What makes an RPG?

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Yeah, except that there's usually one way optimal way to beat whatever RPG system you have, rendering the alternative options rather meaningless at least in SP. Plus grind.

Tell me how you can take shortcuts to beat Gran Turismo... I mean beyond "adequate" level.

Would make much more sense to include stats, levelling in the car and parts themselves instead of the character (lest we include tech skills to modify it). Would provide a great incentive to keep one car, and not hijack one when convenient.

Instead of, you know

magically changing the laws of physics as you level up

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

So what?

If there are problems with the system, they of course need to adressed in some manner. If the other options are made interesting and meaty enough to explore, it doesn't really matter if there is some sort of "optimal way to beat the system" what ever "beating" actually means there. One thing is to spread the focus of the content on a broader scale to mitigate the overuse of the usually overpowering mechanics (such as how combat and lockpicking tend to be). Don't make the game overly reliant on just a couple of key aspects, and don't make the player able to "get it all" with ease.

And why should I need "shortcuts" to beat Gran Turismo? Why should I need "shortcuts" to beat any game?


It's not "magically changing the laws of physics" - that's the same kind of argument as "TB is unrealistic, nobody waits their turn in real life combat" when that's not what it represents in the slightest (aside from South Park where they even joke about it). It's a misinterpretation; taking an abstract to mean literal. The physics stay the same. It's changing the aptitude of the PC to better suit the task at hand - here: driving a car which might or might not be an alien action to the PC depending on how you create him/her (or how you are allowed to). You know, the character learning the stuff (that's what the skills and stats are there to represent - in an abstract form if it is point buy, or in a more grindy hands on way if it is learn-through-action).

And there's nothing to stop throwing in vehicle pimping on top.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Yes,an unnescessary layer of abstraction of what can be copied almost one-to-one from reality.

In RPGs, Essentially, there is one way that is fastest way to level up. Once you know that, you've beaten the game mechanics. It becomes a matter of paint-by-numbers as the game world is largely static. You could spend several years mastering any sim but not so with RPGs. Hence why it restricts rather then extends lifespan.

And if it is the case, then most of those years would be spent grinding.

The system you advocate is one of rock-paper-scissor where all three weapons are made stronger by grind and then rock is made stronger then paper.

You bring up the idea of scarcity. I'm all for scarcity, the best way to introduce scarcity is via an in-depth dynamic economy not artificial character builds.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Yeah, or it can be left as an abstraction. It is not unnecessary at all when it provides the wanted experience, which does differ from a reality sim a great deal. It is a different way of playing the game, a different from of enjoyment if one is for it; and if one is not, there are other games. And once again, if the system appears faulty; try to fix it, don't throw it away out of prejudice---unless of course such systems were not intended in the first place.

No system is completely waterproof, not your simulatiors nor my RPG mechanics. And they don't need to be, they only need to do their job the best they can to provide the experience they want to provide. If they do a bad job, they get shit from it. And rightly so.

From my point of view, you are not advocating for a Cyberpunk RPG. You are asking for a simulator with Cyberpunk paint on it (what with combat from a dedicated combat simulation (Arma), driving from a dedicated driving simulation (GT), economy from a dedicated economy simulation (I remember you mentioning Capitalism at one point), and the apparent desire to cut down the character progression because the inherent flaw of there not being a perfect system at hand and it going against the principles of accurate hands on simulation). I might be wrong, but this is how it looks to me.

I don't agree. The way I see it, all these simulations pile up into a rigid experience of learning the controls (they don't need to be mastered, they just need to be learned well enough to beat the game... this is not multiplayer where human opponents always provide a flexible challenge). And after you've learned them you don't ever need to learn them again and one big part of the game is forever lost -- or, if ones hand eye coordination just isn't up to the snuff, it will always remain as an excercise in frustration to cope with those things - just like the Arma copters, but in a much larger scale here due to the piling up of these features. Whereas a robust RPG system provides a much more flexibly evolving experience for every subsequent runthrough even if not honed to absolute perfection and even if not as hard to master as a whole.

