat, class, skill, save, BAB, spell ability, special ability, WHATEVER! is but a tool to create YOUR CHARACTER. The one you want to play. It can be Thor, it can be Robin Hood, it can be Galahad. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is the beauty of the 3.5 class system. It is versatile. It can be broken down to abilities. It can be customised to suit your needs. I have even made an approximation of JEDI using 3.5 DnD rules.

To wit:
I am not a fucking Fighter/Mage/Eldritch Knight/Spellsword/Abjurant Champion, you blithering imbecile!
I am Valerian Nammarie, Champion of Tura'Ithiron, Knight of Leaves, Defender of the Queen and your death, vile ravager of the Grove of Armonia!

What WotC fucked up was 4th Ed.

 

[vivec]

Indeed. 3.5 is freer than 3.0. However, it still has its weird moments. A fighter can never learn to cast *any* spells without entering other base or in rare cases prestige classes. a Wizard cannot be psionist except without multiclassing or with a single spell (mental pinnacle). These restrictions are not very intuitive and can be gotten rid of if you reduce the class to proficiencies. 5.0 is a step in that direction but not quite.

The reason why Achilles and Odysseus are not the same class is that they are in different stories (The Iliad and the Odyssey are extremely different stories) and they play different roles in those stories, and even in the story that they both appear in, The Iliad, they have very different roles.

How the heck does that even matter? Even Nestor appears in the story as an old man who gives advice. Do you make a class called an old man who gives advice for that? In fact, it turns out that if you believe his stories (which the audience does seem to) then he is a warrior greater than any of them. Now what?

Also, you know how Odyssey ends? It ends with Odysseus winning the archery contest and killing all present. In addition to being a moron, you are now also an ignoramus in my eyes.

You think they should be in the same class since they can both use swords. But what is Achilles' role in the story? He challenges Hector, the most powerful warrior of the Trojans, and kills him in a duel. What is Odysseus' role? He persuades people and devises a way to sneak into Troy. Achilles and Odysseus play very different roles in the story, which is why they represent different character classes.

That just puts Achilles on a spectrum, my dude. It just means that he was a *better* fighter than Odysseus and not that he was the only fighter.

 

[Cael]

Indeed. 3.5 is freer than 3.0. However, it still has its weird moments. A fighter can never learn to cast *any* spells without entering other base or in rare cases prestige classes. a Wizard cannot be psionist except without multiclassing or with a single spell (mental pinnacle). These restrictions are not very intuitive and can be gotten rid of if you reduce the class to proficiencies. 5.0 is a step in that direction but not quite.

Sorry, bud. Not touching 5th Ed with a bargepole. I was "fired" from it by the creator of 5th Ed.

:D:D:D

 

[Jason Liang]

So your definition of class is how you *act* and not what you can *do*? Got it.

I've defined character class for you almost 10 times now, and I've used examples to illustrate several times.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Entertaining as this is, I think the class/skill dichotomy kind of misses the point. Or rather, there are lots of distinct issues here and lumping them all into classed vs classless tends to obsure more than it illuminates.

I think we can all agree that the real problem in so many RPGs is the lack of reactivity to player choice, particularly choice in character building. You could have a Fallout/GURPS style classless skill based system, but if the game frequently and dramatically reacted to your tagged skills as though they were an important part of your character that would make for an awesome RPG.

Bloodlines is great because the game reacts to your clan at nearly every turn. But that really has nothing to do with class based vs skill based. There’s no reason you couldn’t do the same thing with skills, it would just require substantially more work for the writers. Maybe not worth the effort, but it’s not incompatible with a skill based system.

Have any of you played the Stygian demo? Rather than classes, you pick archetypes (criminal, investigator, con man, aristocrat, occultist, academic, soldier, explorer etc...) and these determine which of your skills get tagged. So it’s a skill based system that’s somewhat restricted by class, and the demo does a pretty good job of reacting to your character build choices. We’ll have to see how that actually turns out, but the model seems solid.

Maybe the best term to use is just role. We want RPGs that make you pick a role and then react to it via more than a handful meaningful dialogue checks and a bunch of insignificant ones, right?

So the problem with, say, Pillars is that while it has plenty of stat checks, as well as race checks and class checks and skill checks (I admit the skill system was pretty pointless), it’s all kind of scattershot. The world doesn’t react to you consistently in a way that makes you feel like you have a particular role, other than Watcher, which is not a choice and also pretty meh.

