Why the big divide between roleplaying and acting?

[mondblut]

"phased turn-based, a plentitude of various spells which required a lot of thinking to employ timely, limited tactics (formation, hiding), strategic party selection and development."

With the exception of hiding, all of that is in Final Fantasy 4-10.

There is no party creation in FF. There is no strategic development in any FF I saw, all emofags get upgraded in a single predefined way possible without player's input.

I don't remember any formations either, just standing in a row hopping like retards. And the FFs I saw used that retarded "cooling-down" RT instead of proper TB.

"although the removal of FP exploration mode may be questioned"

Why? IMMURSHUN?

A feature once present got axed: degradation in aspect of said feature.

 

[Wyrmlord]

First-person exploration is there so that there is challenge in exploration.

A top down view gives you a full view of the map, and that makes exploration easy for you.

This top down view works in Torment, where you may be running back and forth from NPCs, so you don't want to waste time WASDing to the locations, like you would in FP.

But if the game is supposed to be about exploration, then it is simply handholding you by showing you the lay of the land through top down.

 

[DraQ]

First person exploration and good mechanics for teh win, but good plot, in case of a cRPG incorporating various paths and CnC, is fucking important.

 

[Azrael the cat]

First-person exploration is there so that there is challenge in exploration.

A top down view gives you a full view of the map, and that makes exploration easy for you.

This top down view works in Torment, where you may be running back and forth from NPCs, so you don't want to waste time WASDing to the locations, like you would in FP.

But if the game is supposed to be about exploration, then it is simply handholding you by showing you the lay of the land through top down.

Hence why a quest compass might actually make good sense in an isometric game (because you aren't really hiding any locations anyway), but is really silly in a FPS-RPG...

 

[Wyrmlord]

"Progress" implies evolution and improvement. I fail to see how the games mentioned are "improved" over Pool of Radiance or Wizardry (other than GUI efficiency or screen resolution). They expanded including more kind of content than RPGs had from original days, all while making compromises - that is, degrading - in core RPG gameplay.

ANY combat surpasses the Final Fantasy-esque blob combat of Wizardry/M&M/etc. (yes I know FF was based on Wizardry, that doesn't make it any better) And Dark Sun improved on the Gold Box games by adding good story, dialog, and C&C, while keeping the combat engine and improving the graphics.

Jaime, with all due respect, this is by far the most retarded thing I have ever heard you say.

Have you actually played Might And Magic or Wizardry? Do you even realize the immense tactical challenge that the Wizardry games have given to even the most seasoned RPG veterans? Are you pulling this out of your ass?

You can go ask any person who has played RPGs for atleast 20 years, and they all would tell you that those games are far more tactical and challenging than modern RPGs.

 

[janjetina]

Funny thing about evolution. It tends to keep going even when you want it to stop.

So you guys killed off CRPG gameplay. You were a market force that demanded choose-your-own-dialogue adventure games instead, got what you wanted, and redefined the genre in your own image. Still pissed at you about that.

Here's where it gets funny. There is a whole new market force out there, and they could give a diplomatic rats' ass about C&C dialogue. Cinematic immersion FTW, baby! That's the "evolution" of your genre, like it or not. Welcome to the new new definition of RPG.

I'm betting they won't stop "evolving" the genre until they've reduced it to playing dress up with their avatar pre-game, rolling up some arbitrary traits, and then the rest of the "gameplay" involves doing this:

Press here to continue...

I have to admit, that amuses the hell out of me. Gameplay evolution at its finest.

Evolution, with respect to games, form the players' perspective, means increase in complexity and interactivity. The games with "cinematic immersion" actually decrease both complexity and interactivity of the game, hence they do not represent evolution, but regression of the genre. Branching dialogues, choices and consequences increase both the complexity and the interactivity of a game, hence they represent the evolution of the genre.

 

[Xi]

Without coming to a standard for role-play definition, this conversation is 100% pointless and nothing is learned. One needs to define the genre in a way that most people can agree with, and then the people who disagree need to create another genre and do the same thing. Hell create sub-genres, but do so, so that people understand what the fuck it actually means. Currently "Role-Playing" has absolutely no definition within the context of a video game. No one has tried to legitimately define it and therein lyes the problem. Or, at least I have see no semi-successful attempt to do it. Hell, even the Codex fails to offer a standard definition. Fail.

