Character Progression and the Minimal Elements of an RPG

[LCJr.]

Reread the whole thread Solik. And you should know by now no thread here ever stays completely on topic. To recap there are several who believe you can't have a CRPG without leveling/character progression. If it doesn't have the treadmill it's labeled an adventure game by their standards regardless of the fact it has roleplaying.

As has already stated CRPG's appear to be limited in the amount and depth of roleplaying possible. Note I said "appear to be". I haven't seem that many developers even attempt to follow in FO footsteps or expand the concept. I think it'll be up to the indies to do this since the commercial developers want quick and profitable.

Still some roleplaying is possible through quest solutions and dialogue. Tim Cain and company always liked the violence, stealth and diplomacy trinity for quest solutions. Dialogue options are also a good place to give a player the chance to do a little bit of roleplaying IF the player is given enough meaningful options. Haven't you ever picked the option that suited your vision of the character you were playing rather than the "best" option? A limited version of roleplaying but a step in the right in the direction.

 

[Solik]

I don't need to reread the entire thread to spot simple flaws in your posts. Character progression does not equate to level treadmills. Having three options instead of one does not equate to real roleplay. Your assertions are erroneous.

 

[LCJr.]

And since when does leveling/character progression = RPG/CRPG? And the absence of a level scheme preclude it from being an RPG?


Having 3 choices at a solution or dialogues does not equal roleplaying with real live humans and I never claimed it did.

Granted CRPG's are extremely limited in what the player is allowed but some are clearly better than others.

It is a step in the right direction and allows for some minimal roleplaying. Would you prefer developers not even make the attempt?

Again I suggest you actually read the whole thread.

 

[Lumpy]

I guess the general consensus here is that an RPG without character progression (but even given role progression) is simply an adventure game like Monkey Island. More stuff in an inventory and more things to say to NPCs does not make an RPG.

Oh, really? And I suppose you reached that consensus by yourself? The general consensus here is the exact opposite of what you said - An RPG without choices and stuff is just an action game like Diablo. Character progression does not make an RPG.

 

[Lumpy]

In my opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of roles. One type refers to character's personality, beliefs, principles, etc. The other type refers to character's abilities and skills. They(abilities and skills) define the character in terms of what he can do and how. Full-fledged RPGs allow playing both types roles simultaneously. If the first type is absent, you get hack and slash, dungeon crawler a la Diablo. If the second type is absent, you get basically an adventure game or whatever.
Now, as you progress through the story and as you use your skills to tackle the problems you face, it is only logical to have corresponding skills increase.
Almost all stories that RPGs get inspiration from(fantasy, mythology, etc.) have some sort of progression, some personal growth that the main character(s) experiences. To take it away from an RPG is to take away something important, which turns it into a very different type of game.

However, it doesn't make sense that someone gets so much experience in a couple of months.

 

[Atrokkus]

As much as some people want to get rid of stats in an RPG, I, for one, cannot conceive an RPG without them.

What is the difference between Max Payne and Fallout? Both have very gripping and solid stories, both have vibrant non-player characters and great gameplay. What is the difference? You could choose who you start with? Wrong: this is not really important. In Torment, you basically had a pre-generated character (aside from stats). So, initial character creation is not really a set-in-stone requirement of a real RPG. What is, then? The EVOLUTION of the character, the ability to shape your character's fate as you play the game. The "evolution" is comprised of choices in many instances (dialogs, battle, movement etc), that is exactly what shapes the character. But how exactly to represent that change? Through stats.
Because, for instance, karma is also a stat. Influence is a stat. and so on.

 

[bryce777]

Reread the whole thread Solik. And you should know by now no thread here ever stays completely on topic. To recap there are several who believe you can't have a CRPG without leveling/character progression. If it doesn't have the treadmill it's labeled an adventure game by their standards regardless of the fact it has roleplaying.

As has already stated CRPG's appear to be limited in the amount and depth of roleplaying possible. Note I said "appear to be". I haven't seem that many developers even attempt to follow in FO footsteps or expand the concept. I think it'll be up to the indies to do this since the commercial developers want quick and profitable.

Still some roleplaying is possible through quest solutions and dialogue. Tim Cain and company always liked the violence, stealth and diplomacy trinity for quest solutions. Dialogue options are also a good place to give a player the chance to do a little bit of roleplaying IF the player is given enough meaningful options. Haven't you ever picked the option that suited your vision of the character you were playing rather than the "best" option? A limited version of roleplaying but a step in the right in the direction.

I think it is only possible to do so much.

I think that having lots of character development is the best that can be done with an rpg on a computer. For example, in bloodlines you can say slightly different crap but the real results are about the same, and in other games you just choose what ending you want at the end, regardless of how you have played til that point.

Choices are great, but I odon't think they make an rpg, and I don't think that in the vast majority of games they matter much. Probably torment is the game I can think of where you can roleplay in that fashion the most.

 

[EvoG]

As much as some people want to get rid of stats in an RPG, I, for one, cannot conceive an RPG without them.

Then you need to look more closely. Seriously, life is more interesting when you challenge precedence and preconceived notions.

What is the difference between Max Payne and Fallout? Both have very gripping and solid stories, both have vibrant non-player characters and great gameplay. What is the difference?

Level of interaction density. Max Payne is very low in interaction density, limited to purely combat and rudimentary environmental engagment. Fallout allows you quite a nice degree of environmental, object and NPC interaction, including how you shape your participation in the story. None of these have anything to do with stats.

You could choose who you start with? Wrong: this is not really important. In Torment, you basically had a pre-generated character (aside from stats). So, initial character creation is not really a set-in-stone requirement of a real RPG.

Yes it is, as you have to define the new role...the new life you wish to live. PST, despite you being the nameless one, still had you define the character with your stats. Different execution in design is all. PST was simply delivering a very specific experience akin to an adventure game layered with some RPG aspects.

What is, then? The EVOLUTION of the character, the ability to shape your character's fate as you play the game. The "evolution" is comprised of choices in many instances (dialogs, battle, movement etc), that is exactly what shapes the character. But how exactly to represent that change?

Character does not to statistically evolve to interact with the gameworld and story. Evolution of the character as a role and evolution of the story as a narrative are infinitely more important than if you can pick a lock better after hours of swinging a sword. Story evolution and level advancement are entirely unrelated.

Through stats.

I don't think you're allowing yourself the opportunity to look at this question with a broader perspective. Its easier to be complacent and settle into an acceptance of precedence because you understand it...its a known quantity.

Because, for instance, karma is also a stat. Influence is a stat. and so on.

Karma and Influence are computational stats. We're not discussing the tracking of variables, by the computer, that have an affect on world or NPC interaction. We're distinguishing between playing a role through various means of interaction versus the abstraction of continuous improvement found in pretty much all CRPG's. People have been trained to expect this. This is very telling about the nebulous definition of an RPG. Clearly its unique for each person, but many times those that insist on stats and a particular type of combat still see that activity as singularly important, and perhaps wouldn't enjoy a game withouth them. Doesn't mean they're wrong, but it also doesn't mean gamers that want to try RPG's without clear arbitrary progression and stats are wrong either.

 

[EvoG]

I think that having lots of character development is the best that can be done with an rpg on a computer.

Why? What does swinging a sword better or being able to memorize more spells have to do with the interaction with the gameworld or other NPC's? How ridiculous does this sound...You talk to an NPC, and because you're not eloquent enough to convince him to help you, you go and kill some skeletons to then spend your XP on pumping up diplomacy or verbal agility skills, go back to that NPC and now you're able to convince him to give you the key you need to get into the museum to kill more creatures? Pretty ridiculous methinks.

Choices are great, but I odon't think they make an rpg, and I don't think that in the vast majority of games they matter much. Probably torment is the game I can think of where you can roleplay in that fashion the most.

RPG's are nothing more if they're not about choices. That freedom, allows a player the opportunity to explore being a role in a living world, rather than being rail-roaded down the path to heroric level gain and foozle killing

 

[bryce777]

I think that having lots of character development is the best that can be done with an rpg on a computer.

Why? What does swinging a sword better or being able to memorize more spells have to do with the interaction with the gameworld or other NPC's? How ridiculous does this sound...You talk to an NPC, and because you're not eloquent enough to convince him to help you, you go and kill some skeletons to then spend your XP on pumping up diplomacy or verbal agility skills, go back to that NPC and now you're able to convince him to give you the key you need to get into the museum to kill more creatures? Pretty ridiculous methinks.

