Incline Okay let's be real here... Which games can never be RPGs?

[HappyDaddyWow!]

Again I find this too vague to accept because there are plenty of games you'd consider an RPG without these elements, and plenty of games with these elements that you wouldn't consider an RPG. The Sims has character customization, logistics/resource management, navigation and exploration, stat based progression, etc. But many would probably take issue with calling it an RPG.

Yeah, the sims is perhaps 50% RPG. Lacking adventure/exploration/navigation/combat/dungeon delving or whatever. The question is where do we draw the line at true RPG? somewhere between 70-95%. Like I said.

I guess maybe, just maybe you can include one non-gameplay addendum then to really nail it down based on the established rules of the past: it has to be masculine fantasy. Themes of conquest, heroism, adventure. Girly or low-T stuff like Sims can be no RPG....right? Right? Other than that - which I am still not quite confident in but it is the established rule of the past and shared among almost every one of them - RPG is otherwise all defined by gameplay convention. That I absolutely am confident in.

We can let the girls in can't we? lol. Don't do it they ruin everything, them and their endless simps. Whoops too late.

I can't remember the name, but one of the most acclaimed fan made neverwinter nights campaigns was made by a woman and written with a female perspective in mind.

So, clearly, even if a game is feminine or has female oriented themes, it can still be an RPG.

 

[Sigourn]

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["role-playing game"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the video game involved in this case is not that.

 

[Sigourn]

Right, but knowledge and its application is also a skill. It's impossible to remove player skill from the equation when it comes to how well you perform in an RPG, unless the intention of the OP was to exclude all player skill that relates to hand-eye coordination specifically.

Agree. Much more skill is required to beat a classic cRPG than to beat a game like New Vegas at Hard difficulty. Just because a game has action combat doesn't mean it is Dark Souls.

 

[Ash]

Again I find this too vague to accept because there are plenty of games you'd consider an RPG without these elements, and plenty of games with these elements that you wouldn't consider an RPG. The Sims has character customization, logistics/resource management, navigation and exploration, stat based progression, etc. But many would probably take issue with calling it an RPG.

Yeah, the sims is perhaps 50% RPG. Lacking adventure/exploration/navigation/combat/dungeon delving or whatever. The question is where do we draw the line at true RPG? somewhere between 70-95%. Like I said.

I guess maybe, just maybe you can include one non-gameplay addendum then to really nail it down based on the established rules of the past: it has to be masculine fantasy. Themes of conquest, heroism, adventure. Girly or low-T stuff like Sims can be no RPG....right? Right? Other than that - which I am still not quite confident in but it is the established rule of the past and shared among almost every one of them - RPG is otherwise all defined by gameplay convention. That I absolutely am confident in.

We can let the girls in can't we? lol. Don't do it they ruin everything, them and their endless simps. Whoops too late.

I can't remember the name, but one of the most acclaimed fan made neverwinter nights campaigns was made by a woman and written with a female perspective in mind.

So, clearly, even if a game is feminine or has female oriented themes, it can still be an RPG.

Absolutely an RPG...if it still contains all or most of the established core gameplay design tenets of an RPG. This is very simple to comprehend and there isn't any other logical way to approach this, so I don't know what the arguments and confusion are about. All you said there is the writing style changed. But the game is still about conquest, dungeon delving, combat tactics and such? Not very typical of female psychology. I would imagine the mod ISNT about those things in reality, but still features them merely as a byproduct of it being a mod for an RPG. In reality the woman probably didn't care about any of that and it was merely a vessel to express her writing ambitions or fantasies. Typical storyfaggot stuff (9/10 male storyfaggots are low-t soy boys, statistics show!). Who knows, maybe she is an outlier and is super into RPG gameplay concepts. Doubtful though, there is a reason there are hardly any women into cRPG. Quite a few into TTRPG though, and this is because there is a heavy social component to it.

Also...Bioware "RPG". Of the ones I played (3 games), they're fake or lite RPGs. < 70% qualifiers met. And also attract women because of heavy social component, fictional sex and romance. Not played NWN and never will though, I avoid Bioware shit like the plague. This is because I care about proper RPG gameplay concepts on the whole and not mere storyfag fluff or social simulation alone. Those things are cool...when attached to a proper role-playing game. Not a CYOA or virtual romance story sim with low effort combat attached.