 

[oldschool]

Funny thing about evolution. It tends to keep going even when you want it to stop.

So you guys killed off CRPG gameplay. You were a market force that demanded choose-your-own-dialogue adventure games instead, got what you wanted, and redefined the genre in your own image. Still pissed at you about that.

Here's where it gets funny. There is a whole new market force out there, and they could give a diplomatic rats' ass about C&C dialogue. Cinematic immersion FTW, baby! That's the "evolution" of your genre, like it or not. Welcome to the new new definition of RPG.

I'm betting they won't stop "evolving" the genre until they've reduced it to playing dress up with their avatar pre-game, rolling up some arbitrary traits, and then the rest of the "gameplay" involves doing this:

Press here to continue...

I have to admit, that amuses the hell out of me. Gameplay evolution at its finest.

Evolution, with respect to games, form the players' perspective, means increase in complexity and interactivity. The games with "cinematic immersion" actually decrease both complexity and interactivity of the game, hence they do not represent evolution, but regression of the genre. Branching dialogues, choices and consequences increase both the complexity and the interactivity of a game, hence they represent the evolution of the genre.

Choosing between multiple choice dialogue options is hardly an increase in complexity or interactivity over good sound gameplay. I understand if people prefer just clicking through pre-canned adventure stories, and I try not to knock them too much for it, but to hold it up as intellectually superior to overcoming tactical challenges is beyond laughable.

 

[boynextdoor]

Come on BG style combat is much worse and has no tactical side compared to FF style combat. In FF you may not be creating a party (and you don't create a party in most of the games and when you do there are no personalities to them) or picking the stats to improve but you need to make decisions and the results can be vastly different. For example in FF8 there is a boss which is usually known as the hardest boss (Abadon) in the game, but you could actually kill it in a single "blow" from a super duper healing potion.

 

[boynextdoor]

Without coming to a standard for role-play definition, this conversation is 100% pointless and nothing is learned. One needs to define the genre in a way that most people can agree with, and then the people who disagree need to create another genre and do the same thing. Hell create sub-genres, but do so, so that people understand what the fuck it actually means. Currently "Role-Playing" has absolutely no definition within the context of a video game. No one has tried to legitimately define it and therein lyes the problem. Or, at least I have see no semi-successful attempt to do it. Hell, even the Codex fails to offer a standard definition. Fail.

The most codexian definition would be "boring, repeatative games meant to recreate PnP RPG on a computer and fail horribly trying that"

BTW what is so important about defining RPGs? It is a loose definition and serves it's purpose quite OK now. If you could define it perfectly what would any one do with that? Make a game that is an RPG a hundred percent? I think you would find this retarded too if you view it from this perspective.

 

[Cassidy]

Choosing between multiple choice dialogue options is hardly an increase in complexity or interactivity over good sound gameplay. I understand if people prefer just clicking through pre-canned adventure stories, and I try not to knock them too much for it, but to hold it up as intellectually superior to overcoming tactical challenges is beyond laughable.

Then why not have both?

Could this be considered a RPG?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/898/898421p1.html

"In Elven Legacy, we've focused greatly on making the plot intriguing and nonlinear. Our games are already known for their rich tactical opportunities, which usually come highly rated by players. This, combined with our improvements in the AI and interface, allows for this game to appeal both to fans of turn-based strategies and to newcomers to the genre."

I don't care, what matters is that should the game deliver what it promises, I would really be interested in another Might&Magic like TBS. There might be characters, units that "level up" with combat, stats, choices and consequences. Whether it will be classified as a "Strategy RPG" or not shouldn't matter

 

[oldschool]

Choosing between multiple choice dialogue options is hardly an increase in complexity or interactivity over good sound gameplay. I understand if people prefer just clicking through pre-canned adventure stories, and I try not to knock them too much for it, but to hold it up as intellectually superior to overcoming tactical challenges is beyond laughable.

Then why not have both?

Could this be considered a RPG?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/898/898421p1.html

"In Elven Legacy, we've focused greatly on making the plot intriguing and nonlinear. Our games are already known for their rich tactical opportunities, which usually come highly rated by players. This, combined with our improvements in the AI and interface, allows for this game to appeal both to fans of turn-based strategies and to newcomers to the genre."

