An assessment of Oblivion after having first played Skyrim, then Morrowind

[Roguey]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

 

[Ventidius]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

 

[Roguey]

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in which they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

All games are skill based, what differs is what skills are being tested.

 

[Ventidius]

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in which they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

All games are skill based, what differs is what skills are being tested.

True. In RPGs it is your skill navigating rulesets and building characters according to those rulesets that is tested, in action and sports games it is your reflexes and hand-eye coordination that are of most import. So maybe I should have specified that I meant twitch-skills above.

 

[Cael]

One could make a gamebook equal to the average crpg, but it'd be a lot of work (more than anyone's been willing to commit).

*cough* Seventh Sense *cough*

 

[SomeDudeandHisHamster]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

 

[Roguey]

In every RPG you can make the dumbest, least-wise character possible and still act like a tactical genius in combat.

 

[Cael]

In every RPG you can make the dumbest, least-wise character possible and still act like a tactical genius in combat.

Heh.

You: He is over THERE! Get him!
*enemy gets dogpiled*
Note: You were INVISIBLE!

I love PnP RPGs :D

 

[Cross]

People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

If this is really a Sawyer quote, he must suffer from multiple personality disorder. When he was given the most freedom he ever had in his entire career to build a game around his personal design philosophy, he made an RPG where character attributes are completely abstract numbers that tell you nothing about a character's capabilities.

For example, in a number of games that according to Josh wouldn't qualify as RPG's, the strength attribute is used to represent things like how effective a character is with melee attacks and throwing actions, how much they can carry before they become encumbered, their ability to bash open doors, etc. There is a tangible difference between a low strength and high strength character, not just in combat, but also in the way they interact with the world around them.

In Pillars of Eternity, there's no representation of a character's physical strength. There is only 'might', which has a relatively minor effect on how skilled you are with melee attacks...and spells, guns and even healing abilities. Meaning it's not even possible to create and play as the most basic character concepts possible, such as a character whose physical strength is low, average or high.

 

[Ventidius]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

Different game design philosophies. Infinity Engine games were, at heart, combatfag games, and their combat was by far their most interesting aspect (due to their superb encounter design and despite the RTwP engine). In that sense they are best understood as successors to the Gold Box games rather than counterparts to Fallout. TES games have been about exploration at least since Daggerfall. Devs could have added more reactivity to these games, sure, but they already had a few things they were good at, and that is reason enough to play them if you enjoy what they specialized in (combat, exploration).

We can imagine perfect games with Age of Decadence reactivity, Jagged Alliance 2 combat, TOEE character customization, Elminage dungeons, and Morrowind overworld exploration.... but it ain't gonna happen. In practice, devs have limited resources and they are better off piling strength on strength rather than pleasing everyone. If you don't like overworld exploration, don't play Morrowind. If you don't like dungeon crawling, don't play Wizardry. It is that simple, and the reason we have subgenres.It is unreasonable to wish for other subgenres to cease existing simply because they don't conform to one's preferred one(in this case, reactivity-based RPGs).

I do, for the record, appreciate it when devs go the extra mile and add some extra features to their games. I was pleasantly surprised with Divinity Original Sin 2's reactivity, despite coming into it only expecting a combatfag game.

Also, let's not blame Wizardry and BG for Mass Effect. Mass Effect's problem is that it is too much of a twitch-skill based game with highly simplified customization systems. It has more to do with aping industry-wide trends than some ancient pathology that grew out of control.

 

[Ventidius]

In every RPG you can make the dumbest, least-wise character possible and still act like a tactical genius in combat.

A bit of a tall claim. Not sure you can beat Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord with a gimped thief solo. Still, you are right that RPGs, especially since the late 90s, have increasingly added failsafes to allow players to beat the game despite gimping, such as uber-items and special potions and items. Infinity Engine games are full of this.

Nevertheless, even if the game in question is very lenient in allowing you to gimp yourself and succeed, RPGs always punish you for building badly so and reward you for building well. This is even the case in Pillars of Eternity where you don't have to master the ruleset, but the difference in efficiency is very noticeable from a poorly built party to a well-optimized one, especially in PotD. Heck, this is a case I have seen being made by PoE supporters against people who just bash the game saying the charsystem is irrelevant because you can always win no matter what you build. The returns to scale from optimizing are much greater in RPGs than they are other games from different genres that have RPG elements. Sure, we can debate where exactly the threshold is, but it is safe to say that there is one.