 

[luj1]

but knowledge and its application is also a skill. It's impossible to remove player skill from the equation

You are overly pedantic. Physical player skill, not knowledge...

 

[Faarbaute]

Gothic 1 and 2 could IMO, correctly be considered as "true" action role playing games, showing that there is at least some validity to such a categorization, even when it starts to get muddy at some point.

 

[luj1]

Gothic 1 and 2 could IMO, correctly be considered as "true" action role playing games

What is the to-hit formula in Gothic?

 

[Faarbaute]

Gothic 1 and 2 could IMO, correctly be considered as "true" action role playing games

What is the to-hit formula in Gothic?

You tell me.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Right, but knowledge and its application is also a skill. It's impossible to remove player skill from the equation when it comes to how well you perform in an RPG, unless the intention of the OP was to exclude all player skill that relates to hand-eye coordination specifically.

What are you talking about? Your argument sound disingenuous, what's next, if you can use a computer to start the game then that clashes with your 3 Int character? It's pretty simple, if the main encounter resolution in a game is represented by an abstract stat i.e. simulated by a stat i.e. you are ROLEPLAYING then whenever your real physical ability to manipulate your character is at odds or doesn't have a stat that represent said action it's not RPG. Morrowind- RPG, Oblivion- Action game, because their main encounter resolution in this case is combat and combat in Morrowind is based on hit chance stat and in Oblivion is not. This is integral part of the game, the main design goal when creating the game- you go on adventure to kill shit to level up, so everything else is secondary to the main game mechanic i.e. combat. You can have other mechanics that are govened by pure action without coresponding stat and that is another topic, but everything must first be examined thru the lens of the main activity presented in the game i.e the main thing you do in the game.

So for me there are three charcteristic a game must have so it can be called RPG. 1) Encounter resolution thru chracter stats 2) Progression system for you chracter(s) 3) Adventure like expiriance (ofter just called "story" but that could be misleading). I'm open to adding other quilifiers if they are presented to further differentiate game genres. The degree to which any of the three is implemented is up to debate, but if any of the said three is missing a game can't be RPG.

 

[Frozen]

Actually, it's everything opposite from OP.

We need progress, real time and new mechanics is the way forward. We need totally new mechanics not even tried before, experimentation.

ACTION combat based on SKILL and REFLEXES is more of an RPG than turn based and stats based, that were just preferable because there was no other option, limitations of the times.

"Old school" rpgs are more a strategy game than rpgs.

What is really killing RPGs, games in general is not even mainstream globohomo corpo AAAAAA++++++ dicks milking mmo transactions and games as casinos.

What is killing gaming is losers wanting to play basically, the same game over and over and over and even bigger losers making it possible (Sawyer, Tod etc.)

When "old school" came out it was interesting because it was something new. It's not new for 30y+

I want new games, new RPGs, I have already played old ones.

 

[luj1]

Gothic 1 and 2 could IMO, correctly be considered as "true" action role playing games

What is the to-hit formula in Gothic?

You tell me.

It doesn't exist? If you swing at something, you hit it. Morrowind is realtime as well but it implements to-hit and spell cast calculations.

 

[Faarbaute]

Gothic 1 and 2 could IMO, correctly be considered as "true" action role playing games

What is the to-hit formula in Gothic?

You tell me.

It doesn't exist? If you swing at something, you hit it. Morrowind is realtime as well but it implements to-hit and spell cast calculations.

That's what makes it an action role playing game as opposed to just a regular role playing game.

 

[Faarbaute]

On a separate but related matter, what do you guys think of this as a compromise with the Disco Elysium fags: that it can be considered as belonging to a sub-category of RPGs, one that should hence forth be refered to as walkie-talkies?

 

[Iucounu]

Stat based combat and dice rolls make sense in TTRPGs, since there's no other way to do represent combat in that medium. But in CRPGs we do have another way: reflex-based combat. So is there any particular reason to use primarily stat based combat in CRPGs in all situations, or is it just a vestige retained for fundamentalist or nostalgic reasons?

I think both systems have their uses in CRPGs, depending on the situation:

- Bad use of stats: not even correctly aimed pistol headshots kill your human opponent until you've increased your accuracy or damage stats. Such bullet sponges are both unrealistic and boring, so why not let the player use reflexes instead? To add challenge maybe the opponent can move around fast, so he becomes harder to target with the mouse?