I don't care, what matters is that should the game deliver what it promises, I would really be interested in another Might&Magic like TBS. There might be characters, units that "level up" with combat, stats, choices and consequences. Whether it will be classified as a "Strategy RPG" or not shouldn't matter

Both would be great. Having many styles and sub-genres would be great. I could go play my good old-fashioned gameplay driven RPG and be happy. Problem is, they don't get made anymore. They've been displaced by adventure stories with stats.

I'll check the game out. If it really has good gameplay, then great. I'll actually have something worth playing for a change. Would sure beat hanging around in forums discussing "What is an RPG?" to death.

 

[Xi]

BTW what is so important about defining RPGs? It is a loose definition and serves it's purpose quite OK now. If you could define it perfectly what would any one do with that? Make a game that is an RPG a hundred percent? I think you would find this retarded too if you view it from this perspective.

Definition is the root of all knowledge and understanding. Creating a standard definition for an industry genre would ensure that both buyers and developers understand what they are trying to create/buy. The reason it's so difficult for modern RPG enthusiasts to like modern RPGs? Well, it's because you never know what to expect. One gamer's prefered RPG is another RPG-gamer's utter disappointment. Arguing that no definition is needed is and has been the wrong argument for years.

You never know what to expect because without a definition there is no means to expect anything at all.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Have you actually played Might And Magic or Wizardry? Do you even realize the immense tactical challenge that the Wizardry games have given to even the most seasoned RPG veterans? Are you pulling this out of your ass?

You can go ask any person who has played RPGs for atleast 20 years, and they all would tell you that those games are far more tactical and challenging than modern RPGs.

Old RPGs, including jRPGs are challenging. I never said they weren't. They are, however, not fun. Let me move my characters where I want instead of fighting in a blob, please, k, thanks, bye.

 

[boynextdoor]

Definition is the root of all knowledge and understanding. Creating a standard definition for an industry genre would ensure that both buyers and developers understand what they are trying to create/buy. The reason it's so difficult for modern RPG enthusiasts to like modern RPGs? Well, it's because you never know what to expect. One gamer's prefered RPG is another RPG-gamer's utter disappointment. Arguing that no definition is needed is and has been the wrong argument for years.

You never know what to expect because without a definition there is no means to expect anything at all.

I see your point but rpg is actually defined but loosely just like many other things in the world. I would classify oblivion as an rpg and so would most other people here but we also label fallout as rpg too so such a label gives us limited knowledge. Take a comedy movie for example woody allen is comedy adam sandler is comedy and southpark is also comedy. they are very different as you would notice and if you didn't kill yourself right now. so my point is don't just look at the genre label and expect something specific. Look for other clues like developer, screenshots, interviews that will give you an idea for what to expect.

As i have said RPG is already defined as it is ever going to be, but that label doesn't tell much about the game itself it just means there will be some gameplay mechanics that are generally used in this genre (like stats and dialogue) You don't get tetris when they say it's an rpg, but you may get a crappy shooter with stiff controls i'll give you that...

 

[Xi]

I see your point but rpg is actually defined but loosely just like many other things in the world. I would classify oblivion as an rpg and so would most other people here but we also label fallout as rpg too so such a label gives us limited knowledge. Take a comedy movie for example woody allen is comedy adam sandler is comedy and southpark is also comedy. they are very different as you would notice and if you didn't kill yourself right now. so my point is don't just look at the genre label and expect something specific. Look for other clues like developer, screenshots, interviews that will give you an idea for what to expect.

Those movies have a very specific genre definition though, and they follow it pretty well. That is to make you laugh. RPGs on the other hand are doing what? Making you role-play....oh wait...what does that mean again? That's right, we have no definition, and therefore we have no legitimate way to understand what the genre is trying to do. We don't know what it means to role-play within the context of a video game and therefore it is impossibly difficult to design a game that can accomplish this task with relative accuracy because there's no baseline to go off of, there's no way to know if what you've created is truly an RPG.

Essentially, it boils down to stats, levels, and item upgrades. This is the only real accurate definition, but it's just too weak to be helpful or meaningful.

Edit:

Also, and in terms of the topic, "Acting" would imply physically playing out a role. Role-playing would involve thinking out your role via a game of rules. One is bound to the knowledge and understanding of rules while the other is bound to the quality of the actor's performance.

