Yep, I don't have any "favourite" music
Post automatically merged:
I like playing like a GHOST!
- Status
I like playing like a GHOST!
Personally I'm far more afraid certain "non combat" routes around game encounters will be locked behind platformer game mechanics. Double jump here, leap across this gap there, wait until X precise moment to do Y here, etc. The fact that this is nothing more then a variant of the same twitch gameplay the FPS combat system is centered around means it's just as much of a non-option for those not good at twitch as combat.
And how would YOU want that particular problem or obstacle to be solved?
- Just walk straight to the destination with no obstacle whatever?
- Engage the players real life skills such as ability to fathom 3d structures, figure out routes, and minor mechanical skill (platforming)
- Utilize the characters ingame stats and abilities to hack doors and open routes that were otherwise blocked? (This implies that you first have to achieve a certain level of stat or character skill, meaning grind)
Personally I'd want all three to be represented. Variety is the key.
EZ
It's supposedly an RPG, use character stats/skills rather then the players reflexes. Just like any other real RPG.
I do not know, even in most modern RPGs player abilities are still important. especially with platforming.
All RPG's rely on player decision making. Though people seem to have a problem when it involves free form aiming and movement. As if that alone somehow invalidates every other aspect of the game.
If you really want a classic example, think about the character centric Dungeon Siege or Diablo combat. Lower the combat aspect of them, add the branching outcomes of Fallout games and character focus of Bioware's later games and you basically have a neo-RPG template. Not the only type out there, surely not everyone's cup of tea, but it definitely carved a place of its own.
If you really want a classic example, think about the character centric Dungeon Siege or Diablo combat. Lower the combat aspect of them, add the branching outcomes of Fallout games and character focus of Bioware's later games and you basically have a neo-RPG template. Not the only type out there, surely not everyone's cup of tea, but it definitely carved a place of its own.
Well, RPG is all about interpreting another character.
And that collide with action gameplay which rely on he player skill instead of the character's one.
I don't know why I'm arguing this yet again and I'm sure Ill regret, but ALL RPGs rely on player skill.
In traditional PnP, it's social and tactical skills, plus imagination. These things will get you more XP, see your character survive longer and net you more loot. And play-time, typically.
All games have players with varying skill-sets, PnP ABSOLUTELY included. I just rebuilt my players WFRP characters for a new system, and the most skilled/engaged player had 50% more XP than the least. 50%! And far more Fate Points (Lives). Because smart, imaginative, system-aware, good acting ability.
In SLA Industries, the first session saw a total party wipe, save only two players - the most experienced, tactically aware, imaginative players were the only two that survived out of the 6. The rest perished because they couldn't think clearly enough, they hadn't put the time into learning the system and they couldn't render the world in their heads as well. Some characters survive, some don't - and that's not typically random chance. At least not in my games.
This idea that a "real" RPG doesn't involve player abilities to a huuuge extent is nonsense.
PnP and Crunch CRPGs use different player skills than more twitch-based RPGs, but they absolutely use skills. Skills which make a real difference in play experience and rewards.
I personally wouldn't classify either game an as RPG (and probably not even an RPG-ultralite). They're Action games, pure and simple.
100% agreement.
BUT!
While the player provides the ideas the characters abilities, or lack thereof (usually plus a die roll) determine the outcome. THAT'S the difference.
John Doe (the player, who happens to be a real life medical doctor) knows his character Tami Klutz needs to get someone else's character medical treatment ASAP or they will die. But Tami has zero medical skills ... there's not a damn thing she can do to save him. The players knowledge and skills are totally irrelevant.
Last edited:
Action role-playing video games*
Often abbreviated action RPG or ARPG are a subgenre of role-playing video games. The games emphasize real-time combat where the player has direct control over the characters as opposed to turn or menu-based combat while still having a focus on character's Stats in order to determine relative strength and abilities. These games often use action game combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.
Actually it only depends on the game master.
For example I play (and master about one time out of three) in a very welcoming group (we even accept girlfriends, lol ) , and every problem you give is addressed.