Choices are great, but I odon't think they make an rpg, and I don't think that in the vast majority of games they matter much. Probably torment is the game I can think of where you can roleplay in that fashion the most.

RPG's are nothing more if they're not about choices. That freedom, allows a player the opportunity to explore being a role in a living world, rather than being rail-roaded down the path to heroric level gain and foozle killing

Your example is just a flawed system. More importantly, it is actual a product of the type of thing you say you want - trying to get more choices.

I find it equally if not more stupid when you have to have certain stats or skills that unlock dialogs. Basically like in fallout or torment. Actually it is sort of neat, but in an easter egg sort of way.

When you look at wizardry 6 and 7, there are some EXTREMELY cool things you can do in the dialogs, yet they are not dependent on stats at all. If you are clever, and pay attention, you can manage to have some cool things happen. If not, not.

I like to be able to choose different dialog options, but I dislike how in fallout and torment the vast majority of options are locked away and depend on stats.

I have an even bigger issue because when you get a dialog option it is usually the 'right' thing to do. Fallout 2 was pretty good in that if you chose stupid responses then you would not do as well in the conversation. When it comes to dialog, I want to see more of that and less of the other bullshit. Especially not something like oblivion where you just blindly convince people in some idiotic way and then they help you.

If you are not using your brain it is just a waste of time...an interactive movie.

In any game, there needs to be more than dialog. In an adventure game the dialog is good because it actually has some challenge to it and you have to use your brain a bit. In most rpgs the choices are no more game effecting than the color scheme of your character model. If you want that kind of 'roleplaying' you should just larp.

Character development makes the game into a game. I like to have openended exploration, challenging combat, interesting character development that actually atters, and in short GOOD GAMEPLAY. Reading dialog is not gameplay, and dialog choices that don't affect the game are not gameplay.

Hammer and sickle is annoying in a lot of ways, but, the choices you make actually affect the gameplay. If you choose one option, you get a better arms dealer, but another gives you a very handy joinable npc but the arms dealer is not as useful. A very painful tradeoff because there is a big shortage both of ammo for good weapons, and for joinable npcs.

So basically, many people here look at fallout and define all RPGs by it, but this is stupid because there were many, many rpgs before fallout. Also, fallout is also fun because it has a great setting and artwork, and because it has very good gameplay as far as exploring goes and as far as character development goes. People who like fallout one the best are dialog hoors, and people who like fallout 2 the best are gameplay hoors.

 

[EvoG]

Oh I agree completely that leveling up and combat are a huge part of making a game a game. I personally wouldn't create a game that didn't include 'activities'. I myself love combat and get just as absorbed into leveling up, as, leveling up is an important part of the design; its a rule that I understand so I participate as such.

I do think you took my want of choice too simplisitcally. Choice simply allows you to have other avenues to do something or to give many 'somethings' to do. I wasn't referring to having 15 dialogue options versus 3 succinct ones. In fact, sometimes the dialogue can get rather long and tedious in games designed FOR dialogue, such as Monkey Island. Sometimes I just wanted to get to the meat. KotoR2 on the other hand, I found every conversation to be very interesting, and with the influence system, I was engaged beyond simply reading/listening. Best implementation of dialogue as gameplay.

 

[aweigh]

Well, regurgitating what was said in the first few pages of this thread I would also concur that if you take out the "treadmill" from the RPG, you're left with an adventure game. I mean, look at games like Manic Mansion (goddamn what a classic!) or even Ico (sorry it's still on my mind from the other thread, I'm not a mole hired to hit 50 forums a day!) for examples. I could very easily see some form of treadmilling implemented into those games and it would radically change the experience. Look at games like Still Life, which offered many dialogue choices, but of course, no treadmilling (it's an adventure game after all).