But it doesn’t necessarily have to be class that the game reacts to consistently to make you feel like you’re playing a role. An RPG set in a world full of racial violence could make your race the defining feature, or you could have a world of religious war where your faith was the defining characteristic. Maybe I’m a fighter or a cleric or a rogue, but what really matters to NPCs is that I’m a follower of Helm.

Too be fair to the much maligned Tyranny, this is something the game does extremely well with faction because they make you choose your faction early. So you can role play as a rebel, disfavored, scarlet chorus, or anarchist and the world very much cares about that choice.

This is why NWN and NWN2 drove me nuts: great, I can pick all this stuff about my background and my patron deity and countless prestige classes, but no one seems to give a flying fuck that I’m a member of the Neverwinter Nine or a worshipper of the Red Knight. It’s mostly LARPing and I agree, the class stuff is mainly useful for min-maxing.

But anyway, a great RPG needs to be constantly reactive to some characteristic that the player has chosen. When it reacts to every characteristic intermittently, you end up losing the feeling of role playing.

 

[Shin]

RPG's are games about reactivity and player agency in which the player controls a (group of) character(s) that usually improve their ability/abilities throughout the course of the game.

 

[aweigh]

Jason Liang

just wanted to chime in with the obligatory mention that wizardry 5 (and all ensuing wiz-clones, such as elminage) have more spells that do more things than the bradley-wizardry titles, specifically 6 and 7; the change pertaining to spells introduced in 6 and 7 was the ability for the player to select the +/- modifier to the spells accuracy/effect, similarly to how in 6 and 7 bradley implemented the same granulation to standard player attacks.

in terms of amount of spells and spell implementation however 6 and 7 (and 8) actually feature a less robust magic system than all other wiz-clones.

on a side-note an oft-overlooked Wiz-clone called THE DARK SPIRE for the Nintendo DS utilizes the same type of granulation for player attacks and spells (i.e. allows the player to choose the ration of +/- for the attack or spell).

THE DARK SPIRE, however, as it should (since it is 30 years later than wiz 6 and 7), expounds and polishes this specific integration of a Bradley-mechanic and makes it actually work well instead of being an afterthought which slows down actual game-play like it is in wiz 6 and wiz 7.

An example being that in THE DARK SPIRE if your character wielding a ranged weapon (in this example a crossbow) is in the BACK ROW that character is allowed the chance to use a "bombing-like rain of arrows" attack which will have a massive malus on accuracy but, obviously, the chance to hit and damage all enemies.

This is the type of attack granulation that Bradley was going for in wiz 6 and wiz 7 but failed to do as instead of making options like the one above available he simply made players be forced to slog through standard attack and spell-casting choices that amounted to simple plus or minus modifiers for achieving the same dice-rolling result that attacks and spells (mainly spells) already traditionally received in real Wizardry games.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

I'm beginning to think the "Stop Posting"-rating was put in because of posters like Jason Liang.

I honestly don't know which part is worse here: That Jason has tried dozens of times to explain to us what he's on about and seemingly failed every single time, or the fact that this is such a trivial and meaningless "epiphany" that no one besides Jason seems to give a shit, yet the thread has reached four pages.

Take it from someone who has to put up with being snowed in for 4+ months every year, Jason: You sound like an utter loon right now.

Chill. Take five. Breathe through your nose. Let go.

 

[Cael]

I'm beginning to think the "Stop Posting"-rating was put in because of posters like Jason Liang.

I honestly don't know which part is worse here: That Jason has tried dozens of times to explain to us what he's on about and seemingly failed every single time, or the fact that this is such a trivial and meaningless "epiphany" that no one besides Jason seems to give a shit, yet the thread has reached four pages.

Take it from someone who has to put up with being snowed in for 4+ months every year, Jason: You sound like an utter loon right now.

Chill. Take five. Breathe through your nose. Let go.

Dang. Cabin fever?

 

[aweigh]

i dunno, i got the essence of Liang's post easily enough because (I think that) I share it:

- rpgs are the only type of video game that i consider worthy of existing

- i no longer am able to become invested in the constrained story-telling (re: text dumps) of modern RPGs

- what the codex deems "c&c" is not something that is particularly compelling to me because I realize that it's been around for decades in Adventure Gaming and has little to do with actual RPG game play

- though I no longer consider myself a story-fag and prefer combat-centric RPGs, I still am incapable of finding most RPG combat systems interesting

So, like Jason Liang , RPGs are the only kind of video game I deem worth spending time on however I have increasingly become disinterested in all of the things that modern RPGs expound upon as being facets of the RPG template.

