Cyberpunk 2077: The Perfect RPG

+
No they aren't. There is no "perspective" dictated in PnP. The GM might say "You step outside the bar and see a beached manatee. How did it get there when there's no water for 100 kilometers in any direction, is beyond comprehension", but how you interpret the situation in completely up to you. Are "you" looking at the manatee, or do you vision your character looking at it - it makes no difference.

Uhhh...there kind of is. Sort-of.

PCs can't see more than they can see, unless using drones or cameras or what have you.

Especially important in CP2020, which I've been running a lot recently. If you can't -see- it, you can't -spot- it and all the horrible things it can do to you.

So although I actively encourage the visualization of the setting and their PCs from a cinematic view, I mostly encourage them to see -through- their character's eyes - very important to see only what their characters can see. No isometric/TPP "safe" vision.

Plus, well, it's more immersive. What? It is. You're there!
 
What Chris Avellone says about RPG
Avellone says that his definition of a role-playing game hasn’t changed at all over his two decades in game development, the integral element being a focus on what industry figures often term “choice and consequence.”

“An RPG allows you to take on a role,” says Avellone. “It allows you to make decisions about your character and your place in the world that are meaningful, and it allows you to grow in some fashion — either XP or otherwise — and present challenges to overcome that allow for that growth: combat, narrative, or otherwise.”

Avellone draws a line between these core tenets of RPG design and other elements that he views as equally important but not essential to it being an RPG. For example, most of the best RPGs out there are loved for their evocative worlds, like Fallout’s vision of an America soaked to the bone with nostalgia and radiation, or the mountains of rusted-out machines that make up Monte Cook’s Numenera, the setting for the spiritual successor to Planescape. More controversially, Avellone says that he regards customisation elements like base-management or even building your own character from scratch as a modern addition to the formula that he finds personally appealing, but ultimately not “key to [every] RPG.”

He points to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt as an example of a great RPG that doesn’t feature character creation — though you can give Geralt of Rivia a nice shave, or let his white hair flow long and free, you’re ultimately stuck in his role as a social outcast that hunts monsters for a meagre living. “What’s important about Witcher 3 is that it allows significant choices,” Avellone says. “And what’s even better about it is that the questions it asks of you are ones where there isn’t a clear answer — so it’s less about what the game can tell you, and more about asking yourself what you would do in that situation, as a player."

"What I mean is this: suppose you are presented with a decision, but exploring the game world has told you that choice X is Chaotic Evil and choice Y is Lawful Good. That’s less of a role-playing decision to me, versus when it’s not so clear-cut, because you have to do more searching of what values you have as a player, and what risks you might be taking in making a decision — even with how much you trust what you’re being told by the person you’re talking to. The Witcher 3 presented that world. It had a lot of complexity and made you give a lot of thought to your decisions – for that, I thought it was a great RPG.”
Avellone says that he appreciates the wealth of choices modern games allow him to make about gear, fighting style, and general combat capabilities. But to return to his favourite example of The Witcher 3, the game’s wealth of branching questlines is what makes it “a great RPG. In games, the willingness to integrate choice comes down to the budget of the game and the expenses involved with the choice... The more expensive the game, the more resistance there can be in the development process to showing choice in player agency, because branching assets can be very, very expensive.”
 
Uhhh...there kind of is. Sort-of.

PCs can't see more than they can see, unless using drones or cameras or what have you.

Of course not, but that doesn't really relate to a "perspective". It's about the GM describing what's there to see (or sense otherwise) of any note. The player decides how he visualizes the description. The GM might of course try to enforce a perspective at times (I've done it too, and it's been done to me) - e.g. telling the player that because he is stuck in a manhole from his shoulders and because he is not an owl, he can't see what's happening behind him - but even then, the player is the one who visualizes the situation.

Other than that, I have no disagreements with what you said.

No isometric/TPP "safe" vision.

I have no idea what a "safe vision" would mean in PnP. I'm instantly thinking of telepathy between the player and the GM. :D
 
Last edited:
What Chris Avellone says about RPG
Can we stop listening to ahem, gamedesign humanitarians? He knows fuck all about game mechanics in general, as evident in his praise for Witcher 3s "RPGness" (and lame work on PS:T and Fallout 2 outside of writing, also don't forget Alpha Protocol failures). Witcher 3 is nominally an RPG because it does have very basic MMOsque system first, choices and consequences is tenth question. He keeps making the same @Sardukhar mistake, short of nominating Detroit: Become Human an RPG.
 
Yeah, MCA can provide a masterclass in narrative design and writing if he's really allowed to express himself (which isn't very often), but he's not really a systems guru in the same way. Either that, or he's not ever been put in systems design post to show off because he's such an excellent narrative guy that taking him off there would be a real loss.
 
 
I have no idea what a "safe vision" would mean in PnP. I'm instantly thinking of telepathy between the player and the GM. :D

Oh, you know - ability to see more than you can, thus preserving yourself from danger. A bit of a danger in PnP, along with metagaming. Sometimes I sketch out not only a tactical map, but also a first-person perspective for the player.

Also, check out Atom, kofe. It's Russian Fallout. So far, it's lots of fun!

@metalmaniac21 I'm not a mistake, or making a mistake. My opinion - or anyone else here - is as valid as yours. And my opinion about what makes an RPG or what can be an RPG is grounded in a -lot- of role-playing. Decades. Plural. Computer games, PnP, diceless, LARPs. It is not narrow of scope.

You need to tone down the language, the perjoratives and the judgement. That's a warning.
 
I feel like I'm at NMA boards. Dejavu is too strong. :ROFLMAO: Some users here are totally from places like that. NMA regulars.

I actually can agree that Avellone knows little about game design. The reason I never finished PST. It's barely a game. More like a visual novel. I also talked to a bro not long ago and he said that Witcher 3 is the best sandbox RPG he ever played. :unsure: People don't give a f... That being said, Avellone's definition of an RPG is yet another argument that it's impossible to figure out strict definition of RPG as a genre. There are archetype games, that give birth to the genre. But then it gets difficult, because of different mixture of ingredients and proportions.
 
Witcher 3 is nominally an RPG because it does have very basic MMOsque system first, choices and consequences is tenth question. He keeps making the same @Sardukhar mistake, short of nominating Detroit: Become Human an RPG.
This brings us to the question: "What makes an RPG an RPG?".

You know, I was always surprised that people considered Mass Effect 1 to be such great RPG game, when I saw it mostly as a third-person shooter. You could assign points (mostly for the shooting part of the game) and had (a very limited) choice tree bonsai. The best you could do is "Pick A" and "Pick B" (and the third option was "Pick B, but without getting evil points for saying that"). Imagine calling Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast an RPG. All it needs is adding some points somewhere, and two to three dialogue choices!
 
This brings us to the question: "What makes an RPG an RPG?".

You know, I was always surprised that people considered Mass Effect 1 to be such great RPG game, when I saw it mostly as a third-person shooter. You could assign points (mostly for the shooting part of the game) and had (a very limited) choice tree bonsai. The best you could do is "Pick A" and "Pick B" (and the third option was "Pick B, but without getting evil points for saying that"). Imagine calling Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast an RPG. All it needs is adding some points somewhere, and two to three dialogue choices!
I can rip Fallout 1-2 in the same way. It's basically a turn-based shooter. And in dialogue you usually have 3 options - say something nice, say something rude and say something neutral.
 
Also, check out Atom, kofe. It's Russian Fallout. So far, it's lots of fun!

It's firmly on my list. I'm just waiting for a GOG release and the first few patches.

Same for Grimoire, Disco Elysium and Copper Dreams.
Post automatically merged:

I can rip Fallout 1-2 in the same way.

You could, but why would you? Saying "Fallout is poo-poo too" doesn't really serve as an argument here, it wasn't part of what you quoted. It sounds like a vengeful counterstrike against an argument that claimed something you disliked.
 
Last edited:
You could, but why would you? Saying "Fallout is poo-poo too" doesn't really serve as an argument here, it wasn't part of what you quoted. It sounds like a vengeful counterstrike against an argument that claimed something you disliked.
Because quoted argument is just an attempt to unjustly degrade something to prove a point. For example, "Mass Effect isn't an RPG, because basically it's a..." I can strip any game to "basically" and it won't look like anything impressive.
 
Alright all. Topic is discussion relating to CYBERPUNK 2077: THE PERFECT RPG, not the quality or motivations of other peoples posts. Let's move along.
 
Saying "Fallout is poo-poo too" doesn't really serve as an argument here, it wasn't part of what you quoted.
Indeed.

I will try to be a bit more detailed to make my earlier point clear, because apparently I wasn't speaking plainly enough the first time.

Why orthodox players consider mechanics an essential part of an RPG genre? Because PnP RPGs have them. And why PnP RPG have them? Because they are a fairly objective measure of your success (or failure) in game that constitue who you are as the player.