Anyway....as to why one is considered more glamorous than the other, I do not know, but it's definitely interesting. I would assume that it boils down to sex appeal, as a lot of actors tend to have sex appeal over acting ability anyway. So people are attracted to whatever these people do, and whatever title they may be given. On the other hand some uber geek nerd, who has a very deep knowledge for a system of rules that govern a game, one in which operates off of similar acting principles, is simply not as attractive do to the complexity of understanding what they know, and usually aren't as physically attractive either. One is judged off of their actions, while the other off their intellect.

 

[janjetina]

Evolution, with respect to games, form the players' perspective, means increase in complexity and interactivity. The games with "cinematic immersion" actually decrease both complexity and interactivity of the game, hence they do not represent evolution, but regression of the genre. Branching dialogues, choices and consequences increase both the complexity and the interactivity of a game, hence they represent the evolution of the genre.

Choosing between multiple choice dialogue options is hardly an increase in complexity or interactivity over good sound gameplay. I understand if people prefer just clicking through pre-canned adventure stories, and I try not to knock them too much for it, but to hold it up as intellectually superior to overcoming tactical challenges is beyond laughable.

The value / complexity of the dialogue depends heavily upon the dialogue options. If the dialogue options represent real choices with tanglible consequences, and depend on both game mechanics and the use of player's knowledge of the game world / the character you're conversing with, then you have an increased complexity in dialogue, just as when you combat a certain AI the combat calculations are made according to game mechanics, but the player needs to use his in-game knowledge to apply the appropriate tactics against a certain enemy. A conversation between TNO and Ravel in PS:T is a good example of the player using his in-game knowledge of Ravel in order to gain the most from her, while his dialogue choices are governed by his stats, so in addition to reading and participating in a great piece of dialogue, the player is forced to think about his dialogue choices, which are dictated by the game mechanics. This is neglecting the fact that comprehending (not to be confused with language forming) any well written dialogue, even if it's completely linear, represents an intellectual process physiologically almost indistinguishable from numerical and progressive matrix calculations (as all those processes take place in Wernicke's area of the brain and implore the same signalling, as evidenced by the studies using MR imaging of the brain during these activities).

Also, here is a newsflash: everything is predetermined in a computer game, including combat. The requirement of a good game is that it shouldn't feel predetermined for the person playing the game, and this requirement can and should be achieved both by dialogues and by combat.

Regardless, implementing stat-influenced branching dialogues with multiple outcomes, tactically challenging combat and skill based exploration are not mutually exclusive things. Fallout and Fallout 2 had all the mentioned aspects well implemented. There is no objective obstacle to someone making a game with story, character development and dialogues like in PS:T and combat and choices and consequences like in Fallout, given adequate development cycle and funds. The lack of challenging tactical combat is due to switch to RTWP or real-time combat to make the games twitch-kiddy-friendly, and the allocation of development resources to graphics, to please the graphics whores.

So, the game that has both quality combat and quality dialogues in the sense I wrote definitely represents a bigger intellectual challenge than the game that only has quality combat.

 

[mondblut]

Then why not have both?

Since it hasn't ever been done for all 30 years of the genre's existence, indeed, why?

Maybe the production values, since that's essentially making 2 games for the price of one. Maybe that's the GNS theory in work, no purpose making a game for 3 different target auditories with elements which alienate each of them.

Fact is, the only game which managed to combine nearly perfect combat and game mechanics with good amount of dialogues-C&C-whatever the narrativists hold dear, is Prelude to Darkness which looks rat-ass ugly and is practically unplayable due to countless bugs. Go figure.

I don't care, what matters is that should the game deliver what it promises, I would really be interested in another Might&Magic like TBS. There might be characters, units that "level up" with combat, stats, choices and consequences. Whether it will be classified as a "Strategy RPG" or not shouldn't matter

Elven Legacy? Bah, that's a Fantasy Wars addon, Fantasy Wars being a casualized glamour take on Fantasy General. So, the "intriguing plot" you expect is going to be in mission briefings between set-piece battles.

 

[mondblut]

BTW what is so important about defining RPGs?

Because it helps to get rid of the FPS/adventure/JRPG fanbois and keep the Codex clean of infidels.

What's more intriguing is why, despite the stark unpopularity of RPGs, the "RPG" label seems so alluring to publishers they slash-slap it upon every second game, from puzzles to shooters? Whom they are trying to fool, *us*? LOL. Not like the RPG auditory would give them many sales anyway.