However this isn't such a big revelation: the very RPG Codex was founded on the principle that the more we love an RPG the more deserving of our glitterm gem of hatred the RPG becomes.

 

[Silva]

You whine about lack of out-of-combat interactivity in rpgs, then cite D&D - the game responsible for making everything combat-centric in first place - as an example? And forget this "literary roles" bullshit, anyone who read Gygax and Arneson history knows the classes come from war roles: cleric is medic, fighter is soldier and mage is artillery. There wasn't even a thief at first and it was inserted later only because they felt the need for a "explosives expert" disarming traps.

I can relate to you main point, but using D&D as a positive example is WAY off. A better tabletop example would be extensive skill based games like GURPS or BRP to allowing for wide non-combat interaction, or those ultra-focused genre-emulation games that makes it all about simulating specific roles and their idiosyncrasies like Pendragon with its chivalric virtues, Burning Wheel with its heroic beliefs, or Sagas of the Icelanders with it's bad bloods and feuds. Even storyfags like Vampire with its ideology based roles would be better than D&D at this.

 

[Silva]

Oh and I just realized your specific game example is as bad as the tabletop that inspired it: BG2 is a very shitty game for "playing roles" except if you consider these roles (again) martial in nature, because the only thing the game sees is a combatant no matter how much LARPing you do. Arcanum and Fallout are WAY better at acknowledging each little trait of your character, from race to attribute to past deeds etc. If you make a dwarf be ready to hear jokes or be provided opportunities only dwarfs could get, if you make a charismatic swindler be ready to be offered totally distinct options than a dumb fighter trog, etc. BG2 is totally lacking in this respect.

 

[Cael]

You whine about lack of out-of-combat interactivity in rpgs, then cite D&D - the game responsible for making everything combat-centric in first place - as an example? And forget this "literary roles" bullshit, anyone who read Gygax and Arneson history knows the classes come from war roles: cleric is medic, fighter is soldier and mage is artillery. There wasn't even a thief at first and it was inserted later only because they felt the need for a "explosives expert" disarming traps.

DnD descended from a tabletop wargame. A lot of people seem to forget that...

 

[Silva]

Again, the class vs. classless character system is a pertinent but side issue.

The main issue is still this:
a) Skills have become more and more significant to the gameplay of modern RPG design philosophy, as we desire to design RPGs to be more and more interactive outside of combat

YET

b) Thus far the skill system implemented in every modern RPG has ranged for embarrassing to shit. Name one post-NWN RPG where the skill system is actually cool and not a retarded detriment.

Then create a class-based game with no skills whatsoever, or only with skills/abilities pertinent to that class? But this already exists, right? System Shocks, Witchers, Thiefs, Automata, etc are like that, you play a fixed role that define the game experience.

Is that your point?

 

[Jason Liang]

My point has really gotten lost unfortunately. It's a simple point - the decline in computer RPGs in the past 10+ years is due to an increased emphasis on skill-based interaction in gameplay, aggravated by the failure of computer RPG makers to implement an interesting skill system. This decline is the fault of WotC. I use AD&D and 3E as my primary examples not because I think either are perfect, but because each D&D edition simply has a profound effect on the entire gaming industry. D&D, AD&D, 3E and 4E each revolutionized RPG design - but with the case of 3E and 4E, in hindsight these changes were for the worse. 3E did not make RPGs better, but instead moved RPGs away from the essence of the role-playing gaming experience. I can see that clearly now. Yet we are still in the shadow of 3E's influence. In hindsight 3E was not just a dismal failure, it was an absolute catastrophe that continues to wreck RPG design even to this day.

When I worked for White Wolf 14 years ago, I thought it was dumb and lazy for Justin Achilli to stick to this concept of "core classes" whether it was the five basic vampiric clans in the Vampire reboot Requiem - Gangrel (warrior), Ventru (priest), Mekhet (wizard), Nosferatu (rogue), and Daeva (social), or in White Wolf's fantasy rpg Exalted, with it's five basic Solar classes - Dawn (warrior), Zenith (priest), Twilight (wizard), Night (rogue) and Eclipse (social). Now I realize that I was wrong and he was right - the character class concept is essential to rpgs.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is fairly sophisticated as well as nuanced, and I'm tired of trying to defend it against those who are reading into it what they want to read into it without understanding what I'm really saying.