If CP2077 turns out to be that way, I'll gladly jump off this train. That's not what I came here to look forward for, and that's not what has been (at least implicitly) advertised. We can debate the inherent merits and mishaps of these sorts systems until the sun dies, but as has been evident, our views and preferences being so completely apart from each other, there's not much more to it than a never ending circle of "yes-no-yes-no" - there's not even a hint of a middle ground in sight. I can't make you reconsider your stances, and you won't be making me do that. So better to just call it quits for this one here.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

It would be more accurate to say I want a dynamic cyberpunk painting.

Me, I'm just chilling. The only thing I can concretely look forward to is the art until more info comes in.

EDIT: The thing is kofeii, is that every RPG i've played had this problematic dynamic. Grind is simply part of the experience and finding an optimal build is core to it, at least in Western RPGs. SP or MP or whatnot. It comes at a much earlier point with classic RPG mechanics in general. Once you reached level 50 or 99 or whatnot, what then?

By contrast, I have hundreds of hours on both Hearts of Iron 1 and 2, but there are still things I learn about the games.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...er-Kings-Have-Average-Play-Times-of-190-Hours

If you think about it, stats do not enforce roles. It's a little bit like giving rank to someone and expecting them to fullfill it. Before coming here, not once have it occured to me to play a role while playing RPGs the way it's described here.

For my part, would I play CP2077 if CDPR decided "hm, this guy kofeii have real good ideas, we'll implement CP2020 rules verbatim" ? A resounding yes. As long as they don't fuck up the story. A great artist is supremely selfish and does art only for himself. He will take something that have no bearing at all with what his audience might want, but he will make it interesting anyway.

Also, you say I advocate. Well, yes and no. That I wouldn't like CDPR to deliver a comparable experience in depth and breadth as hearts of iron? I'd be lying through my teeth but I can't reasonably expect that they'd do this simply because they read my posts.You could say it's an exercice in logic,(concise) writing and perhaps rhetoric moreso then active advocacy.

I try not to repeat points I've already made elsewhere albeit with the trend of discussion always going back to TB/what is an RPG, it's often hard not to do it. Thanks for being such a good sport, in any case. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the discussion.

 

[vongo.859]

I'm not sure I really know how I would classify an RPG... I can classify RPG elements, and I have opinions on the deserved categories of some games, but it isn't a topic I think I can discuss with much conclusiveness. Though I do know that to be properly called an RPG, a game requires more than a single RPG element, and some elements have more weight than others.

Slight deviation from that and hopefully not too off-topic, but I've been wanting to discuss dialogue in RPGs lately, and I have an idea that I think would make my experience with dialogue more enjoyable. So i'll share...

Rather than the traditional forms of dialogue options that we've grown familiar with in RPGs, I'd like to see characters given the choice for actions or "narrations". Dialogue is limiting and can be restricting for role-playing, but narrations (e.g. "Player dismissed NPC 2", or "Player eagerly accepted the offer", yada yada) can have many more alternatives and allow the player to substitute their dialogue with an idea. This lets the player imagine the dialogue in their head that corresponds with the appropriate action. It allows for more role-playing and minimizes the incredibly high risk for the writers dialogue not to match each and every persons own expectations. I think it would be the perfect balance between what people like about voiced protagonists and silent protagonists.

I think this system would work best in a game where the player makes their own character. In RPGs with already established characters, I don't think it would work as well (i.e. The Witcher, Mass Effect [arguably], Golden Sun, etc).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

It would be more accurate to say I want a dynamic cyberpunk painting.

Me, I'm just chilling. The only thing I can concretely look forward to is the art until more info comes in.

Everybody should be chilling. There is a certain anticipation and expetation laid out by the announcement and the vague little tidbits of information we have.

As for art. Good art is always a plus, but to me, it is always secondary to the function of the game.

EDIT: The thing is kofeii, is that every RPG i've played had this problematic dynamic. Grind is simply part of the experience and finding an optimal build is core to it, at least in Western RPGs. SP or MP or whatnot. It comes at a much earlier point with classic RPG mechanics in general. Once you reached level 50 or 99 or whatnot, what then?

This is true to a degree. But it is also - the way I see it - a reason to explore these systems in order to find the ways to make them work better for the goal experience - in cases like CP2077 this would mean focusing design on a very broad category of content and actions. Not too many games try these days since it is much easier to make the game first and foremost about two or three core aspects (like swordfighting and alchemy in Witcher series) and base the system basis around them while still offering few other choices that are left with lesser focus due to the prevalence of these core activities.

