Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

If a character starts out weak and grows stronger, there must be some mechanical progression. I suppose you could play tricks like making the whole world weaker as the story progresses so that the player-character has no mechanical stat changes, but that's just beating the donkey on the other flank.

I dont think that how it works. Although your character gets "stronger", enemies do too and usually end up cancelling out this mechanical strength. In this case, the player is made to feel stronger. So even though the mechanical strengths are cancelled out, the fact that you are fighting what is precieved to be stronger enemies (the difference between rats and an ogre, for example) is what leads to this feeling of increased strength. Basically, its important how you perceive your character, and not the mechanics of your character per se (although mechanics can contribute to this perception). Personally, I dont feel like my character is "getting stronger" when I level up in most RPG's.

For me, the mechanics are more about letting me customise and define my character. The difference between going from a blank-slate to a wizard, rather than going from a weak character to a strong character.

I do believe this can be done with less emphasis on raw statistics and numbers. A game where character statistics were more fuzzy, and not the primary focus of the game is something I would personally consider potentially closer to an RPG, as it would make my character feel less like a database entry and more like a character. Although I do acknowledge that these statistical systems are often part of the more generally accepted definition of an RPG.

[Sinistar]

In my experience, it's the exact opposite for many people. Creating a character... removes them from the world, in a way. They aren't taking on a role that already exists in a world, with connections and immersive potential, they are pushing some idealized version of themselves into this alien world.

That's what I'm saying - if there IS a character creation (and we are talking about a RPG), it makes sense you are not there to fit pre-existing role (not talking about role STORY-wise), but make your role fit the world, if that makes more sense.
If the player is doing that just by projecting himself in the world but stronger, well, it is my very personal opinion that that's kinda missing the point of role-playing. Trying to be something completely different instead of just stronger you is fun! But that's strictly just personal preference. 

The TES games have always intentionally been about that, of course - it's part of their narrative, that you're the unnamed outsider entering this alien world, and building a character from scratch reinforces that - it breaks you out of the roleplaying and makes the game, intentionally, more sandboxy, by giving you more freedom to ignore your role completely. (See: The number of people who never even bother to complete the main quest, or who ignore it for large chunks of the game)

...or take the role-playing to a relatively high level. I agree with everything you said here. That's why I gave Oblivion as an example. It has a lot of RP potential the way character mechanics work but...

While a game like Planescape Torment gives you a lot of choices, and actually forces you to take on the role of the Nameless one. There's character customization, but it's not "be anyone you want!" but "express this role the way you see fit!" which seem, to me, two very different design choices.

...but lacks this. You can be anything you want, but there's just no way to leave a mark in the world with your role.

Which in turn leads me to this:

If it had no sort of player-choice-driven character development at all beyond the initial character creation, I'm not convinced anyone would buy it being "an rpg".

As I mentioned, I can think of a number of games that allow you to do this, but I can't think of any that most people would be willing to qualify as RPGs.

Even if it's not mechanical leveling and progression, there's gotta be something, or you're gonna have trouble convincing people you belong in the RPG genre, as far as I can tell. Counter-examples welcome.

That's why I gave Oblivion as an example. I personally don't consider it to be RPG, but last time I checked, it was hailed as "one of the best RPGs of the last 10 years" or some such nonsense.

My prime gripe was always "meaningful choices" when I think about RPG. I really hope that clears things up a bit. Seeing how it was ME that opened the can of worms that is Oblivion, I feel kinda obliged to try to calm things down a bit. 

[Max White]

My prime gripe was always "meaningful choices" when I think about RPG. I really hope that clears things up a bit. Seeing how it was ME that opened the can of worms that is Oblivion, I feel kinda obliged to try to calm things down a bit. 

Perhaps you could address a query I have, and it is an honest question rather than a challenge.
The old Choose your own adventure books that let you roll for skill points and choose starting spells and items: Were they RPGs, and were the choices presented meaningful?

[Sinistar]

Are those books you have in mind?
I wish I could answer you clearly but alas, I never read that kind of books. 

Regardless, my question in that case would be - "did you pick the choices based on your preferences or the preferences of your character?"
I mean, were different paths you could take there different in a way you get different ending(s) or at least progress differently through the book, or were choices presented just "A & C are bad choice, you die, choose B if you wish to live"?

If for the later, I would rather call them roguelikes? 