 

[Nog Robbin]

I still feel that the main attraction of any role-playing game is the ability to actually play the role of *any* character you choose, and feel the game differently because of it. For this to work there needs to be some kinds of stats (or skills) - even if they don't adjust during the game. Otherwise each character you play would be indentically skilled. A set of skills should also allow for weaknesses - so you have challenges to work around. In MW and OB you can become a jack of all trades - that is how many *play* the game. They are not really taking a role, merely developing something to "beat the game". They won't think of their actions - e.g. many like to play evil simply because then they have the freedom to do what they want when they want. Better consequences based on their choices and actions would help this - but in the mean time they can do so without any real penalty.
Of course, to feel you are actually taking a role you want/expect some feedback based on your actions. Dialogue is one way to do this. However, stats again can be useful - otherwise your roleplaying is always limited to how well *you* can cope with a situation and not how well your character does. That's why many like the turn based RPG - where they select the actions to be carried out but don't require the skills themselves to be able to execute them. Action games tend to rely a lot more heavily on player skill rather than character skill. OB is attempting a hybrid approach - where the player skill is more important than before, but is tempered by the skills of the character. Though having seen some of the fight footage it looks just like a button mashing hack and slay experience - on ice.
Character growth as such isn't required - but is a way of giving feedback to a player based on their experiences. Naturally it happens far more quickly than in real life - maybe future games will slow this down so you end up not massively more powered than you start off. Character growth does allow for challenge increments throughout a game as well. A skill based system here is better than an XP based system as you only improve in the skills you actually use. However, MW (and OB?) is let down by then allowing the player to increase any stat - even if they have never used a skill relying on it at all. Then again, maybe this is just to cover for natural growth - growth caused by watching the things happening around you. HP are also a let down in a skill based system. The amount of damage you can physically take shouldn't vary that much - indeed in a skill based system it shouldn't have to as your skill increments should allow you to evade taking damage as readily, and also be more proficient at dishing it out.

 

[aweigh]

Well Nog Robbin, I think what you're basically saying is that you need some form of stats to make an RPG, right? Feel free to question my sexual preference if I misconstrued. Now, for my part, I'll add that I think treadmilling of some sort (if there are stats, they need to be raised) is inseperable from the RPG experience, otherwise you're left with an adventure game. I can't think of any other way to make do with teh role-playing. Look at Torment for example: yes, you can treadmill in that game but there is little point as the main focus of the game is to read the dialogue and make choices. The only stats that matter are Intelligence and Wisdom (which can be raised through treadmilling) but the fundamental playing experience wouldn't be much different if you started out automatically with maximum Wis/Int, thus in my opinion making the game much more akin to an adventure game than an RPG.

 

[Atrokkus]

Your example is just a flawed system. More importantly, it is actual a product of the type of thing you say you want - trying to get more choices.

Indeed, and, more importantly, this can be easily fixed through not allowing a second occurance of the same dialog node. This, however, is often ignored because scripting dialogs is pain in the ass by default. But it CAN be done.

I don't think you're allowing yourself the opportunity to look at this question with a broader perspective. Its easier to be complacent and settle into an acceptance of precedence because you understand it...its a known quantity.

Oh I did, and you've seen it: remember, our discussion on stat-less system?


Just tell me how else can you transcend your idea of your character to the game engine which deals with numbers? Only with stats. It might sound trite, but you can't tell the machine what kind of person your character is, like you can to a living DM.
For instance, how, without any stats, could you roleplay a dumb character in Fallout?

The only problem I see in stat systems is that main atributes (str/int etc) can be freely increased/decreased in huge proportions. This just doesn't feel right, and must be stopped (I'm glad that VD understands that and enforces such constraints in his game).

Another questions stands on whether or not to show all the numerical stats to the player? Perhaps it is best to leave him unaware of himself somewhat, like in real life, giving only abstract hints on what he really is in the game world. For example, in real life You can't determine your strength by just thinking about it, you must have some sort of testing and visual analysis of your muscles to determine your physical potency. I think making RPGs that follow the same logic is a very good idea, but they still will be based on stats, visible to the player, or not.

I like to be able to choose different dialog options, but I dislike how in fallout and torment the vast majority of options are locked away and depend on stats.

Once more we are touching a sensitive question of balance between player and character's skills (we discussed that in detail on some other thread). Again it is mainly a question of how it is implemented. Since you brought up Fallout, I can say that I haven't ever felt bored while talking with its npcs (esp. those that offered a lot of interaction), because though your character does have speech skill and his own thoughts on the matter, it is you, the player, who actually chooses what to say. Consider real life: during the course of a very hot discussion, your mind is swirling with ideas, with sentences, complete and fragmented alike, that you consider your choices. In a game like Fallout, the only difference is that the number of options is limited, which is perfectly acceptable due to the fact that there is no real AI yet (and if there was one, gaming would have been totally different anyway).