 

[SomeDudeandHisHamster]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

Different game design philosophies. Infinity Engine games were, at heart, combatfag games, and their combat was by far their most interesting aspect (due to their superb encounter design and despite the RTwP engine). In that sense they are best understood as successors to the Gold Box games rather than counterparts to Fallout. TES games have been about exploration at least since Daggerfall. Devs could have added more reactivity to these games, sure, but they already had a few things they were good at, and that is reason enough to play them if you enjoy what they specialized in (combat, exploration).

We can imagine perfect games with Age of Decadence reactivity, Jagged Alliance 2 combat, TOEE character customization, Elminage dungeons, and Morrowind overworld exploration.... but it ain't gonna happen. In practice, devs have limited resources and they are better off piling strength on strength rather than pleasing everyone. If you don't like overworld exploration, don't play Morrowind. If you don't like dungeon crawling, don't play Wizardry. It is that simple, and the reason we have subgenres.It is unreasonable to wish for other subgenres to cease existing simply because they don't conform to one's preferred one(in this case, reactivity-based RPGs).

I do, for the record, appreciate it when devs go the extra mile and add some extra features to their games. I was pleasantly surprised with Divinity Original Sin 2's reactivity, despite coming into it only expecting a combatfag game.

Also, let's not blame Wizardry and BG for Mass Effect. Mass Effect's problem is that it is too much of a twitch-skill based game with highly simplified customization systems. It has more to do with aping industry-wide trends than some ancient pathology that grew out of control.

You're right. But it would still be awesome to see one RPG try to combine every sub genre of an RPG thou it may be nearly impossible.

 

[Ventidius]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

Different game design philosophies. Infinity Engine games were, at heart, combatfag games, and their combat was by far their most interesting aspect (due to their superb encounter design and despite the RTwP engine). In that sense they are best understood as successors to the Gold Box games rather than counterparts to Fallout. TES games have been about exploration at least since Daggerfall. Devs could have added more reactivity to these games, sure, but they already had a few things they were good at, and that is reason enough to play them if you enjoy what they specialized in (combat, exploration).

We can imagine perfect games with Age of Decadence reactivity, Jagged Alliance 2 combat, TOEE character customization, Elminage dungeons, and Morrowind overworld exploration.... but it ain't gonna happen. In practice, devs have limited resources and they are better off piling strength on strength rather than pleasing everyone. If you don't like overworld exploration, don't play Morrowind. If you don't like dungeon crawling, don't play Wizardry. It is that simple, and the reason we have subgenres.It is unreasonable to wish for other subgenres to cease existing simply because they don't conform to one's preferred one(in this case, reactivity-based RPGs).

I do, for the record, appreciate it when devs go the extra mile and add some extra features to their games. I was pleasantly surprised with Divinity Original Sin 2's reactivity, despite coming into it only expecting a combatfag game.

Also, let's not blame Wizardry and BG for Mass Effect. Mass Effect's problem is that it is too much of a twitch-skill based game with highly simplified customization systems. It has more to do with aping industry-wide trends than some ancient pathology that grew out of control.

You're right. But it would still be awesome to see one RPG try to combine every sub genre of an RPG thou it may be nearly impossible.

FWIW there are lots of RPGs out there we could call "generalist" RPGs that try to have a bit of everything. Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Wasteland 2, PoE, all of these games - and others - had dungeon crawling, tactical combat, exploration, and yes, some degree of reactivity. The problem is that such games often either have a clear strength and some other aspects suffer(combat in BG, reactivity in Fallout), or they are just bland all around (Wasteland 2, IMO), so it is always a gamble. That is the reason why I personally think that games that are highly focused in their design goals such as Wiz-likes and Age of Decadence are better than games that try to bite more than they can chew. That said, some degree of hybridization is welcome so long as it can be controlled, in fact, even the 2 examples mentioned above(Wiz-likes, AoD) are not entirely pure as they both have some tactical combat apart from their respective dungeon crawling and reactivity strengths.