 

[janjetina]

Then why not have both?

Since it hasn't ever been done for all 30 years of the genre's existence, indeed, why?

Maybe the production values, since that's essentially making 2 games for the price of one. Maybe that's the GNS theory in work, no purpose making a game for 3 different target auditories with elements which alienate each of them.

Fact is, the only game which managed to combine nearly perfect combat and game mechanics with good amount of dialogues-C&C-whatever the narrativists hold dear, is Prelude to Darkness which looks rat-ass ugly and is practically unplayable due to countless bugs. Go figure.

How about two examples: Fallout and Fallout 2?

 

[mondblut]

How about two examples: Fallout and Fallout 2?

Fallout's combat, while undeniably fun, is vastly inferior to true tactical firearms-based games like JA2, Silent Storm etc, even Fallout Tactics. And in melee department it's simply a fail next to the likes of TOEE, Prelude to Darkness, Knights of Legend or Proudfoot's Wizard Crown clones.

 

[oldschool]

Also, here is a newsflash: everything is predetermined in a computer game, including combat. The requirement of a good game is that it shouldn't feel predetermined for the person playing the game, and this requirement can and should be achieved both by dialogues and by combat.

No. Using good tactics is the difference betwwen winning or losing a combat encounter in a well-made game. It is not predetermined in any sense of the word. Branching dialogues can't even compare to the complexity provided by multiple tactical options.

The lack of challenging tactical combat is due to switch to RTWP or real-time combat to make the games twitch-kiddy-friendly, and the allocation of development resources to graphics, to please the graphics whores.

...and to dialogue boxes and cutscenes to please the adventure gamers, who couldn't care less about gameplay. Yes, real-time combat sucks all to hell in an RPG.

So, the game that has both quality combat and quality dialogues in the sense I wrote definitely represents a bigger intellectual challenge than the game that only has quality combat.

Link please. I sure haven't found a game that matches that description. There are things to like about the Fallouts, but good tactical gameplay is not one of them.

I don't have a problem with adventure games. Sometimes I even like them. My problem is that they call them RPGs, and have displaced my favorite genre. A genre that used to be (and still should be) based on gameplay.

In other words:

I WANT MY DAMN GENRE BACK, THANK YOU!

Seriously, it's like I heard about a convention for hardcore RPGers, showed up, sat down and pulled out my dice bag, and then looked around and realized almost everyone else was wearing cardboard helmets and waving plastic swords. It wigs me out a little bit.

One last thing, and I think I'll bow out of this conversation, because it's a moot point anyway. My genre is not coming back. I don't represent a large enough audience to justify a AAA game budget. TOEE was our last gasp, and looks like the dead end for gameplay based RPGs.

The point of my post about evolution was that you C&Cers are likely in the same boat. I don't know what the last game was that y'all considered true to your genre. MOTB maybe? Well, take a look at what the current "RPG" makers are making these days. It ain't the next Fallout or Torment, that's for sure.

At any rate, I know if I want an RPG with good gameplay, it's either going to come from an indie dev, or I'm going to have to try to make one myself. It looks like AoD is the only game I see coming that matches y'alls criteria for a good RPG. I hope y'all support it when it comes out, because I don't think you're going to get any more of those from mainstream development. We'll see, I guess.

Anyway(s), peace out. I've got a game to make.

 

[Xi]

Also, here is a newsflash: everything is predetermined in a computer game, including combat. The requirement of a good game is that it shouldn't feel predetermined for the person playing the game, and this requirement can and should be achieved both by dialogues and by combat.

No. Using good tactics is the difference betwwen winning or losing a combat encounter in a well-made game. It is not predetermined in any sense of the word. Branching dialogues can't even compare to the complexity provided by multiple tactical options.

Why not? Just because you think it cannot, history aside(even if it hasn't yet), doesn't mean that it is not possible. The best system of Dialog is tactical, and I think that's a point you missed. For instance, the player should be made to understand the dialog choices they are making for the character, and the more depth the game has built into the dialog system, the more tactical the system can be. Dialog can boil down to character skills, reputation, chance, etc. If fleshed out enough, it could be just as tactical as anything else. Winning a conversation(if you will) would boil down to deciding what the best outcome for your character is before the conversation and then attempting to achieve said outcome.