 

[bryce777]

I still feel that the main attraction of any role-playing game is the ability to actually play the role of *any* character you choose, and feel the game differently because of it. For this to work there needs to be some kinds of stats (or skills) - even if they don't adjust during the game. Otherwise each character you play would be indentically skilled. A set of skills should also allow for weaknesses - so you have challenges to work around. In MW and OB you can become a jack of all trades - that is how many *play* the game. They are not really taking a role, merely developing something to "beat the game". They won't think of their actions - e.g. many like to play evil simply because then they have the freedom to do what they want when they want. Better consequences based on their choices and actions would help this - but in the mean time they can do so without any real penalty.
Of course, to feel you are actually taking a role you want/expect some feedback based on your actions. Dialogue is one way to do this. However, stats again can be useful - otherwise your roleplaying is always limited to how well *you* can cope with a situation and not how well your character does. That's why many like the turn based RPG - where they select the actions to be carried out but don't require the skills themselves to be able to execute them. Action games tend to rely a lot more heavily on player skill rather than character skill. OB is attempting a hybrid approach - where the player skill is more important than before, but is tempered by the skills of the character. Though having seen some of the fight footage it looks just like a button mashing hack and slay experience - on ice.
Character growth as such isn't required - but is a way of giving feedback to a player based on their experiences. Naturally it happens far more quickly than in real life - maybe future games will slow this down so you end up not massively more powered than you start off. Character growth does allow for challenge increments throughout a game as well. A skill based system here is better than an XP based system as you only improve in the skills you actually use. However, MW (and OB?) is let down by then allowing the player to increase any stat - even if they have never used a skill relying on it at all. Then again, maybe this is just to cover for natural growth - growth caused by watching the things happening around you. HP are also a let down in a skill based system. The amount of damage you can physically take shouldn't vary that much - indeed in a skill based system it shouldn't have to as your skill increments should allow you to evade taking damage as readily, and also be more proficient at dishing it out.

I think that is a very good analysis. In morrowind/oblivion you are basically playing a pokemon character with dressup capabilities.

Increasing is fun, but only if it actually changes your character. If you get get an extra point of damage and then fight red instead of blue crabs it is completely useless.

 

[Breaking3po]

lumpy reread that. thats extactly what im saying.

 

[Breaking3po]

An RPG needs advancement in the initially created character's ability to make it labeled as an RPG.

Why? Where has the definition of RPG been sealed in concrete, forever to be mandated as law?

What part of 'playing a role' includes "level advancement"?

How is playing a "role" of the smarmy merchant who finds a mysterious magical trinket in one of his monthly goods delivery in any way limited by his inability to become "merchant taskmaster +2"?

To paraphrase, by your statement - Level Advancement = Role Playing. Why?

Because thats the RPG "label"... Labels suck.
I play the role of mega man but thats no RPG.

You paraphase incorrectly, I feel. I'm saying advancement (level or otherwise) = RPG game, not "role playing."

 

[EvoG]

You paraphase incorrectly, I feel. I'm saying advancement (level or otherwise) = RPG game, not "role playing."

Hehe, well fine, this is semantics. The words "role playing" make up 66% of the acronym "RPG", and indeed all RPG's are "games"(the last 33% of that acronym), PnP or CRPG, I dont make distinctions. Other than LARPing or acting, where are you really "role playing" but in a game?

It all goes hand in hand, and I think you meant to say that CONVENTIONAL CRPG's must have level advancement, and to that I disagree. Not being able to increase your stats in no way inhibits your ability to play in the game world, picking locks, swinging swords or joining two nations in an unholy alliance through political and economic manipulation. IN FACT, I'd argue that it will STRENGTHEN your playing of a role in the game, simply because the skills and stats you choose ARE the ones you'll have throughout the rest of the game to completion. No choosing a lock pick skill later on down the road because you realise cool shit is locked behind steel doors. No jack of all trades. Perhaps through role playing you can convince a master thief to maybe teach you the trade, but see then thats an interesting way to "level up" or "progress" within the narrative without resorting to assigning XP to a long list of skills.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I mean, look at games like Manic Mansion (goddamn what a classic!) or even Ico (sorry it's still on my mind from the other thread, I'm not a mole hired to hit 50 forums a day!) for examples. I could very easily see some form of treadmilling implemented into those games and it would radically change the experience.

