What do you think makes a game a role-playing game?

[Twinfalls]

OK

 

[Deathy]

The point is for us to step back from numbers. I'm not saying lets make a game JUST like a traditional RPG but replace the numbers with names. You would be right, what WOULD be the point in THAT.

Why is, from what the bulk of what you are Gareth are talking about, based on assigning text or graphics on what is represented internally as numbers?

For example, from Gareth's last post:

Swordsmanship: I feel confident enough with a sword in my hand that I could defeat all but the most adept soldier.

Couldn't that simply be described as "Swordmanship: 8/10"? That way you would leave with less ambiguity, knowing, that, in a general sense, you'd have difficulty in a swordfight with a most adept swordfighter (9/10) or have little chance with the unbeatable world champion (10/10)
In this case, there isn't any real difference between using the numbers rather than a text description of essentially what the numbers are.

I do like, very muchly, relating those descriptions to events from the characters history though. I can see the potential in that.

Lets create a NEW paradigm.

The reason I mentioned those characters was actually rather subtle. Imagine, in comparison, you could create a character REASONABLY as rich as those characters, but ALL your own. Not numbers, but personality. Idiosyncrocies. History. Attitude. Then express that character through the game world. SURE he can grow and evolve. Get better at his skills. Have party memebers. Save the world(or not). But instead of driving to reach the "next level" and get a few more points on small arms skill so he can raise that 37% to 41%, you're driving to participate in the world. Watch it unfold. Influence the lives of the characters in it. The numbers are meaningless. It doesn't make the world less rich or the dialogue less robust.

Just to make sure I fully understand what would be going on here: we still have the numbers running under the hood, but they're effectively transparent to the user?

I've seen many CRPG's do this, to a point. I'm fairly certain that Fallout kept numerical NPC reactions to your character invisible, and some of Vogel's games have had a bunch of transparent skills that you use, but never see.

Basically, this worked fairly well, but in a limited sense. Because your character functions attached to him that you really didn't know about or understand, you couldn't try something for the purpose of finding out if your character could do it.

With a numerical, in depth character sheet, with action having a statistic attached to it, you can reasonably expect to know what your character can handle, in any given situation.

This also could work if you replaced the numbers with words, or graphics, but I think it would be somewhat less intuitive.

You couldn't manage as deep a character system, with words and graphics to convey the characters abilities, I think.

Why must you know the EXACT percentile to achieve a task, rather than a range of "easy, doable, challenging, difficult, impossible(but maybe!), no way!"? Why cant you use colors to abstract the difficulty of a task? Whats the difference between 50% and 51%? 1% and its meaningless. The difference between 50% and 60%. Quite a bit. Difference between green, yellow or red? Well aside from hue, it tells you that green you have a good chance at success, yellow has challenge to it and red is very hard or impossible. These are MERELY examples, but they work.

You're basically describing a completely different way of going about playing an RPG, I guess that's why some of us are having difficulty understanding where you're coming from.
You train in firearms, for example, in a traditional system, that will increase your to hit percentage a small bit, and you'll notice the next time you go to shoot something, that the to hit percentage is slightly higher, so you're now better at shooting things.
If we're using this fuzzy text based system, how do I know if my character is better at shooting things than he used to be? How do I know if my character is gaining new skills.

Also, an important question for myself, but one I don't feel like thinking about right now: Why do I need to know that my character is gaining new skills?

Perhaps you dont really need anything at all, at its most extreme. If you're trying to do something that you as a person know is difficult, you can expect that it may fail. Shooting someone running full speed across your path at 50 yards at night is a hard shot period. 12% chance to hit or red color or just empirically, its hard and you know it.

How do you graphically represent it? Maybe the character can handle it easily, how would you represent that graphically, how would the user get feedback that'd tell him first, if the character has a chance of making the shot, and second, why the character missed.

The point, again, is to get players to care more about their "character" and not just a spreadsheet. Thats it. A seamless way to interact with the world, and remove the things that remind you you're playing a game, rather than being immersed in a world.

I can agree that removing the spreadsheeting could make for an interesting game, however, I'm running into a wall imagining practical aspects of such a game

On the other side, I think that there is definitely still a lot to be said from the spreadsheeting game, as, while at a polar opposite to the suggested ideas, is still very attractive in it's carrot on a stick type gameplay

Cheers

Pass the bong!

 

[Human Shield]

Okay, this is really getting nowhere. All you keep saying is that "to interact or do this or do that you need numbers".

WHY?

You can argue all you want that it helps you "define" your character "more", but how? Why is this important?

I already diagramed it in steps in a previous post.

Give me ONE specific non-combat gameplay example where you absolutely MUST have numbers OTHER than "just because it helps you define your character".

The character innately discovers that he is very slightly better at climbing. Do you hide this from the player?

We already stated that YOU ALWAYS HAVE NUMBERS, YOU JUST WANT THEM HIDDEN!

You want to reduce 100 numbers into 10 "super-numbers" that use words instead of having numbers.

It is already set that you MUST show the player show form of ranked system, you just want more unseen variability with the unsupported view that it will change player's motives.

Otherwise we're getting nowhere, and you're arguing to argue, not to further the discussion.

I'm arguing to clarify gameplay definitions. All you are saying, "Open you're mind, dude....". Without stating why someone that likes RPG gameplay will enjoy it more, or how it is closer to the definition of an RPG.

Again. You are talking about a change as if you aren't changing anything.

dialogue does this very thing currently in RPG's, it puts words in your mouth, and everyone agrees to how vital strong dialogue is.

And we would all like a system where you can ask anything. You have to get the best you can. And exchanging numbers doesn't extend to where you need information, stats can exist with numbers. And dialog isn't personal thought for the character, it is choosing outward action, it isn't reflecting on the self.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

Okay, this is really getting nowhere. All you keep saying is that "to interact or do this or do that you need numbers".

WHY?

You can argue all you want that it helps you "define" your character "more", but how? Why is this important?

I already diagramed it in steps in a previous post.

Give me ONE specific non-combat gameplay example where you absolutely MUST have numbers OTHER than "just because it helps you define your character".

The character innately discovers that he is very slightly better at climbing. Do you hide this from the player?

We already stated that YOU ALWAYS HAVE NUMBERS, YOU JUST WANT THEM HIDDEN!

You want to reduce 100 numbers into 10 "super-numbers" that use words instead of having numbers.

It is already set that you MUST show the player show form of ranked system, you just want more unseen variability with the unsupported view that it will change player's motives.

Otherwise we're getting nowhere, and you're arguing to argue, not to further the discussion.

I'm arguing to clarify gameplay definitions. All you are saying, "Open you're mind, dude....". Without stating why someone that likes RPG gameplay will enjoy it more, or how it is closer to the definition of an RPG.

Again. You are talking about a change as if you aren't changing anything.

dialogue does this very thing currently in RPG's, it puts words in your mouth, and everyone agrees to how vital strong dialogue is.

And we would all like a system where you can ask anything. You have to get the best you can. And exchanging numbers doesn't extend to where you need information, stats can exist with numbers. And dialog isn't personal thought for the character, it is choosing outward action, it isn't reflecting on the self.

i believe that both systems could work but hs is right

the "statless" system would be fine if couppled with my idea although i wouldnt want it in the entire game just the beginning where you could hypothetically have 50 hours of gameplay in the beggining alone while everyone else would just accelerate time showing a hyper accelerated showing of the activities your mc's actions for a year where the story actually starts

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I just want to interject something here...

Earlier in the post there was a discussion about lack of brain-usage materials in most RPGs today.

Sure, there have been numerous occassions where people have tried, like the riddles in BGI & II. But even those were dumbed down by the fact that you had multiple choice, rather than like in the old days of M&M series where you might run across a statue that asks you a riddle and you have to actually type in the answer. And alot of times the answer to the riddle was nowhere to be found in the game itself.

Of course, these weren't important to finishing the game, but you most certainly got rewarded well if you knew the answer.

Anyways, while playing Dungeon Siege 2, I've come across a couple of puzzles here and there during the course of Act II. They were pretty simple ones, akin to your standard console RPG puzzle, but they were there nonetheless and the answer was not available. You were left on your own to figure it out. I thought this was pretty cool, but nothing spectacular.

Well, I got to Act III and that changed. I've barely gotten that far into the act and have already hit two puzzles, one of which kept me stumped for almost half an hour. I haven't had that happen in years. I really had to stop and think for once. It was such a refreshing thing.

And the cool thing about it, was it was not even pertinent to any quest. It WAS in a dungeon where a secondary quest takes place, but it was not necessary to completing that quest. Instead, once I figured the puzzle out, it opened a secret room with a couple of chests, some barrels, a bookcase, an armor rack, and a weapon rack. Also, there was an "uber-chest" in there as well which gave me an item that completed a set I was collecting.

I actually felt I had accomplished something and what a good feeling it was. Alot of you guys may hate DS2, but it earned loads of respect from me last night. Totally loving this game and I hope there are more puzzles like that coming.

Now, if more RPGs would do this kind of stuff these days it would be great. Not even console RPG puzzles have kept me stumped for that long.

 

[Section8]

Some brief thoughts while I work on "migrating" to the other thread.

This goes directly against my point.

I feel it is against roleplaying to feed the player lines. I feel it is better to have the player come to his own conclusion.

I realise this, and that's why I said it was a bloody good point to raise. That's why as part of my examples I mentioned that it would be important to explore a dynamic system that does a whole lot more than giving canned responses.

I also acknowledged the idea that dynamic desciptives to define stats is an interesting aspect of the game responding to a character choice. Take Morrowind, for instance.

"My character is a proud dunmer who secretly plots to sabotage the Imperial presence in the area. He's well verse in the arts of stealth, but is also a devout Mystic, and keeps a soul gem around his neck, which contains the soul of the daedroth who killed his brother. Etc."

Sure, it's flavour and it's interesting, but not within the game. In fact, aside from the skill differences, the personality of Morrowind characters is for all intents and purposes, identical, since you rarely get opportunities to project your RP into the world.

So, while I acknowledge again that your point is right on the mark, it's not to say that "feeding the player lines" isn't without it's own merit. Like Steve said in one of his recent posts, dialogue choices are a great example of how even a limited set of "fed lines" can actually have a very positive effect on the game as a whole.

I can be inventive and decide how I improved. Descriptions take that element away and feed me a canned description on something I am was supposed to be in charge of.

Numbers are unbiased, they let me craft without someone else's ideas interfering. What if my 5 isn't average but a underweight child that I struggled to build up?

Removing numbers puts someone else's words on my character, I feel that is a detriment.

That's true, but as I mentioned before, it's not all detrimental. There's a balance to be struck.

Also, we've been exploring more ideas than just text descriptions. A colour based system, or a graph curve based system can also convey an unbiased measure without inflicting canned responses on the player.

Well, I got to Act III and that changed. I've barely gotten that far into the act and have already hit two puzzles, one of which kept me stumped for almost half an hour. I haven't had that happen in years. I really had to stop and think for once. It was such a refreshing thing.

It's a real shame the game prior to that point didn't hold my interest for long enough to get there. I'm a big fan of puzzle games/adventures, and so I don't mind a bit of crossover into RPGs. And I actively dislike the idea that very magic word/passcode/whatever has to be explicitly fed.

Couldn't that simply be described as "Swordmanship: 8/10"? That way you would leave with less ambiguity, knowing, that, in a general sense, you'd have difficulty in a swordfight with a most adept swordfighter (9/10) or have little chance with the unbeatable world champion (10/10)
In this case, there isn't any real difference between using the numbers rather than a text description of essentially what the numbers are.

That's not really the point of the exercise. The idea is more in line with:

Swordsmanship: 800/1000-900/1000 is described as say, "expert" or whatever.

One of the goals is to limit the extent to which a player can intuit the specific values of his character.

But anyway, I'm putting together some kind of summary for the other thread, so hopefully it all becomes clearer.

 

[odorf sniggab]

Good character evolution. Great story, story is a very important aspect. Memorable characters. Evolving character abilities that can take advantage of previously unreachable game geographies. Complex but easily graspable menu system. LOTS of visceral puzzle solving. A good bevy of usable items that aid in character traversing. A leveling system is nice but gaining new abilities through leveling is nicer. Not just combat abilities either. I don't know I haven't seen a really good RPG since the days of 2d. Oh yeah real time combat, fuck that turn based crap.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh yeah real time combat, fuck that turn based crap.

And you said that I post stuff to piss people off.

 

[Claw]

Real time combat is awesome! That's why Ultima VII rules. :D

 

[Claw]

<snip>

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I don't like that Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon style "you can't get to this area until you get that upgrade you'll only use once" game geography. You should be able to wander about no matter how low-level you are, just be more likely to get killed at that stage.

 

[voodoo1man]

Lets create a NEW paradigm.

You are right! Let's also revolutionize outside the box a little bit.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Real time combat is awesome! That's why Ultima VII rules. :D

Well, you can pause it so technically it's turn-based.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I thought the Holy Dogma of the Codex church was that RTwP isn't turn-based?

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

It's not.

It's not the Holy Dogma of the Codex Church or it's not turn-based?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not turn-based.

 

[Zomg]

Is there some definitive discussion about differentiating RTw/P and TB in the archives somewhere?

 

[Vault Dweller]

One has sequential turns, one doesn't.

 

[Section8]

It's not rocket science. Turn-Based by it's very definition is basically a single queue of participants, with only the head of the queue taking an action. When his action is complete, he moves to the back of the queue, and the new head takes his action. Pretty much the same concept as "wait your turn."

Real Time systems may have pausing, but there are no queues, and every participant is capable of performing actions at any time. There is no concept of taking turns whatsoever in that system, hence, it cannot be turn based.

 

[kingcomrade]

Not that Fallout Tactics didn't try.

 

[mrmarcus]

And fail...

 

[Xyber02]

Is the original question asking about the term "role playing" or the genre that people started calling RPGs?

 

[obediah]

It's not rocket science. Turn-Based by it's very definition is basically a single queue of participants, with only the head of the queue taking an action. When his action is complete, he moves to the back of the queue, and the new head takes his action. Pretty much the same concept as "wait your turn."

Real Time systems may have pausing, but there are no queues, and every participant is capable of performing actions at any time. There is no concept of taking turns whatsoever in that system, hence, it cannot be turn based.

Don't believe the marketing lies. Real Time is just turn based with very short turns and and timer for making your move - after which you lose your turn. RTwP gives you the option of stopping the game during any pause. You still have everyone working through a queue each time, and you still have all the reality issues that you do with turn based combat. However, the nasty "You've been shot by someone 9.5 seconds into the future" effect shrinks with your turn length just like error shrinks when you use that fancy math to measure the area under a curve.

Also, let this thought fuck you in the brain a bit - the problem with RTwP isn't that it's dumbed down, or not tactical, or you can't control a party. The problem is it's too realistic - and that realism is bought with gallons of tedium. You could implement every tactical feature that made X-COM great and a few dozen more, the problem is the combat would take 10 times as long to get through. After 30 minutes of moving their team up a row of barrels to a building the player says fuck it, and start planning longer moves, doing less scouting etc, to speed things up and then they'd bitch that it was dumbed down.

 

[Mulciber]

Is the original question asking about the term "role playing" or the genre that people started calling RPGs?

The original question is about how you apply the term "role-playing" to any sort of game; what is the thing that makes Game A a roleplaying game that Game B lacks? For our purposes, we seem to have restriced ourselves to computer games. The quick summary of the thread is that there are two main camps: Those that think that numerical stats are a defining feature of RPGs and those that hold that stats are unnecessary. The second group has now buggered off to another thread to discuss the mechanics of making an RPG without stats. Both sides hold that you need distinct, player-modifiable characters and a reactive gameworld.