And, perhaps even more importantly, they give you access to various activities. Activities that may help you reach the goal you want to achieve. That, in my opinion, is the essence of a true RPG game. But it's not only about the mechanics - the dialogue can be used to offer the player a set of meaningful options as well.

This is what Detroit: Become Human does extremely well. It gives you a lot of options every step of the way. As a result it does allow you to interact with the in-game world in a way and to a degree that makes it feel very RPGesque.

On the other hand we have games that have "RPG elements" or even claim themselves to be RPGs but end up being very superficial about what they really offer in terms of that experience. Here is a really good example of this, coming from this very topic:
Anthem dev essentially said "our game has stats and gear that you level up, therefore it's an RPG"
The reason I pointed out to Mass Effect 1 earlier is because, in my opinion, it treads very close to the same line. The line of "it's [technically] an RPG, because it seems to have all these elements that are traditionally associated with RPG games", while I look at it and see mostly a third-person combat-oriented game with some RPG elements thrown into it.

I hope this makes my position clear.
 
I will try to be a bit more detailed to make my earlier point clear, because apparently I wasn't speaking plainly enough the first time.

Now you know how I feel, being in a position of having to do that all the time. And you obviously have a better command of the language. ;D

Anyways...

Why orthodox players consider mechanics an essential part of an RPG genre? Because PnP RPGs have them. And why PnP RPG have them? Because they are a fairly objective measure of your success (or failure) in game that constitue who you are as the player.

Very much so. And it's not even solely about the simple terms of "success/failure", It's not about thinking that on the go, It's about "what happens" as you play. There's a feeling of being part of something that doesn't come out of a every place being a gamey situation of "yes you can" or "no you can't". The deeper meaning of it is that "actually" failing at something (even if you're good at it) is something that happens in real life all the time. It's about the world feeling organic rather than dictated. That's what immersion is. Being part of the world for better and the worse; situational "no you can't"s and "yes you can"s buiding for that too. Taking on the role for what ever it subjects to your gameplay, good or bad and the "maybe"-factor (because it's not you... it's at most your projection within the game by the games rules), that's roleplaying in a roleplaying game. Emphasis on the "game".
 
More begs the question, "What good is a definition if it defines something so widely?"

Is 2077 an RPG? Is Mass Effect? Is Fallout 2? By whose standards?

I can call all of these an RPG because it fits my standards.

Does it fit yours? Well, that's up to you and only relevant if it influences you into playing the game or not. Reviews and Let's Plays and maybe a chance to try it yourself should answer the only question that actually matters:

"Is this fun for me?"
 
The deeper meaning of it is that "actually" failing at something (even if you're good at it) is something that happens in real life all the time. It's about the world feeling organic rather than dictated. That's what immersion is.
Not sure about that. As a scientist, when I do something I know what I'm doing and if I fail I have the means to know why and learn from that. In games, if RNG decides that you fail, that's it and there's nothing you can do about that or learn from the failure.I can agree that there are aspects in life not depending from you (e.g. a train accident, you're just unlucky), but if you are good at something and you do it properly, you don't fail.

Now, if we translate that to games, when I shoot into an NPC's head, since I was good enough to aim there, I want an instant kill (unless he's wearing an helmet etc.), I don't want to have the chance of a critical hit, normal hit or even a complete miss, absolutely not immersive. I got that mutherfucker in the head FFS! Other exemple, you speak with an NPC who fictionally has its own story and background, so only specific words will convince him in doing something. I don't know which words, I need to be good enough to understand him and bend his mind to my will. But if I choose the right words and the RNG decides that I fail because I have 70% of success, fuck that, that's meaningless. The game gives me the right words to use, but that's useless because the RNG has decided for me? I'd rather have the quest designer deciding that the NPC is impossible to convince no matter what I say over that failing because i was unlucky.
Videogames don't have the limits of PnP, where rolling a dice is the only way to decide if you hit the enemy or not, you can actively interact with your skills and decide your destiny. If we want to introduce simple unluck in games, we need to introduce some random unpredictable events that are non-dependant from your actions, like a train accident, but if you die while you are fast-travelling, then it's just frustrating because you need to reload. Maybe they could introduce diseases, that could be a compromise, but they'll probably be just frustrating maluses. I don't really have any good idea for the concept of real unluck, but having a game that rolls dice to decide my fate, no thanks, I will reload until I get what I deserved with my skills.

P.S. I know this features are the basis of games like X-com, but I don't think can be considered RPGs (or can thay? I don't want to go through the topic again). A bunch of people likes those games, I simply hate them and consider them the least realistic/immersive games ever.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom