Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

sawyer wants rpg to evolve

Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
so basically: if you have avaiable skill interactions listed for you - its CYOA, when you need to open UI and drag skill interaction onto object its RPG?
In adventure games you interact with world by draggin items onto another items without knowing which will work. Hence adventure games are more RPG than CYOAs.

Its first time that someone bases RPG definition on UI.
Nah. It's more like:

If x is implemented by known developers and belong to the canon is cRPG material.

If x is implemented by unknown developers that don't belong to the canon is not cRPG material because they don't have the pedigree.

The related mental gymnastics is pure rationalization motivated by personal prejudice.
 

Mustawd

Guest
hard to argue with you as you just attack validity of pnp based argument and discarding everything else

Let me put this in a different way: My argument is that PnP rpgs and cRPGs are similar, but distinct, animals. Discussing PnP in context of cRPGs helps to provide some historical view as well as discuss rulesets that cut across both. But to point to PnP and try to make the argument "PnP has it, so it makes sense for cRPGs" is ignoring the fact that cRPGs are distinct.

Am I discounting PnP's influences? I don't think so. I am discounting the argument that mechanics in one format should automatically apply to the other.

Let me ask you differently: if someone were to play AoD without combat(which can be multiple playthroughs, reaching godhood even) would you say that he didnt play rpg even if game itself is rpg?

In the post where I quoted my argument, I mentioned that AoD, as a game, stripped of all combat would not be an RPG. However, the fact that it does have combat, even f you play as a noncombat character, DOES make it an RPG. There are different types of playstyles, but the underlying mechanics are there. Strip those mechanics away and you're left with a graphical CYOA with stats.
 

agentorange

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
5,256
Location
rpghq (cant read codex pms cuz of fag 2fa)
Codex 2012
In that case, don't make CYOAs and call them RPGs, because they are not.
Why. I've played PNP RPGs and even within those you are still navigating through a scenario constructed beforehand by the GM. There is more spontaneity because as a group of people working in the moment you are able to come up with solutions on the fly, and the GM, being a human, can allow or disallow those solutions on a case by case basis. However there is still an overall story structure that is usually seen through, after all what are PNP campaign modules for? This is even more true in CRPG form. You are not constructing an adventure as you go, there is no true freedom, you are playing through a story that has already been constructed from beginning to end, you simply have some relative control over the pacing and order of things.

Except it's not the same at all. If you remove the combat from Fallout 2, you still have to explore and solve problems and use skill checks on your own without having the game list them in front of you. Therefore-> F2 is an RPG, CYOAs are not RPGs.
Except you can only use the specifically allowed skill in any given skill check situation. "Solving problems and use skills checks on your own" would only amount to going down the list of skills until you find the one that is applicable. So how does this somehow make it more of an "RPG" than AoD? The very fact that so many people complain about all the content that can be missed in AoD is a testament to the amount of exploration that is possible within the game.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I mentioned that AoD, as a game, stripped of all combat would not be an RPG. However, the fact that it does have combat, even f you play as a noncombat character, DOES make it an RPG. There are different types of playstyles, but the underlying mechanics are there. Strip those mechanics away and you're left with a graphical CYOA with stats.
That’s is just as arbitrary as if a storyfag said that AoD, as a game, stripped of all the C&C would not be an cRPG. People can make entire PnP campaigns without combat. It’s retarded, I know, but it happens. I think that we should try to resist the temptation of politicising this discussion because we want cRPGs to have more or less combat. I think that the definition of cRPG is not as important as long as the implementation of some of its features are accompanied by engrossing mechanics. If you are a storyfag, you can consider a heavy combat cRPG as a single campaign that is more focused on combat, and if you are a combatfag the opposite. I want both things, but I’m inclined to prefer the combat. What I don't want is a game that has neither engrossing mechanics, let's say, SR, nor good itemization or exploration (W2, PoE, etc). In my own ignorant opinion, the discussion about the nature of cRPGs, and their relation to their PnP past, is only useful to help us to inform our criticisms of current gameplay, their need of good character building, etc.
 

Mustawd

Guest
That’s is just as arbitrary as if a storyfag said that AoD, as a game, stripped of all the C&C would not be an cRPG.

The difference is that there are RPGs that exist already without C&C. How many rpgs exist with no combat whatsoever?

The whole point of what I'm trying to bring up is that combatless RPGs are new. Should we as cRPG consumers accept that DE is an RPG? I say no.

And what do I mean by not accept? For starters, putting all discussion of DE in the General Gaming or Adventure Game forums. Also, if this gets reviewed, we should label it an Adventure Game/CYOA/Visual Novel review. Finally, we should exclude it fomr the GOTY voting at the end of 2018. These are just a few things that could be done IMO.

Now, if we accept that DE is an rpg, then fine. It looks like Infinitron has already decided to keep DE in the General RPG forum. In which case, it kind of tempts me to buy, play and review the newest Madden RPG. Should be fun.
 

Mustawd

Guest
In the post where I quoted my argument, I mentioned that AoD, as a game, stripped of all combat would not be an RPG. However, the fact that it does have combat, even f you play as a noncombat character, DOES make it an RPG. There are different types of playstyles, but the underlying mechanics are there. Strip those mechanics away and you're left with a graphical CYOA with stats.
you actually didnt answer my question. Core of it wasnt about whether AoD as a game is rpg.
Its about whether person playing AoD without combat can claim that they played an RPG/had RPG playthrough.

You need to read closlier.

There are different types of playstyles, but the underlying mechanics are there
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
The difference is that there are RPGs that exist already without C&C. How many rpgs exist with no combat whatsoever?The whole point of what I'm trying to bring up is that combatless RPGs are new. Should we as cRPG consumers accept that DE is an RPG? I say no.
You don’t get to decide by vote what is the nature of the thing, man. If a combatless game is a cRPG, it will be even if grognards make a revolution and throw this games in the fire. It’s not a matter of politics, it’s a matter of definition, which requires conceptual analysis. You need to look at the most salient PnP games, abstract what they were trying to achieve, and use this to understand what cRPGs are given the limitations of the medium. It seems to me that cRPGs are attempts to surpass challenges using models that represent indepth character traits and abilities. This allows a pure combat playthrough or a talking playthrough. The combat playthrough is more rewarding because combat systems are more evolved, but I don’t want my ability to make narrative choices taken from me because you are blaming C&C as the source of all evil in the gaming industry. Do you think that most developers implement bad combat systems because they wasted their time implementing C&C? Of course not, it is because they are trying to please a wider audience with streamlined mechanics. By the direction game development is heading every single pseudo-cRPG out there will be completely linear and have barebones character building, if that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
There is no reason way to simply select out of them the perfect set of mechanics that encapsulates RPGs--or to preemptively exclude new mechanics or the appropriation of mechanics from other types of games. One has to make an attempt to see what those various mechanics are trying to achieve.
I see, with that I can agree. But I will still insist that (1) it doesn’t matter the type of model you use to represent abilities, trais, skills and other relevant aspects of the player, character building is integral to cRPGs; (2) the quality of gameplay is in part determined by how much this model is taken seriously and well implemented, which includes a good combat system, well placed skill/stat checks, etc.

What people are referring by "traditional design" is basically character building or the restrictions imposed by character building on gameplay. In other words, they want to improve cRPGs by replacing cRPGs with FPSs.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
JS: I can't do innovation in my games because of my fans.
RK: We made an innovative game, but we're not sure it has any fans.
JS: Cool story bro.
JS: My target audience has condemned me to make IE clones forever.
TA: Hey man, did you see how cool those new D:OS mechanics were? They have turn-based combat and sold two times more than you.
JS: Meh, I prefer IE clones.
 

Glaucon

Prophet
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
1,000
There is no reason way to simply select out of them the perfect set of mechanics that encapsulates RPGs--or to preemptively exclude new mechanics or the appropriation of mechanics from other types of games. One has to make an attempt to see what those various mechanics are trying to achieve.
I see, with that I can agree. But I will still insist that (1) it doesn’t matter the type of model you use to represent abilities, trais, skills and other relevant aspects of the player, character building is integral to cRPGs; (2) the quality of gameplay is in part determined by how much this model is taken seriously and well implemented, which includes a good combat system, well placed skill/stat checks, etc.