I can understand why you would say something like this though. Modern games are cosmetic and dialog is merely a book of reading one page and turning to the next. Your choices have no impact, no effect, and no reason to even be in the game other than to trick average-Joe gamer into a sense of immersion, where their choices appear to have meaning - even if they don't.

Also, "Branching Dialog" is one means at which people have argued offers the most tactical choice for dialog outcome. You have to write out static dialog, and creating numerous dialog branches, to handle numerous different dialog choices, has been one means at which to do it. It can be tactical, if designed to be so, and of course, branching a massive dialog tree is only the tip of the iceberg. Much more could be done, even if I have no relevant way of proving that to you. ;P

The real difference is what happens after dialog ends. Has the game altered to consider those choices? If it hasn't than the system is entirely cosmetic and any tactical potential it may have is gone. However, if the dialog system provides a way for the game to alter course and change direction, based solely on dialog choices alone - in terms of the main and minor stories, then the game is tactical and dialog choices matter. Making good choices, depending on your character, will translate into a more appropriate game experience for said character.

This type of design is what I like to refer to as game-play. A linear dialog system, or one that does not have impact to the choices made via dialog within the game, are not "game-play" per say, but once a game offers actual outside of dialog consequence for choices made during dialog, then you've added an entirely new game-play Mechanic for the player to "play."

Again, this can be as tactical as the designer wants it to be, yet most designers simply choose other mechanics to chase after(combat, stats, gear, etc), or limit themselves by improving graphics, sound, physics, etc too much leaving little to no resources available to build such a mechanic. Plus, let's face it, Dialog doesn't market a game, so it's no wonder such a mechanic is highly over looked and rarely seen(And when seen offers little potential even though it has loads if done right), yet this does not mean dialog cannot be tactical and that branching dialog isn't one way to achieve such a tactical gaming system.

Dialog can be a tactical mechanic(aren't all gaming mechanics tactical to some extent anyway?) of game-play even it hasn't been done before. I believe a solid Role Playing Game will someday offer such an elaborate system of choice within a story. Choice where consequence is the final result and story direction alters beyond a cosmetic tongue-n-cheek dialog choice.

Edit: Gah, edited this a lot, sorry. The server crashed as I posted and only half of it submitted. Had to delete a few posts and rewrite some stuff. Hah! Fuck off server!

Tactic:
a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.

 

[oldschool]

Heh, I'm not doing a very good job of bowing out of this conversation, am I? The only reason I even chimed in was to point out the irony that the adventure gamers who displaced me are now being displaced themselves. No need to restate my position there, I don't think.

As for this:

Branching dialogues can't even compare to the complexity provided by multiple tactical options.

Perhaps I should have used "don't" instead of "can't", but I stand by it. Poor choice of wording aside, I think y'all are missing the point of my objection to dialogue box games. Either I didn't make it clear enough or you would rather steer the topic into a discussion of dialogue as a valid form of gameplay in and of itself.

What it isn't, is a valid substitute for RPG gameplay. It isn't an evolution of RPG gameplay, and it's a piss-poor substitute in my opinion. RPG gameplay is the same gameplay I got when I opened my first D&D basic book and stepped into my first dungeon. The gameplay defines the genre.

The fact that a group of developers and advertisers were able to convince an audience of kids (at the time) that it could be redefined to include their dialogue box games doesn't make it so. Just like none of us wants to see it redefined to include the cutscene games of today. Tired of repeating myself. Either you understand my point or you don't.

This is neglecting the fact that comprehending (not to be confused with language forming) any well written dialogue, even if it's completely linear, represents an intellectual process physiologically almost indistinguishable from numerical and progressive matrix calculations (as all those processes take place in Wernicke's area of the brain and implore the same signalling, as evidenced by the studies using MR imaging of the brain during these activities).

Man, if they could see the difference between what goes through my mind when I step into a room full of bandits who are about to hand my ass to me if I don't think of something quick, and what goes through my mind when I step into yet another KotoR 2 dialogue box, they could have saved themselves a lot of time and grant money.

One last thing on this subject. If you click on a character in combat in TOEE, take a look at the myriad of tactical options available to you. Those options effect not only that character's tactics, but those of his allies as well, and even those of his enemies. And this occurs every round until the encounter is over.

Can a branching dialogue box mechanic achieve that level of complexity? Certainly it's possible, I guess. Me, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it. Even if it did, it would not be a suitable replacement for that gameplay. That RPG gameplay.