 

[Cael]

Still, you are right that RPGs, especially since the late 90s, have increasingly added failsafes to allow players to beat the game despite gimping, such as uber-items and special potions and items. Infinity Engine games are full of this.

It is due to the rise of the dramaqueen players who think that adventuring is the same as going to the cornerstore to buy a pint of milk and that a blind, crippled fighter with all physical stats of 10 and mental stats of 6 is a perfectly valid PC to create because it is "realistic". They then sneer at people with "optimised" builds and denigrate them with the term rollplayers.
If I happen to be at the table with one of these, whether as player or DM, reality invariably ensues resulting in a dead PC. Bonus fun points if I am not a mage at the time and have to come up with something even more creative to off the loon.

 

[SomeDudeandHisHamster]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

Different game design philosophies. Infinity Engine games were, at heart, combatfag games, and their combat was by far their most interesting aspect (due to their superb encounter design and despite the RTwP engine). In that sense they are best understood as successors to the Gold Box games rather than counterparts to Fallout. TES games have been about exploration at least since Daggerfall. Devs could have added more reactivity to these games, sure, but they already had a few things they were good at, and that is reason enough to play them if you enjoy what they specialized in (combat, exploration).

We can imagine perfect games with Age of Decadence reactivity, Jagged Alliance 2 combat, TOEE character customization, Elminage dungeons, and Morrowind overworld exploration.... but it ain't gonna happen. In practice, devs have limited resources and they are better off piling strength on strength rather than pleasing everyone. If you don't like overworld exploration, don't play Morrowind. If you don't like dungeon crawling, don't play Wizardry. It is that simple, and the reason we have subgenres.It is unreasonable to wish for other subgenres to cease existing simply because they don't conform to one's preferred one(in this case, reactivity-based RPGs).

I do, for the record, appreciate it when devs go the extra mile and add some extra features to their games. I was pleasantly surprised with Divinity Original Sin 2's reactivity, despite coming into it only expecting a combatfag game.

Also, let's not blame Wizardry and BG for Mass Effect. Mass Effect's problem is that it is too much of a twitch-skill based game with highly simplified customization systems. It has more to do with aping industry-wide trends than some ancient pathology that grew out of control.

You're right. But it would still be awesome to see one RPG try to combine every sub genre of an RPG thou it may be nearly impossible.

FWIW there are lots of RPGs out there we could call "generalist" RPGs that try to have a bit of everything. Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Wasteland 2, PoE, all of these games - and others - had dungeon crawling, tactical combat, exploration, and yes, some degree of reactivity. The problem is that such games often either have a clear strength and some other aspects suffer(combat in BG, reactivity in Fallout), or they are just bland all around (Wasteland 2, IMO), so it is always a gamble. That is the reason why I personally think that games that are highly focused in their design goals such as Wiz-likes and Age of Decadence are better than games that try to bite more than they can chew. That said, some degree of hybridization is welcome so long as it can be controlled, in fact, even the 2 examples mentioned above(Wiz-likes, AoD) are not entirely pure as they both have some tactical combat apart from their respective dungeon crawling and reactivity strengths.

I agree, old school RPGs focusing more on one aspect and using the rest to enchance the core idea made them a more polished and memorable experience. Modern RPGs usually do the opposite and try to cram in 3 or more instead of just focusing on a single design first; Bethesda tried to combine a dungeon crawler, a narrative based RPG, and the original Fallout system, but instead created a game where all three ideas clashed with one another that didnt exactly create a bad experience but a very unpolished one.

 

[Ventidius]

Not every game is a role playing game, obviously. RPGs are such because they allow for clearly defined roles to be played in the context of many different kinds of a simulacrum, and they achieve this by modelling said simulacrum around a abstract role, or character, system. Said simulacrum may be of the "story" kind and thus involve expressing the role in the form of certain actions that are given certain meanings by the reactions in the world. But it can also be done with a pure combat or dungeon crawling gauntlet and we are not in the least removed from roleplaying. What matters is that this is all driven by a sufficiently robust character system, which is what ultimately the most important factor separating RPGs from non-RPGs.