[GlyphGryph]

I'd call them adventure games, honestly.

[Sinistar]

Ah, you are right. Again, I am not quite familiar with those books, but if there is an actual, compelling story to follow, then probably RL isn't the right genre I should put them in as such kind of story is exactly what RL (intentionally?) shy away from. Or so I understand.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I'd call them adventure games, honestly.

Yeah I'd agree. It can be hard to define cases that are very close.

Like Heroine's Quest, it has stats you raise like an RPG, there are 3+ ways to solve each puzzle, but I think largely your actions fall into "you can do this and continue playing" and "if you do this the game ends" very similarly to CYOA books. The puzzle solutions may involve a skill minimum or chance of failure, turning that action into "the game ends, but if you grind more you can pass this section".

I've done a lot of thinking and reading on railroad vs. sandbox play, and it hasn't led me to a good answer. It's just all very loosey-goosey and your impressions of it can make most of the difference whether you'd place something in one camp or the other. And again, I can't really say which one is better - just that I'm personally more satisfied with sandbox play.

I think the extreme cases are easy to assign and the stuff in the middle is grist for forum-mills.

[MaximumZero]

Ptw. One of these days, I'll be writing the intro to a pen&paper RPG, and I want to cover this very question.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

If a character starts out weak and grows stronger, there must be some mechanical progression. I suppose you could play tricks like making the whole world weaker as the story progresses so that the player-character has no mechanical stat changes, but that's just beating the donkey on the other flank.

I dont think that how it works. Although your character gets "stronger", enemies do too and usually end up cancelling out this mechanical strength. In this case, the player is made to feel stronger. So even though the mechanical strengths are cancelled out, the fact that you are fighting what is precieved to be stronger enemies (the difference between rats and an ogre, for example) is what leads to this feeling of increased strength. Basically, its important how you perceive your character, and not the mechanics of your character per se (although mechanics can contribute to this perception). Personally, I dont feel like my character is "getting stronger" when I level up in most RPG's.

For me, the mechanics are more about letting me customise and define my character. The difference between going from a blank-slate to a wizard, rather than going from a weak character to a strong character.

I do believe this can be done with less emphasis on raw statistics and numbers. A game where character statistics were more fuzzy, and not the primary focus of the game is something I would personally consider potentially closer to an RPG, as it would make my character feel less like a database entry and more like a character. Although I do acknowledge that these statistical systems are often part of the more generally accepted definition of an RPG.

I see what you're saying in relation to a game that always throws a level-appropriate challenge at you. With a few caveats:

Imagine a game where you start out fighting Kobolds, move on to Lizard Men at level 2, Ogres at level 4, Trolls at level 6, Hill Giants at level 9. They're all humanoids, but they do slightly different tricks: lizard men swim and breathe water, trolls regenerate, giants throw boulders and golf-strike you with a big club. But basically they're all humanoids. I think ramping up the coolness of your enemies - larger, new special abilities - is part of showing that you're getting stronger.

Compare to a game where you do not always encounter a level-appropriate challenge. At level 1 you fight some kobolds, do well, and head into Ogre territory. You get spanked, basically. You go back to easier challenges and work your way up. Now at level 4 when you fight an Ogre it's much easier and you can win. And when you go back to kobolds for some reason they're much easier. Your character is clearly improving here.

I think when you feel like you aren't getting stronger it's because either your difficulty is set by the game (it always throws a level-appropriate challenge at you) or you are setting your difficulty by choosing to take on the toughest threat you can manage (you select a level-appropriate challenge that is as rewarding as possible while still being doable).

Imagine in a Final Fantasy game, not one which level-scales, where you grind in an area fighting slimes until you're level 10 when you were supposed to do the next boss at level 5. You're gonna steamroll that boss. But your momentum will quickly take you up though the game to areas where you're expected to be level 10, at which point you're probably level 12, and you slow down again. It's a choice between difficulty of the challenges vs. onerous grinding.

[Mr. Strange]

OK, so you're saying something like, if you have the option of doing everything then you'll tend to do that, and every character will end up the same? I'd agree with that. Although generally he becomes "jack of all trades, master of none"

Something like that, yes. Generic do-it-all characters remind me of Final Fantasy series, where you run from one cut-scene to another cutting down mobs in between. That kind of system offers hardly much in the way of role play, since it's more like unfolding prewritten story. Especially if games make no difference whether you specialise in something or are jack-of-all-trades, the challenges you are presented remain the same with the same solution to them no matter what kind of character you play as. A lot of games sold as RPGs do that these days *cough*TES*cough*. Lvl 19 fighter and lvl 19 wizard have completely different ways in how they can deal with problems they face, but if game doesn't offer chance for that it downplays the importance of all the choices player has made in developing their character.