It is of course easy for me to say that sitting in my comfy armchair and just evaluating things from afar without the need or knowhow to produce concrete examples in the form of a game, but from my experience with games (I've been playing video games to some extent since the late 80's) I think this is something to look at. This is something I would look at if I was to make an RPG (and I've tried to achieve that to at least some extent every time I've GM'd a PnP session) - variety and balance of content in as plausible manner as possible with the given game/session.

Grinding is usually centered around gathering benefits -- XP, currency, consumables.... -- in TES the whole idea of the gameplay is based on grinding as the skills go up through exactly that, in Fallout it is based on getting the needed XP for example. But it is not always a bad thing, it - if not exessive - encourages more gameplay, working for the goals in mind. It can also be mitigated with certain repercussions. Eg. if XP is only awarded through completing tasks, and/or if the grind is only let you to get forward to a certain extent (for a simple Cyberpunk related example, acting the activity out excessively in order to get skill bonuses only lessens IP cost of rising a skill up a level by 50% and that's the extent you can go about it so you can forget grinding further; and even that may provide to be an ordeal depending on the IP multipliers), grinding is reduced for quite some amount.

Bloodlines did this (the XP from quests). It didn't matter at all how many people you killed, how many locks you picked, how many computers you hacked, etc, because in order to go forward with the character, you needed to play the game as intended. Grinding was not an option.

And furthermore, I don't think it matters if there is some amount of grind if it is made an unoptimal and unencouraged way (a chore) to progress the character - though still helpful in the grand scheme of things, since it does make a small difference that might in certain cases make the difference between life and death.

If you think about it, stats do not enforce roles.

Speaking generally.... They don't (usually, but sometimes they do if that's how the design is), but they underline them through the possibilities they open, close or ease up.

For my part, would I play CP2077 if CDPR decided "hm, this guy kofeii have real good ideas, we'll implement CP2020 rules verbatim" ? A resounding yes. As long as they don't fuck up the story. A great artist is supremely selfish and does art only for himself. He will take something that have no bearing at all with what his audience might want, but he will make it interesting anyway.

Also, you say I advocate. Well, yes and no. That I wouldn't like CDPR to deliver a comparable experience in depth and breadth as hearts of iron? I'd be lying through my teeth but I can't reasonably expect that they'd do this simply because they read my posts.You could say it's an exercice in logic,(concise) writing and perhaps rhetoric moreso then active advocacy.

Advocacy was perhaps not the best choice of words looking at it now. We are of course only pushing forward our own preferences for the best possible CP2077 experience to ourselves (sometimes making sacrifices in order to not appear as rigid and selfish) and trying to make them look better and/or more plausible by comparison to the things we wouldn't want to see. It may not always seem so, but there is quite a large marginal between what I consider optimal and good enough. Though having that said, I am not an omnivore when it comes to these games -- and often, in forums like this, it feels, for an analogue, like people being at the door of a vegan bar and expecting a t-bone steak with their caesar's salad. (I'm not a vegan, though, just make it clear ).

There is a large group of people . I always try to push a general ideal that I consider the best or almost the best case scenario, but I'm also more flexible than that. It probably doesn't show well since discussions most often go around topics of north pole versus south pole. I hope nobody here is putting their ideas out in a "this way or no way, motherfuckers" manner.

Good stories can only take a game so far. Good storytelling can't compensate for bad gameplay while - in my opinion, of course - even an insignificant story can be tolerated if the gameplay delivers (for an example... I found Might & Magic X: Legacy to be quite fun, even if the story and art were both pretty lackluster).

Thanks for being such a good sport, in any case. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the discussion.

No problem, and likewise. Things remained relatively civil, and I guess that's what counts. People can disagree even vehemently without losing the respect of the opposing side.

Often times in forums like this, these sorts of discussions (generally about old school oriented vs new school mechanics) get pretty ugly pretty fast.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Hahaha, I knew it, let me get my morning coffee (no decaf) and I'll get right back to it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I just couldn't let it roll.

I'm easy like that. And it helped to be a bit on the whiskey side of being (it's the independence day here afterall).

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, let's talk about grind. I see it referenced via RPGs from time to time and as a beta WoW player, (who wasn't though), I've done a lot of it.