One can role play without systems or even a game. "Role playing games are games with character systems" - this tells me nothing about what to expect from it. Additionally, it also describes sports games and other genres. As Josh put it

I never have cared about "RPG" trappings like character advancement, statistics, inventory, tactical combat, and other mechanics that tons of "not RPG" games (e.g. various Castlevanias, Resident Evils, etc.) have. Lots of games can have those things, whether people consider them to be RPGs or not. They're certainly fun aspects of game play, but they aren't unique to RPGs.

The origins of the RPG genre are in tabletop gaming, and the allure of the tabletop RPG environment isn't in spec-ing out characters (though that is fun). If that's all you want to do, play Warhammer 40k, Confrontation, or any other war game you like. People play RPGs so they can make a unique character and play that character as they see fit. That is why I always use that specific capability as my criterion for classifying contemporary games as RPGs.

Of course one can roleplay without systems, but one can't have a roleplaying game without rules or systems. Hence where the whole point of the game is to allow for the playing a variety of roles, the systems have to be tailored in accordance with that. The best way to do that is for the entire experience to pivot around a role system that determines what certain roles can or cannot do.

As for sports games, they fall into the Dark Souls limbo in that they do have some character customization but are ultimately more skill based than character based. Same with Castlevania and Resident Evil.

The problem with the systems used in the infinity engine rpgs(except PS:T) and TES is that they only change the character's combat possibilities and equippable equipment.
Compare that to the system used in the original Fallout games where the stats defined your options available in both combat and roleplaying.
In Fallout, it is possible to make a dumb, naive, and powerful grunt that could barely speak and has luck on his side by redistributing Intelligence skill points to Strenght and Luck. Compare that to Baldur's Gate where making a dumb and powerful orc by lowering intelligence, charisma and wisdom to 1 will still give you the same speech options as a human mage with maxed out intelligence and charisma.
It also bothered me that the Race you pick in TES also changes nothing but abilities; however in VtMB, the Race picked affects the combat, the interactions possible and even how the whole game plays.
People focusing more on the story driven nature of Baldur's Gate and the dungeons of Wizadry resulted in an age of Mass Effects and Skyrims.

Different game design philosophies. Infinity Engine games were, at heart, combatfag games, and their combat was by far their most interesting aspect (due to their superb encounter design and despite the RTwP engine). In that sense they are best understood as successors to the Gold Box games rather than counterparts to Fallout. TES games have been about exploration at least since Daggerfall. Devs could have added more reactivity to these games, sure, but they already had a few things they were good at, and that is reason enough to play them if you enjoy what they specialized in (combat, exploration).

We can imagine perfect games with Age of Decadence reactivity, Jagged Alliance 2 combat, TOEE character customization, Elminage dungeons, and Morrowind overworld exploration.... but it ain't gonna happen. In practice, devs have limited resources and they are better off piling strength on strength rather than pleasing everyone. If you don't like overworld exploration, don't play Morrowind. If you don't like dungeon crawling, don't play Wizardry. It is that simple, and the reason we have subgenres.It is unreasonable to wish for other subgenres to cease existing simply because they don't conform to one's preferred one(in this case, reactivity-based RPGs).

I do, for the record, appreciate it when devs go the extra mile and add some extra features to their games. I was pleasantly surprised with Divinity Original Sin 2's reactivity, despite coming into it only expecting a combatfag game.

Also, let's not blame Wizardry and BG for Mass Effect. Mass Effect's problem is that it is too much of a twitch-skill based game with highly simplified customization systems. It has more to do with aping industry-wide trends than some ancient pathology that grew out of control.

You're right. But it would still be awesome to see one RPG try to combine every sub genre of an RPG thou it may be nearly impossible.

FWIW there are lots of RPGs out there we could call "generalist" RPGs that try to have a bit of everything. Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Wasteland 2, PoE, all of these games - and others - had dungeon crawling, tactical combat, exploration, and yes, some degree of reactivity. The problem is that such games often either have a clear strength and some other aspects suffer(combat in BG, reactivity in Fallout), or they are just bland all around (Wasteland 2, IMO), so it is always a gamble. That is the reason why I personally think that games that are highly focused in their design goals such as Wiz-likes and Age of Decadence are better than games that try to bite more than they can chew. That said, some degree of hybridization is welcome so long as it can be controlled, in fact, even the 2 examples mentioned above(Wiz-likes, AoD) are not entirely pure as they both have some tactical combat apart from their respective dungeon crawling and reactivity strengths.