- Good use of stats: to destroy an armored vehicle your pistol wont cut it no matter how well you aim, instead you must increase various other stats needed to obtain (and "learn" to use?) a proper antitank weapon. Such weapons are sometimes target-seeking, making reflexes and human aiming skill even less important.

 

[Butter]

Stat based combat and dice rolls make sense in TTRPGs, since there's no other way to do represent combat in that medium. But in CRPGs we do have another way: reflex-based combat. So is there any particular reason to use primarily stat based combat in CRPGs in all situations, or is it just a vestige retained for fundamentalist or nostalgic reasons?

I think both systems have their uses in CRPGs, depending on the situation:

- Bad use of stats: not even correctly aimed pistol headshots kill your human opponent until you've increased your accuracy or damage stats. Such bullet sponges are both unrealistic and boring, so why not let the player use reflexes instead? To add challenge maybe the opponent can move around fast, so he becomes harder to target with the mouse?

- Good use of stats: to destroy an armored vehicle your pistol wont cut it no matter how well you aim, instead you must increase various other stats needed to obtain (and "learn" to use?) a proper antitank weapon. Such weapons are sometimes target-seeking, making reflexes and human aiming skill even less important.

In other words you want an action game with stats only used to gate which items you can use? That sounds terrible.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Right, but knowledge and its application is also a skill. It's impossible to remove player skill from the equation when it comes to how well you perform in an RPG, unless the intention of the OP was to exclude all player skill that relates to hand-eye coordination specifically.

What are you talking about? Your argument sound disingenuous, what's next, if you can use a computer to start the game then that clashes with your 3 Int character? It's pretty simple, if the main encounter resolution in a game is represented by an abstract stat i.e. simulated by a stat i.e. you are ROLEPLAYING then whenever your real physical ability to manipulate your character is at odds or doesn't have a stat that represent said action it's not RPG. Morrowind- RPG, Oblivion- Action game, because their main encounter resolution in this case is combat and combat in Morrowind is based on hit chance stat and in Oblivion is not. This is integral part of the game, the main design goal when creating the game- you go on adventure to kill shit to level up, so everything else is secondary to the main game mechanic i.e. combat. You can have other mechanics that are govened by pure action without coresponding stat and that is another topic, but everything must first be examined thru the lens of the main activity presented in the game i.e the main thing you do in the game.

So for me there are three charcteristic a game must have so it can be called RPG. 1) Encounter resolution thru chracter stats 2) Progression system for you chracter(s) 3) Adventure like expiriance (ofter just called "story" but that could be misleading). I'm open to adding other quilifiers if they are presented to further differentiate game genres. The degree to which any of the three is implemented is up to debate, but if any of the said three is missing a game can't be RPG.

No, what are YOU talking about? I'm saying that even turn based stat driven combat is just as much based on a players skill as something that requires good reflexes, it's just a different kind of skill. The idea that player skill has zero application in, say, the combat resolution of Underrail, is an absurd take.

 

[Steedless]

The ones I like are RPGs and the ones I dislike aren't RPGs.

 

[CryptRat]

Right, but knowledge and its application is also a skill. It's impossible to remove player skill from the equation when it comes to how well you perform in an RPG, unless the intention of the OP was to exclude all player skill that relates to hand-eye coordination specifically.

What are you talking about? Your argument sound disingenuous, what's next, if you can use a computer to start the game then that clashes with your 3 Int character? It's pretty simple, if the main encounter resolution in a game is represented by an abstract stat i.e. simulated by a stat i.e. you are ROLEPLAYING then whenever your real physical ability to manipulate your character is at odds or doesn't have a stat that represent said action it's not RPG. Morrowind- RPG, Oblivion- Action game, because their main encounter resolution in this case is combat and combat in Morrowind is based on hit chance stat and in Oblivion is not. This is integral part of the game, the main design goal when creating the game- you go on adventure to kill shit to level up, so everything else is secondary to the main game mechanic i.e. combat. You can have other mechanics that are govened by pure action without coresponding stat and that is another topic, but everything must first be examined thru the lens of the main activity presented in the game i.e the main thing you do in the game.

So for me there are three charcteristic a game must have so it can be called RPG. 1) Encounter resolution thru chracter stats 2) Progression system for you chracter(s) 3) Adventure like expiriance (ofter just called "story" but that could be misleading). I'm open to adding other quilifiers if they are presented to further differentiate game genres. The degree to which any of the three is implemented is up to debate, but if any of the said three is missing a game can't be RPG.

I'm almost sure the original Wasteland doesn't use chances to hit either.

I can understand why people would call some single character action games RPGs and some not based on many things. Things like an exploration structure taken from Pnp campaign structures, and this is mandatory, as well as primary stats determining several secondary stats used to interact with the game instead of only directly the latter, and you can probably add a few out of combat stat checks at least for example for mundane stuff like picking doors, that will already excludes most of the same trolling names of games which people always get to mention in this kind of thread.

However this chances to hit = totally an RPG, no chances to hit = totally not an RPG never convinced me at all. Being super pedantic about RPG definition while in the same time being satisfied with just adding chances to hit to your action games always looks so paradoxal to me. Combat in Return to Krondor is what I'm looking for when looking for RPG combat, Bloodlines combat is not.

And before you say you think it's what distinguishes teams willing to make RPGs and team which don't want to then I disagree. Teams like Spider which insist in all their interviews that they're making RPGs while making the games they make is just pure cringe to me, the day they make a game which plays like Might & Magic 3 nobody (well actually a few losers will but not the point) will doubt the game they're making is an RPG.

My 2cents.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

However this chances to hit = totally an RPG, no chances to hit = totally not an RPG never convinced me at all.

You can have RPG combat system that doesn't have to hit chance, but you must have other simulated combat mechanics than just damage and pretty much been turn based is a must. The moment you have full control over the actions of your character in combat that is not simulated based on stats is the moment you have action game and not RPG.

Kiting in rtwp games for example is one such mechanic that is at odds with RPGs, but in most cases that is unintended consequence and the combat was not designed with that in mind.

I'm not saying that every single aspect of the encounter resolution must be simulated thru stats, but you can't have action game with damage modifiers and call it RPG. As I wrote earlier, some RPGs have parts of its gameplay where pure player action govern certain mechanics and I would describe such games as Hybrid RPGs like Deus Ex or VTM:B. Games like Gothic, first Mass Effect and first Witcher are where I would say the scale starts to go into action territory.

No, what are YOU talking about? I'm saying that even turn based stat driven combat is just as much based on a players skill as something that requires good reflexes, it's just a different kind of skill. The idea that player skill has zero application in, say, the combat resolution of Underrail, is an absurd take.

If you have a character in Underrail that has 50% chance to hit and does 10 damage, no amount of skill will change that outcome. If you are more skilled than me at aiming in an action game you will hit more often even if, for example, you had a weapon with 50% chance to hit and I had one with 90%. What are you talking about is meta knowledge or mastery of the game system. That knowledge is outside the game rules and not the point of the disscusion.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There tends to be a wide gap between someone who is good at a cRPG and someone who isn't.

This is a good point. How many people do you think could make it through most of the Gold Box games? Or Knights of the Chalice 2? The original sequel to Dungeon Master, Chaos Strikes Back, was hard as Hell. There's a lot of people who really like the more challenging CRPGs, but those do require a certain amount of skill in order to complete successfully.

You are overly pedantic. Physical player skill, not knowledge...

The acquisition of knowledge is a skill, though. Some people do it faster than others, and some people can even luck in to a method that works in the older turn based games, and just repeat that.

ACTION combat based on SKILL and REFLEXES is more of an RPG than turn based and stats based, that were just preferable because there was no other option, limitations of the times.

This is complete mockingbird bullshit. You've heard this somewhere, from someone stupid, and you're just repeating it without thinking about it. You're telling me that you think that in the time when the vast majority games were attempting to mimic coin-op arcade games that they were simply limited to turn based for CRPGs? There were Gauntlet clones and adaptations for computers and consoles back in the mid1980s. Same thing with Double Dragon clones, Golden Axe, and so on.

I'm almost sure the original Wasteland doesn't use chances to hit either.

One thing I've never understood is why Bethesda added "To-Hit" to their early Elder Scrolls games as opposed to scaling damage with weapon skill. I guess it's harder to balance? Or perhaps they just didn't think of it at the time, but it would make more sense than seeing your sword swinging through the sprites of the monster repeatedly without the "clink" noise of hitting them.