That's all I have to say about "What is an RPG?". If y'all would rather talk about dialogue as a game mechanic in and of itself, I'm happy to do so. You might be surprised that I actually have some interest in such. I just don't confuse it for RPG gameplay. It's something altogether different.

It'll have to wait until the next post, though. This one is getting too long.

 

[oldschool]

Regarding dialogue as a game mechanic: I refuse to accept it as valid RPG game design. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid game mechanic in and of itself. I don't guess people like to be called Adventure gamers, and it isn't entirely correct, so I'll use the term Narrativist that Mondblut used. Seems more appropriate.

Sorry for quote snippage below. I'm responding to the posts as a whole:

The value / complexity of the dialogue depends heavily upon the dialogue options. If the dialogue options represent real choices with tanglible consequences, and depend on both game mechanics and the use of player's knowledge of the game world / the character you're conversing with, then you have an increased complexity in dialogue, just as when you combat a certain AI the combat calculations are made according to game mechanics, but the player needs to use his in-game knowledge to apply the appropriate tactics against a certain enemy.

Why not? Just because you think it cannot, history aside(even if it hasn't yet), doesn't mean that it is not possible. The best system of Dialog is tactical, and I think that's a point you missed. For instance, the player should be made to understand the dialog choices they are making for the character, and the more depth the game has built into the dialog system, the more tactical the system can be. Dialog can boil down to character skills, reputation, chance, etc. If fleshed out enough, it could be just as tactical as anything else. Winning a conversation(if you will) would boil down to deciding what the best outcome for your character is before the conversation and then attempting to achieve said outcome.

I understand your points here, and I would agree with them for a Narrative game. Certainly choices and consequences are infinitely preferable to clicking through meaningless dialogue. I don't really have any points to argue.

I spent some time with the NWN toolset, and since the gameplay was so atrocious, about the only thing left to do was try to make a dialogue box game with it. Of course, with my gameplay fetish, it quickly turned into an imposssible task. Some of those dialogue trees are still branching, I'm sure. Just some of the issues I ran into:

Choices - Skill checks in and of themselves are not very interesting. Are you playing a diplomatic character? An intimidating one? Can you switch tactics at will? You either have to design the conversation to have narrow options based on the character build, or easy enough to accomodate all builds. So either you don't have many choices in response, or your skill selection choices didn't really matter.

Consequences - I agree that different choices should lead to different outcomes, but how much can you really change the game? Sure, you can have killing an NPC as an option, but only if they aren't needed for anything else, thus it is already an irrelevant choice. You can save the world or destroy it, but only if the effects of that can be reduced to an ending movie. You still went through the same game to get there.

Anyway(s), I won't bore y'all with all my thoughts on it, especially since I don't have the answers. Probably not the best person to attempt such a game in the first place.

If I was to attempt to design my own Narrative game...

Subject Matter: Needs to be something that is actually relevant. Forget elves & monsters & post-apocolyptic wastelands. How about an Orwellian future where you have to find a way to survive in an oppresive society. Something relevant to today's world.

I am not an RPG: Get rid of the lousy filler combat and stop pretending to be an RPG. Put the gameplay in the dialogue and spend those combat zots on multiple story paths instead.

Goal Choices Instead of offereing different ways to accomplish the same thing (the thing required by the plot), give some actual choices in what is to be accomplished. Maybe I want to destroy this oppresive world with terrorism. Maybe I want to lead a rebellion. Maybe I want to infiltrate it and take it down from the top. Maybe I want to rule it myself. No reason those same stories can't take place in the same setting with the same characaters.

Moral ambiguity is good: Let me lie, cheat, seduce, destroy as I see fit. I can define my character's moral compass all by myself, thank you.

Changing NPCs Adapt the personalities of key NPCs to the player's choices. In one playthrough, maybe that crackpot underground radio operator is an ally for a rebellion leading player. For a powerseeker, maybe he is a constant foil.

Bah! I just ran out of steam mid-sentence. I'm pretty sure I jumped the rails somewhere in the middle of all that, too. I guess my point is, if I want to play (or make) a narrative game, I want it to actually be what it is. Not just some trite dialogues or plotline half-heartedly pasted onto another genre.

On the other hand, if I want to play an RPG, I want to roll for initiative and then go from there.