Grinding is repetitive action in order to accomplish something beyond said action, right? Unlike in a shooter, where you execute the same mechanic again and again, ( the shooty bits) for the fun of it, in grinding you do this in order to accomplish a separate task.

Furthermore, grinding is distinct from, say, shooting or fighting in those kinds of games in that it really is done so much as to become nearly mindlessly repetitive, (but not always, as anyone who has chain and group pulled doing AoE grinding as a Frost mage can tell you) and really something you do while watching Netflix.

This grinding is a required activity in order to advance whatever the target is. It may not be the only way, but it's one of several grinds possible. Examples include the gear grind, the dailies grind, rep grinds and proficiency grinding. Oh, and level grinding, although that's usuallllly optional if the game has designed levelling up properly.

That's grinding, right?

Now, I don't see a lot of that in RPGs. I see some grind-capable activities from time to time - Morrowind, Oblivion, etc and plant-hunting for potions - but they are not necessary to advance and, compared to real grinding, (49 hours to find that stupid Black Dragon Whelp or something. I'm not kidding), are more like grind-light.

As you mention, kofe, Bloodlines was grind-zero. I don't recall any action I could do again and again, really, that netted me any particular reward other than refilling my blood...and that took, what, two people? Two delicious, delicious people. I found cops and rich guys the most satisfying. God I miss that game.

The Witcher 1 and 2. Grinding....anyone have an example. An activity you had to do again and again in order to get something you couldn't accomplish otherwise, so you could advance in the game.

 

[Suhiira]

The whole grinding, leveling, and winning thing is a rather foreign to the concept of an RPG tho.
RPGs are more about enjoying the trip then reaching the destination.
Maybe that's part of the reason many competition gamers find them boring.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

The thing is kofeii in every RPG I've played ,the question is: What is the fastest, BEST way I can get the highest DPS (yeah I know there's healing, tech, and such, but let's face it.... DPS). And the thing is you can almost always figure out the answer rather easily.

(with the possible exception of MMOs, but that would be different from your RPG definition because high APM amongst decent PvP players seems to be the norm. And even then it's complexity via obfuscation )

With sims, it's easier. Learning the controls eh? Try that with Microsoft Flight simulator. Or just Gran Turismo. I guess it's possible that like RPGs, you can do trial and error and grind, but with sims, the thing is they tend to be unforgiving even for the rank beginner and so you have to know bit of theory. Or at least it helps a great deal.

"To make every facet interesting" and to make facet shallow enough so it becomes accessible to the great masses are two goals in stark contrast of one another. Why would people replay a game just so that they can play lacklustre lockpicking mini-games or the privileges of playing a subpar racing mini-game? Espescially when you already know the main story.

It would be a good idea to have player progression for certain things.Getting more or less cyber would allow for a natural progression but it is less character centric and more gear-centric. Crafting and tech skills I think naturally lend itself to player progression.

And the thing is that what you describe does not support actual role playing. Simply because I control a character onscreen does not mean I am playing a role, as I said, it never once occured to me that I was doing that before coming here.It's more like solving an optimization problem. Like finding the best build order in Starcraft.

Want a middle ground? Here it is:If I gain a real economic or gameplay advantage in playing a role like in EVE online, you bet I will act the part.

Bloodlines did this (the XP from quests). It didn't matter at all how many people you killed, how many locks you picked, how many computers you hacked, etc, because in order to go forward with the character, you needed to play the game as intended.

Well, here's a problem. It's an open world game. Instead of "playing the game as intended", you're supposed to set goals of your own.

Maybe I am ordering a T-bone steak but for a vegan offering, there's a great deal of meat in Witcher 2. CDPR also said because that tabletop mechanics translated verbatim would be "Super boring".

The Witcher 1 and 2. Grinding....anyone have an example. An activity you had to do again and again in order to get something you couldn't accomplish otherwise, so you could advance in the game.

I think it's possible to have good pacing in an RPG but I would still consider it grind. You could say that Call of Duty is FPS-ligh but its still an FPS.

Anyway, regardless of semantics, my main point is that leveling up tend to be boring.

Fair point about Witcher, but I was talking to kofeii before and in his mind Witcher 2 is not an RPG. I'm not even sure that VTMB is an RPG for him, because it had a huge action component (albeit with all the various RPG definitions, it's getting confusing keeping tracks who believes what and for what reason. Might be that suhiir or Calistatirus? I might be wrong).