What people are referring by "traditional design" is basically character building or the restrictions imposed by character building on gameplay. In other words, they want to improve cRPGs by replacing cRPGs with FPSs.
Alright, this has been fun but I'm probably not going respond after this post. For complicated reasons that I'm not really interested in explaining (and in the case of technological development, incapable of explaining), video game's are generally pursuing the direction of ever deeper simulation (by which I don't necessarily mean the genre of Immersive Sim, which has some overlap with CRPGs). This is true even of AAA action games. I certainly don't want CRPGs to simply become FPSs. That would be an unfortunate development, and you're right that many CRPGs thus far that have tried to eliminate stats in the pursuit of simulation more or less end up approximating FPS gameplay.
 

Mustawd

Guest
You don’t get to decide by vote what is the nature of the thing, man.

This was more of a rhetorical statement.

The combat playthrough is more rewarding because combat systems are more evolved, but I don’t want my ability to make narrative choices taken from me because you are blaming C&C as the source of all evil in the gaming industry.

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand me. C&C is fine. DE as a game seems fine enough. What bothers me is that they are marketing it as an RPG, even though it lacks combat. It also bothers me that the Codex is enabling this by also referring to it as an RPG. I don't dislike dialogue and C&C although my preference is for the combat to be the main focus.

Do you think that most developers implement bad combat systems because they wasted their time implementing C&C? Of course not, it is because they are trying to please a wider audience with streamlined mechanics. By the direction game development is heading every single pseudo-cRPG out there will be completely linear and have barebones character building, if that.

I never said that nor implied that.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
DE as a game seems fine enough. What bothers me is that they are marketing it as an RPG, even though it lacks combat.
The game has combat.

:roll:

Go to the website: http://zaumstudio.com

The very first thing listed under features is:
SET-PIECE COMBAT
Set-piece combat sequences you can avoid or dive into at your peril.

From the FAQ (http://zaumstudio.com/devblog/page/15/):

NO TRUCE WITH THE FURIES has violent confrontations at set-piece moments. These are handled within the dialogue system. You can call it heavily scripted turn based combat, if you want to.

There is no real time with pause or traditional turn based combat in the game. We still have hit rolls. We have armour, lives, weapons etc. And you can die. But the action sequences are literature heavy showdowns. You can also lose these showdowns (given that you didn’t die) and the game registers it. You’re free to limp out of there and try a different approach.

It's turn-based combat mediated via the dialogue UI rather than a separate combat UI. What's the problem here? You'll get a list of tactical options like in zillions of other RPGs, you'll choose, there will some RNG magic, the other guy does his thing, and so on until the fight ends. Imagine if Fallout's combat had been conducted through the little text box where it described the outcome of each hit--DE just plans to be a lot more descriptive.

Let's see, turn-based system, outcomes determined by character skill and RNG; how is this not RPG combat?

Sure, there will be no random encounters. Everything will be hand placed. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Is the objection to the user interface or to the fact that you have no cookie-cutter encounters and every possible move is scripted (although for all I know they'll reuse these lines, like the Fallout text box)? To me, the latter just says they've spent a lot of time writing to provide an insane level of reactivity both within combat, and everywhere else.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,287
NO TRUCE WITH THE FURIES has violent confrontations at set-piece moments. These are handled within the dialogue system. You can call it heavily scripted turn based combat, if you want to.

There is no real time with pause or traditional turn based combat in the game. We still have hit rolls. We have armour, lives, weapons etc. And you can die. But the action sequences are literature heavy showdowns. You can also lose these showdowns (given that you didn’t die) and the game registers it. You’re free to limp out of there and try a different approach.

It's turn-based combat mediated via the dialogue UI rather than a separate combat UI. What's the problem here? You'll get a list of tactical options like in zillions of other RPGs, you'll choose, there will some RNG magic, the other guy does his thing, and so on until the fight ends. Imagine if Fallout's combat had been conducted through the little text box where it described the outcome of each hit--DE just plans to be a lot more descriptive.
Reminds me... reminds me of "You fight like a dairy farmer!"
 

Mustawd

Guest
Let's see, turn-based system, outcomes determined by character skill and RNG; how is this not RPG combat?

