1eyedking One cRPG Definition to Rule Them All

[Keldorn]

.

Let's hope so.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It shall be utterly individualistic and unpredictable.

And sometimes, a crystalized fragment will be an abstraction or metaphor pertaining to the exponentially fractured segments of Xi's refined elementalistic definitional standard.

A grain of sand, where my definition is an immovable *fortress*.

 

[Keldorn]

Fails to include classic dungeon crawlers.

No, they fit because classic dungeon crawlers are a factor of player choice in movement and equipment and character outcome based on combat, stats, experience, etc. It also works because the definition explains that if a game fails to offer C&C, branching stories, etc they simply offer "less role play potential" but are still RPGs. The main point is Player choice and Character outcome. It works...

So if you create-a-player, NHL 2K8 is an RPG or (hyphenated/fragmeted/fractured) Sports-RPG.

Fight Night Round 3, if you create-a-boxer, the same.

 

[Keldorn]

"Roleplaying : Playing, developing and controlling a unique character, while choosing and pursuing your own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld and it's ultimate outcome, BASED on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."


-Keldorn The Paladin

 

[Joe Krow]

I tend to think of the player/character dichotomy as the essential gameplay element in rpgs with things like stat based combat, shifting factions, and customized dialogue as some of the expressions this gameplay can take. In my book anything that shifts the determinative power to the character is a roleplaying element. In rpgs the things that don't reference the character are usually interactive fiction or action elements.

I wouldn't rate what is known here as "choice and consequences" quite as highly as combat performance in expressing this ideal. Stat based combat is the only opportunity for the character to be completely determinative in most games. Do you hit? If so for how much damage? What spells can you memorize? How effective are they? The tactics are left to the player but it is still the character dictating what what is possible.

On the contrary, in dialogue the character is usually not a decisive factor. The vast majority of the choice and consequences posed by dialogue make no reference whatsoever to the character being played. In my opinion these empty choices are not roleplaying at all, they are interactive fiction. Is it roleplaying to allow the player to game out a desirable conclusion without any reference to the character? Is it up to the player to limit choices to those his character would take? How is this not larping in the Elder Scrolls sense? The character should set the limits not the player. Luckily this is not always the case. Some games allow the character to be determinative by offering dialogue options that are tailored to him in some way or require a reference to his abilities. Sadly, even in the best rpgs this kind of dialogued roleplay is very rare.

I'm curious where those that claim dialogue is the highest form of roleplaying draw the line between it and interactive fiction? How do you relate a generic choice to your character? Do you limit your responses to those suitable to an imagined personality or are you just gaming the options without reference to your character?

 

[Nedrah]

Has the Codex entered some kind of dark age?

Yes, but all those people who where einterested in this kind of discussion either being gone or fucking bored by this kind of conversation certainly helps. Also, that pretty picture you drew there? If I was to follow that one, I'd have to assume that the role of the player gets bigger as a game moves towards simulation, and the role of the character gets bigger as a game becomes more action centric. So, how does that add up again?

 

[Keldorn]

Apparently, those who completed Fallout with little or no combat, weren't really roleplaying.

And apparently, if you mod Doom 1 to have a few character stats which influence the outcome of the combative clickfest, then you ARE roleplaying.

 

[Joe Krow]

I'd have to assume that the role of the player gets bigger as a game moves towards simulation, and the role of the character gets bigger as a game becomes more action centric.

How so?

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

making a superb cRPG

Given that there has never been a definition for cRPG™ - again , for the most obvious reasons - , that's kind of futile. What these definition of this and definition of that discussions ususally come down to are formulas a plenty for games somebody would enjoy. Or rather, somebody *thinks* he would enjoy. I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with combat or anything being dependant on player's skill rather than a bunch of numbers, that's okay. You are allowed to put all those games that do so in some way or other into a box labelled Action-FPS-RPG or whatever terms one comes up with these days if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't mean a thing. I take it you don't feel comfortable with Lord British of all people referring to Thief as an RPG either. Again, that ultimately doesn't mean a thing. It's about acknowledging that Thief is Thief. That Akalabeth is Akalabeth. That Vampire: Bloodlines is Vampire: Bloodlines. That Fallout is Fallout. And how awesome this really is.