Even if it's not mechanical leveling and progression, there's gotta be something, or you're gonna have trouble convincing people you belong in the RPG genre, as far as I can tell. Counter-examples welcome.

This got me thinking and I believe that kaenneth gave you the answer already.

I would say a 'true' RPG is where your choices in personal interactions with NPC's affect the game more than your choices in character stats/gear.

Where you can play a 'Character' instead of a collection of numbers.

I can imagine a game where there is no leveling or stats,where instead of fighting your way across the map like in action games you use dialogue to interact with NPCs in the setting, trying to accomplish game's goals, whatever they may be. Game of political intrigue, where instead of skill checks to see if you succeed it'll be about earlier dialogue and choices you've made to convince, bribe, deceive or threaten NPCs to do something. Or crossing into business simulation territory and play as trader managing your own shop, ship, caravan, stall or just selling random junk door to door. Neither of them rule out combat, but it would need serious overhaul from the number cruching way it's done in most games these days.
It might be lot easier to do games like those with progressing stats, but I think you could call them RPGs even without stats, assuming player interaction with the world is done well.

[Frumple]

They'd probably be classified as something else. Interactive fiction or adventure games, usually.

[Mr. Strange]

They'd probably be classified as something else. Interactive fiction or adventure games, usually.

Or simulation games. Even if they had stat system. It seems only action games can be considered RPGs in mainstream reviews. My guess is that in next generation of games anything with stats will be labeled RPG...

[GlyphGryph]

It's an adventure game.

Note however, earlier, that I made an argument that The Walking Dead was actually a very non-traditional RPG. The difference between that and adventure game is that an adventure game is predominantly about a static character overcoming the obstacles between him and his goal, while in my opinion an RPG is about developing a character or characters - and the walking dead is all of the second and none of the first, pretty much.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

They'd probably be classified as something else. Interactive fiction or adventure games, usually.

Or simulation games. Even if they had stat system. It seems only action games can be considered RPGs in mainstream reviews. My guess is that in next generation of games anything with stats will be labeled RPG...

They're already doing this. Any flash game with gaining points and spending them for upgrades gets an RPG tag.

It's an adventure game.

Note however, earlier, that I made an argument that The Walking Dead was actually a very non-traditional RPG. The difference between that and adventure game is that an adventure game is predominantly about a static character overcoming the obstacles between him and his goal, while in my opinion an RPG is about developing a character or characters - and the walking dead is all of the second and none of the first, pretty much.

Totally agree on Walking Dead's heavy character development, but what about those Princess Maker kinda games where you make choices and develop your character's personality?

And from what I saw in Walking Dead 1 the changes in characters were relatively minimal and it was your relationship and/or the presence of other character at all that changed. So for example, if a guy really cares about his family, if you do stuff for his family he will like you more and if you don't he will like you less - but there's no way to change him. Maybe there's more to it in the sequels?

Maybe here we're talking about a protagonist, the one in the story who undergoes the most change, and whether the player-character in an RPG is a protagonist. Change and exploration of personality is separate from using that character to interact with and change the environment.

[GlyphGryph]

In the Walking Dead game, ultimately the only control you have is over who the character you play is. In the end, nothing changes except the choices you made, that defined who you were (and who Clementine ended up turning into). It's a railroad, like a great many RPGs - You begin and end in the exact same place, everyone who dies for the story dies, events progress more or less in a fixed manner. But the person you are controlling, at the end, can end up being very very different (except in this case, it's in terms of character rather than stats).

And from what I saw in Walking Dead 1 the changes in characters were relatively minimal and it was your relationship and/or the presence of other character at all that changed.

You can't really change anyone else in the game, really. But you can define the character you play in wildly different ways. This was the problem with the main criticism of the game - it wasn't about changing the world. It wasn't an adventure game. It was about defining who your character was over the course of play - an RPG at its core.

And I'd consider the Princess Maker games pretty standard "rpg/management" mashups. Especially Princess Maker, which is almost completely a straightforward JRPG in parts.