The whole grinding, leveling, and winning thing is a rather foreign to the concept of an RPG tho.
RPGs are more about enjoying the trip then reaching the destination.
Maybe that's part of the reason many competition gamers find them boring.

Nope. Not at all. In my experience, it kind of goes hand in hand. The guy that is the most obsessed WoW fanatic that I know is also a Counter-strike fanatic. It's just part of being a "gamer".

Kind of like Sard. I'm not sure if it's his moderator everything-under-the-sun-is-good-even-cancer persona, but he seems to like most every game genre. Most hardcore gamers I know tend to also be well-rounded.

But what game is about the end result and not the journey? If you don't enjoy the journey, you're not going to enjoy the game, and you're never going to get good at it.

You can do the same with an RPG, but it's much harder... as hard as writing great fiction. There's just not that much room for cleverness. That;s why storytelling is paramount.

 

[Sardukhar]

Cancer IS good!

I mean...it kills people. And you all smell. Also heresy.


A great FPS, I think, is a lot easier to do than a great RPG - and, importantly, it's a lot easier to experience. Is it fast, fun and tense? Yes? Memorable weapons, map layout and effects? PReferably multiplayer that's as good or better? It's a great FPS!

Now, a great RPG. A great RPG...that's tough. Even discounting Kofe's RPG (Fallout 1 or 2), Mine, (Bloodlines or Torment), Poet's ( Witcher) or Poet's friend who thinks WoW is an RPG, (I can't honestly tell you what kind of person my Frost Mage is as opposed to my Rogue - so, not a lot of Role there to Play), even discounting all these varying tastes, there is a simple truth here:

A great RPG depends on great writing, and great writing is very, very rare. Even IF you get some, you then have to have the courage to follow where the writing takes you...and support it with good gameplay, acceptable graphics, level design...you know. All those things.

What's my point? That enjoying RPGs is best done if you don't focus on their weaknesses, but instead on what they bring to the table that you like. Because odds are, there are going to be a lot of weaknesses.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

With sims, it's easier. Learning the controls eh? Try that with Microsoft Flight simulator. Or just Gran Turismo. I guess it's possible that like RPGs, you can do trial and error and grind, but with sims, the thing is they tend to be unforgiving even for the rank beginner and so you have to know bit of theory. Or at least it helps a great deal.

I don't know how that's any different with RPG's. You need to understand the rules the game uses in order to play them properly or else it becomes "trial and error" (which can actually be quite fun as the learning may lead to some unexpected results, design allowing, instead of simply learning them).

"To make every facet interesting" and to make facet shallow enough so it becomes accessible to the great masses are two goals in stark contrast of one another. Why would people replay a game just so that they can play lacklustre lockpicking mini-games or the privileges of playing a subpar racing mini-game? Espescially when you already know the main story.

I most certainly am not speaking for shallowness or streamlining for the masses. I think it should be obvious by now that if I had my way to the letter, this game would be very much among the nichest market.

And the thing is that what you describe does not support actual role playing. Simply because I control a character onscreen does not mean I am playing a role, as I said, it never once occured to me that I was doing that before coming here.It's more like solving an optimization problem. Like finding the best build order in Starcraft.

Oh I think it does. There's a distinction between roleplaying and roleplaying game. Roleplaying is the thing that happens in your mind. If your imagination is up to the task you can do it while playing Solitaire, or Pong, or with toy soldiers on the livingroom carpet, you can do it even without a game. A roleplaying game is a game that provides and actively supports the intended roleplay through reactions to how you express and evolve the role you are given to play. You don't have to roleplay there, you can very well look at it as a sudoku puzzle and that's ok if that's what you want to do, but I would say you'd be doing it wrong if that's the reason you dislike it.

Well, here's a problem. It's an open world game. Instead of "playing the game as intended", you're supposed to set goals of your own.

Open world doesn't mean pointless (pointless as in, no set goals). There should always some central goal to reach, to strive for as goalless roaming serves no purpose at all.

Maybe I am ordering a T-bone steak but for a vegan offering, there's a great deal of meat in Witcher 2. CDPR also said because that tabletop mechanics translated verbatim would be "Super boring".

Yes, I remember that quote. And to me it speaks of certain kind of ignorance as a general statement from a studio that tries to create a game they themselves advertise as a loyal followup to a tabletop game. Those mechanics exist to produce a certain kind of experience that you can not have any other way. You can recreate the implied actions and effects with more conventional computer game hands on methods to some degree (eg. replacing to-hit-rolls with straight aim from an action game), but you can't recreate the experience they provide, you need to replace it with something else. And in my opinion that's usually when things start to go wrong. Unnecessarily reinventing the wheel; undermining one of the core aspects of the source material and replacing it with something completely different. This kind of thing is exactly what happened to Fallout 3.

And in any case. There will be skills and stats in CP2077 since there will be a character sheet that you can print and use in PnP. All I am asking is that that character sheet does the job it implies as properly as it can, that it makes a difference in the game, that it supports different arcetypes and variations for the role that the game will provide.

Fair point about Witcher, but I was talking to kofeii before and in his mind Witcher 2 is not an RPG. I'm not even sure that VTMB is an RPG for him, because it had a huge action component (albeit with all the various RPG definitions, it's getting confusing keeping tracks who believes what and for what reason. Might be that suhiir or Calistatirus? I might be wrong).

It's a sliding scale (it has to be with all the genreblending that runs rampant these days). I don't think I've said "Witcher 2 is not an RPG", but I do think it is less so than, say, Fallout. Witcher 2 is pretty conventional action RPG.

Someone made this in another forum:

It might not be 100% accurate, but it does give a picture of what I mean.

 

[Sardukhar]

INteresting chart. I disagree though - I've played WAY to much PnP

Player skill is sooo important in PnP. Knowing the rules, thinking around problems, being convincing in your character potrayal and in how you interact with PCs and NPCs...

I can win easily in both Action RPGs and "deep" CRPGs...it's much harder in PnP and much scarier. Sure, my hand to eye coordination isn't important - but my wit, my analytical thought, my memory, my non-linear thinking techniques, my charisma, my acting ability...all of these are so personal to me, not my character, and so important in terms of my characters success or failure at nearly every task.

Player skill is always a factor - for some reason people seem to think that shooter-related skills shouldn't matter, but tactical awareness or puzzle-solving skills should matter in RPGs.

Also, why are movies at the far left?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I don't know how that's any different with RPG's. You need to understand the rules the game uses in order to play them properly or else it becomes "trial and error" (which can actually be quite fun as the learning may lead to some unexpected results, design allowing, instead of simply learning them).

No, there's a big difference between learning concepts and learning rules.

In a typical cRPGs, once you know the rules, you typically know how to beat the game.
To take an RPG that we both like, Fallout 2, for example, I was never seriously challenged by it. And I finished it when I was 8 or 9. At that age, I was struggling with the Starcraft campaign and with Gran Turismo.

Can you calculate DPS? If you responded yes, you can beat 95% of RPGs on the market.

To use an analogy, a "sim" is a bit like chess, the rules are ultra-simple but the permutations are infinite.

Castling is a rule.
Taking and holding the center is a concept.

In a typical sim, or in a (good) strategy game, once you learn the rules, learning how to beat the game really starts there. There also usually is a very strong MP component.In the typical RPG, learning the rules takes place over the entire campaign (e.g. the power armor is invincible) and by then you have pretty much beaten the game.

I most certainly am not speaking for shallowness or streamlining for the masses. I think it should be obvious by now that if I had my way to the letter, this game would be very much among the nichest market.

Perhaps not for the game as a whole, but certainly for individual aspects (e.g. driving), which runs counter to the goal of making everything interesting.

Oh I think it does. There's a distinction between roleplaying and roleplaying game. Roleplaying is the thing that happens in your mind. If your imagination is up to the task you can do it while playing Solitaire, or Pong, or with toy soldiers on the livingroom carpet, you can do it even without a game. A roleplaying game is a game that provides and actively supports the intended roleplay through reactions to how you express and evolve the role you are given to play. You don't have to roleplay there, you can very well look at it as a sudoku puzzle and that's ok if that's what you want to do, but I would say you'd be doing it wrong if that's the reason you dislike it.

Man, most of my friends are gamers. I've never once heard somebody say something like "Oh, Poet, I was playing Epic RPG 3/4 the other day, and I came across a dunkin donuts, but since my character is the grand wizard of the krispy kreme klub,he cannot go to dunkin doughnuts." A gross exageration , but you get my drift.

Truth is, most of the kids today have never touched a PnP RPG and it simply doesn't occur naturally if you have never played them. To say I do it wrong? hmmm.

Art has nothing to do with "the way it's meant to be experienced" or doing it right or wrong. If the artist cannot express things unless the viewer has a certain mindset or has XYZ prerequisite,chances are the artist is incompetent. He is doing what is called fan service. It is almost universally derided and rightfully so.

As far as RPG game goes. That's all I'm saying really.

I'd be in favor of "If I can convince YOU ---not your character--- to do XYZ action/of my trustworthiness/ that I really do have a lvl 45 medical skill, then I will get a very real gameplay advantage... or at least I'll have new limbs to sell on the blackmarket"

That's pretty much the only way to enforce a semi-decent performance from the actors/players, and even then....

Open world doesn't mean pointless (pointless as in, no set goals). There should always some central goal to reach, to strive for as goalless roaming serves no purpose at all.

Not really.

There should be a main quest, but it should really be up to the PC whether or not he wants to follow it. If it isn't, then it isn't an open world game.

Certain open world games have no goals and the main fun is usually not derived from following the storyline (notable exception morrowind).

 

[Suhiira]

If determining how to exploit the games rules, generate the highest DPS rating, how to beat the opposition most efficiently, or how to get Phat Lewt is what some folks think role playing is about one of us is totally disconnected.
While it's true that all those things are part of the game they're not really intended to be the primary focus, not to say they can't be ... but by doing so you're missing what most RPers consider the whole point of playing an RPG in the first place vice an action game.
That point is to create a character concept and experience the games world from their perspective.

Let's take Dragons Age: Origins for an example.
For a character I created a female city elf rogue.
The games opening sequence informed my mother had disappeared while off on some adventure (she was the one who'd taught me my basic rogue skills), my father had set up an arranged marriage for me, and I have no siblings. While exploring the slum where I lived the heir apparent of the local noble shows up and starts harassing my neighbors and relations, apparently he and some of his buddies have decided a little elf nookie is just what's needed to spice up a little party he has planned. My cousin bashes him over the head with a pot just before things get totally out of hand.
Later as the wedding is taking place (and as a player I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out of it without totally pissing off my father) Mr Heir Apparent shows up and kidnaps several females (including me) to use as party favors.
After all this set-up the game actually gets started.
Of course you're totally free to ignore all that and concentrate on making the most effective possible character and making all the most advantageous decisions, and if that's what floats your boat fine.
But what if you approach it from your characters point of view? Most humans treat you like dirt, many nobles see you as little more then a commodity to be exploited, you grew up in the slums ... what do you know about forests or social etiquette. What if instead of concentrating on making your character the goddess of the battlefield you work on the attributes and skills necessary to coerce your way thru situations, or if that fails stealth and theft can often get you what you want.
When presented with a decision what if you make if from the perspective of a slum elf that distrusts authority and humans rather then what gets me the best in-game advantage.
Maybe it's not always about winning but how you play the game?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

To make a long story short, because it's boring.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Fallout 2, for example, I was never seriously challenged by it. And I finished it when I was 8 or 9. At that age, I was struggling with the Starcraft campaign and with Gran Turismo.

Challenge is a different issue. That you weren't challenged by Fallout 2 (a game that is not very challening to begin with, it doesn't even seem to be built with "challenge" in mind) isn't an indicative of challenge not bein able to be provided. I like a good challenge just like the other guy, but I don't really play these sorts of game mainly to be challenged or to beat them the best I can, there are no scoreboards to brag with, but to experience them. If a game is too easy, that's definitely a problem, but going too much the other direction isn't very good either in a game that tries to quite a lot at the same time.

In a typical sim, or in a (good) strategy game, once you learn the rules, learning how to beat the game really starts there. There also usually is a very strong MP component.In the typical RPG, learning the rules takes place over the entire campaign (e.g. the power armor is invincible) and by then you have pretty much beaten the game.

Apples and oranges. A good strategy game strives to provide a good stragety game experience. A simulation strives towards good simulation. In the same vein an RPG should strive to provide a good RPG experience. It doesn't need a simulation or a strategy game injected into it to provide that -- and while it can borrow some elements, like most genres do these days to other generes, it most certainly doesn't need to mutate itself into game of another genre.

I like strategy games, and I like some simulations. But I like those games for different reasons and play them to get a different experience from what I look for in an RPG.

Perhaps not for the game as a whole, but certainly for individual aspects (e.g. driving), which runs counter to the goal of making everything interesting.

No. I'm specifically asking for the opposite of streamlining. Even with the driving stuff. Because I am asking for considerations beyond learning the controls of the activity (which you need to do in any case, should there be manual driving), and even beyond the activity itself through the investments in the skills requiring sacrifices in other areas. The only thing I remember saying "in favor" of streamlining (if you can call it that) is that I don't think the controls need to nor should try to excessively strive towards some sort of accurate simulation of real life.

Man, most of my friends are gamers. I've never once heard somebody say something like "Oh, Poet, I was playing Epic RPG 3/4 the other day, and I came across a dunkin donuts, but since my character is the grand wizard of the krispy kreme klub,he cannot go to dunkin doughnuts." A gross exageration , but you get my drift.

I don't talk like that either.

If the discussion is about the experience I had with a certain game, I explain the experience I had and what I think of it.

The thing about roleplaying in a cRPG for me is to look at what seems consistent for me to do with the character I have built and the baseline concept I have in mind to try out (good, bad, opportunistic, etc), both gameplay and narrativewise. In Fallout 2 the Chosen One is sent out to find the GECK to save his/her family and friends. In achieving that goal there are plenty of opportunities to look at the narrative arcs and decide what sort of person you build up to be during your task. Not so much for creating some imaginary stuff up, but to see how the game reacts to that (like Fallout 2 does).

Truth is, most of the kids today have never touched a PnP RPG and it simply doesn't occur naturally if you have never played them.

I would suppose a "serious" RPG wouldn't be aimed at "kids of today". There are kid's games and then there are other games that are not so much for the kids.

And even so, kids of yesterday learned all these things just fine, if they were interested in the first place.

Art has nothing to do with "the way it's meant to be experienced" or doing it right or wrong.

Art hasn't. But games have. Games always have rules (it's not a game if there are no rules to go by) and they are most always made with certain kind of activity in mind; sometimes that is pretty onesided (Gran Turismo -- you drive and tune your cars), sometimes it contains a plethora of things that are possible (Fallout, D:OS, for example). But you can always play "wrong" - whether by not knowing the correct way yet, or by some other mean - and that reflects in the result.

Not really.

There should be a main quest, but it should really be up to the PC whether or not he wants to follow it. If it isn't, then it isn't an open world game.

Certain open world games have no goals and the main fun is usually not derived from following the storyline (notable exception morrowind).

It's not a very good mainquest if it's only made as a glorified sidequest that ends with credits rolling. There's no push to go forward, things just "are". This is where RPG's should shine because they (optimally) trend towards letting the player approach and deal with the subject matter from a variety of angles, and even the side stuff might affect it in some ways... and there should be consequences for neglecting it completely.

Fallout originally had a 150 day time limit to find the waterchip or the Vault 13 residents - the only people the Vault Dweller knew, his family and friends - would die. The player was trusted an urgent task, a goal to strive for by what ever means he would find useful of necessary, and if he decided to neglect that task, the game saw fit to neglect the player with a "game over" -- and rightly so. The game - Cyberpunk in this case - should have the balls give the player a responsibility and respond to how it is done or if it is left undone (and this response doesn't necessitate a "doomsday clock", there are various ways of reactivity to explore).

 

[Sardukhar]

I think there is a fundamental difference illustrated here, and it's an interesting one. One side sees Role-Playing as that - playing pretend in a virtual world where you try to think like, act like and talk like a different person, or at least a different version of yourself.

The other side sees the term Role-Playing Game as a not particularly accurate phrase describing a game of adventure and exploration where their self-avatar becomes more and more powerful they longer the game goes and gets to experience and even change the surrounding story.

I consider the first experience the original, but the second is quite prevalent now, to the point where levelling up, stats, loot and exploration have actually supplanted what RPGs started out as : character simulators.

On the other hand, the second version is also very close to what RPGs rapidly became when DnD hit the market: adventure+loot sims.