You play as multiple characters in Maniac Mansion, so it wouldn't be a role (singular) playing game.

Also we don't define RPGs by Fallout's standard, Fallout is just the best example of the open-nature of pen&paper.

 

[Sarvis]

Why? What does swinging a sword better or being able to memorize more spells have to do with the interaction with the gameworld or other NPC's?

Plenty if you plan on killing those NPC's.

 

[EvoG]

Well, you could just pick the sword swinging skill initially, and just make sure you dont attack those really strong wenches, at least until you find the sword of thrusting. :D

 

[Lumpy]

Skill progression can be detrimental in RPGs. For example, say you have a Language skill, which allows you, at high levels, to talk to Goatse Men. If said RPG has skill progression, then there has to be a difference between high levels of that skill and low levels. The only logical and reasonable difference would be chance of managing to talk to a Goatse Man.
Then, at low levels, you are unlikely to be able to talk to any Goatse Men. You are forced to kill them until high levels, until the skill rises enough. But then, you can't really play a pacifist character, because you are forced to fight at low levels, right?
This also applies to other skills.
If you get to choose your skills at the beggining and they remain unchanged, then you may play any type of character you want, from the beggining. You don't have to worry about the Necromancy spells being high-level, or about talking your way out of fights being impossible at low levels.

 

[Wysardry]

A lack of skill progression can also be detrimental in RPGs.

If your skills remain unchanged throughout the game, then you cannot roleplay a growing character, only static ones. This would be similar to being limited to playing seasoned/jaded characters that are close to retirement and had already done everything and seen all there is to see.

Whilst it might be interesting to start a game as a more experienced character, including the option shouldn't preclude starting as an inexperienced one without good reason (such as it being integral to the plot).

IIRC, a few of the "gold box" games that were later parts of trilogies had characters that started off at higher levels, but they could still advance (albeit more slowly).

The GURPS PnP rules also include an option for players to be allocated more skill points to spend during character creation, but again there is still room for improvement.

 

[DarkSign]

1. Sarvis, where's your universally approved RPG definition when we need it (r00fles)

2. The definition of cRPG needs to be a mix of:
a) how much control over your character and interaction with the world you have via speech
b) how much combat vs other actions the game consists of


Putting yourself into a role involves mentally becoming that entity. Being a sentient being, especially one facing challenges, involves knowing who you are, what you can do, and what your motivations are. True you have this in an action/adventure game, but in an RPG you are given much wider latitude as to getting in character. In Halo, you have a character to play, but you dont customize him much and you're given a pretty determined path as to what needs to be accomplished...primarily via the end of your gun.

In Fallout, sure you have the overarching waterchip mission, but how you accomplish that can be done with mutliple characters in multiple ways. This isnt to say that merely creating a "sandbox" world is enough for an RPG. The ability to become a character who grows and changes in response to the sandbox he/she is in gets us closer to one though.

And as RPGs are much more focused on story (yes Halo has a story, but the depth of it isnt as intricate as in an RPG), speech and decision-making have to be the primary factor in the game. Im sure one of you can come up with a cRPG where technically more of your time is spent in combat than actually speaking...but thats not what I mean by primary factor. Not time spent, but importance. The decisions of where to go and how to advance the storyline makes an RPG.

I dont believe that statistics are a crucial element for RPGs, however...based on current game design they're necessary. What the hell do I mean? Well you need feedback on what your character can do and what he/she cant. You also need feedback to create the mental picture of who you're playing.

Gamasutra had an interesting article on taking the hud out of games. Much like the discussion of a stat-less game, it focused on using character animations and in-game feedback as opposed to more junk on the screen to give you feedback.

Right now no one seems to be doing this very well so we are still married to numbers.
Maybe it takes too much production time to come up with all the animations, graphics, and programming that would visually produce the correct feedback for what used to be text like "You are dying of thirst." when it scrolled across the screen.

So to me, if Im able to create my character, alter who he/she is on the fly, and determine the fate of a story-driven game primarily by my decisions and speech, not pure combat....Im playing a cRPG.