Well fuck. Now I feel silly. That is combat. I mean it's kinda meh, but it is combat.


This is literally me right now:

giphy.gif
 

Master

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,160
DE as a game seems fine enough. What bothers me is that they are marketing it as an RPG, even though it lacks combat.
The game has combat.

:roll:

Go to the website: http://zaumstudio.com

The very first thing listed under features is:
SET-PIECE COMBAT
Set-piece combat sequences you can avoid or dive into at your peril.

From the FAQ (http://zaumstudio.com/devblog/page/15/):

NO TRUCE WITH THE FURIES has violent confrontations at set-piece moments. These are handled within the dialogue system. You can call it heavily scripted turn based combat, if you want to.

There is no real time with pause or traditional turn based combat in the game. We still have hit rolls. We have armour, lives, weapons etc. And you can die. But the action sequences are literature heavy showdowns. You can also lose these showdowns (given that you didn’t die) and the game registers it. You’re free to limp out of there and try a different approach.

It's turn-based combat mediated via the dialogue UI rather than a separate combat UI. What's the problem here? You'll get a list of tactical options like in zillions of other RPGs, you'll choose, there will some RNG magic, the other guy does his thing, and so on until the fight ends. Imagine if Fallout's combat had been conducted through the little text box where it described the outcome of each hit--DE just plans to be a lot more descriptive.

Let's see, turn-based system, outcomes determined by character skill and RNG; how is this not RPG combat?

Sure, there will be no random encounters. Everything will be hand placed. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Is the objection to the user interface or to the fact that you have no cookie-cutter encounters and every possible move is scripted (although for all I know they'll reuse these lines, like the Fallout text box)? To me, the latter just says they've spent a lot of time writing to provide an insane level of reactivity both within combat, and everywhere else.
Can you blow a hole in the wall if the door is locked in this innovative Rpg?
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Can you blow a hole in the wall if the door is locked in this innovative Rpg?

You play as a police detective, so I imagine your superiors would not be pleased about the property damage and presumably an officer of the law has better ways to knock down a door. good question, though.

summoning Kasparov and Marat Sar... avengers, assemble!
 

Jinn

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,930
While the combat in Disco Elysium isn't ideal for many of us here, I'm sure I'll still have fun with it if all those elements are present. I think I recall the developers saying how they really would like to do a more tactical turn-based system, but they wanted to focus on the more unique aspects of this current project.

Ultimately, there is enough going on with this game that I don't think it's going to end up feeling like a negative CYOA/pure adventure experience for me. I think it's going to feel like a true CRPG.
 

Master

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,160
How convenient.

Can the enemy AI blow a hole then? They aren't police officers I presume.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The below picture shows how an active skill check works although they may have changed the look of the UI since this image came out. Definitely not a CYOA or adventure game. This is how a good p&p system handles non-combat challenges.

Kurvitz explains:
http://zaumstudio.com/2016/10/06/active-skill-checks/

Every dialogue has at least one active skill check moment. Think of these as important shots in a combat sequence, mini showdowns that form a knot in the scene. This is what the story has been building towards. Have they been lying to you all along? Can you dance, or will you grab the mic and sing karaoke? We want every appearance of an active skill check to feel weighty. It’s a dramatic juncture: either a closed door or a fork in the road...


The phrasing of this special dialogue option tells you what you are trying to do, not what you will do. A tooltip menu tells you what your chances of succeeding are:

The task and your ability to perform it face each other like armies on a battlefield. You vs the world. On your side are your stats (character creation), your learned skill (leveling up) plus the items in your inventory and the thoughts you’re thinking. On the opposing side – the difficulty of the task.

An element of chance determines the outcome of this attempt, the game roll two six sided die. But before you do you should prepare, nudge the odds in your favour a bit.

Presumably this is what an active skill check will look like in a combat situation, too, because it's all the same system. But instead of dancing you'd be rolling for, I don't know, "shoot this guy in the balls," or, "feign a heart attack to lull him into a false sense of security."
 

Prime Junta

Guest
Can you blow a hole in the wall if the door is locked in this innovative Rpg?

They showed a video where the protag attempted to shoulder-check a door and failed hilariously. Does that count?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom