Agreed. That's how they appear to be doing it. I'm talking about what I would like to happen.
Very RPGish.
Post automatically merged:
Argumentum ad populum spotted.
Very RPGish.
Of course that's very RPGish. Because that's the moment you do roleplaying, instead watching, passively, your character solve the problem so easily cause your character has high speech skill.
Imo, roleplaying is about the player, not character.
How does one roleplay "himself"?
It's not the dialog system (the reason), if that's what you mean.
Post automatically merged:
It's not the dialog system (the reason), if that's what you mean.
Last edited:
I consider having come up with lines, determining what to do next and something like that as a roleplaying. I don't know what you mean exactly but if you are telling about character, it's different from that a player becomes a character. I didn't mean it, and it is not needed to.
Why do I consider using my empathy when I have to make choices as RPGish moment? Because it reqires players to think, to understand situation, to be immerse in. Making players think like 'What would I do if I were V, Geralt, Shepard, Courier now?' is very important. This mindset is the core experience of RPG IMO. And some skills like speech, persuasion definitely limit it.
Not wishing to start an argument ... but ...
The term is "Role Playing Game", what "role" are you playing if you're playing yourself?
Role playing IMO by definition is about both the player and the character.
The players choices/decisions are crucial, but the characters past and abilities are also crucial. Without either component, the concept doesn't work. Now there are legitimate disputes about how much influence should belong to the player and how much influence should belong to the character ... but saying it's one or the other is not an accurate portrayal about what roleplaying is IMO.
The players choices/decisions are crucial, but the characters past and abilities are also crucial. Without either component, the concept doesn't work. Now there are legitimate disputes about how much influence should belong to the player and how much influence should belong to the character ... but saying it's one or the other is not an accurate portrayal about what roleplaying is IMO.
Problem is when the sentence looks more like 'What would I do if I were V, Geralt, Shepard, Courier now but without having their abilities?'
That would makes the answer something besides "getting slaughtered" and "fail" for the most part.
I wonder if, in the far future, people will also prefer to go with their own pain threshold to determine how much health they have instead of letting the character decide that.
Mmm! This is an interesting point i've thought about in RPGs, PnP and CRPG. "Hit points" especially make this silly. IN CP 2020, you have stun shock and Endurance checks, both of which I love. It discourages people from eating damage. In most games, you see "Oh, I've got 50% HP left, I'll be fine."
Well, I've taken a few beatings in my life, as well as some serious injuries and diseases. Friends have had worse, thanks to an active youth.
I call tell you, pain and shock are -super- debilitating. Learning to tell the difference between pain and injury ( sometimes, serious injury doesn't match with pain at all and sometimes, that can get you killed. Learning to do a "wet check" is important.) is a real skill, and an ugly one to learn.
I feel few CRPGs or PnP games take this into account. If we felt even a quarter of what our characters feel, I think gameplay would be very different! And the Pain Editor would be a number one buy. Although, in my games it usually is, as it also reduces your S/S level check.
I wouldn't be adverse to some kind of effect on players at all, a la real world Interactive Braindance. I struggle to get my PCs to connect with their characters viscerally all the time. Fear, pain, panic, discomfort, hunger, worry...yes yes.
IMHO that's where the RP part of RPG comes in.
The character has abilities we the player don't possess. And in the case of a "good" RPG they have psychological traits we, the player, usually don't but we have the option to use them within the game.
In the Witcher series Geralt is a pretty stoic man of few words, we have the opportunity to portray that even tho we ourselves aren't.
Last edited:
I suppose stats, ability, something like that are just parts of rules. Rules make the game inarguable. That's it. It has nothing to do with roleplaying. For instances, imagine kids playing home. They don't have any stats as a mom, dad, son, daughter. But they play without any problem. I think it's very pure form of roleplaying. If you add some unique settings, characters, rules to it, It's called PnP. And I have thought PnP doesn't need to be goal of computer RPG. CRPG should make their own way. Thing is giving the players feeling like they are making their own way. If the game is overly dependant on stats, it will hurt this. Because In PnP you decide what to say, what to do, and roll the dice. But in CRPG you 'choose' what to say, what to do among relatively tiny options devs made in advance, and even they are limited because of character's stats? I feel somewhat frustrated in this point.