 

[Iucounu]

Stat based combat and dice rolls make sense in TTRPGs, since there's no other way to do represent combat in that medium. But in CRPGs we do have another way: reflex-based combat. So is there any particular reason to use primarily stat based combat in CRPGs in all situations, or is it just a vestige retained for fundamentalist or nostalgic reasons?

I think both systems have their uses in CRPGs, depending on the situation:

- Bad use of stats: not even correctly aimed pistol headshots kill your human opponent until you've increased your accuracy or damage stats. Such bullet sponges are both unrealistic and boring, so why not let the player use reflexes instead? To add challenge maybe the opponent can move around fast, so he becomes harder to target with the mouse?

- Good use of stats: to destroy an armored vehicle your pistol wont cut it no matter how well you aim, instead you must increase various other stats needed to obtain (and "learn" to use?) a proper antitank weapon. Such weapons are sometimes target-seeking, making reflexes and human aiming skill even less important.

In other words you want an action game with stats only used to gate which items you can use? That sounds terrible.

No, but the choice between reflexes and stats should be determined by common sense, not TTRPG-fundamentalism.

In particular, weapon aiming with a mouse shouldn't be hindered by stats, since that feels like the game is putting a straitjacket on your abilities as a player, and levelling up your character's "accuracy skill" just becomes a struggle to break free of that straitjacket, like a Houdini. I can grudgingly accept a certain inertia of movement when handling heavy weapons, because then it's the weapon's own weight that hinders your character, not stats imposed on your character's own in-game physique.

Maybe action games should do away with mouse aiming altogether, if we want them to be purely stat-based? Instead they could just let the player choose which enemy to attack, and stats would do the rest. Action games already work like that when controlling party members: you instruct the member to attack an enemy and stats take care of everything else, no reflexes involved.

I can also accept things like walking/running speed being determined by stats, since running speed can't be translated into player reflex skills.

 

[Hobo Elf]

No, what are YOU talking about? I'm saying that even turn based stat driven combat is just as much based on a players skill as something that requires good reflexes, it's just a different kind of skill. The idea that player skill has zero application in, say, the combat resolution of Underrail, is an absurd take.

If you have a character in Underrail that has 50% chance to hit and does 10 damage, no amount of skill will change that outcome. If you are more skilled than me at aiming in an action game you will hit more often even if, for example, you had a weapon with 50% chance to hit and I had one with 90%. What are you talking about is meta knowledge or mastery of the game system. That knowledge is outside the game rules and not the point of the disscusion.

A skilled player wouldn't find themselves in a situation where they only have such poor odds. A skilled player will always use all the tools available to mitigate bad outcomes and increase their chances to get favorable results whereas a novice might not even know what tools they are missing out on.

You can't remove meta from the equation because all strategic and tactical decision making is down to the player and not the character. The character only dictates what can be done and their odds at succeeding, but that's only a small part of the large picture.

 

[Reinhardt]

good games. all rpg games are shit by definition.

 

[roguefrog]

You can't remove meta from the equation because all strategic and tactical decision making is down to the player and not the character.

Meta-gaming is a thing, and it was frowned upon when I still played tabletop. Even if you know something, your player character might not. Giving your PC that magic information is meta-gaming. Basically impossible to enforce and is automatic in a CRPG, or any game really. No one really thinks about it. Moreover it's part of it.

It explains why I can beat Fallout in 30 minutes because I know I can get rope in Shady Shades, then go to the Boneyards and grab some rad-x and radaway along with a purple robe from the Children of the Apocalypse, then go to the Glow and grab the holodisk that allows membership in the Brotherhood of Steel, then talk to a scribe there to learn Super Mutants are sterile. Then go to the Cathedral and talk to Lasher who brings me to Morpheus who brings me to the Master, who I tell Super Mutants are sterile so he blows himself up...then I know I can just go to the military base because I know the location and where to trigger the silent self-destruct...but I also know I could go to Necropolis instead and talk to the supers mutants at the watershed who will happily take me there without risking random encounters...all the while my player character knows none of this. He just left the vault and hasn't actually learned any of this. I'm guiding him with this meta-knowledge since I already know the game.

 

[Machocruz]

Render unto the player what is the player's, and render unto the character what is on the character sheet.