Last edited:
Yes, yes ... by the current definition of an RPG any game is an RPG if it's advertised as such.
"Battle Chess" anyone?
Indeed. I mean, of course the player makes decisions. What to try, where to go, who to talk to, how to do that all. That's the name of the game. But... Decision making and ingenious solutions don't override the characters inaptitude to act it all out. Crucial matters - like lockpicking, aiming and handling a gun, jumping over a gorge, haggling, seducing, etc - are in the characters area of the equation.
The player makes the decisions -- all of them. The character acts them out to the best of his/her ability as per how the player has defined him/her. That's how it should work.
1. These aren't problems. What are you doing, rewarding people that put less effort in or don't engage as enthusiastically?
And why would you not accept girlfriends? Or boyfriends? Yeah..that's...that's not a fantastic qualifier, I have to say.
2. A good GM can fix nearly anything, sure. But that's individual intervention - it doesn't change that PnP Systems and Rewards are absolutely subject to player skills and aptitudes.
@kofeiiniturpa As for how RPGs "should" work - that's super subject to definition. There are some pretty limited definitions of RPGs around, definitions that PnP games have gleefully dispensed with years ago. LARPs are a great example of this.
It's a nearly arbitrary definition, too. "It's okay for a player to be better socially or tactically - or at puzzles - and still be rewarded for that, but if they are better at twitch skills, that should have no effect." No, that's arbitrary and has little bearing on role-playing. CRPGs have allowed physical and dexterity-based skillsets to come into play, as opposed to those of social or spatial skillsets.
The idea that the player makes the decisions in some safe bubble where the character then executes those is amusing to me. Role-playing is a deeply engaging and emotional experience. Players get excited and upset and confused and that absolutely affects what their character does or doesn't and can or can't do. This has always been the case, at least if the game is any good. Player and character, story and GM are all linked - and player's abilities absolutely affect this equation. And always have.
Last edited:
Well, by analysing which game is officially considered an RPG and which game is not, I would say the definition of an RPG is: Any game with evolving, numbered stats.
Not any, just some that fit the definition, like The Witcher 3, for instance.
That "focus" is a bit misleading there. The Gothic's and the first Risen had something relatively formidable going on with them, but a game with guns and one that is "modern" to boot.... it's all been windowdressing above all for years because apparently even the illusion of progression is enough and should there be actual progression, it's "yuck, clumsy, not reallistic at all, and unorthodox".
When it comes to rewards, we just don't discriminate (unless we all agree to), everyone gets the same.
People who do put more effort of roleplaying their character are just rewarded by the fun of doing it.
That was supposed to be a joke even if, from personal experience, most of the girlfriend which came were there to spend more time with their boyfriend and not because the specifically wanted to play.
The fact is that crunch is just a box of tools, in the end the GM is the only thing that matters when it comes to rules.
Interesting fact: I'm currently a game master at Shadowrun (4th) yet doesn't know advanced rules about it because I think it's just too much crunch, yet none complain and it's even the favorite campaign of one of the players.
The only hard thing in that is remembering rulings I take on the fly.
Yeah, they have their shortcomings. One being that you can basically finish them with opening gear if you're resilient and know how to play.
But it has to be said that that sort of difficulty is not really what I would even consider for Cyberpunk. Just that skills are actually potent (and in a way, unbypassable by the player) enough that their increments are clearly felt through more fluid gameplay (and in a way that does not include damage adjustments one way or another).
That's pretty much what I've been asking for from the beginning. One of my first posts in the blog, before the forums existed was about using focus based aiming similiarly to how Deus Ex (the original) did it, and that's still on my table, althgough in a somewhat modified form.
When you handle accuracy through skills, combat gameplay will get gradually faster and more fluid in a much less subtle way than using damage as the core, because when the guns are somewhat lethal from the get go, the player will notice when hits happen and when he can score those hits with much lesser focus time.
Anyways, I wasn't supposed to start ranting about this again (it just happened), so I'll stop again here.
- Status