I'm not making a proposal all of the stats should be removed. It's good for gameplay but in dialogues, it should be used more carefully especially some skills related social aspect. (speech, persuasion like) this is the why I prefer approach of W3 to that of New Vegas. You need to really understand the characters (Ciri, Ciana and so on) to see good ending in W3 unlike New Vegas where if your speech is high, all the problems are magically solved.
Why do each time someone speak about social stats they always limits themselves to the "magic stat" example as it it would be the only way to give the players social abilities they don't have IRL.
And to some extend, they "have to" be here. Not everyone is able to convince Kakita Noritoshi not to draw his sword during the Emerald Championship, even using the exact same words Shosuro Jimen used, because lying with conviction isn't a skill everyone possess.
Of course, you could consider that the player auto-manage that kind of challenge, but we all know that dev' using that system have a big tendency to turn it to auto-fail when it is really important, and unavoidable auto fail when you shouldn't automatically auto fail is totally frustrating.
As I said, it's important to give the players feeling like they are making their own way. If some social skills could avoid this problem, I don't argue with that. Like axii of Geralt or hallucination of Malkavian. It's their power and I see the games used it appropriately. And I don't know much about that Lying with conviction so I can't comment on it. But If it's just literally 'lying with conviction', I can say I wouldn't be fan of that, at least in CRPG. In PnP the fact that you have to come up with lines, decide what to do on your own itself covers many things in regard to roleplaying feeling
Last edited:
Because FPS players see their personal skill at FPS as "real", and social stats that are not entirely player choice driven as "unreal", i.e magical, since they're not entirely under player control: whereas RPG players see character combat and social skills as "real" because they're character driven?
I believe the point is when dialog is setup without social skills the player is able to ask themselves what the character would do based on their characteristics. I have four options presented. Which option appears to fit what the character would do? When social skills exist using a gated system the player is never given the opportunity to ask this question. Instead they are boxed into what the character can do.
Even so, I prefer the social skill concept. It makes the choices made when building or improving the character feel important. My character is unable to persuade their way out of this problem because I did not design them with the ability to do so. When every option is available, regardless of the way the character is setup, it can feel like the social portion of the progression system is just kind of there. It's another thing to do (this is why I don't think stats/skills/etc. alone are what makes an RPG... how they are used is what makes an RPG).
A happy medium would be preferred over the typical approaches. One where I can develop my character in a way where they are not proficient at persuasion but can still make the attempt and fail. Without knowing beforehand whether it will pass or fail. In this case both what the character can and would do remain important.
Yes, because all people playing games are either FPS or RPG players. There is a line drawn in the sand. The need for people to categorize and label to draw this line never ceases to amaze. Heh.....
I know you guys love it when I bring this up, lol.
RPG games can be made better with immersion. There is currently no better way to have more immersion than VR!
RPG games can be made better with immersion. There is currently no better way to have more immersion than VR!
Yep. I find it neither accurate nor does it add to a discussion in any meaningful way. In fact, i think a more productive discussion would result if people would argue their points without using RPG or FPS or any other kind of subjectively categorized acronyms of features or genre's.
By treating the game as Isekai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isekai).
Your character has abilities and feats and behaves in a manner consistent with the fictional universe, but your morality and motives (including knowledge and past experiences that form them) are coming from outside this universe.
Minus you aren't roleplaying someone else as you socially wise.
Well, instead you could for example have what Rawl showed page 19.
Actually I don't understand how people can simultaneously considering using physical skills they don't possess IRL as immersive yet consider using social skills they don't possess IRL as immersion breaking.