What I'm proposing isn't something to be afraid of, by the way. Rather than strangling ideas by turning them into rigid rules, I'm proposing to let them room to move freely, to breathe, to develop and flourish, for you to eventually have even more games to enjoy. But "the lines have to be drawn somewhere!" No. If the lines had been drawn, and that's the ultimate irony in this, the games you are drooling over would have never existed. For interpreting something as an ultimate design dogma to follow, to shoehorn all ideas one may or may not have into a set list of rules is kind of limiting, to say the least.

 

[Joe Krow]

~~~~~~~~~~~role of the player | role of the character~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simulation____________________/\__________________________________Action


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~role of the player | role of the character~~~~~~~~~
Simulation________________________________/\______________________Action


role of the player | role of the character~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simulation______/\_________________________________________________Action

I think I see the confusion... I hope this clarifies.

 

[Redeye]

RPG = Phat lewt!

But seriously:

CRPG: "Computer Role Playing Game".

You play a role in a game on a computer.

The degree to which that role may be explored may vary greatly.

Also choice of role may vary.

"True" cRPG is a matter of taste.

Perhaps there is some threshold that is subjectively constructed but objectively applicable.

I'll bet many "old favorites" would fall below this threshold.

How much real choice did one have in Ultima 3 ?

Definitely an RPG-Lite.

 

[Xi]

"Roleplaying : Choosing and then developing & playing your own sports team, while choosing & pursuing your own uniquely chosen game plan in the given sports game, and having a uniquely profound impact ON the team and it's ultimate outcome, BASED on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."
-Keldorn The Paladin

*Fixed

Yours works for sports games better then mine does. How hypocritical.

A grain of sand, where my definition is an immovable *fortress*.

Haha, maybe a Fortress built upon the sand.

So if you create-a-player, NHL 2K8 is an RPG or (hyphenated/fragmeted/fractured) Sports-RPG.

Fight Night Round 3, if you create-a-boxer, the same.

They do not provide the same depth of choice that is ultimately the game being played in an RPG, and sports games have a direct action element that is barely a factor of character skill in determining the outcome.(It crosses the line in my mind) It puts too much power in the hands of the player to determine the outcome. It doesn't fit my definition at all, unlike yours.

 

[Xi]

making a superb cRPG

What I'm proposing isn't something to be afraid of, by the way. Rather than strangling ideas by turning them into rigid rules, I'm proposing to let them room to move freely, to breathe, to develop and flourish, for you to eventually have even more games to enjoy. But "the lines have to be drawn somewhere!" No. If the lines had been drawn, and that's the ultimate irony in this, the games you are drooling over would have never existed. For interpreting something as an ultimate design dogma to follow, to shoehorn all ideas one may or may not have into a set list of rules is kind of limiting, to say the least.

What you propose is that all games can be labeled as RPGs if the developer believes it to be true. What I'm proposing is a method that explains the most basic aspect of role-playing and how a developer makes a better role-play experience. Not just a better game. I believe a good game and a good role-playing game are two entirely different experiences. My definition takes this into consideration by promoting the idea of better role-play potential as well as covering the most basic aspect.

Definition:

"A cRPG is a game where the player determines what choices are to be made and the character determines the outcome. This combined with a myriad of choices, and consequence to add depth, bring about the most potential. The more choice that is present, combined with this player-to-character choice/outcome analogy, such as within a branching story of choice, ultimately makes the game more of a cRPG and transcends the currently dead-in-the-water medium."

You're arguing that definitions aren't important, but that makes no sense. Without definition we start to lose meaning. This then creates a new type of game labeled as cRPG, and then before you know it Mario is an cRPG because the developer thinks it is. Your system, and the currently industry standard doesn't work as well.(Which is easily evidenced by the decline of the medium itself, and the obvious preposterous portrayals of some games in certain cases.) You have to draw the line at some point and define what it really means. Or the concept goes on forever without any real relevance to what labeling something really means.

The Wikipedia definition is too broad and can be applied to too many different genres to be accurate. That was my purpose for posting here.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Without definition we start to lose meaning. This then creates a new type of game labeled as cRPG, and then before you know it Mario is an cRPG because the developer thinks it is.

Ah, now I see. That is irrational fear. I and the entire rest of the World could call Mario whatever we like to, but what bearing would it really have on the game it is? And even then, how could this possibly have an effect on ideas found in say, Fallout? Arcanum? Might And Magic XIV: For Loot And Honor? Etc. And what has the current industry standard (?) got to do with this?

Once you start loosing that irrational fear of yours, you'll maybe see what I'm trying to get at. Besides, with all those countless games carrying that RPG moniker the term never carried any meaning anyway.You can't loose something that has never been there - the name calling's all a basic abstraction made up by humans in an attempt to make life easier, and nothing more. Looking at some of the games that have been made so far, I'd say there's no reason to be worried about that.

 

[afewhours]

the name calling's all a basic abstraction made up by humans in an attempt to make life easier, and nothing more. Looking at some of the games that have been made so far, I'd say there's no reason to be worried about that.

If we were discussing the ontology of cRPGs, then this argument would have some merit, but I think it's the epistomology that's up for grabs here...

...but that's just one little bear saying. I'll just step over here now. Carry on, gents, don't mind me.

 

[Keldorn]

"Roleplaying : Playing and developing a unique character, while choosing and pursuing your own unique plot path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld, it's inhabitants and it's ultimate outcome, BASED on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences. The choices and consequences must be obtained through PC-NPC interaction and dialogue."


-Keldorn The Paladin

 

[Keldorn]

Without definition we start to lose meaning. This then creates a new type of game labeled as cRPG, and then before you know it Mario is an cRPG because the developer thinks it is.

Ah, now I see. That is irrational fear. I and the entire rest of the World could call Mario whatever we like to, but what bearing would it really have on the game it is? And even then, how could this possibly have an effect on ideas found in say, Fallout? Arcanum? Might And Magic XIV: For Loot And Honor? Etc. And what has the current industry standard (?) got to do with this?

Once you start loosing that irrational fear of yours, you'll maybe see what I'm trying to get at. Besides, with all those countless games carrying that RPG moniker the term never carried any meaning anyway.You can't loose something that has never been there - the name calling's all a basic abstraction made up by humans in an attempt to make life easier, and nothing more. Looking at some of the games that have been made so far, I'd say there's no reason to be worried about that.

What is "fear" ? Maybe if I find someone funny, obnoxious or irritating, I am fearful of them. Maybe fear = distance. Maybe fear = dislike. Maybe the term "fear" really has no conceptual limitations at all, and therefore, it can mean or represent anything I arbitrarily desire.

And what is "irrational" ? I'll tell you what it is : it is arbitrary, impulsive, open-ended, hyper-lenient conceptual tendencies.

 

[Keldorn]

If any game can be called a RPG, then the only term needed is "game". If anything can be called a "game", then the only term needed is "thing".

 

[Müg]

Please use the edit button...

 

[Keldorn]

Please use the edit button...

Please use the ignore button.

 

[Xi]

If any game can be called a RPG, then the only term needed is "game". If anything can be called a "game", then the only term needed is "thing".

This illustrates why definition is needed.

@onemananadhisdroid:

Without definition, communication breaks down. It has nothing to do with fear, or being irrational. In fact, it is irrational to think that we do not need direct definition for the meaning of words because without meaningful words we cannot communicate properly. /shrug

For instance, if cRPG had a clear definition that we could all agree on we would have no need for this debate. It's unclear however, and so we're trying to pin it down so that when someone uses the word cRPG it is clear what they mean. Also, when a developer creates a cRPG the concept will be much easier to approach. That is the entire point really.

I don't think we can argue this differently. Or if we can, you've not shown any good reason otherwise. Call those games what you want, and live without solid meaning and definition, but don't get pissed off when no one knows what the hell you are talking about. If anything the real fear in this discussion is from yourself. You're afraid to try and define the word yourself. It's easier to just let someone else tell you what it means, or to make up relative meaning when you feel like it. Neither of which, says much for your in terms of progressing this debate. Why don't you attempt to define the word yourself? I'm not satisfied with how you think none of us should "care" and we should not attempt to understand it better. How un-academic...

 