I agree, old school RPGs focusing more on one aspect and using the rest to enchance the core idea made them a more polished and memorable experience. Modern RPGs usually do the opposite and try to cram in 3 or more instead of just focusing on a single design first; Bethesda tried to combine a dungeon crawler, a narrative based RPG, and the original Fallout system, but instead created a game where all three ideas clashed with one another that didnt exactly create a bad experience but a very unpolished one.

I would say the older Bethesda games, like Morrowind and Daggerfall, didn't suffer from this. They were primarily focused in providing a sandbox exploration experience, with the combat being rather barebones compared to other RPGs. Daggerfall focused more on a pseudo-roguelike experience with heavy emphasis on procedural dungeon diving, while Morrowind was more about overworld exploration, with the dungeons taking a back seat. Even though the Codex loves to hate Bethesda for its poor quests, dialogues, and reactivity, I would say what really has held back their games (apart from their desire to appeal to mainstream sensibilities, and with the exception of Oblivion, which was just a plain broken game) has been trying to ape the likes of Fallout and attempting to add more elaborate questing, dialogues, and engaging NPCs. It goes without saying that they fail at all those things. But the point is they never should have even attempted to implement them in any large scale, since their game design was already on the verge of being bloated by the mere fact that it was a sandbox with dungeon crawling (a sandbox, by itself, is a very taxing project), adding that other layer to things, towards which they have increased their efforts since they started working on the Fallout IP, is an important part of the story when explaining how they have tripped over.

The best example of what I am saying is the guilds. The guilds in Daggerfall were there basically to give you procedurally generated quests indefinetely and keep you dungeon diving constantly so that you could keep up the kill, loot, level up cycle more or less indefinetely(and also give you some rewards as you gained reputation with them), thus adding to the pseudo-roguelike pace of the game. Indeed they were essential to the latter, and said pseudo-roguelike pace heavily reinforced the sense of emergent gameplay and replayability in which no two playthroughs were alike. On the other hand Oblivion and Skyrim had guilds with elaborate quests and storylines, culminating with Skyrim's impoverishment of the guild system to the point that you could join any guild because they differed little from any other side content, and even though they had some Daggerfall-like radiant quests, these were not focused on sending you to dungeons(with the exception of the Greybeards IIRC). All of this undermined the role that the factions had played in the structure of previous games.

Other aspects of the games could be cited in this connection, such as the 10-people city syndrome, which is a direct result of a focus on density of content rather than mass, an approach that undermines the sense of scale that I mentioned in a previous post as one of the strengths of Morrowind - and MW proved one need not mostly rely on procedural content like DF to achieve this effect - for the sake of more detailed, handcrafted content. The tragic part is that Beth can't write to save their lives and thus the tradeoff is for naught.

I would say that Bethesda's misadventures in Fallout land were as detrimental to it as much as to that IP. Both Daggerfall and Morrowind had shown great promise, each in their own way. They both offered a glimpse of what a sandbox, exploration-driven RPG could be. But instead of building on that foundation, Bethesda got derailed. Commercial success, the massive brain fart that was Oblivion, and finally getting entangled in Fallout shenanigans ensured that the promise of old TES games was never delivered on.

 

[Wayward Son]

SomeDudeandHisHamster I agree with what you said and that wall of text was definitely worth reading. Morrowind and Daggerfall managed to exemplify exploration driven RPGs in different ways, that only Might and Magic (to my knowledge and experience anyhow) had previously attempted and accomplished.

 

[DraQ]

In every RPG you can make the dumbest, least-wise character possible and still act like a tactical genius in combat.

That's why no cRPG should have INT stat.

 

[Ventidius]

SomeDudeandHisHamster I agree with what you said and that wall of text was definitely worth reading. Morrowind and Daggerfall managed to exemplify exploration driven RPGs in different ways, that only Might and Magic (to my knowledge and experience anyhow) had previously attempted and accomplished.

Don't forget Darklands. Other than that though, I can't say I have come across many. That said, browsing the CRPG Addict's blog I have seen him describe some interesting experimental exploration mechanics in some old games.

 

[aweigh]

it depends on what you define as "exploration". what is the difference between mapping out a dungeon and mapping out an overworld? what if the game features both, which one is more indicative of the "exploration" aspect?

i'm sure there can also be a further argument made about how exploration does not need to be "physical" but i personally wouldn't make it, as I do believe there needs to be spatial qualities for it to be valid in the context of video games.

wizardry 7 introduced a huge overworld that features plenty of "exploration" coupled with a new Cartography aspect and skill system, but I consider the other Wizardries, or a game like Dungeon Master (to give an example), to feature better exploration for an RPG player than wandering around and stumbling across villages/ruins.

It's a personal preference to be sure, and many (if not most) Codexers would opine the opposite, but there it is and I wanted to touch on this particular area. This thread is proving to be one of the more interesting discussions on what I personally call "the RPG template", and on a side note:

Ventidius

what you termed "generalist RPGs" in one your earlier posts is what the mainstream gaming press dubbed "Adventure Game Hybrid" back in the day, circa mid-to-late 1990s.

Their reasoning, and it is one I share wholeheartedly, is that games like Baldur's Gate and the games that inspired it to large degrees such as Darklands, BoK or the Dark Sun isometric one feature more in common with the Adventure Game genre which was still alive and kicking in the early 1990s, and these "newfangled ismoetric RPGs" with their point and click emphasis on dialog and item reactivity and multiple story states were not seen as an evolution of the RPG template but borrowed from the AG genre.

obviously this term didn't stick but many, like myself, remember it, and I like using it whenever I'm in a thread arguing with other Codexers about whether or not the mostly cosmetic "choice and consequence" that less erudite codexers fawn over is truthfully the supposed be-all and end-all albatross of arbitration.

 

[Ventidius]

it depends on what you define as "exploration". what is the difference between mapping out a dungeon and mapping out an overworld? what if the game features both, which one is more indicative of the "exploration" aspect?

Oh, most definetely. Dungeon exploration is clearly a valid form of exploration. In fact, I would say that the state of the art in RPG dungeon exploration has always been more advanced than the state of art in overworld exploration. CRPG Dungeon crawling was already excellent in Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, and only got better with the refinements on the formula made first by Sir-Tech and then by Starfish. Unfortunately things did not work out as well for overworld exploration. Things started out promising enough with Daggerfall, Darklands, and Might and Magic. Morrowind further pushed the boundaries of how it could be done, but then... Oblivion came around and well, the rest is history. If you look at modern games that are tentatively about exploration or "open-world", what you have is games like Witcher 3 that in fact have more in common with linear Bioware games, but which happen to have a lot of empty spaces thrown in for some reason. Piranha Bytes games and Dragon's Dogma are not really true sandboxes either, not in the same way either DF or MW were. As for the old pioneers, Darklands never had a successor (well, I have heard SitS is kind of like it, but can't vouch for that as I haven't tried it), Might and Magic had an abortive revival which wasn't even faithful to the exploration-oriented nature of the old games (MMX), and while Bethesda has recovered from the darkest hour that was Oblivion/Fallout 3, it's newer games don't really fulfill the potential shown by DF and MW.

I should have specified that I was talking about overworld exploration instead of dungeon exploration when I discussed Bethesda above. They are clearly distinct. Though Daggerfall had plenty of dungeons, but they were procedurally generated and thus had more in common with roguelikes than Wiz-type crawlers. Non-dungeon exploration in DF often also took place in cities rather than in an overworld proper. Still, I would insist that dungeon exploration and non-dungeon exploration are distinct enough categories that they warrant to be examined separately, even if they do share some things in common, such as for example, the fact that they both benefit heavily from both traps and survival/resource management mechanics to be challenging. Dungeon crawlers have traditionally been better at this than overworld games, as they routinely implement hardcore features like saving in town only (some forgo it such as Dungeon Travelers 2 and Dark Spire, though), no fast travel(though there are sometimes teleport spells, but this is valid from the point of view of RPG options) and resting in town only. Heck, Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord even has ironman by default - except for the Playstation version IIRC.

I wouldn't say overworld/urban exploration is simply worse all-around to dungeon crawling though. It does have some advantages such as the freedom that Morrowind gives you to do all sorts of crazy things that I mentioned a few posts back in my analysis of that game. Also, there is no reason why overworld games could not implement challenging survival mechanics in their exploration - the only thing they cannot in theory pull off that dungeons can is disorientation - it is that devs usually choose not to, and even remove stuff like no-fast-travel. That said, there is usually a conflict between the freedom of sandboxes and challenging survival mechanics, which is why I always thought Bethesda's best bet would be to focus on freedom and powergaming with Elder Scrolls - leaving them easy - and make Fallout into a franchise focused in hardcore overworld exploration with tough survival mechanics and limited options. But instead of that Skyrim and Oblivion removed a lot of the options that Morrowind gave you, while the Fallout games are still not very challenging to explore (though to be completely fair, I will admit that the Survival Mode in Fallout 4 was a step in the right direction).

As for "adventure hybrids", I don't know. Aren't Gold Box games and Jagged Alliance 2 tactics hybrids? As I pointed out above, most RPGs borrow elements from other genres, even dungeon exploration is not the exclusive preserve of RPGs, Zelda and Metroid games have very elaborate mazes as well. Most RPGs are hybrids in some way or another, don't you think? Reactivity-RPGs are CYOA hybrids. My view on this is, so long as there is heavy character and party customization, and the game's design revolves heavily around that, it is an RPG. As Zed Duke of Banville pointed out above, combat and exploration might also be considered essential, but what you call adventure hybrids have all of those things too. Still, I think this is just a nitpick, I think we all agree that both Baldur's Gate and Wizardry I are RPGs.

 

[aweigh]

yeah, it's why i started using "the RPG template" in previous threads about what constitutes an RPG. It's a pat way for me to avoid entering the muddled waters of genre definition.

 

[Ventidius]

yeah, it's why i started using "the RPG template" in previous threads about what constitutes an RPG. It's a pat way for me to avoid entering the muddled waters of genre definition.

Indeed, and I would say the best way to define that template is to use the 'triad' mentioned by Zed of customization, exploration, and combat. In that sense, both early Wizardry(1-5) and the Gold Box games are examples of the template, even if they emphasize different parts. Though I see this template more as a loose set of guidelines than a strict classification, since I think some games that skimp on some aspects (like Blackguards with the exploration) can still be considered RPGs. Conceptualizations are useful, but ultimately a thing is more than the sum of its parts, and RPGs are like porn: you know 'em when you see 'em.

 

[aweigh]

it's funny that you mention porn because there's another quote concerning games and porn although I have forgotten who said it:

"games are like porn. the story isn't important".

back in the day I thought that quote was one of the most heretical things ever said by a game designer and something that stood against all that the RPG Codex (and obviously, RPGs in general) stood for... nowadays I have come to hold a different view. I still think that "story" holds a very important place, but I no longer think it is necessarily the primary occupation for successfully achieving the creation of an RPG.

 

[aweigh]

(originally part of above post but I realize this following tangent might contain material which would not merit the brofist the above statement did, as I edited it into the above post after the brofist: thus a seperation)

...what constitutes a "story" is yet more delicious food for thought.

There are currently two other good threads that touch upon this: felipepe's current thread on repitition in games but more to the point a recent thread asking if RPGs/games can achieve the same level of artistic literacy found in famous books or films.

in the latter thread many have pointed out that the interactivty and reactivity unique to the video game (and thus, the RPG) allows for a deeper brand of story telling that can combine all of the tools found in books and in movies (visual geometry, negative space + dialog, prose, etc) and use the video game's ability for interactivty as a way to allow the player to choose how, when and why use these tools and thus allow true "video game storytelling".

Easy examples are stuff like the "scenes" found in Bethesda games, but more specifically done best in Obsidian's F:NV, where you will stumble upon some scenario with shit that happened and it ties into an overarching theme or narrative, and usually contains interactive elements that can be found such as hidden items or whatnot, but even though they are additive these "scenes" are still (mostly) entirely optional and tell a story without any dialog.

obviously film can do the above as well, but it can't tie the scene into the experience of interactivity in the way a video game can; the video game will turn that scene into a chimera of expression from the creators whereas a film cannot and indeed, it should be as narrow as possible in its intent of authorial contract.