Bloodlines is a great example of a computer RPG, not because of the way it implements skills - which is just as terrible as every other RPG that's tried - but because it understands the goal of RPGs. When you create your character you can customize many things, but the most important choice is choosing your character's vampire clan. That choice determines how the world reacts to your character, changing your gameplay experience. That's the essence of RPGs. There's a world and there's a story. Now you have these seven paths through that world and story - choose one of these seven roles. Not create your own role. Choose one of these seven. The same is true for Age of Decadence. There's one world and one story, but when you create your character you choose a role and get to experience the world and the story very differently depending on which role you chose. These are two examples of RPGs that are designed with an understanding of what a computer RPG experience should be. Age of Decadence has the right idea for what a computer RPG should be; unfortunately like the other RPGs designed post-NWN it's saddled with a retarded skill system.

 

[Silva]

Jason Liang , thanks for the explanation. Can't say what you propose is objectively better than other styles but I for one would prefer if role was a stronger factor in the genre, yes. Coming from game playthroughs where role is emphasized over skills (Witcher, Bloodborne and Automata) I kinda agree. I don't differentiate if a game offers 1 role or a set of roles to choose (like Bloodlines), as long as the opportunities for exploring that role are interesting. And indeed, that's something that the classical isometric CRPG seems to be lacking these days.

I didn't understand your point on skills, though. Could you cite a couple games that make it right in your opinion, so I try to get what you're saying?

 

[Delterius]

That's the essence of RPGs. There's a world and there's a story. Now you have these seven paths through that world and story - choose one of these seven roles.

This is patently untrue, as the skill system allows permutations within and beyond the archetypes.

The same is true for Age of Decadence.

The same applies to AoD, where hybrids are eminently possible.

I don't differentiate if a game offers 1 role or a set of roles to choose (like Bloodlines)

You should.

 

[vivec]

My point has really gotten lost unfortunately. It's a simple point - the decline in computer RPGs in the past 10+ years is due to an increased emphasis on skill-based interaction in gameplay, aggravated by the failure of computer RPG makers to implement an interesting skill system. This decline is the fault of WotC. I use AD&D and 3E as my primary examples not because I think either are perfect, but because each D&D edition simply has a profound effect on the entire gaming industry. D&D, AD&D, 3E and 4E each revolutionized RPG design - but with the case of 3E and 4E, in hindsight these changes were for the worse. 3E did not make RPGs better, but instead moved RPGs away from the essence of the role-playing gaming experience. I can see that clearly now. Yet we are still in the shadow of 3E's influence. In hindsight 3E was not just a dismal failure, it was an absolute catastrophe that continues to wreck RPG design even to this day.

When I worked for White Wolf 14 years ago, I thought it was dumb and lazy for Justin Achilli to stick to this concept of "core classes" whether it was the five basic vampiric clans in the Vampire reboot Requiem - Gangrel (warrior), Ventru (priest), Mekhet (wizard), Nosferatu (rogue), and Daeva (social), or in White Wolf's fantasy rpg Exalted, with it's five basic Solar classes - Dawn (warrior), Zenith (priest), Twilight (wizard), Night (rogue) and Eclipse (social). Now I realize that I was wrong and he was right - the character class concept is essential to rpgs.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is fairly sophisticated as well as nuanced, and I'm tired of trying to defend it against those who are reading into it what they want to read into it without understanding what I'm really saying.

Bloodlines is a great example of a computer RPG, not because of the way it implements skills - which is just as terrible as every other RPG that's tried - but because it understands the goal of RPGs. When you create your character you can customize many things, but the most important choice is choosing your character's vampire clan. That choice determines how the world reacts to your character, changing your gameplay experience. That's the essence of RPGs. There's a world and there's a story. Now you have these seven paths through that world and story - choose one of these seven roles. Not create your own role. Choose one of these seven. The same is true for Age of Decadence. There's one world and one story, but when you create your character you choose a role and get to experience the world and the story very differently depending on which role you chose. These are two examples of RPGs that are designed with an understanding of what a computer RPG experience should be. Age of Decadence has the right idea for what a computer RPG should be; unfortunately like the other RPGs designed post-NWN it's saddled with a retarded skill system.

The underlined part is bogus. Games have become worse because they are being designed in stupid commercially churned out manner. And yes, that applies to Kickstarter BS too. Those are even worse offenders because they seek to profit from nostalgia of idiots who don't know what made old games good (hint: passion and content).