[Nedrah]

I think I see the confusion... I hope this clarifies.

Yes, I think so.

 

[Xi]

On the contrary, in dialogue the character is usually not a decisive factor. The vast majority of the choice and consequences posed by dialogue make no reference whatsoever to the character being played. In my opinion these empty choices are not roleplaying at all, they are interactive fiction. Is it roleplaying to allow the player to game out a desirable conclusion without any reference to the character? Is it up to the player to limit choices to those his character would take? How is this not larping in the Elder Scrolls sense? The character should set the limits not the player. Luckily this is not always the case. Some games allow the character to be determinative by offering dialogue options that are tailored to him in some way or require a reference to his abilities. Sadly, even in the best rpgs this kind of dialogued roleplay is very rare.

I'm curious where those that claim dialogue is the highest form of roleplaying draw the line between it and interactive fiction? How do you relate a generic choice to your character? Do you limit your responses to those suitable to an imagined personality or are you just gaming the options without reference to your character?

This is pretty much what I see as the problem with Dialog interaction. The player-to-character skill ratio is way off, and has nothing to do with the character in most cases. Still, as you've also described, the game can tailor dialog and dialog choices based on your character. Then certain branches of a story can be cut off or added depending on your character's capabilities. It's still possible to achieve this without giving complete control to the player. If the player has ultimate control and the character is no longer a factor, then it's no different then an action game that gives the player direct control in determining the result.

I like it because it has potential, and I believe a lot of people think so too. That's why I've listed it because it adds more player choice and which is better for role-playing. It also gives the definition more meat to include it but we could probably just leave it out so long as we understand that both choice and consequence are important for meaningful role-playing.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

If any game can be called a RPG, then the only term needed is "game". If anything can be called a "game", then the only term needed is "thing".

This illustrates why definition is needed.

It also missed the entire point. Ah well, carry on. Never intended to be the party pooper anyway. :D

 

[DraQ]

The problem with dialogue is that, while character's skills and atributes are easily quantifable, character's personality isn't. Sure, cutting off branches based on attribute/skill thresholds is good, but you still have an array of choices laid out in front of player when it comes to more personal factors. So there is really no feasible workaround for dialogue - it has to rely mostly on player's choice.

 

[Joe Krow]

The problem with dialogue is that, while character's skills and attributes are easily quantifiable, character's personality isn't. So there is really no feasible workaround for dialogue - it has to rely mostly on player's choice.

I can think of a few ways to get around this. One idea I'm trying to develop in the NWN toolset (without much luck)- Instead of having three or four generic dialogue options create ten. Of these ten the player is presented with a range of reasonable responses tied to a particular character attribute. It would look like-

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

In this case options 4-6 are presented to the player because the characters law/chaos attribute is being referenced and he is neutral. As options are selected they create a +/- in whatever trait is being referenced. Picking option 4 creates a -1 law/chaos, option 6 may give +2, 5 zeros out. After a certain number of modifiers accrue for each trait the range (and possibly the attribute) shifts. The next time law/chaos is the active attribute the player may get options 3-5. The character dictates the players options. Throw a few attribute checks into the responses and you are roleplaying.

The same type of gradient dialogue could be used in any number of ways- based on charisma when convincing someone, faction when meeting a new npc, intelligence when planning, good/evil when deciding what to do with a prisoner, or wisdom when sniffing out a lie. You could even devise new personality stats; courage, loyalty, etc... The point is that a cowardly orc assassin with five intelligence should not have the same options as a do-gooder paladin with an 18 intelligence. If they do, you are not roleplaying.

Sure, it is a lot of work to implement but if dialogue is to allow real roleplaying the character must be the focus.